Miers And Myers

It was Full Ahead for two controversial Bush nominees.

First, Julie Myers:

Choice to Run Immigration Agency Gains Key Approval

 By ERIC LIPTON

 

WASHINGTON, Oct. 7 - Julie L. Myers, the lawyer nominated to take over the immigration enforcement agency, moved a step closer to confirmation on Friday when a crucial Senate committee rejected questions about her résumé and endorsed her nomination by a 7-to-2 party-line vote.

Ms. Myers's qualifications had been questioned by senators from both parties after President Bush nominated her in June to head the 14,200-employee Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

Ms. Myers, 36, has not dealt extensively with immigration issues or managed a large department before.

Eventually the Times mentions her most obvious qualifications:

No one on Friday mentioned that Ms. Myers is a niece of Gen. Richard B. Myers of the Air Force, who just stepped down as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or that she recently married John Wood, Mr. Chertoff's chief of staff, affiliations that have led some watchdogs to suggest that her nomination was a result of connections, not qualifications.

More Bush cronyism?  Au contraire - this is nepotism!  Let's move on with our Cronyism Coverage below:

Bush Steadfast in Face of Criticism of Nominee

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG 

WASHINGTON, Oct. 7 - Brushing aside calls from conservatives to withdraw the nomination of Harriet E. Miers to the Supreme Court, President Bush on Friday declared that he was confident the Senate would confirm Ms. Miers and that she would become a justice "who will not legislate from the bench and will strictly interpret the Constitution."

In a Life Imitates Punditry moment, we get this defense of Ms. Miers:

Ms. Miers's defenders have said she does not have to be a constitutional scholar to sit on the court, a sentiment that Dan Coats, the former Republican senator who has been asked by the White House to shepherd Ms. Miers through the Senate confirmation process, reiterated Friday, his first full day on the job.

"If great intellectual powerhouse is a qualification to be a member of the court and represent the American people and the wishes of the American people and to interpret the Constitution, then I think we have a court so skewed on the intellectual side that we may not be getting representation of America as a whole," Mr. Coats said in a CNN interview.

The Times then follows up with the punchline:

Mr. Specter [Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee], asked about that remark, laughed and wondered if it was "another Hruska quote" - a reference to an oft-quoted comment by the late Roman Hruska, a Republican senator from Nebraska, who defended G. Harrold Carswell, a Supreme Court nominee who was rejected by the Senate. "Even if he is mediocre," Mr. Hruska said, "there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance?"

More on Bush's outreach to the right here.  My two cents - the qualifications argument is a bit abstract, and Mickey is right - Dems will want a better strategy than sending out Chuck Schumer and Ted Kennedy to demonstrate that Ms. Miers is an intellectual lightweight.

But I have yet to see a satisfactory response to the cronyism question.  Ask any Republican this stale, obvious question - How would you have reacted if Bill Clinton had appointed his personal attorney to the Supreme Court?  How about Al Gore making such an appointment, or John Kerry?  How will righties react if Hillary attempts to appoint, over my placard-bearing dead body, her personal attorney?

How do we get from here to "No"?  I'm already refusing to contribute to Bush 2008...

Comments

[MainCa]

That's it! I refuse to vote for Bush in '08!!!

[TM]

Duly noted and stolen.

[SteveMG]

"That's it! I refuse to vote for Bush in '08!!!"

And if, somehow someway, he turns things around, we can always say we were referring to Jeb, not G.W.

Not likely, but let's keep all options open.

SMG

[MainCa]

Sorry, I didn't read your last sentence. I commented after the first sentence. I guess I knew where it was going.

[TM]

Sorry, I didn't read your last sentence.

Don't you be apologizing - that last sentence appeared mysteriously after I read your comment.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

On Meet the Press today, Miers got a boost from Antonin Scalia. Nino pointed out that there have been men--specifically naming Rehnquist, White, and Powell--with a different background (other than judicial) who have brought good sense to the court. He mentioned that with the death of Rehnquist the court lacks that perspective.

I think that it's the same point as Coats'. Being an intellectual (i.e. a second-hand dealer in ideas) has its drawbacks. As Robert Bork found out.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

On the 'cronyism' issue, I know of two people who were named to the Supreme Court from the executive branch, who ruled on issues they'd worked on at their agencies.

Chief Justice Salmon P Chase ruled against himself (partly) over his work on establishing paper currency when he was Treasury Secretary.

