Bush Abandons Miers Nomination

[Enoch]

To be fair, Gromnir, you have to admit that "She isn't a judge" isn't the only basis critics have for calling Meiers unqualified. The comparisons to Warren and Marshall aren't entirely fair, in that they had displayed their general legal competence to the public at large (Warren as a Governor, and Marshall as a litigator of major cases before the SCOTUS). Meiers' top line on her resume is as Texas Lottery Commissioner and devout bar weenie. Not quite in the same ballpark.

 

Also, your analogy between criminal trial courts and federal appellate courts is weak. Being fair and objective only gets one so far; at some point on the SCOTUS, justices are going to be presented with cases where each side's argument is equally fair and objective, and the only difference is a matter of policy (e.g., statutory interpretation issues).

 

On the subject of whether politics should matter in the confirmation process, I'd argue that it has to. First off, as a practical matter, you cannot police a President's decision for the influence of ideology. Presidents have always picked candidates who they believed would support their policies, right back the John Marshall and Adams' other "midnight judges." Now, for cabinet officials who have to work with the Prez all the time, the Senate's "advising" and "consenting" rightly takes a more hands-off attitude as far as ideology. But the ideology of a member of SCOTUS is just as much a concern of the Senate as it is of the Prez. It's unfair for the president to be the only party with influence on the policy stances of the Court.

 

Justice Scalia himself has argued (as part of his general stance against substantive due process and the court "acting as a super-legislature") that the Court has become so powerful that the majoritarian check of the Senate on the Prez's discretion should be even more rigorous.

[Shadowstrider]

well then, your comment 'bout bush incompetence in his 2 choices seems all the more puzzling, no?

 

HA! Good Fun!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

No, not really. The reason I'm worried about Robert's isn't his creditials or his scholarly study. It is Bush's lackey-placing philosophy. I'm worried that Roberts' may have a similar outlook and preside in a manner that keeps his loyalties to his friends, rather than what he knows is right.

 

Is it likely to happen? Probably not, but that doesn't really alleviate my concern with the affair.

[Shadowstrider]

Presidents have always picked candidates who they believed would support their policies, right back the John Marshall and Adams' other "midnight judges."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not entirely true. Lincoln nominated a judge who was in opposition to him on many views.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Isn't this the whole point of giving Supreme Court judges jobs for life? It should free them of any obligation to pay back their nominator and make them truly independent. If that doesn't work, maybe it's time to appoint these judges for fixed terms instead.

 

When there was all that trouble over John Bolton (?) getting approval from the senate to become ambassador to the UN, it was resolved by the senate going off on holiday and the president just appointing him anyway. Can that happen with Supreme Court nominees as well?

[Plano Skywalker]

I could be wrong but I see the whole Meiers thing as a strawman set-up job.

Basically, it went like this:

 

* Laura Bush comes out before the nomination begging for a woman to be nominated.

 

* President Bush nominates his personal lawyer about whom not much is known except that she was head of the Texas lottery and has given money to both Republicans and Democrats.

 

* Senate Democrats (namely Reid) express a passive support for the candidate but indicate that the hearings will be especially important for this nominee due to her lack of a "paper trail".

 

* Conservatives (mostly religious conservatives) attack the nomination because it is a "stealth" nomination more than anything else. It's not that they don't like her but they don't want another stealth nominee (these people think of Roberts as a stealth nominee).

 

* Others (mainstream Americans and non-religious conservatives) attack the nominee based on the "crony" issue and her general lack of constitutional legal experience (it is not that she was a non-judge but a jurist with little to no constitutional legal experience).

 

* Laura Bush attacks the attackers with a page from the Democrat's playbook "it's sexist!"

 

* GW Bush plays up the fact that she is an Evangelical Christian as reason not to be alarmed.

 

* the nominee withdraws allowing conservatives of all stripes to smugly declare victory while freeing the President to nominate someone with a concrete legal philosophy and, possibly, another white male if need be...(note: however, because Bush played up her religion, a fair amount of Evangelicals think that they were betrayed by other Evangelicals like Gary Bauer who opposed the nomination...good ole divide and conquer stuff here).

 

 

Rove isn't the only one capable of this kind of calculation. GW is one of the shrewdest politicans alive.

[LoneWolf16]

Isn't this the whole point of giving Supreme Court judges jobs for life?  It should free them of any obligation to pay back their nominator and make them truly independent.  If that doesn't work, maybe it's time to appoint these judges for fixed terms instead.

 

When there was all that trouble over John Bolton (?) getting approval from the senate to become ambassador to the UN, it was resolved by the senate going off on holiday and the president just appointing him anyway.  Can that happen with Supreme Court nominees as well?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wait...I definitely missed something. Bolton is our UN ambassador? When'd that happen? Last I heard, the Senate was undecided on his nomination. Bush just stuck him in when the Senate was on break? If true...BULL****.

