A Uniter, Not A Divider

Who thought George Bush could become a lame duck by winning a Supreme Court fight?

The Miers pick will be deemed to have been brilliant if it reassures the nation that a Republican can be trusted to nominate sensible, moderately conservative judges, thereby picking up more votes in the center than it loses on the "why did we bother?" right.

Subject, of course to the caveat that Miers had better be both sensible and a moderate conservative.

Are the Dems delivering more than perfunctory opposition to Miers?  Should they, since a new nominee will be almost surely better known and more excitingly Right?  I have not surveyed reaction (and my time management has collapsed), but feel free to let me know below.

UPDATE:  A broad round-up from The Moderate Voice; Hugh Hewitt rallies the defense; Glenn has lots, as does Michelle Malkin:

Well, it's a new day. Upon sober reflection, President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court appears...even worse than it did 24 hours ago.

This may be a moment when the right blogosphere discovers something that our friends on the left have come to terms with (or not) over the last several years - bloggers are not representative of public opinion.  It may be that Bush actually gets a boost in the polls from this - a grandmotherly moderate conservative (she gave to Gore in 1988 instead of his own dad!) - what's not to like, if you are the sort of person who spends five minutes a week on this sort of stuff?

But full disclosure - so far, that line of reasoning has not brought even one of my right-wing buddies in from his window ledge.  The collective complaint - We elected fifty-five Senators and broke the threat of a Democratic filibuster so Bush could appoint a stealth moderate?  It looks weak (Dems smell blood), it gives nothing to the base, and it is implausible that Bush can be hoping to form a new centrist coalition built around Lieberman and Leahy.  Bush seems to be conceding the argument that a true, visible conservative cannot be confirmed,despite his control of the Senate.  And it looks like cronyism, mainly because it is.

Looking a bit down the road, I'm worried that Miers will have to recuse herself in the to-be-bitterly contested 2028 Presidential election between Chelsea Clinton and George Prescott Bush.

MORE:  T-shirt idea: "I Went to the Mattresses for George Bush, And All I Got Was This Supreme Court Nominee".

Comments

[kim]

NOW will get(?) hysterical. She's pretty clearly against R v W.
================================================

[kim]

Now know NOW's no.
==========================

[Jerkweed]

perfunctory Demo opposition? You really are behind the times.

Actual conservatives may try to sink the nomination.

[kim]

Yet none dare speak bad to her face.
====================================

[TexasToast]

The possibility of rejection would be a strong motive to care in proposing. The danger to his own reputation, and, in the case of an elective magistrate, to his political existence, from betraying a spirit of favoritism, or an unbecoming pursuit of popularity, to the observation of a body whose opinion would have great weight in forming that of the public, could not fail to operate as a barrier to the one and to the other. He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure.

Alexander Hamilton - Federalist #76 .

[kim]

I was gonna guess Reed.
========================

[kim]

The surest way to make a monkey of a man is to quote him. That's Thomas B.
==================================

[TexasToast]

Isnt that Robert B?

[paul]

The only thing the dems can do is attack her religion.

Without a paper trial to comment on, and the caveat that she can't disuss any pending matters, gives little room for the dems to argue.

They will be compelled to argue, or become irrelevant to their base as they try and position for 2008.

Bush did not make this pick alone.

The attack on her religion is a winner for the GOP. Once the 'onslaught' begins, a groundswell of support from the right will be forthcoming. No one was prepared for it...much like Roberts. As the angst of the Dems grows, it will provide for the fight that everyone has longed for...

The dems will be in the postion to say that she is unqualified, without having anything to base it on. Judge her by her enemies, but you'll have to wait for the enmeies to declare their opposition.

Dems will be far more nervous as information is provided, the GOP will be assuaged by the research Neas wil rpovide for them.

Bottom line? Way more conservative than O'Connor.

[kim]

And the surest way to make a monkey of yourself is to misattribut a quote. Robert B. it is. If I'd been feeling any better we would have know that.

I was led astray by the goobar 'reed speaker house quote nepotism'. That slip is from undeserved intimacy with and untoward dependence on that warped searcher.
===============================================

[Gary Maxwell]

Cheer up everyone ( since I am feeling charitable today you too Texas Toast). Think of it this way. Who would surely have been on President Kerry's short list of lawyers for the Supreme Court? Hillary Clinton. Now in comparison I am liking Miers just fine.

By the way the Dallas Morning News has quotes from all kinds of legal types and politicians. Its uniformly consistent in being positive. Most dfescribe her and "very conservative." I think Rove put another one over on the Demos.

[Jerkweed]

Not really Maxwell. The schadenfreude the left is enjoying watching wingnutters attack each other is worth giving Roe back to the States.