Justice Tom Clark voted against Truman's seizure of the steel mills, even though he'd advised Truman to do just that as Attorney General.

[Peggy]

Was there a cry of 'nepotism' from the NYTimes when Kennedy nominated his brother for his Cabinet? Or much angst from Republicans in Congress? The 'cronyism' in Kennedy's administration was pretty strong, too, wasn't it?

"Crony" Miers! That just means the Prez knows her really, really well. Which is all to the good.

[richard mcenroe]

Saw Kristol on FNS this morning, and yes, that is the big complaint against Miers: she's not one of the club, she's not on the pundit's approved list.

That bastard Bush,not doing what they tell him. You'd think he was elected President or something, instead of Frum or Jonah Goldberg.

Also saw that old thug Pat Buchanan on CBS this morning, reminding us once again of why we shouldn't let the media define conservatism for us.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Yeah, that famous legal expert Pat Buchanan (mostly being on the receiving end of DC cops nightsticks) thinks we should have another Borking; the result of which was Anthony Kennedy on the SC.

Here's the excerpt from Scalia:

'JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA: Well, I think it's a good thing to have people with all sorts of backgrounds. There is now nobody with that background after the death of the previous chief. And the reason that's happened, I think, is the nomination and confirmation process has become so controversial, so politicized, that I think a president does not want to give the opposition an easy--you know, an easy excuse that, "Well, this person has no judicial experience." And I don't think that's a good thing. I think the Byron Whites, the Louis Powells and the Bill Rehnquists have contributed to the Court even though they didn't sit on a lower federal court.'

The most interesting thing on MTP this morning was a tape recording of LBJ talking with Ramsey Clark about his being named Attorney General in 1967. It was done to creat a conflict of interest, to get his father to resign from the SC, so LBJ could put Thurgood Marshall on it.

[Cecil Turner]

Saw Kristol on FNS this morning, and yes, that is the big complaint against Miers: she's not one of the club, she's not on the pundit's approved list.

Concur. I seem to recall a lot of enthusiasm for looking for fresh perspectives (i.e., not relying exclusively on the federal appeals court benches for selectees). And Beldar makes a fairly persuasive case for Miers's legal acumen. (Though it's somewhat ironic that Miers was intimately involved in the consultation process--which seems to be an Administration trend.)

Moreover, having had my fill of novel theories from brilliant legal minds recently (e.g., Kelo and reliance on foreign precedent), I find myself leaning toward common sense as the most important qualification. And frankly, on that scale, Miers looks pretty good.

[sammler]

It is possible that Miers is a non-theorist by design. My teleology is here.

[Harry Arthur]

Beldar also made a fairly good case for Miers in his rebutal to Charles Krauthammer's article in his previous post here.

As much as many of us conservatives might want a fight with Schumer, Kennedy, NOW, PFTAW, et al, it may very well be that Miers will surprise us with a fresh, common sense perspective as Cecil and Scalia suggest. If it turns out that she is in fact a strict constructionist with a spine, and not another Souter courtesy of the Bush family, then I expect to find crow in short supply as we "true believer" conservatives consume great quantities.

I expect she'll be confirmed and we'll then see whether Mr. Bush knows her as well as he thinks.

The other aspect to this nomination is whether it will supress the conservative vote in 2006, resulting in the loss of some close Senate races - Santorum comes to mind - and some key House seats. Though, given the profligate spending of the republicans, I'm not sure that would matter a great deal, but that's another subject, isn't it?

[Harry Arthur]

sammler, very interesting thought process

[John Weidner]

"Favoritism is the secret of efficiency." --Admiral Fisher

The main trick to running a good organization is to find good people, and then FAVOR them, reward them, push them forward. That's what Bush has done wth Miers, entrusting her with 4 or 5 different jobs, all apparently done to satisfaction.

I don't know what word to use to describe this process, but it sure isn't "cronyism," which implies promoting people just because they are pals.

[Harry Arthur]

JW, I would agree in principle. We use this technique to hire pilots. The best way to get one of the few dozen interviews out of the thousands of resumes we receive is to have a personal recommendation by a current employee who has actually worked with the applicant, preferably over some extended period of time.

The process often works well if you can gain an unbiased perspective as to the person's true abilities, but occasionally fails, e.g., Mr. Brown, late of FEMA fame.