A lot of people on my side of the aisle claim to not like Dahlia Lithwick. I am not one of them, and yesterday’s piece was an example why:
The president has caved to the twin pressures of identity politics and confirmation politics: He’s ignored the extremely well-qualified women for an unqualified one, and the well-qualified candidates for a confirmable one.
There’s a sweet moment on the steps of the Supreme Court this morning in which young Jack Roberts, wearing his Christopher Robin short pantsuit and bow tie, leaps to his father’s grasp with his arms outspread like an airplane. The disconnect between this tableau from a bygone era—this 1960s father-and-son moment—and the clumsy affirmative action choice of Miers is striking. We are clearly at a historic moment in which we can’t comfortably move backward to the days of white privileged male power, or forward to an era of truly equal women.
Ouch. Hilzoy at ObWi also hates this pick.
Mr Furious
I love her. Even if you are opposed to her politics, she is an enjoyable read. Some of her pieces on the Rpoberts hearings were downright hilarious, while still being informative and insightful. she is a great writer.
p.lukasiak
Lets see…. Bush nominates for Chief Justice a handsome, upper-middle class, heterosexual white male whose resume consists almost entirely of switching back and forth between fronting for high-end corporations, and being a political patronage hack, and the right-wing swoons.
Bush nominates for Associate Justice a handsome, white, upper-middle class, heterosexual female whose resume consists almost entirely of switching back and forth between fronting for high-end corporations, and being a political patronage hack, and the right-wing has a hissy fit.
Other than his genitals, I don’t see how Roberts was so much better qualified for the Chief Justice position than Miers is for Associate Justice. Neither of them has a real track record of decisions that could be examined to determine if they had the maturity, knowledge, temperment, and judicial chops to serve on the highest court in the land.
But Harriet Miers is a woman which makes her an “affirmative action” pick — forget the fact that Roberts was all image and no substance, and thus qualifies as an “affirmative action” pick for corporate white male lawyers.
jobiuspublius
Yup, and it’s not just Putz in Chief that has caved to the twin pressures of identity politics and confirmation politics. Nearly the whole country has fallen for one or the other.
How many people nominated Gore over Bradley, because he was expected to win. Yes, he did win, but, not by the margin needed. Same with Kerry. And what the hell was Leiberman all about? Are you kidding me? That snake?
But, this time, the supporters of Worst-POTUS-Ever hae partially awoken just in time to give us the contrast which p.lukasiak pointed out so well. Foot meet bullets.
jobiuspublius
To be fair to Roberts, Meirs has a much more active and recent crony credentials. So, maybe this was the plan all along. Use Roberts to lower the bar in some respects, so the real crony could slip thru.
Hippie Doug J
Andrew Sullivan sums it up best:
THE BEST SPIN YET: “It’s not as bad as Caligula putting his horse in the Senate.” – Richard Brookhiser, NRO. One more thought. Bush is a deeply arrogant and insecure person (the qualities go together), a man who refuses to cower in the face of criticism. This can be a good thing, as in his tenacity in the war on terror. But it is also a hubristic flaw – evident as early as “Mission Accomplished” – which has only been reinforced by his re-election. The one thing that could motivate him to appoint a crony as obviously unqualified as Miers is precisely to stick a finger in the eye of those accusing him of cronyism. Tell him we need more troops in Iraq? It’s the one thing he won’t do. Tell him he’s a big spender? We get: “It’s going to cost whatever it costs.” Tell him he has botched the Iraq occupation? He’ll give the architects Medals of Freedom. There’s an adolescent streak of pure willfulness in the man. He cannot and will not self-correct. If pushed into a corner, he will simply repeat the error in order to prove himself immune to criticism. We had one chance to correct this – the only one he understands. And he got away with re-election after four years of spectacular, unconservative incompetence. I’m afraid I have limited sympathy for those complaining conservatives who were silent when it mattered, and are now living with the consequences.
p.lukasiak
jp…
Miers is definitely more of a Bush crony, but to me the question is one of qualifications — both are really corporate/political hack lawyers, with the insignificant difference being that Roberts was loyal to the GOP as an institution, while Miers loyalty appears to be personal to Bush.
ppGaz
Indeed. He has Spud’s number, precisely. We’ve gone from having a horny teenager president, to a defiant alcoholic teenager president. And we have 3.3 years to go.
