Konservativ skuffelse over nominering

Præsident Bushs nominering af Harriet Miers som Sandra Day O'Connors afløser som associate justice ved den Amerikanske Højesteret har udløst gigantisk skuffelse blandt amerikanske konservative. Målsætningen om at skabe et solidt konservativt flertal i Højesteret var en af de konservative græsrødders allervigtigste prioriteter for Bush's embedsperiode og en opgave, disse græsrødder havde stor tillid til, at Bush ville kunne opfylde. Men med den stort set ukendt Harriet Miers er risikoen for, at denne målæstning er forspildt overhængende. Skuffelsen over følelsen af ikke at få hævnet sig på demokraterne over Ronald Reagans mislykkede udnævnelse af Robert Bork (der deler retsfilosofi med Scalia) i 1987 er udtalt.

Bush's tidligere taleskriver David Frum skriver i National Review bl.a., at

"The Miers nomination, though, is an unforced error. Unlike the Roberts's nomination, which confirmed the previous balance on the Court, the O'Connor resignation offered an opportunity to change the balance. This is the moment for which the conservative legal movement has been waiting for two decades–two decades in which a generation of conservative legal intellects of the highest ability have moved to the most distinguished heights in the legal profession."

"I worked with Harriet Miers. She's a lovely person: intelligent, honest, capable, loyal, discreet, dedicated … I could pile on the praise all morning. But there is no reason at all to believe either that she is a legal conservative or–and more importantly–that she has the spine and steel necessary to resist the pressures that constantly bend the American legal system toward the left. This is a chance that may never occur again: a decisive vacancy on the court, a conservative president, a 55-seat Republican majority, a large bench of brilliant and superbly credentialed conservative jurists … and what has been done with the opportunity?"

Under overskriften "Miers' qualifications are non-existent" hudfletter Patrick Buchanan ligeledes udnævnelsen:

"What is depressing here is not what the nomination tells us of her, but what it tells us of the president who appointed her.  For in selecting her, Bush capitulated to the diversity-mongers, used a critical Supreme Court seat to reward a crony, and revealed that he lacks the desire to engage the Senate in fierce combat to carry out his now-suspect commitment to remake the court in the image of Scalia and Thomas.  In picking her, Bush ran from a fight.  The conservative movement has been had — and not for the first time by a president by the name of Bush."

Weekly Standards redaktør William Kristol er "disappointed, depressed and demoralized":

"I'm disappointed because I expected President Bush to nominate someone with a visible and distinguished constitutionalist track record–someone like Maura Corrigan, Alice Batchelder, Edith Jones, Priscilla Owen, or Janice Rogers Brown–to say nothing of Michael Luttig, Michael McConnell, or Samuel Alito. Harriet Miers has an impressive record as a corporate attorney and Bush administration official. She has no constitutionalist credentials that I know of.

I'm demoralized. What does this say about the next three years of the Bush administration–leaving aside for a moment the future of the Court? Surely this is a pick from weakness."

Det er ikke overraskende, at Pat Buchanan kritiserer Bush, men Kristol og især Frums kritik er signifikant. National Review og (i lidt mindre udtalt grad) Weekly Standard er normalt ultra loyale Bush støtter. Men på det seneste er en del af det republikanske partis græsrødder blevet desillusionerede over republikanernes manglende fokus på traditionelle konservative kerneværdier såsom lavere offentlige udgifter og en mere begrænset rolle for den føderale stat, hvilket nu også slår igennem hos konservative medier og kommentatorer (som dækket tidligere her hos Punditokraterne).

Det er i øvrigt interessant, at alle tre ovennævnte kommentatorer nævner Janice Rogers Brown som en kandidat, hvis nominering ville have tilfredsstillet dem. Jeg er dog ikke så sikker på, at JRB ville have skabt ro hos republikanerne, idet hun tilskynder til en langt mere aktiv rolle for den dømmende magt end f.eks. Scalia og førnævnte Bork. Det ville næppe have passet den gren af det republikanske parti, der ikke bekymrer sig så meget om statens størrelse så længe den fører (værdi)konservativ politik ( folk som Rick Santorum f.eks). Såfremt JRB var blevet nomineret kunne det således nemt have endt med endnu en "high-tech lynching of uppity blacks" som Clarence Thomas kaldte sin senatshøring.