[kim]

However, I'm sure that must be a recurrent theme. We are monkeys after all. Perhaps after I mow a little out front and clear the acorn mash out of the roof's gutter and the acorn butter from where the driveway meets the street's gutter, once done puttering, unshutter the guttural clutter.

Ever see a flock of birds get loaded on rotting mulberries? Squirrels are digging in the gutters but they're not dropping out of trees like the birds will do.
============================

[Gabriel]

I was really hoping the President would nominate the kind of candidate he told he would nominate. Had the nominee been a "Scalia or Thomas" mold then the Senate would have produced terrific fodder. I want to see a real battle over the SCOTUS. It would be nice to at least force the PFAW to utilize their newly constructed action center to try and derail a nominee.

Motion pictures are awful lately. The people deserve good theater. The President could have delivered it.

[kim]

Patience, my boy. Just building dramatic tension.
===================================================

[JayDee]

The craving of the rightwing for a fight is hysterical, if infantile. Many of the objections to Miers from the right seem to be disappointment that they won't get a chance to "bury" the Dems publically. It's a bizarre kind of patriotism to be so openly hostile and belligerant towards one's own countrymen, to the point of being disappointed in losing an opportunity to behave like bullies.

On the other hand, this apologism that Bush "had" to nominate someone with literally NO paper trail is an admission of extreme weakness. Why would any American WANT a Supreme Court justice with no qualifications or record?

It seems the Dems could ally themselves with arch conservatives and defeat this nomination with a straigt up-or-down, if they so chose. I don't see that coming, not at this point, but only because the Dems - to the hilarious consternation of the ever-belligerant conservatives - have so far been mum.

An extremely bizarre appointment from a pathetically weakened president who seems almost helpless against his addiction to cronyism.

[TexasToast]

GM

I have no doubt she will be conservative - and that Roe is on thin ice - it is interesting however to watch the right wing go ballistic because she isn't the "in yo' face" pick thay wanted.

BTW, Delay has been reindicted by a different grand jury - for a law that has been on the books for a century.

[JayDee]

Delay's lawyer may have messed up. Penalty for the original charge was up to 2 years. Penalty for the new one is LIFE....Oops.

[Appalled Moderate]

TT:

DeLay was reindicted because the first indictments were based on a law that wasn't in effect at the time of the initial indictment. Not impressive. The man gets outlawyered by judges and bug exterminators.

I don't think Ronnie Earle has the stuff to bring DeLay down. It's probably ging to take the Feds, once they get Abranoff singing.

[Lurking Observer]

TT:

And indicted on a charge in less than a day of the new grand jury's empanelment, that the previous grand jury had consistently refused to indict DeLay on.

Verrry interrresting.....

[Jim E.]

I also concede that Miers is conservative. I'm not so convinced, however, that she's a consistent conservative. Maybe she's a climber who veered to the right in order to get herself politically promoted.

Here's a quote from Miers in 1992:
"We will be successful in solving our massive crime problems only when we attack the root causes. All of us, men and women, young and old, must pledge ourselves to address the ills that surround us in our communities.

We all can be active in some way to address the social issues that foster criminal behavior, such as: lack of self-esteem or hope in some segments of our society, poverty, lack of health care (particularly mental health care), lack of education, and family dysfunction."

That's conservative? Maybe George "the most brilliant man Harriet ever met" Bush set her straight starting in 1994.

[Jerkweed]

Just superb-now Ponnuru, Patterico, and Bainbridge are all arguing against Hugh Hewitt.

Hewitt is the most obsequious moron on TM's blogroll (the competition is fierce though)- and now he's being attacked by the only slightly more sensible right-and Hewitt's firing back.

The stakes are high-since the heretic always faces worse torture than the pagan. But who is the heretic and who the defender of the faith? Those on the right have to choose! Thanks, Uncle Rove!!! This is the bestest Christmas ever!!!

It's like Godzilla vs. Megadon-a great battle to watch-and since they're all just vapid pea-brained sub-reptiles, their suffering just adds to the mirth!

[Appalled Moderate]

JayDee:

If the prosecutor can't figure out what law he should be using, how good do you think the evidence he's got is?

[Gary Maxwell]

TT

Hugh Hewitt is calling them ther "shoot first and think later conservatives" He is spot on. Roe had 7 votes not 5 so I dont see this being anything in jeopardy but Kelo could be in for a pasting.

As far as Ronnie Earle goes, well that is all you need to know. He indites under a law that came into existence after the alledged crime and DeGuierin points it out to the court. Earle runs around and empanels a nbew grand jury and gets them to indict the same day? Is he serious? How long before Deguierin eats him up on this piece of political theatre? Its like watching Don Knotts in the ring with a heavy weight. You know the knockout is coming and there will be blood everywhere. And Dan Rather cant try to shape the public opinion in the meantime.

[TexasToast]

DeLay was reindicted because the first indictments were based on a law that wasn't in effect at the time of the initial indictment.