Mr Furious
Frist annunciated the purpose and strategy of the roberts nomination perfectly yesterday…
Since Miers will have nothing BUT privilged documnets, that decision will be made based upon jackshit. Excellent.
While I didn’t have a major problem with Roberts as a nominee, I had a problem with voting for him because of exactly this precedent. The Senate is now expected to confirm a nominee based on “I know her character.”
Mr Furious
p.luk, I’m hardly the one to stand up and defend Roberts, but the difference between him and Miers is staggering.
Roberts was a highly regarded litigator with years of experience before the Supreme Court. Widely recognized as a brilliant legal mind. Clerked for Rehnquist. Prominent legal roles in multiple Administrations. Has served two years on the Federal bench.
Miers? Got Bush out of some hot water way back when, appointed to head Lottery Commission by Gov. Dubya, followed Bush to Washington, given head Secretary job. Takes over as counsel after Gonzales promoted. Demonstrated extreme aptitude at bootlicking for “the most brilliant man she’s ever met.” Gets a lifetime appointment on the highest court in the land.
Has Miers even seen the inside of a courtroom in ten years?
Yeah, it’s because she’s a woman…
Jane Finch
I’m from the “dark side” of the aisle and I think she’s ridiculous. I suppose next it will be “the least powerful man is more powerful than the most powerful woman (or womyn as the case may be).”
Cyrus
Well, I don’t think it’s fair to accuse right-wingers who hate Miers of sexism. Reactionaries want a fight, they want to humiliate Democrats, make them filibuster, marginalize them further and more permanently… and they get someone that Harry Reid likes? (Even if only personally, rather than in terms of ability.)
And then there’s the fact that Miers confirms, or at least doesn’t deny, some of the worst accusations against Bush. Cronyism and corruption, and not being conservative enough. Everyone just got over defending Michael Brown, because after all the former roommate of a lobbyist (or whatever the exact relationship was) is far enough removed from Bush that he has plausible deniability against charges of patronage… and now they’re expected to defend Bush’s personal lawyer and WH chief of staff??? Who might even be an affirmative action appointment?
And finally, this is their last chance, it seems. Bush probably won’t be able to make a third nomination to the Supreme Court, his poll numbers are pretty low these days, and indictments are proceeding against half a dozen Republican leaders, so if they’re going to make any policy changes or ideological advances, it has to be now. And Miers doesn’t look anything like that.
Hell, Miers is one thing both wings agree on. Even the Democrats who like her think that choosing her reflects terribly on Bush. It won’t take long for people like Darrell to turn that into accusations of being racist against Bush, but when he appoints someone whose only qualification is knowing Bush, what are we supposed to think?
rayabacus
I know of only one “Republican Leader” that has an indictment. Care to extrapolate on the other five?
Scott Chaffin
Lathwick a great writer???
Gag, choke, cough. Well, definitely melodramatic.
I like Miers just because she’s pissing off all the pundits, as well as the rest of you instant expert chatterboxes.
rayabacus
If Bush’s poll numbers are single digit and a vacancy on the SCOTUS occurs, he will definitely name a replacement. What makes you think that he wouldn’t?
Krista
…a defiant, alcoholic, beligerent teenager president who spends money like it grows on trees…
Maybe one of these years we’ll actually see a responsible adult in the White House…but I’m not holding my breath.