7 thoughts on “Konservativ skuffelse over nominering

  1. Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard

    Jeg er aldeles enig med min ærede med-Punditokrat (hvis fagområde dette tillig er), men lad mig tilføje at kritikken _hagler_ ned over Bush fra ikke kun græsrødderne og–som Jacob nævner–nogle neo-konservative ideologiske skribenter. Det meget indflydelsesrige dagblad “Wall Street Journal” skriver i sin leder i dagens udgave, at man er dybt skuffet over de tabte muligheder for at påvirke den magtfulde domstol på langt sigt:”We’ve always thought Mr. Bush should welcome an ideological Court fight, both because it would educate the public about the Constitutional issues at stake, and because he ultimately would have prevailed in putting another conservative jurist on the bench. In choosing Ms. Miers, Mr. Bush missed an opportunity for that kind of debate.He also missed a chance to send a message that taking firm sides in our judicial debates is not politically disqualifying. The President could have selected from numerous qualified men and women–minority and white–who have spent their lives arguing for conservative principles on the bench or off. We’re referring to the Michael Luttigs, the J. Harvie Wilkinsons, the Edith Joneses. Is the President sending a message that these distinguished conservatives are too controversial to be nominated for the High Court, even with a Senate containing 55 Republicans? The lesson this nomination in particular will send to younger lawyers is to keep your opinions to yourself, don’t join the Federalist Society, and, heaven forbid, never write an op-ed piece. This isn’t healthy in a democracy, and in this sense a Supreme Court fight over legal philosophy that ended in a conservative victory would have demonstrated to the left that Borking no longer works.We will no doubt learn more about Ms. Miers in the coming weeks, and perhaps any doubts will prove groundless. But for now, Mr. Bush is asking his supporters to accept his judgment about his personal lawyer as an act of faith.”

    Svar
  2. Limagolf

    ?!Nu kan jeg godt forstå den Amerikanske højrefløj føler sig lidt snydt. De har udholdt mange tåbeligheder for at vinde præmien: en højesteret der forkaster Roe vs. Wade (deres største ønske!).Og nu går det op for dem at det får de ikke.Men er det i virkeligheden ikke et større problem at Ms. Miers ENESTE kvalifikation er at hun er 100% loyal over for Bush end at hun ikke er socialt konservativ?Dette er endnu et “Brownie-øjeblik”, hvor mere liberalistisk indstillede Amerikanere indser at Bush-regeringen ikke handler om andet end at skrabe privilegier ind til Bush og Bushs venner.Nævn EN liberalistisk mærkesag Bush har gennemført!(og før i siger skattelettelser vil jeg bare gøre opmærksom på at USA kører med 6% statsunderskud – der var ikke tale om skattelettelser, men skatteomlægninger til fremtiden!)Hillemænd – denne gang tror jeg Bush har skabt sig et uhelbredeligt banesår. Lame Duck til 2008./Limagolf

    Svar
  3. Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard

    Jeg tror, at det er noget forsimplet at “præmien” for “den amerikanske højrefløj” er “en højesteret der forkaster Roe vs. Wade (deres største ønske!)”. Det er nok målet for nogle, og det er helt klart mediernes foretrukne vinkel, men for en del er det et uvigtigt emne, og for mange er det blot et af flere vigtige emner. Derudover er jeg ikke meget uenig med Limagolf.Og apropos banesår, så fortsætter åreladningen. På den fortrinlige blog Volokh Conspiracy (http://volokh.com/) har professor Randy Barnett (som jeg har nævnt flere gange) link til sin Wall Street Journal klumme, hvori han peger på nomineringen af Miers som et eksempel på netop den type “cronyism”, som “the founding fathers” ønskede at forhindre (http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_10_02-2005_10_08.shtml#1128399204 og http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007354).Sammesteds har en anden klassisk-liberal jurist, Todd Zywicki, en aldeles saglig men hudflettende kritik af strategien bag Bushs valg (http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_10_02-2005_10_08.shtml#1128363647).

