US Supreme Court - Nominations and Decisions

[chrisfan]

I said when Harriet Meiers was nominated that I wanted to see her confirmation hearings before forming an opinion on her. I still feel that way, although I'm finding it odd that more specifics have not come out to support her strengths as a nominee. But I don't think there's much question that her nomination right now is being hurt more by the debate about her wothiness in conservative circles than any kind of debate from Democrats.

Almost immediately after she was nominated, Harry Reid spoke out saying he thought she was a fantastic nominee and he'd almost certainly vote for her. Was that the way he really felt, and the way he really operates? Or was it one of the most brillant partisian moves of all time to rock the support of the president's own party? I've heard so many conservatives cite his support as a reason to not support her that I really think he deserves some credit for the move.

[strat-0]

Like a game of chess.

[chrisfan]

Exactly - which is what a great deal of politics is anyway, isn't it?

[shin]

[chrisfan]

I thought this was a great piece from today's Wall Street Journal. I deleted the last few paragraphs of the piece, because I disagree with them. If anyone is curious to see the full piece, here's the link:

www.opinionjournal.com/ac/?id=110007417

Holding Court ]
There's a crackdown over Miers, not a "crackup."

BY RUSH LIMBAUGH
Monday, October 17, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

I love being a conservative. We conservatives are proud of our philosophy. Unlike our liberal friends, who are constantly looking for new words to conceal their true beliefs and are in a perpetual state of reinvention, we conservatives are unapologetic about our ideals. We are confident in our principles and energetic about openly advancing them. We believe in individual liberty, limited government, capitalism, the rule of law, faith, a color-blind society and national security. We support school choice, enterprise zones, tax cuts, welfare reform, faith-based initiatives, political speech, homeowner rights and the war on terrorism. And at our core we embrace and celebrate the most magnificent governing document ever ratified by any nation--the U.S. Constitution. Along with the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes our God-given natural right to be free, it is the foundation on which our government is built and has enabled us to flourish as a people.

We conservatives are never stronger than when we are advancing our principles. And that's the nature of our current debate over the nomination of Harriet Miers. Will she respect the Constitution? Will she be an originalist who will accept the limited role of the judiciary to interpret and uphold it, and leave the elected branches--we, the people--to set public policy? Given the extraordinary power the Supreme Court has seized from the representative parts of our government, this is no small matter. Roe v. Wade is a primary example of judicial activism. Regardless of one's position on abortion, seven unelected and unaccountable justices simply did not have the constitutional authority to impose their pro-abortion views on the nation. The Constitution empowers the people, through their elected representatives in Congress or the state legislatures, to make this decision.

Abortion is only one of countless areas in which a mere nine lawyers in robes have imposed their personal policy preferences on the rest of us. The court has conferred due process rights on terrorists detained at Guantanamo Bay and benefits on illegal immigrants. It has ruled that animated cyberspace child pornography is protected speech, but certain broadcast ads aired before elections are illegal; it has held that the Ten Commandments can't be displayed in a public building, but they can be displayed outside a public building; and the court has invented rationales to skirt the Constitution, such as using foreign law to strike down juvenile death penalty statutes in over a dozen states.

For decades conservatives have considered judicial abuse a direct threat to our Constitution and our form of government. The framers didn't create a judicial oligarchy. They created a representative republic. Our opposition to judicial activism runs deep. We've witnessed too many occasions where Republican presidents have nominated the wrong candidates to the court, and we want more assurances this time--some proof. The left, on the other hand, sees the courts as the only way to advance their big-government agenda. They can't win national elections if they're open about their agenda. So, they seek to impose their policies by judicial fiat. It's time to call them on it. And that's what many of us had hoped and expected when the president made his nomination.

Some liberal commentators mistakenly view the passionate debate among conservatives over the Miers nomination as a "crackup" on the right. They are giddy about "splits" in the conservative base of the GOP. They are predicting doom for the rest of the president's term and gloom for Republican electoral chances in 2006. As usual, liberals don't understand conservatives and never will.

The Miers nomination shows the strength of the conservative movement. This is no "crackup." It's a crackdown. We conservatives are unified in our objectives. And we are organized to advance them. The purpose of the Miers debate is to ensure that we are doing the very best we can to move the nation in the right direction. And when all is said and done, we will be even stronger and more focused on our agenda and defeating those who obstruct it, just in time for 2006 and 2008. Lest anyone forget, for several years before the 1980 election, we had knockdown battles within the GOP. The result: Ronald Reagan won two massive landslides.

[chrisfan]

Responding to Rocky's post from the "Rude Pundit" board:

Regardless of whether or not she's too beholden to this administration, there's too many other things to focus on that disqualify her to bother even worrying about that, IMO. Every president tries to nominate someone who will rule favorably to them (with varying degrees of success), but to me the bigger issue is that there doesn't seem to be much evidence (or, well, any evidence whatsoever) that she's really ever expressed any thoughts on major constitutional issues. It's one thing to have never been a judge before (although there are quite a few justices in our history who weren't judges before being named to the Supreme Court), but she hasn't even really taken part in any sort of scholarly debate or what have you. Most nominees are proven constitutional theorists and have added something substantial to legal and constitutional questions, either through scholarly publication or by serving as a judge at another level. Miers just seems to be his personal attorney.

And I'm sure she's a very good attorney. I'm even willing to believe that she's among the best in her field. But I think a Supreme Court justice should have some sort of record for weighing constitutional issues and not just performing strong service for clients.

I don't know if she's too close the president or not, but that seems like such a minor issue compared to her lack of qualifications that it hardly seems worth focusing on.

When the firestorm over Meiers began, I said I wanted to wait to hear what came out of her confirmation hearings, and I still do. I can't think of many confirmation hearings in the recent past which I think will be more important that these. But while I am waiting until then to form my total opinion of Meiers, the events of the past couple of weeks lead me to agree with you completely here Rocky. My gut says that if there were more to Meiers than we're seeing right now, the administration would be right out there presenting it. The criticism of her lack of a stand on the Constitution has been very well voiced, and we're getting nothing to combat.

The woman is going to have to shine like no nominee has ever shone before to come out of the hearings well, I think. And given that she's coming off of the performance that Roberts gave, she's got no easy task in front of her.

[shin]

Hey Chrisfan, did you happen to notice that the Rude Pundit thread was dedicated to all things Rude Pundit/being rude and NOT to your imagined and "uncalled for" Supreme Court nomination requirement argument? Thanks for unlocking the thread and for not abusing your moderator powers in future instances.

[chrisfan]

My apologies Shin. The discussion was surrounding the Supreme Court nominiation, which has a thread.

[shin]

The disuccsion was about the Rude Pundit and a forum for being rude in general (lord knows plenty of people here would love to see that stuff isolated to one thread). You and Rocky felt it apt to talk about something else. And aren't you the one who gets annoyed when people go off topic?

[chrisfan]

I understand that Shin. And I believe I admitted to being guilty of straying off topic, which is why i moved it. I'll unlock the thread. There's really no need to fight over it.

[shin]

Ok, thank you. I will move my rudeness...to the appropriate thread

[shin]

[rockysigman]

....And she's gone.

[chrisfan]

Any chance we can have Ted Olsen now?

[phil]

Bye Harriet !!

Time to bring on a REAL conservative ...