 

GW is one of the shrewdest politicans alive.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

.........................

[Plano Skywalker]

GW is one of the shrewdest politicans alive.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

.........................

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

it's true....he ain't dumb...but he knows liberal elites like to think of him

that way and he knows how to use that to his advantage.

 

as far as Bolton goes...yeah, he was "recessed" in. :D

[LoneWolf16]

GW is one of the shrewdest politicans alive.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

.........................

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

it's true....he ain't dumb...but he knows liberal elites like to think of him

that way and he knows how to use that to his advantage.

 

as far as Bolton goes...yeah, he was "recessed" in. :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Of course, I must be misunderestimating him. "

[Plano Skywalker]

Of course, I must be misunderestimating him.  "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

could be.....if you remember, his father, George Herbert Walker Bush, also said some really incongruous things....in fact, he did so more than his son. but this does not mean the elder Bush was dumb either.

[LoneWolf16]

It's not so much his inability to form words correctly that speaks ill of his intellectual prowess, it's the mistakes. Mistake after mistake, stupid idea after stupid idea.

 

I mean, damn it, I could do a better job of running this country than he can. And I'm sure you could too.

[Plano Skywalker]

It's not so much his inability to form words correctly that speaks ill of his intellectual prowess, it's the mistakes. Mistake after mistake, stupid idea after stupid idea.

 

I mean, damn it, I could do a better job of running this country than he can. And I'm sure you could too.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

yeah, well that's what happens when you are born on 3rd base and have your dad there to bail you out of everything. under the circumstances, however, I think he really has grown into the role.

 

the Miers nomination looks like a mistake....it was intended to....so, yes, I can see how that would add to the perception that GW is dumb.

 

the other stuff "compassionate conservatism", "faith-based initiatives", "spreading liberty" via force is nonsense. you and I know that but it is not intended for us but for the great unwashed who think the Jerry Springer Show is quality television.

[LoneWolf16]

Well, yes, of course. But claiming that GW is anything like a "shrewd politician" holds very little water with me. From what I've seen and heard from him, he's not exactly Albert's successor.

 

No, I don't think it is Bush, it's the administration and all the people under him, telling him what to do, advising, and basically keeping his ass, somehow, from touching the frying pan. He hovers above it, surely, and has gotten quite close, but no skin to burning hot oil contact yet. Thanks, in no small part, to his supporting cast.

[Plano Skywalker]

well, I will not argue against the idea that he has the best of the best when it comes to his supporting cast.

 

I just think that his political opponents do themselves a disservice when they think of him as a buffoon who doesn't know his way around.

 

do you remember when he first visited Putin? He told the press that he was able to look "into the man's soul". I don't think Rove told him to say that but I think it played well with the masses and it also pushed Putin off his game a little bit...in short, it was effective. Things like that, that go somewhat under the radar screen, are a part of Bush's tactics.

[LoneWolf16]

You may very well have something there...but it disturbs me to no end to think of him as "tactically inclined". So much so, that I'm willing to contribute that line of his to the usual non-sense...which actually had an unforseen, unintended affect.

 

Then again, this is just wishful thinking.

[taks]

You're a conservative, and I wouldn't consider you dumb - misguided, sure, but not dumb.

no i'm not, and you should know that. the closest definition to me would be libertarian. misguided is way off, given history keeps backing me up with regards to my most devout beliefs.

 

Roberts would be a fine choice, if his testimony to the Senate truly reflects his judicial philosophy.  I suppose time will tell.  If he was simply toeing a line to get his invitation aboard, then things will be different.  As it stands now, though, I have no real problem with him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

if he chooses to rewrite the constitution, then he is a bad choice (uh, legislating from the bench is what i mean). other than that, not much he can do wrong.

 

taks

[Gromnir]

"To be fair, Gromnir, you have to admit that "She isn't a judge" isn't the only basis critics have for calling Meiers unqualified. "

 

Gromnir already did admit this... and we pointed it out above. nevertheless, there were more than a few folks who claimed that miers lack of judge experience were a real issue. and claims that thurgood and warren had a substantial constitutional law resumes previous to sitting on the Court is laughable... and we suspect you know it.

 

"Also, your analogy between criminal trial courts and federal appellate courts is weak. Being fair and objective only gets one so far; at some point on the SCOTUS, justices are going to be presented with cases where each side's argument is equally fair and objective, and the only difference is a matter of policy (e.g., statutory interpretation issues)."

 

oh come now. do not be niave. why you thinks scalia were always more respected than were rhenquist? scalia didn't/doesn't let politics get in the way of his opinions... though oregon v. smith is still a little aberrational. rhenquist opinions, on the other hand, did not follow a particular legal ideology so much as he were advancing conservative political notions. anybody who follows the Court can very quickly identify and separate the political beasts from the judges w/o much difficulty. fairness and impartiality when judging constitutional issues is just as important as when judging people.... and unless something has happened in the last 10 seconds, there is still a standing requirement... is still real people involved in these cases.