    Svar
  4. Limagolf

    Bushs mest entusiatiske base (evangilistiske kristne) har da bestemt været ude efter SCOTUS kandidater der ville forkaste Roe vs. Wade?Hvem består Bushs base ellers af?Jeg fornemmer at de mere økonomisk orienterede republikanere har været mere valne ved Bushs regering? Efter 4 år med 4%-6% statsunderskud burde de være flygtet langt væk.De eneste der kan være tilbage i Bush lejren er de kultur-konservative. Og de ville gøre op med “activist judges”. Det var det Bush kunne give dem, som hverken Reagan eller Bush Sr. kunne eller ville.Bush er en af deres. Og nu leverer han Miers, delvist ud fra identitetspolitiske betragtninger (hun er kvinde).Efter 5 år med Bush burde jeg ikke være overresket. Men han narrer os hver gang!;-)/Limagolf

    Svar
  5. Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard

    Kære Limagolf,Man kan ikke på nogen måde reducere Bushs base til “evangelske kristne”; omend de er (blevet) en indflydelsesrig del af det Republikanske vælgerkorps, er de langt, langt fra den eneste, men blot en større, velorganiseret minoritet. (Ser man på religion alene, udgør de evangelske-kristne formodentlig mellem 1/4 og 1/3 af Bushs vælgere i 2004; de udgør 23 pct. af vælgerkorpset, og heraf stemte ca. 80 pct. på Bush. Andre protestantiske denominationer end disse udgør næsten lige så stor en del af Bushs vælgere; af den hastigtvoksende gruppe af katolske vælgere stemte 52 pct. på Bush, mod 49 pct. på Kerry, hvilket svarer til ca. 20 pct. af Bushs stemmetal. Dertil kommer så resten spredt ud på jøder, diverse sekter samt personer udenfor trossamfund.)Bushs base består derudover bl.a. af netop den type, jeg henviste til: folk, der går ind for begrænset statsmagt, fri markedsøkonomi, personlig frihed, o.s.v., og for hvem abort enten er en naturlig ret, et nødvendigt onde, eller et onde af mindre vigtighed, o.s.v. Den konservative base er langt mindre homogen, end mange tror. Men du har ganske ret i, at de efterhånden ikke har meget at begejstres over, når det gælder Bush.Men da vi er ved emnet, så er det symptomatisk for, hvor store problemer, Bush har med baglandet, at den meget indflydelsesrige konservative kommentator George F. Will (formodentlig sammen med Buckley, Fund, Kristol, Buchanan, Safire og Novak de mest indflydelsrige sådanne–og hvoraf _ingen_ mig bekendt er evangelske kristne) i sin klumme i “Washington Post” nu direkte opfordrer konservative senatorer til at stemme imod Miers (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/04/AR2005100400954.html), mens Fund i “Wall Street Journal” en anelse mere diskret har påpeget, at der kunne være personlige gevinster ved at gøre det.

    Svar
  6. Johan Espersen

    Jacob Levy skriver således om Miers:”Fill in this sentence, with a straight face. “Harriet Miers is one of the nine [or even ninety] most ________ lawyers in America,” or “is one of the best ________ in America.” Now try to fill in the blanks with anything that does not involve the words “President Bush” (i.e. “trusted by President Bush,” “personally close to President Bush,” etc.) Attention GOP operatives: No fair just saying “qualified;” there has to be some operationalization of “qualified” that doesn’t involve the words “President Bush.””Dette er jo umuligt. Bush’ argument for Miers er jo sådan set bare “trust me”. Det er ikke ligefrem lokkende. Jeg forstår godt skuffelsen og vreden…

