Consigliere Harriet Miers 'The Originalist' Part I

Corbis Image
President Bush and Harriet Miers at a National Security Meeting at his ranch in Crawford

President Bush nominated White House counsel Harriet Miers to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor: "For the past five years Harriet Miers has served in critical roles in our nation's government."

Hugh Hewitt is one of the few to voice a positive opinion: "....supporters should trust Bush’s judgment on this one.... I teach Con Law and served in the White House Counsel's office as well as other posts in the Executive Branch. This isn't a Souter nomination, and it has very little Blackmun risk --bringing in a judge from the far reaches of the country only to have them seduced into "growing" in office. Harriet Miers has been in D.C. for every day of the nearly five years of the Bush presidency. Wake up people: Do you really think W is going to elevate a friend who doesn't agree with him on the crucial issues of the day just because she's a friend? Bush-haters like Sullivan will smoke that pipe, but no serious analyst of his judicial nominations.

Bush's picks for the Bench have been stellar, and his support for them unwavering. Conservative critics of Miers are disappointed they didn't get Luttig or McConnell, but many of them were also disappointed with Roberts. Meanwhile many folks who actually know the nominee are enthusiastic"

I agree with Hugh. Conviction driven, gutsy decisions like this nomination, deserve respect and the benefit of the doubt, which the Bloggosphere has almost unanimously denied the President.

Eugene Volokh: "...it may be helpful to avoid comparing her to the current crop of Justices...."
Lorrie Byrd @ PoliPundit: "I’m not thrilled with this pick, but can live with it."

Everyone else is unimpressed:

A less than impressed Tom Maguire: "Day One of the Launch has not gotten me excited"
Michelle Malkin : "....she's so transparently a crony / "diversity" pick while so many other vastly more qualified and impressive candidates went to waste"
Glenn Reynolds @ Instapundit : "Perhaps they'll change my mind, but so far I'm underwhelmed"
Ed Morrissey @ Captain's Quarters: "...it doesn't appear that this is a trial balloon or a dodge for a different candidate"
John Hinderaker @ Powerline : "Regardless of what the Democrats do, many Republicans will have misgivings about this nomination" 
Professor Bainbridge: "Count me appalled"
David Bernstein @ Volokh: "...appointing his "personal lawyer" from Texas seems very Lyndon
Johnsonish and is hardly likely to repel recent charges of Bush Administration cronyism"
Andrew Sullivan: "....he picked Miers because he could..."
William Kristol: " I'm disappointed, depressed and demoralized"
John Hawkins @ RightWingNews: "... bitterly disappointing"
Johnathan Garner @ Publius Rendezvous: "...anything less than this standard he set [Scalia, Thomas] is gravely unacceptable. Let us hope and pray that the groan was for naught"

Stop The ACLU is undecided: "Hope this isn’t a head fake leak"
Orin Kerr takes a tour of the reactions and Joe Gandelman @ The Moderate Voice  is updating us all day

Corbis Images
U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney gathers in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, DC July 1, 2005, with senior White House staff (Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, and Dan Bartlett) to watch President George W. Bush make remarks on the retirement of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Another positive from Richard Garnett @ The National Review 'Bench Memos':

"For starters, and with all due respect to Mark Levin, the claim that “[e]ven David Souter had a more compelling resume that Miers” strikes me as quite mistaken. So does the statement that “Miers was chosen for two reasons and two reasons alone: 1. she’s a she; 2. she’s a long-time Bush friend.” There is, at least, a (3), namely, that President Bush and his advisors — his advisors who are, it should be remembered, entirely committed to constitutionalism in the courts — believe that Ms. Miers is a judicial conservative.

I yield to no one in my respect for the “farm team” — McConnell, Alito, Luttig, etc. — but I am also surprised that some are so quick to assume that this President, who fought hard to get home-run judges Pryor, Owen, Colloton, Brown, McConnell, Sutton, Roberts, etc., confirmed to the courts, would suddenly drop the constitutionalism-ball just to be nice to an old friend or to satisfy those demanding another female justice. This is a White House — and, more particularly, this is a White House Counsel’s office — that is well stocked with very smart conservative lawyers, who understand that few things are as important to a President’s sucess, and few tasks are as central to his constitutional obligations, as judicial nominations. Whatever our complaints might be about some of this President’s decisions, I do not think he has ever given conservatives anything to complain about when it comes to judges and Justices.

