Oppose Miers

Well, I've given a lot of thought to what the Democrats ought to do about the Miers nomination. This is a strange and rather sad case. On a purely political basis I think it would be to the Democrats' advantage to support this nomination on the following grounds: while there is some chance Miers' views might "evolve" in ways pleasing to the left, there is zero chance that the views of hypothetical nominee B, a brilliant, principled conservative jurist will so change. Nonetheless, as an abortion-rights supporter whose eyes will probably start bleeding as I look upon Justice Luttig, I have to say I think it would be better for the country as a whole and for the esteem in which the Supreme Court should be rightly held to have the best possible candidate on the court, even when I may disagree with said candidate in nearly every particular. The prospect of a "results oriented" reliable conservative jurist who has no intellectual firepower to back up her politically convenient judgments is distasteful, as is the reek of cronyism. Also, it seems clear that Bush has appointed Miers in part because she will show deference to the executive in its "vigorous" prosecution of the war on terror. That is, she will turn a blind eye to torture, deny claims of habeas corpus from indefinitely detained US citizens and so on. Finally, as a women, I am insulted at his choice of so manifestly unqualified a woman to O'Connor's seat; it's almost as if Bush is thinking, "well, once we decided to get a chick, there's no point looking for a smart, qualified one..." I think Democratic senators should oppose this nomination on the grounds that Meiers is unqualified, and then acquiesce to the nomination of a qualified, anti-abortion conservative. This totally sucks, but George Bush is the president and Republicans have a 55-seat majority. Defeat of his first nominee would be a political blow to an already weakened Bush, and such a good case can be made against Miers on the "crony too far" merits that the Democratic senators will be relatively insulated from the "hating on people of faith" smear (all the more so when at least some of them vote to confirm the  brilliant, principled, Justice Snapcase Wingnut, who will undoubtedly also be a person of faith.)

UPDATE: I don't think this will violate whatever agreement Reid has made with Bush; just because Miers is on the "no-filibuster" list (i.e.  the Dems pledged to let her get an up- or down-vote) doesn't mean she's on the magical "we all have to vote for her" list. Most of the Dems and a rump of disgruntled Republicans could derail this crazy train.

FURTHER UPDATE: Obviously, I don't mean we should hold out for someone more anti-abortion than Miers; I'm assuming all this wink wink, nudge nudge stuff about her evangelical church is meant to indicate Miers is as anti-abortion as possible...But then , maybe because all the conservatives are freaking out, she secretly is Souter in a dress? Then I should support her? God, no, it's just too hacktackular. The Supreme Court is not a fucking joke, and it shouldn't be treated like one. I'll hold out for a serious pick. Justice Snapcase Wingnut, here we come.

Comments

[Andy]

Meeting of the memes.

[bob mcmanus]

Perhaps you might rethink what a principled, intellectually defensible reimagining of the Commerce Clause might make America look like with a Brown, or Luttig, or McConnell. Frankly Roe is very far from the top of my fears. No EPA, no OSHA, no unemployment benefits, no labor protections, no Social Security, Medicare.

It may happen anyway, with Miers just signing off on what her brethren decide, but it would be one less quasi-respectable voice defending the change.

[Iron Lungfish]

I assume that Miers is anti-abortion. Any other suppositions regarding a close friend of Bush's whose beliefs on every major legal issue can no longer be a mystery to him strike me as naive.

That said, if we suppose that Roberts is anti-Roe, and that whoever Bush picks to replace O'Connor - whether it's Miers or not - is anti-Roe, that gives us a bare 5-4 majority to uphold Roe right now. That's not very comfortable given Stevens's age, and that still potentially costs us on other abortion cases, but I don't know that it's avoidable.

BUT:

Over the long term I remain confident that the left is going to win on abortion in America. Indeed, the left HAS won the fight in public opinion. The GOP should be terrified, if it isn't already, at the prospect of actually overturning Roe. What I'm far less confident about is the ability to reign in the ever-increasing power of the executive branch. Americans as a whole really don't care much about this issue or don't notice it; a good chunk of the public, I'm convinced, thinks torture isn't so bad as long as it only happens to "bad people." As our endless war on terror yawns on, I'd like more people on the court who are going to respect the areas where the constitution tells the president to shove it.

I would rather have a staunchly anti-abortion justice in O'Connor's seat who will uphold the basic rights of prisoners and draw clear lines around executive power than have a slightly more abortion-friendly justice who'll hand George Bush a free pass to lock up American citizens without arrest or trial and have them tortured to his heart's content.

[Iron Lungfish]

And Bob, the "constitution in exile" crowd will never take over the court, simply because the GOP has no interest in letting them do so. If Bushism has proved anything, it's that the Republican party has no idealistic opposition to big government. Their solution to the EPA isn't to dismantle it, it's to corrupt and neuter it by filling it with corporate cronies. Their response to Medicare isn't to gut it, it's to turn it into a billion-dollar giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry.

They'll never get rid of these programs because the programs themselves are incredibly popular. Bush's phase-out plan was explicitly couched as a plan to save Social Security gradually over a period of years, and even that blew up in his face because people didn't want him messing with a system they liked and trusted. If you honestly think the Republican Party would accept, for idealistic reasons, the crippling backlash that would ensue if their judicial appointees killed the welfare state overnight, then you've been living in a cave for the last five years.

[bob mcmanus]

Lungfish, who is talking about overnight? Our opponents have been working on abortion for thirty years, and I expect in another ten it will be gone. Everyone else thinks Bush was completely defeated on Social Security, I think he had a partial success. In 2007, it will be a more dangerous fight. Const-in-Exile are not planning to move to 1890 in one swell foop, but incrementally. I can, incidentally, remember using segregated bathrooms, a universal peacetime draft, majority union membership. Fifty years is not so long

2) I fully expect externalities. The left frightens me because they don't seem prepared, or presume that policy will fall their way in case of catastrophe. It has been quite a while since we have had a major recession. 9/11, and Bush's ability to use it to his advantage, should have taught a very serious lesson.

What do Democratic Senators do if in a minority, facing a trillion dollar deficit, and an inability to increase taxes or cut defense?

[Pithlord]

God, bob, you're depressing.

[Julian Elson]

In "Night Watch," Snapcase was described as being a portly but genial politician with a populist touch, in contrast to Lord Winder, who had isolated himself from all but a few sycophants. Of course, Lord Snapcase, once he had successful staged his coup against Winder, turned out to be just as insane as Winder (they ought to have guessed it from his name, but anyway).

Now, if we're going to get a Justice Snapcase Wingnut, that would be bad, but we wouldn't be able to see it coming, because s/he'd seem so nice, qualified, etc.

[jim]

The actual question, though, is: What will the Republicans do? They, after all, control the Senate. If they decide to back Miers, it won't matter what the Democrats do. If they decide to tell Bush to withdraw Miers, it won't matter what the Democrats do.

If they decide to split into warring factions, then and only then does the position of the Democrats have any effect on who gets on the Supreme Court.

So they might as well wait and see how the thing develops. In the meantime, they should say nice things about Miers (Harry Reid praising her for having been a trial lawyer was a very nice touch), in the hope of encouraging division among the Republicans. But there's no point in developing a serious position now.

[Clancy]

Okay, I'm officially with you in your opposition of Miers: James Dobson has said he is supporting Ms. Miers's nomination in part because of something he has been told but cannot divulge."

*Shudder*

Couple of guesses: Miers is mentioned in the Book of Revelation according to some wingnut's interpretation, or Miers had an abortion and is now a Norma McCorvey type.