Thats the Delay spin. The "new" law simply codified existing case law. Seems to me they must have pretty good stuff to get such a quick indictment - and it might have something to do with the withdrawal of the waiver of the statute of limitations.

[Freaknik]

How out of control do you Delay ass-kissers think the grand jury in Texas is? Either Delay is corrupt or the State of Texas is-either way it's a problem.

And perhaps Earle has some fairly non-complex eveidence he could present to get an indictment that quick? Possible, yes?
You really think it's just pure blind obedience from a partisan grand jury?
Where's your evidence.

And what's with Delay waiving the SOL on the original charge? Isn't some sort of deal implied there? I think Delay's lawyers got too cute here.

And please quit quoting Delay's lawyers arguments (i.e. the law didn't apply) as post appeal certified legal conclusions-it makes you look stupid.

[JayDee]

Yeah, some people are speculating that it may have been DeGuerin that that got taken

So why am I so sure he'll plead? A line in the indictment notes that his lawyer waived the statute of limitations on the conspiracy charge during grand jury proceedings. Why would a competent lawyer waive a complete defense? Because worse was on the way if he did not.

Initiates know the practice as charge-bargaining. You see a funnel cloud barreling at you and you ask your local prosecutor, quietly, "on what charges are you willing to take my client if he pleads?" I suspect DeLay will enter a plea late in the year.

Whatever the outcome, none of it could be happening to a more deserving fellow.

[Appalled Moderate]

TT:

Then why didn't Mr. Earle indict under the statutes that the case law interpreted? The man has been investigating DeLay for years. Don't you think he would have figured out the statutes he should be indicting him under? The law may be complicated, but c'mon. Earle has got to know that every misstep he makes beings up grounds for appeal, or another reason for a judge to get thinking about outlawyering him in the name of justice and the GOP.

Earle is working real hard at looking like a hack.

[Freaknik]

The speculation is Delay had already reached a plea deal. Why else waive the SOL?

[Appalled Moderate]

Freaknik:

Now there's a name to strike terror in the heart of an Atlanta guy like myself...

Whatever makes you think DeLay would willingly give up power? What makes you think he has any concept that he could ever be brought to account for his actions? He signed the waiver so he could do exactly what he did. If signs the SOL, he delays the indictment a month, figuring that the charge is under a bogus law, and figuring he just might slip out from under the indictment. if it doesn't work out ... well, he's stayed House Majority leader another month longer.

[Freaknik]

Now I agree with you. The lefty theory is Delay's team miscalculated: they made a deal to waive the SOL for only taking the conspiracy charge. Once the clock runs out-they attack the indictment. But they get screwed b/c Earle gets a new indictment on the last day of the limitations period.

IOW premature exoneration.

[JayDee]

I think the point of the article I linked to is that DeGuerin may have gotten too cute. He bought the conspiracy indictment, trying to pull a fast one on Earle, not thinking Earle had the goods to indict on the laundering charge. Now it looks like the grand jury didn't even need a day with the evidence to come up with the new indictment. There must be something fairly convincing there.

Maybe Deguerin just got outlawyered. Seems like Hubris is an epidemic in republicanland these days.

[Appalled Moderate]

Freaknik:

I have a hard time believing DeLay would make an explicit deal to plead or Earle would believe an implicit deal. These two ought to know each other by now.

Well, if the speculation was correct, the gamble here on earle's side is that the whole enterprise does not make him look an indictment happy fool. If he really has the goods, it won't matter. If his case is aggressive or borderline, I think this little scramble will end up hurting him.

[Appalled Moderate]

JayDee:

Or they figured that if the first grand jury could indict, they should too and not just DeLay finesse them.

[JayDee]

AM, I'm no lawyer, but is that how grand juries work? Do they care about "being finessed"? Why would twelve anonymous Texans have that concern?

Time will tell. In any case, if Earle screwed up, at least he fell on his sword for a worthy cause. Delay is done.

[Geek, Esq.]

Miers is a lifetime sycophant, is a far-right fundie, has donated money to anti-abortion activist groups, and thinks gays should be imprisoned.

She'll vote the social conservative line on EVERY issue they care about.

I guess they're whining because Bush is appointing someone without an "In Your Face" taunt to Democrats.

[Tollhouse]

That's a cute scenario. Didn't even need a day you say? Or do you mean, they only had a day.

[Tollhouse]

In any case, if Earle screwed up, at least he fell on his sword for a worthy cause. Delay is done.

That's peachy.

[Appalled Moderate]

Jay Dee:

I would say a convincing prosecutor and evidence of a prior finding, and a knowledge of an impending deadline caused by a slick stunt by the target would impel a grand jury to do the indictment, without a whole lot of weiging of the facts in the case. This is just my assessment of human nature leavened by my experience as a juror a few years back.