It would, we all agree, have been a horrible betrayal and an epic blunder for this President to think that by nominating a woman to the Court — a woman without, arguably, battle scars from the “culture wars” in the courts, he could please the Left or guarantee an easy nomination process. It seems to me, though, that there is no reason to think that this President thought or thinks this. President Bush clearly believes that Harriet Miers is a conservative, who does share the commitment of Justices Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist, and Roberts to a democracy-respecting understanding of the Constitution. This is not a case where those of us who believe strongly in the rule of law are being asked to rely on the vouching of Sununu and Rudman; this is a case where an Administration that has consistently — uniformly — picked solid judges is holding out a nominee who, the Administration reports, is every bit as solid. Frankly, I’m pleased by the fact that the White House Counsel who gave us Roberts, Pryor, Owen, and Brown has been nominated to join their ranks."

Read another pro-opinion from Marvin Olasky @ World Magazine Blog who quotes an old friend of Miers Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht: "She's an orginalist -- that's the way she takes the Bible," and that's her approach to the Constitution as well -- "Originalist -- it means what it says."

Update from Hugh Hewitt: "The more we learn about Harriet Miers, the more certain we become of her character and future value on the Supreme Court"..."James Dobson endorsed Harriet Miers today. Jay Sekulow endorsed Harriet Miers today"
Update from Ed Morrissey: "I would urge all of us to reflect on a few points made by others with a more optimistic approach" Hear hear Ed.
Update: Flopping Aces , The California Conservative, Stop The ACLU agree, with The American  Thinker having the  best  insight.
Bill Quick @ The Daily Pundit: "I may end up supporting Miers on balance"
David Kopel @ The Volokh Conspiracy: "Americans who love their precious liberties need not hope about the unknown, but need only expect her to be consistent with what she has already said".
Rick Brookhiser @ NRO with an amusing line via Jeff Goldstein:  "It’s not as bad as Caligula putting his horse in the Senate.”

Comments

[North by Northwest]

Of course, I take your point; there are proven candidates. But the Supreme Court isn't exactly rocket science either. And her legal acumen should be beyond reproach. So, in my humble opinion it boils down to character. And that is what the hearings are there to get a handle on as well as public scrutiny..

I am sure they've had Roberts' input - remember, Miers recommended Roberts to Bush in the first place; so they know each other... and Bush would most certainly have wanted Roberts' take on the choice. It's all quite incestuous, isn't it...

[Publius Rendezvous]

Ah, but do not misconstrue my lamenting now as being a complete doubter in what this nomination means. I do not know, and that is why I am having such problems with this presentation....

Even 'if' she is a solid choice, a decision of this magnitude should not be left in doubt with those who have earned the most trust. I am not ready to put blind faith into this President. His decision here will permeate to gravely affect every aspect of American life for generations to come.

There are plenty of individuals out there with tried and true, proven records. Why take a chance? (i.e. Souter) Republicans & Conservatives have been burned too many times to take another.

(By the way: Why do you think Bush discussed the issue with Roberts?)

[North by Northwest]

"I agree with Hugh and reserve my judgment. Conviction driven, gutsy decisions like this nomination, deserve respect and the benefit of the doubt, which the Bloggosphere has almost unanimously denied the President."

Publius - I think Alexandra has it right though. Almost always, initial reactions prove in time hasty and somewhat impetuous. The opposition will attack any nomination, that much is clear to all. I am intrigued by this nomination.

I am certain Bush & Co. (a) asked for and (b) assigned a lot of weight to Chief Justice Roberts' advice in relation to this nomination - who'd be better to ask after all this fresh experience.

Incidentally, imagine, you've just been confirmed Chief Justice and now you get to help pick the tip of the scale...

[Publius Rendezvous]

Again, you never cease to amaze us on your uncanny ability to tell your story through pictures just as well as your writing....

[Publius Rendezvous]

This might be the moment, and it being still absorbed as we speak, but I have not ever been more dissapointed with this President. From the spending, to some of the ways in which the War on Terror has been handled, I could stomach, and rally behind him as a leader.

Yet, this does nothing but embolden the opposition and it has crushed the morale of conservatives everywhere. As I said on my blog, she may turn out to be a truly remarkable person, and even more so for conservatives...but, why must we have to endure the guess, and the game when there are so many with proven track records.

We deserve better.