The Shotgun Blog
« Next Up, Syria? | Main | Should I Podcast My Introductory Economics Lectures? »
Saturday, October 22, 2005
Why does David Frum have it in for Harriet Miers?
David Frum carries on his campaign, here, against the U.S. president's nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, Harriet Miers. Frum is leading the charge of "legal conservatives" against the nomination while Marvin Olasky and other evangelical conservatives are leading the support campaign for the Miers nomination. A web site from Progress for America supporting the Miers nomination is here.
Frum & Co.'s attacks are focused on two fronts:
- Miers's alleged intellectual deficiencies and her alleged lack of a judicial philosophy; and
- Miers's lack of a record on key, legal conservative crusades and associations.
Strange.
For more on "Why does David Frum have it in for Harriet Miers?", go to Burkean Canuck.
Posted by Russ Kuykendall on October 22, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d8345cef4653ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Why does David Frum have it in for Harriet Miers?:
Comments
Russ,
How can you characterize Frum's attacks as strange when there is such a paucity of evidence to refute his contentions?
It is just not enough to be assert that Miers has a law degree and evangelical faith. She has no judicial experience and not one recorded exposition of constitutional jurisprudence to her name.
While nothing suggests to me that she lacking in ethics or legal skill, there is also nothing to convince any reasonably minded individual that she was in fact the best possible candidate that the entire Bush administration could identify from a pool of hundreds or thousands of qualified potential nominees.
Being an evangelical Christian should not be an obstacle to a judicial career but it can never be either a necessary or sufficient condition to aspire to one.
Posted by: Paul Canniff | 2005-10-22 12:49:30 PM
When you work closely with someone you see very quickly and clearly what’s really there, or maybe in this case, what’s not there.
Posted by: AsISeeIt | 2005-10-22 1:17:41 PM
Isn’t it great that there’s much debate on the “nomination” before Miers even gets to the hearings at which time we’ll soon see if she’s an airhead or if she’s another potential Rehnquist, who by the way had no previous experience as a judge before the SC.
But whether Miers is appropriate or not, the point for Canada is – we’re seeing how a real democracy works. There’s a “nomination”, heated debate openly in the media, then a hearing, then a vote by “elected” Senators – but it’s messy.
Meanwhile in Canada we get a flat out appointment by the PMO of Rosalie Abella, a flaming leftie. No one knows or cares whether she’s appropriate. I don’t believe she was installed to vote on the recent ruling of Quebec private Health Insurance, but I’m sure Abella would not be supportive of the recent ruling. More Abella type appointments and that ruling will get overturned. If we don’t change our system of PMO appointments we’re in big trouble.
Posted by: nomdenet | 2005-10-22 2:06:04 PM
Harriet Miers does have a law degree and is a Christian woman. Someone fresh on the U.S. Supreme Court like Harriet Miers perhaps be a plus for conservatives.
Posted by: Larry | 2005-10-22 2:41:21 PM
nomdenet, you must have missed that Canada is superior to the US in every possible way, including how we appoint our SC judges.
You simply do not have a right to question, or ask questions about, our dear PMs possible SC appointees. It is uncanadian to question the wisdom, integrity and agenda of our PM.
Posted by: Johan i Kanada | 2005-10-22 3:19:53 PM
Johan i Kanada, I found myself agreeing with nomdenet's post. Thank you for your timely reminder on the nature of a true Canadian. How can I ever live down the shame of thinking unCanadian thoughts?
Posted by: Kathryn | 2005-10-22 4:40:12 PM
Because he'd be sued by the PMO if he complained about Michaelle Jean
Posted by: Plato's Stepchild | 2005-10-22 6:40:16 PM
I don't know Harriet Miers. But I take at face value the remarks by such as Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht who suggests that Ms. Miers is both a constitutional originalist and pro-Life. What good is a record of brilliant legal argument such as belongs to Judge Bork if the person with the brilliant record of legal argument can't be confirmed to the bench?
If you'll recall, the same complaint was made of Chief Justice Roberts during his confirmation -- that he had no rulings record. Yet he was supported by Republican legal conservatives, including David Frum. Why is that?