 

and while we has already conceded that politics is a part of the selection process, we still find it unfortunate as it has lead ever increasingly to Justices with impenetrable philosophies being chosen for the Court. the more spectacular a candidate's past is, the less likeley he/she is to be ultimately selected regardless of insight or intellect. brennan would never have made it onto the Court if eisenhower knew what he were really 'bout... and the senate would never have approved of scalia if they thought he were more than simply a particularly bright transactions guy.

 

"Justice Scalia himself has argued (as part of his general stance against substantive due process and the court "acting as a super-legislature") that the Court has become so powerful that the majoritarian check of the Senate on the Prez's discretion should be even more rigorous."

 

...

 

is odd that you would bring this up... gives you a chance to reconsider before we point out the obvious silliness.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Lucius]

You may very well have something there...but it disturbs me to no end to think of him as "tactically inclined". So much so, that I'm willing to contribute that line of his to the usual non-sense...which actually had an unforseen, unintended affect.

 

Then again, this is just wishful thinking. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wolfie I wanna hug your avatar. :">

[metadigital]

Wolfie I wanna hug your avatar.  :">

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is a cute puppy. Is the puppy being nominated for Supreme Court Justice?

[Enoch]

"and while we has already conceded that politics is a part of the selection process, we still find it unfortunate as it has lead ever increasingly to Justices with impenetrable philosophies being chosen for the Court. the more spectacular a candidate's past is, the less likeley he/she is to be ultimately selected regardless of insight or intellect. brennan would never have made it onto the Court if eisenhower knew what he were really 'bout... and the senate would never have approved of scalia if they thought he were more than simply a particularly bright transactions guy."

 

Oh, I agree that it is regrettable that the current system basically operates to bar anyone with a long record of writings and achievements. Everyone involved would be better off if nominees were selected based only on intelligence, competence, and how good they look in a robe. But as long as Presidents are selecting nominees for ideological reasons (and if you think Reagan picked Bork solely because he's a smart guy, I've got a bridge you may be interesting in buying), the Senate should also apply an ideological check. Otherwise the executive becomes way to influential over the judiciary.

 

Really, the true villians here are the interest groups who have targeted the Court as a way to enact their policy agenda. Through the magic of public choice theory, a relative minority can weild enough power so that each party is prisoner to a few intensely interested groups.

[metadigital]

Mao Zedong had the right idea: up against the wall. "

[SteveThaiBinh]

If the US political system weren't so choked up by checks, balances and pork that laws can't get passed, the Supreme Court wouldn't be so important. Instead you would have a proper abortion law, passed by Congress, that was a compromise; you would have a law on civil partnerships for gays, but not marriages; you would have reasonable guns laws that regulated gun ownership in cities with high gun crime, but was more relaxed elsewhere, and so on. You probably wouldn't have so many people taking extreme positions on these issues either.

 

Instead, the left and right spend the whole time shouting at each other and can't talk to each other for long enough to thrash out practical compromises, so it's left to the judges to make the important decisions. Of course you have judges legislating from the bench - if Congress won't resolve these issues, someone has to.

 

That's my outsider's view anyway. Feel free to shoot it down.

[metadigital]

You're forgetting that the US is a federated Union of States: the individual member states aren't too pleased to cede any authority to the Federal government ...

[Plano Skywalker]

speaking of constitutional law, wasn't Tony Blair supposed to get rid of the Law Lords and institute an independent judiciary? how is his overall Lords reform going anyway? still stalled out with the Hereditary Peer compromise (phase 1 of Lords reform)?

 

I wonder if he still has the political capital to finish his constitutional reforms.

[SteveThaiBinh]

speaking of constitutional law, wasn't Tony Blair supposed to get rid of the Law Lords and institute an independent judiciary?  how is his overall Lords reform going anyway?  still stalled out with the Hereditary Peer compromise (phase 1 of Lords reform)?

 

I wonder if he still has the political capital to finish his constitutional reforms.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tony Blair doesn't have the political capital to finish a donut. He never really had a reform plan at all, or at least, he had the start of a plan, but not the end. We have an independent judiciary already (and a largely apolitical one), and Tony Blair hates it because it strikes down a lot of his knee-jerk anti-terrorist legislation.

 

I appreciate that the US is a federation, but so many of these controversial issues seem to have come to federal level already. Maybe the US needs a law to re-devolve more of these decisions to the states.

[metadigital]

Agreed. The Labour reforms are poorly thought-through and even less-well implemented.

 

When I was listening to an interview with the Norwegian monarchy the other day (HM King Harald V and HM Queen Sonja) they made an interesting point about stability and monarchy: the most stable countries have them. Nice people, those Norwegian monarchs.