[JayDee]

Geek, that's my point also. There's a very unseemly LUST for confrontation from the right these days. And Bush's unwillingness to cater to that lust, when he so dearly needs their support, is very telling. This guy is weak, almost frightened. You have to wonder what they know about the Fitzgerald inquiry that we don't.

I don't know if you're right about Miers though. No one does. The only thing that seems clear is that she's a sycophantic loyalist, which casts serious doubt on both her impartiality and her competence.

I'm still wondering if we'll see a Congressional fight from the right on this. That would be news.

[Geek, Esq.]

What I don't get is why the right is so much more outraged by the cronyism than the left. Is it because this is old news to us moonbats, while the wingnuts are seeing Bush's corrupt cronyism with fresh eyes?

[TM]

I guess they're whining because Bush is appointing someone without an "In Your Face" taunt to Democrats...

What I don't get is why the right is so much more outraged by the cronyism than the left

Ahh, same answer - Reps aren't looking for an "In your face" choice - they are looking for a clear conservative, not a "trust-me" pick.

Bush could have gotten Miers with the 49 Senators he had in 2001; why did we bother to get him up to 55?

[Jerkweed]

Can you now grasp in practice what you failed to grasp in theory?

Bush unequivocally sucks.

[Geek, Esq.]

He may or may not have gotten Miers with 49 R's. Dems would be striking a much different tone if conservative activists weren't so opposed to her.

[Gerry]

"This may be a moment when the right blogosphere discovers something that our friends on the left have come to terms with (or not) over the last several years - bloggers are not representative of public opinion."

From your keyboard to my blog. Or is that vice-versa? (Actually, a coinkydink).

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

'Bush could have gotten Miers with the 49 Senators he had in 2001; why did we bother to get him up to 55?'

I doubt it, not an evangelical, anti-abortion (Al Gore used to be pro-life), managing partner of a huge law firm with clients like Microsoft.

As for 55 Republican votes, some of them are named Collins, Chaffee, Snowe, Specter, Voinovich.

[The Unbeliever]

Permit me to float a theory here--Bush and company knows something we don't know: another SCOTUS seat is opening next year.

Think about it: Roberts just sailed through and is now Chief, despite the left's hysterics about various issues. Judicial nominations aren't something that gets the center fired up, only the hard base on both sides. A major nomination equals a chance for rallying the base, fundraising, solidarity, etc. Bush's numbers are a bit low now, so he could use a spectacular fight for a rally. However...

Mid-term elections are next year, meaning that if Bush nominated a staunch conservative now--sparking battles, filibusters, the nuclear option, and other expected public drama--the GOP will "peak" too early; by this time next year, the base will have forgotten the battle. But if he can start a judicial battle next year, right before the election cycle...

Imagine this: a seat opens up sometime around August 2006, and Bush nominates Janice Brown. She's black, a woman, solidly conservative, and highly qualified. And that's the image the GOP carries going into the elections, the poster they rally around in an election with traditionally lower turnout. The Dems are caught between alienating the liberal base, and facing a higher GOP turnout than usual.

So how does he set this up now? Simple: avoid a pitched battle, avoid the charge that he only nominates radical right-wingers. Let a stealth candidate through, and save the energy for the battle next year. The better nominee chronology for this strategy is minor controversy, minor or no controversy, huge battle; rather than minor controversy, huge battle, huge battle.

[Jerkweed]

An alternative theory Unbeliever: Bush is an idiot.

[The Unbeliever]

Now that I painted my little conspiracy, here's why I think it's plausible.

We know that Bush doesn't back down from a fight, or from partisan opposition; he doesn't do centrism for compromise's sake. Love it or hate it, "compassionate conservativism" is still conservative--it simply involves more spending than any solid conservative is willing to stand.

Even with low poll numbers, I don't see Bush backing down on his nominees just to avoid a battle in the Senate. It's not in his nature to care about politics that much, and I don't see him giving away a position on the Court just to placate his critics. At this point, Bush has no reason not to cater to his base with JRB... unless he sees an opportunity for bigger gains down the road.

Embedded in all the conservative hue-and-cry over the last 36 hours is the message that even though they're disappointed with Miers, they're glad that Kerry didn't get to make the nominations. The Dems aren't going to pick up any gains from Miers--no centrists annoyed with a right-winger, and no Republicans suddenly deciding to trust the Dems. The GOP still has its base, and if Bush can get a red-meat nominee battle going in 06, everyone but a few pundits will have forgotten Miers in the rally.

Granted, this is all speculation based on a third seat actually becoming open. But unless Bush has suddenly capitulated with 3 years left on his term--which would be highly uncharacteristic of him--I think Bush/Cheney/Rove et al may be going for a trifecta: 3 justices (one a Chief), a base rally, and another midterm pickup of Congressional seats.

[Jerkweed]

Change your handle to The Unbelievable.