Posted by: Russ Kuykendall | 2005-10-22 9:01:06 PM
"2. Miers's lack of a record on key legal conservative crusades and organizations."
Actually I think the problem is Miers's lack of a record.
It is true that Roberts was supported despite having a somewhat thin record himself. It is wrong to say that conservatives were fine with Roberts's thin record. Having little background denies the senate what it needs to provide meaningful "advice and consent". In Roberts's case, other qualifications seem to compensate.
In Miers, Bush turns this constitutionally troubling anomaly into a precident. He seems to be deliberately choosing candidates without a public record because they are harder to oppose. If that is his goal, it must be stopped.
Posted by: Pete E | 2005-10-23 2:24:26 AM
Kuykendall,
Catch a whiff of George Will:
http://realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-10_23_05_GW.html
A catalog of George Will's characterizations concerning the Miers nomination:
"indefensible"
"perverse"
supporters "discredit" themselves
supporters "degrade" themselves
supporters and Miers "deficient" in constitutional understanding
supporters "masquerade" as defenders
supporters "grossly misunderstand"
supporters intellectually "impoverished"
supporters are "cynics"
critics of the nomination are "sensible" (implying that supporters are "insensible")
supporters resort to "incense"
supporters are "crude" people, making "crude" arguments, to send "crude" signals
supporters are "unseemly"
supporters display "complete incomprehension"
supporters naively pursue "results" rather than "process"
Repubs who vote for Miers become "ineligible" to stand in support of conscientious protection of judicial dignity
The nomination amounts to "reckless abuse" of presidential power
Repubs who vote for Miers disqualify themselves from consideration as presidential material
_________________________
What's striking about this is that it echoes leftist contempt for George Bush and Red State voters. He might as well have sent GWB a note saying "Fuck you, Shrub, and the horse you rode into town on."
Posted by: Texan | 2005-10-23 7:00:31 AM
This is another example of Bush appointing a crony -- something that didn't work out so well in the case of FEMA. Bush has many very good characteristics, including courage and vision(something we haven't seen in a PM in how many years?), but he has weaknesses as well. One of these is appointing friends. Miers may be a good candidate, that I cannot judge, but she is clearly not the best candidate or a great candidate. This is what people like Frum and Will are objecting to. A lifetime seat on the SCOTUS is not to be handed out like a Canadian Senate seat, for goodness sake. Bush can do better, and that is what those Republicans opposed to this nomination are saying.
Posted by: Mad Eye Moody | 2005-10-23 7:59:51 AM
No, Moody, the opposition to the Miers nomination is rooted in pure snobbery. Frum and Will do not appreciate Lincoln's great formulation: "government of the people, by the people, for the people." To them, the people are mere boobs, useful only at election time.
They're very much like liberals in this respect.
Posted by: Texan | 2005-10-23 8:40:40 AM
Frum is right about Miers, I have my own opinion similar to his:
http://strongconservative.blogspot.com/2005/10/miers-nomination-reconsidered.html
Posted by: Jonathan Strong | 2005-10-23 10:43:27 AM
Um, Texan, I assume that you, like me, are from the Great Lone Star State. And I've totally got to disagree with you. I watched Harriet Miers as a city councilwoman in Dallas and there wasn't one blessed thing about her that spoke of extraordinary ability or any true conservative bent or deep thinking. Oppo to this nomination is coming *from* the grassroots, and if someone like George Will opposes it too, well, it's just a meeting of the minds. My parents labored in the Reagan campaign vineyards, I volunteered for the Bush 2000 campaign (and went to the state convention), I'm all about Texas and grassroots and I've defended the President a lot but I'm telling you that this is one of the most dumbass picks I have ever seen or heard of.