    Svar
  7. Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard

    Bushs problemer med baglandet vis-a-vis nomineringen af Harriet Miers vokser og vokser og vokser … Her er dagens leder fra “Wall Street Journal”:The Miers Blunder Walking the nominee into a political crossfire. Friday, October 21, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT Although skeptical from the start, we’ve restrained our criticism of the Harriet Miers nomination because we’ve long believed that Presidents of either party deserve substantial deference on their Supreme Court picks. Yet it now seems clear–even well before her Senate hearings–that this selection has become a political blunder of the first order.Especially in the wake of his success with John Roberts, President Bush had a rare opportunity to fulfill his campaign pledge to change the Court by nominating someone in the mold of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. In the process, he would have rallied his most fervent supporters and helped to educate the country about proper Constitutional interpretation. Instead, he picked a woman who was his personal and White House counsel, and who was unknown to nearly everyone outside the White House and his Texas circle. After three weeks of spin and reporting, we still don’t know much more about what Ms. Miers thinks of the Constitution. What we have learned is that the White House has presented her to the country, and thrown her into the buzz saw that is the U.S. Senate, without either proper preparation or vetting. The result has been a political melee that is hurting not just Ms. Miers, who deserves better. It is also damaging the White House and its prospects for a successful second term.Instead of a fight over judicial philosophy, we’re having a fight over one woman’s credentials and background. Instead of debating the Kelo decision’s evisceration of private property rights, we are destined to learn everything we never wanted to know about the Texas Lottery Commission. (See John Fund’s column today.) Instead of dividing Red State Democrats from Senate liberals, the nomination is dividing Republicans. Pat Robertson is threatening retribution not against moderate Democrats but against GOP conservatives who dare to oppose Ms. Miers. Chuck Schumer couldn’t have written a better script.Regarding Ms. Miers’s qualifications, we aren’t among those who think an Ivy League pedigree or judgeship is a prerequisite for a Supreme Court seat. But the process of getting to know Ms. Miers has been the opposite of reassuring. Her courtesy calls on Senators have gone so poorly that the White House may stop them altogether. And on Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee took the extraordinary step of asking her for what amounts to “do-over” on a standard questionnaire about her judicial philosophy. The impression has been created, fairly or not, that Ms. Miers is simply not able to discuss the Constitutional controversies that have animated American political debate for two generations.We sympathize with Ms. Miers, who is an accomplished woman with many admirable qualities. The questionnaire fiasco is as much the fault of the White House, which is supposed to have several lawyers review these things. And more than one of our own lawyer friends have told us that even they would have a difficult time cramming for Senate hearings in four short weeks. But this is another way of saying that the mistake here was that of the President and his advisers, who badly misjudged the political environment into which they have thrown their nominee. In earlier and less polarized times, someone without broad Constitutional experience might have avoided this trouble. But after decades of Republican anger over judicial activism, and 20 years of disappointing GOP Court selections, a nominee who was a blank slate was bound to get pounded. Mr. Bush has set her up to be hit by a withering political crossfire.Senate Republicans now find themselves caught between their loyalty to the President and their entirely legitimate concerns about Ms. Miers’s philosophy and qualifications. For their part, Democrats have so far largely been content to watch their opposition squirm and shout. But they will certainly play the opportunists, jumping on any opening on ethics or ideology to defeat her and embarrass the President.The liberal base may even demand it, given that one of the White House’s private selling points to religious conservatives has been that she is both an evangelical and is personally opposed to abortion rights. (Hint: She’d vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.) These assurances, if that’s what they were, may turn out to have been doubly counterproductive, given that they also undercut Republican claims to believe in process- rather than results-oriented jurisprudence. Perhaps Ms. Miers will prove to be such a sterling Senate witness that she can still win confirmation. But so far the lesson we draw from this nomination is this: Bad things happen when a President decides that “diversity,” personal loyalty and stealth are more important credentials for the Supreme Court than knowledge of the Constitution and battle-hardened experience fighting the judicial wars of the past 30 years.

    Svar

Leave a Reply to Peter Kurrild-KlitgaardCancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.