Mr Furious
John, you should have blockquoted Lathwick’s conclusion…
There’s your “ouch” moment.
jobiuspublius
I doubt that Reid’s opinions are given much weight by the WH. They’re more like data, window dressing, or comedy to the WH. And Reid was only one of the people that recomended her, IIRC. That tells me she was part of a WH plan in advance of Reids recomendation, bigger than just hurting the opposition party. Reid simply refused to take the bait. He went along so as not to give the WH the smoke screen it needs.
Cyrus
I’m sure he would nominate someone, just not that he would get his first pick. Single digits is a very unlikely hypothetical, but if he’s doing that badly, so many Republicans would have jumped ship that the Democrats might not even need a filibuster to stop his appointment.
More generally, he’s on his way to being a lame duck. Major initiatives have fizzled, friends and allies are getting indicted, Katrina made obvious how inept and out-of-touch he is, etc. It’s much too early to make safe predictions about the 2006 elections and after, and right now he still has a majority in Congress of course, but things are trending down for Bush and company. This vacancy on the Supreme Court was supposed to be his chance to appoint someone to the right of Scalia to the court, and it looks like he’s not doing much with it.
Not that I’m complaining, of course. For once, his character flaws, corruption and ideological vacuum might bite him in the ass.
rilkefan
My snark on the Caligula comparison.
Tractarian
So by that rationale, you would be perfectly happy with Bush if he nominated, say, Jenna. That would certainly piss off the pundits and chatterboxes.
rilkefan
“Jenna”
Does the Constitution require a minimum age for the SCOTUS?
rayabacus
I assumed you used to plural to mean more than Delay. Care to enlighten us as to the other “friends and allies”?
My understanding of what he said was to the effect of ” Justices like Scalia and Thomas”, not to the right of Scalia. Now you may be tuned in to Meirs’ thoghts and brain waves and know more about her than anyone else, but lacking that inside info, how do you know that she is not like Scalia & Thomas, or for that matter to the right of them? Just asking where you got your knowledge…cuz, I don’t know.
scs
You people are crazy. And WHY is Meirs not qualified? Because she wasn’t a judge first? What do you think all those Appeals Courts judges are? They are LAWYERS who are appointed by the PRESIDENT. So she skipped a few years of sitting on a bench. Horrors. So lets say Bush had put her on a court bench a year or two ago like Roberts. NOW she would be magically qualified somehow?
I never knew that being a judge first was the qualification to be a Justice, since many of them were just politicians first (oh yeah, that makes you even MORE qualified to be a judge). She was a well-respected lawyer active in her bar association and respected by many others. This is all just sexism and it makes me sick.
And as for Conservatives who decry Bush picking a possible centrist and feel he betrayed them, that is not what he had said he would do, if you all had listened carefully during his campagin. He had appealed several times during his campaign, that if you are a democrat and tired of extreme left-wing politics this time, vote for him. I took that to mean among other things, a promise that he would not appoint extreme right wingers to the Court. As a democrat sick of extreme left wing politics, I took him up on his offer. And I was not betrayed or disappointed.
srv
KABOOM.
http://www.time.com/time/daily/docs/miersquest.pdf
The evangelicals are going to go ape now.
Cyrus
Several others have been indicted besides just Delay. Jack Abramoff, for example, and Warren RoBold. (For some reason I couldn’t link to something about RoBold, but http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com had something about him on September 28.) And while it hasn’t happened yet, it seems likely that someone will be targeted in the Plame investigation. But that’s not exactly six names like I said in my original post, so I humbly apologize.
Um, well, I assume that she’s more moderate than them because… redstate.org, Rich Lowry, ConfirmThem.com, David Frum, John Hinderaker and a lot more all hate her nomination? I mean, you’re right, she doesn’t have a judicial record for me to examine. But I assume all those staunch and (more or less) ideological conservatives must have some reason for hating her. So why do you think they’re “disappointed, depressed, demoralized?”
