Harriet the Why
Bush deserves a little credit for understanding that Democrats actually could and would derail a nominee who presented the level of conservative bona fides some conservatives are looking for. He has the political savvy to understand that his side of the abortion debate is currently the losing side, and that this is as central an issue for his political opponents as it is for his "base." Bush also seems to have pragmatic views about the part of the electorate that fancies itself his "base," i.e., evangelicals and other "morality" exit-polling types (I think we can disregard the few thousand people nationwide who could tell you who Friedrich Hayek was, and the few hundred who could give you three sentences about Friedrich Hayek . . . in their blogs, of course). There is a risk in alienating these voters, but it's not that they will flee the party. These people aren't going anywhere--their choice is to vote for the Republican or not at all. They are useful for winning primaries, but Bush doesn't have any more primaries.
Putting a demonstrably anti-Roe jurist on the court would plainly cost Republicans more votes than it would gain them. If the "base" doesn't like what happened this week, they really would have hated what would have happened if a Court vacancy had arisen during Bush's first term. At least this way they are getting Harriet Miers, whose personal views by all indications are adamantly pro-life. After the way he came into office, Bush must be keenly aware that what really matters is having five votes on the Court. Yes, the votes sometimes come with nice essays attached, but it's the votes that ultmately matter.
I also am enjoying the carping, again mostly on the right, that there is something wrong with the Miers nomination because she isn't the most obvious or the most qualified or the most "prepared" choice. This concern is well expressed by my friend Dean at soxblog.com:
"Regarding the issue of whether Miers is the choice of a man or a party who believes in a meritocracy, let me say this: Miers is a solid and accomplished professional who should not be gratuitously disparaged. But there is absolutely nothing to suggest that she is the one American most deserving of filling a slot on the Supreme Court. Nothing."I can't think of too many examples this century when "the one American most deserving" was actually nominated to the Court. Probably Benjamin Cardozo comes closest, and he died after only about six years on the bench. Obviously there have been some other leading lights, but the real tradition is one of nominating people who are not "the most deserving." One need only look at the current court to confirm this. Justice Thomas is the best example, but it's not like Kennedy and Souter were leading lights. Appointing close associates is not a new phenomenon either (perhaps a developing tradition among Texans in the Oval Office), although I can't think of examples where it worked out really well.
posted at 10:42 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home