Wednesday,
October 5 2005
THE ULTIMATE TROJAN HORSE?: She's polite. Shy.
Smart. Modest. Hard-working.
Goes to church.
Helps the poor.
She immediately won the praise of the
leader of the Democrats in the Senate. And yet she may end
up making Justices Scalia and Thomas look like a couple of card
carrying lefties.
I'm exaggerating
for effect, of course, but the point is that despite the dramatic
tearing of flesh that has gone on in some conservative quarters
over the last 48 hours, the indications are that Bush has chosen
someone who is extremely culturally conservative. Based on what
little we know at this point, he's also chosen someone who favors
the Patriot Act, wider presidential authority and an aggressive
national security posture.
I understand
the disappointment on the right. Conservatives wanted a first-rate
legal and ideological gladiator to go do battle with liberals
in the Senate. Instead, Bush gave them the Church Lady.
But gladiators
don't receive - nor should they expect to be given - any mercy
from their opponents. A humble, accomplished, God-fearing woman
is a different proposition. Those who know this process understand
that the first few hours and days are absolutely critical in shaping
the image of the nominee for the public. Thus far, aside from
the griping of conservatives, Miers' public image is developing
rather favorably and isn't being radically influenced by attacks
from left-wing interest groups the way other nominations would
have been.
George
Will argues this morning that these types of political considerations
are unimportant. Qualifications are all that matter and, according
to Will, Miers isn't remotely qualified:
The
wisdom of presumptive opposition to Miers's confirmation flows
from the fact that constitutional reasoning is a talent -- a
skill acquired, as intellectual skills are, by years of practice
sustained by intense interest. It is not usually acquired in
the normal course of even a fine lawyer's career.
I find this
line of reasoning deeply elitist and unpersuasive. Will is setting
a standard (years of practice of constitutional reasoning sustained
by intense interest) that would exclude a vast number of people
who would make perfectly fine justices (including Senators like
Orrin Hatch) as well as a number of those who've served ably on
the court (including William Rehnquist who spent 16
years in private practice in Arizona and then only 3 years
in the Nixon administration before being nominated to the Court).
I also find
Will's complete and total deference to constitutional scholarship
unsettling. Yes, we want talented, high-caliber appointments to
the Court which represents, we should remind ourselves, a co-equal
branch of government. It's not at all convincing to say, if you
follow Will's logic, that a court made up of nine of the country's
most eminent, ivy-league pedigreed constitutional scholars is
going to be any better for America than a Court composed of justices
who have demonstrable talent of varying legal backgrounds and
perspectives. And it is undeniable that Harriet Miers is an accomplished
lawyer.
So where
does all this leave us? I suspect most Republicans and conservatives
will become more comfortable with Miers as we move forward and
most Democrats, including Harry Reid, are going to find themselves
with an increasing urge to sink her nomination.
One way of
doing that is to attack her religious convictions and to imply
they make her unfit to serve. This is a very perilous strategy.
The other way for the Democrats to derail Miers is to argue that
she is unqualified due to a lack of experience and/or intellectual-horsepower.
Still a tough case for the Democrats, in my opinion, though certainly
a lot easier to make when conservatives are already out there
doing it for them. - T. Bevan 10:05 am Link
| Email | Send
To A Friend