This is the second or third time in this thread you’ve nitpicked my choice of words or complained about me not spelling out every step of what I was saying, without actually addressing my point. I’m claiming that Bush’s influence right now is a lot lower than it was a year ago or two, and it is likely to drop more. Do you seriously disagree with that, or are you going to start arguing that the indicted Republicans aren’t really Republican leaders like I said?
M. Scott Eiland
Nice to see that DL has gotten over her little snit over those twenty-year old lawyer jokes by Roberts. She’s certainly a good writer, but she’s a dedicated lefty and the usual idiocies creep into her writing now and again. Worth a read, but with a jaundiced eye.
rayabacus
I certainly consider DeLay a Republican leader and I agree he has been indicted (twice now), but Abramoff and RoBold are certainly not Republican leaders, they are lobbyists, from what I understand – and, I assume, they are Republicans. and it is your opinion that someone in the Bush Administration will be indicted re Plame Game. I just don’t agree with your opinion, based on my analysis of all the available evidence. You could be right or I could be right. What is right is: it is not yet a fact.
His poll numbers are somewhat lower than they were when he was reelected. I’m not sure what you mean by his influence. As POTUS he has a tremendous amount of influence, maybe more than you assume and maybe less than I think.
That is the point I was making, that you are making an assumption, based on the opinion of someone else, when the, apparantly, only people that know for sure are Bush and Miers.
Um, no, I’m not nitpicking. I thought you were either exaggerating (half a dozen indicted Repub leaders – when there is but one) or making statements as facts that are not facts but are merely your opinion based on someone else’s opinion. Just in the interest of accuracy.
rayabacus
I think Kristol was the only one who was characterized as triple “D”. I think they are disappointed because they were looking for an “in your face” nomination of a known commodity like Estrada, Alito, Owens or Brown. They are basically in the same situation as the left is – they don’t know anything about her. I have not read anyone that has said that she is not conservative enough. Just that she is an “unknown”. My point is that the person that does know is Mr. Misunderestimated.
jobiuspublius
I don’t think we know nothing about her. We know many things about her. We don’t know about her judicial experience because she doesn’t have one. Without that experience, how do you evaluate what ever philosophy she claims to have? She may as well not have one. What standards do you apply to her? How do you verify her claims?
rayabacus
We do know about her judicial experience – zero, none. We don’t know what her judicial philosophy is because there is not much of a written record regarding specific issues. What is known is that she has said that she is an “originalist” in regards to the constitution. Everything else is going to have to be inferred by what she says in the hearings. She appears to be the “ultimate” stealth candidate, which both the left and the right are concerned about.
I don’t think it gets much easier in the hearings. The committee is certainly not going to get a paper trail from the WH and I’m reasonably sure that she is going to invoke the “Ginsburg Rule” about answering questions concerning how she would vote.
I think the hearings are going to be reallllllly interesting.
jobiuspublius
If there is one.
1) She could be faced with some questions about her political activities. It’s so risky I wonder if they really want to nominate her. I can see her wanting to spend more time with her family.
2) The WH is obsessed with the idea of a justice not changing. Roberts still has not proven himself loyal to Putz. The Hamdan case has been postponed indefinately.
3) Notice that the fundies think they have not gotten their judge and the WH is trying to convince them that they have one in Meirs.
4) The WH seems to not want to give the fundies what they want. Is it waiting to see if Roberts is their man?
carpeicthus
But then, many people on your side of the aisle think Mark Steyn is what a columnist should be, which means they should only be paid attention to for reasons of making sure they don’t swallow their tongues.
rayabacus
jopiuspublisu,
It very well could just be what it looks like. Bush could believe that she shares his Judicial philosophy and that of the Repubs, and she is confirmable without a “knock down drag out” in the Senate. After all, Reid suggested her and it would be difficult for him to lead a fight against her confirmation without some new evidence coming up.
I really don’t know. At this point the only person that knows for sure what kind of Judicial philosophy she has is herself. Bush may be 99% sure, but I don’t think anyone else is and that scares them – on both sides of the aisle.