It wouldn't be bad if she brought a "fresh viewpoint" to the Court. The problem is that there is no proof that she has any depth in constitutional law (for you Canadians: Con Law, the popular abbreviation), beyond what she took in law school umpteen years ago. When there are so many good, fresh, original thinkers and writers on Con Law who are also judges on the bench, GW says, "aw, heck, here's Harriet, she'll be just as good"? For all the "grassroots" people who worked really hard to get the president a) elected and b) reelected, and took seriously his statements about putting good justices on the Court, this is a slap in the face. It's no "eastern elitist conspiracy", believe me. It's real anger among the base. I have the feeling he got Judge Roberts through and then said, "okay, you don't want me to put Alberto [Gonzales] on the Court? Fine, I won't put Alberto up for the Court." So he put up a different friend instead, just to tick everyone off. And won't let "the White House" back down. Because the President can be just as angry and stubborn and mule-headed as any good Texan when he feels thwarted.
Either that, or it's a very stealth plan to cleanse the judicial palate and bring in another "real" Con Law strict-constructionist once Miss Miers has gone down in the metaphorical flames. And she's certainly one to "take one for the team", isn't she?
P.S. Canadians, don't feel bad, Justice Minister Cotler has said he'll "consult" with Parliament on new nominations. Doesn't that make you feel sooooo much better?
Posted by: Meg Q | 2005-10-23 4:45:30 PM
Um, Texan, I assume that you, like me, are from the Great Lone Star State. And I've totally got to disagree with you. I watched Harriet Miers as a city councilwoman in Dallas and there wasn't one blessed thing about her that spoke of extraordinary ability or any true conservative bent or deep thinking. Oppo to this nomination is coming *from* the grassroots, and if someone like George Will opposes it too, well, it's just a meeting of the minds. My parents labored in the Reagan campaign vineyards, I volunteered for the Bush 2000 campaign (and went to the state convention), I'm all about Texas and grassroots and I've defended the President a lot but I'm telling you that this is one of the most dumbass picks I have ever seen or heard of.
It wouldn't be bad if she brought a "fresh viewpoint" to the Court. The problem is that there is no proof that she has any depth in constitutional law (for you Canadians: Con Law, the popular abbreviation), beyond what she took in law school umpteen years ago. When there are so many good, fresh, original thinkers and writers on Con Law who are also judges on the bench, GW says, "aw, heck, here's Harriet, she'll be just as good"? For all the "grassroots" people who worked really hard to get the president a) elected and b) reelected, and took seriously his statements about putting good justices on the Court, this is a slap in the face. It's no "eastern elitist conspiracy", believe me. It's real anger among the base. I have the feeling he got Judge Roberts through and then said, "okay, you don't want me to put Alberto [Gonzales] on the Court? Fine, I won't put Alberto up for the Court." So he put up a different friend instead, just to tick everyone off. And won't let "the White House" back down. Because the President can be just as angry and stubborn and mule-headed as any good Texan when he feels thwarted.
Either that, or it's a very stealth plan to cleanse the judicial palate and bring in another "real" Con Law strict-constructionist once Miss Miers has gone down in the metaphorical flames. And she's certainly one to "take one for the team", isn't she?
P.S. Canadians, don't feel bad, Justice Minister Cotler has said he'll "consult" with Parliament on new nominations. Doesn't that make you feel sooooo much better?
Posted by: Meg Q | 2005-10-23 4:50:37 PM
The key credentials I've seen so far:
(1) she's a woman
(2) she's a lawyer
(3) she's George Bush's advisor
(4) she's probably conservative
(5) she's an evangelical christian.
How many others in the USA have this set of credentials? It ain't snobbery that causing opposition, it's lack of truly impressive credentials.
Posted by: Mad Eye Moody | 2005-10-23 5:33:28 PM
Meg,
You've got it all wrong. Miers was nominated to avoid the Souter mistake (made by his father because he listened to the Eastern wing of the Party). Bush knows her & he trusts her. Quite obviously, she qualified.
Every other judicial nomination he has made has turned out well. There's no reason to suspect this would go badly.
(Don't listen to Frum, Will, etc. They don't deliver any votes other than their own. Just eggheads who whine when they don't get their way.)
Posted by: Texan | 2005-10-23 9:38:17 PM
make that "she is qualified."
Posted by: Texan | 2005-10-23 9:39:01 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.