Monday, October 10, 2005
John sent out another one of his polls and I did participate. In fairness to RWN, I'll just include my responses here. Head to the site itself for the complete results:
Polling Right-Of-Center Bloggers On The Harriet Miers Nomination
A) A good or excellent decision in selecting Harriet Miers as a nominee for the Supreme Court?
B) A bad or terrible decision in selecting Harriet Miers as a nominee for the Supreme Court?
C) A so-so decision?
D) I'm not sure yet. (22% -- 17)
2) Has the decision to select Harriet Miers:
A) Made you view George Bush more favorably?
B) Made you view George Bush less favorably? (53% -- 42)
C) Neither?
D) I'm not sure yet.
3) Would you prefer that George Bush:
A) Continue to support Harriet Miers? (41% -- 32)
B) Withdraw the nomination of Harriet Miers?
C) I'm not sure yet.
4) If the Harriet Miers nomination is not withdrawn by President Bush, then at her confirmation hearings, would you prefer that Republican Senators:
A) Vote to confirm Harriet Miers?
B) Vote against Harriet Miers?
C) I'm not sure yet. (33% -- 26)
The only reason that I answered D -- not sure -- rather than B -- rotten choice -- to #1 is that I do hold out the possibility that she may actually end up being an individual who proves everyone wrong as time goes on. How can we know?
It makes me view Bush less favorably because she clearly isn't an eminent person in any way, however, and even if he knows something the rest of us don't, he's done another crappy job in communicating whatever it is he sees in her to the rest of us. Maybe she'll do real well in the hearings. Maybe I'm also jaded in that I'm from Massachusetts and you can't swing a dead cat around here without smacking some lawyer who has credentials that sound as good as this woman's.
He certainly has to keep supporting her at this point or he looks like a Clintonesque flip-flopper who won't stand up for his own people or decisions. How lame would he look if he withdrew her now? It would prove there was no substance behind the nomination.
And finally, I have no idea at this point whether she should be confirmed or not. You would hope the hearings would help shed light on that, but somehow I think they'll involve more posing than light.
Judging from Bush's past behavior and commitment to loyalty there is NO WAY he would withdraw her nomination.
Plus, Rove's got a lot of cards to play here anyway.
I personally think she is not qualified to be a SC Justice. Listen she may be very qualified if I knew her perrson and American Thinker says the fact that she has not been in Civil Service her entire life, unlike many Judges and knows how the real world works, having ran a company very successfully and had to make payrolls etc... is a +.....
And just because someone has good credentials or the 'proper' resume does not mean they are a person of substance and will be good for any particular position or job per se. However, if you can't use credentials as a starting point for the Highest Court in the land then where the hell should you use them?
And note. if she is a moderate right of center that's fine with me, that doesn't tick me off as it does the right now... that's likely where I am anyway.
If she is voted down after a fair and rigorous Senate debate that could be good for Bush in appointing another Justice and make him a 'more moderate' President in the "eyes of the public"?
It would also put the left in an akward position on the next justice. How is Schumer and Kennedy going to scream about how he is a fundamentalist with a far right agenda the next time?
The left would have a tricky position on how to play her nomination. I don't want to give Rove too much credit for being a "genius" I think he would just make the best of the situation as it presented itself.... I am just saying there are a lot of cards for him on how to play this, the coming Senate debate on her, and if/when she is voted down in a very close vote with Repubs and Dems likely on both sides of such a vote.
The first question was whether Bush made a good or bad decision in selecting her, not whether she'll make a good SC justice. Since his decision has thrown his "base" into turmoil (if not revolt), further eroded confidence levels in his leadership and distracted the public yet again from the important business of the country, on what level could it be considered anything other than a piss-poor decision? Even if Miers eventually turns out to be a real asset to the Court (which I seriously doubt, even if she gets confirmed), is there any question that there were at least dozens of other candidates out there who could do at least as good a job without causing the damage (and consequent damage control efforts) that this choice did?
Lynn,
So your point was to pick a candidate that woudln't cause an uproar and would have a relatively smooth confirmation?
Well the Dems were stacking up their battle gear for this nomination since it was for O'Connor's replacement and the conservatives wanted a conservative to replace her since they did all the work to get Bush re-elected.... so there was going to be a distracting battle either way.
The main question is should the President be able to appoint someone to something as important as the SC without the credentials for the position, because he/she trusts and believes in the person?
She may or may not be a good Justice but if you can't use conspicuous qualifications as a pre-requisite for the Supreme Court than what should you use them for?
I think Miers has the earmarks of someone who will quickly win a Strange New Respect award from the New York Times and the Washington Post. That's the "strange new respect" liberals find for putative conservative appointees who vote the way liberals want them to. I think she will accede to the liberal conventional wisdom, responding to artfully presented but fatuous arguments for yet more legislation from the SCOTUS bench, and yet more trashing of the Constitution.