October 11, 2005

Lowry on Miers Nomination: Hypocrisy, Double Standards & Contradictions

Rich Lowry nails some of the big issues surrounding the Harriet Miers nomination to the Supreme Court.

Lowry begins with these words:

The nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court is foundering, but President Bush is confident that she will be confirmed. Bush thus displays a touching faith in the power of hypocrisy, double standards, and contradictions to see his nominee through. The case for Miers is an unholy mess, an opportunistic collection of whatever rhetorical flotsam happens to be at hand.

I would encourage you to read the whole editorial. Then read how Laura Bush is parroting the same words as her husband.

Second-rate is still second-rate, regardless of gender. No matter how hard the Bush administration tries, Harriet Miers is no Roberts, no Luttig, etc. Simply Bush league on this one. What a disappointment.

Comments, although monitored, are not necessarily representative of the views Anchor Rising's contributors or approved by them. We reserve the right to delete or modify comments for any reason.

To me, the Miers debate is also instructive in that (I hope) people will see the difference between being a philosophically conservative "ideologue" and being a partisan, political "ideologue." Conservatives opposed to Miers do so, primarily, on a range of philosophical points and, perhaps more pragmatically, have serious questions whether she can muster the necessary philosophical arguments she will need to buttress any future decisions she may make. Thus, it is less important how she votes than how she justifies how she votes. (Though how she votes is indeed a concern!). On the other hand, political ideologues don't adhere to a core set of ideas so much as they pay homage to a particular individual or issue. Also, as the justifications for the Miers nomination have shown, they care less for the "why" than the "how" of her votes. In essence, it is about the results rather than the theory behind them. The problem with Miers is that there is very little proof that she will actually decide they way they think she will!

Posted by: Marc at October 11, 2005 1:41 PM

Both Warren Burger and Earl Warren were selected by GOP Presidents having never before served on the bench. I'm not opposed to her nomination yet, but there had better be some serious vetting.

Posted by: Anthony at October 11, 2005 7:29 PM

As I've expounded a little on this subject before, I'll try to avoid rehashing anything. That being said, even though it's becoming fashionable to dump on her, I'm really trying to do my best to reserve judgement on Harriet Miers at this point, since I know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about her. It's her burden to prove to us that she is qualified to sit on the high court.

Is she the most qualified person out there? No.

Is she the most qualified woman? Not even close.

Is she the most qualified conservative? Don't even get me started.

Although it's admittedly painful to watch, I am glad that the American public is seeing that conservatives/Republicans are not monolithic, goosestepping, mind-numbed robots, as is often the portrayal of them in the mainstream media. While we share many similar beliefs, we do engage in critical thinking, and when it needs to be done, we are willing to say NO, even to our President. When he is wrong about something, it's our obligation to call him on that. We aren't showing him true "loyalty" by being yes-men.

I don't like the negative connotation of using the word "crony," so I'll use the term Bush "loyalist." Loyalty is not a bad thing (esp. if one is a dog), however, it can be a bad thing, if it is uncritical or absolute. In general, it is a positive attribute, but it is not a "qualification," esp. to be appointed for life to the nation's highest court.

I suspect that if the current sense I'm getting from the conservative right continues unabated, and it is getting worse, not better -- while it might be initially embarrassing for President Bush, who by any standard is having a really bad month -- her nomination may be withdrawn. President Bush needs Republican support to get this through the Senate, as he cannot (and should not) rely on Democrats to get his nominees confirmed.

In the long run for the conservative movement, and for President Bush's legacy, it is far more important to get qualified conservative/ constitutional literalists on the court, than it is to protect President Bush's short term political rear. What goes down, eventually goes up (like, approval ratings). He still has three more years to get things back in the right direction. I dare say that we don't have three more years of letting the current atmosphere of judicial tyranny go unchecked, otherwise the country will be far worse off as a result.

Posted by: Will at October 12, 2005 2:19 AM


I am really disgusted in your little tyraid. The president has made a nomination and just because she is not a former Judge she is not qualified. Maybe we should look at all the problems that have happened with current sitting Judges. Did you ever think that maybe the President has made a good decision since now the Democrats are going to be hard pressed to find rulings that do not fit into there liberal lifestyles. Since I know your hero and mine is President Reagan how has his nomination of a Supreme Court Judge worked out? President George W. Bush has made the right decision, but only historains will be able to make that decision.

Posted by: Fred on the Blog at October 12, 2005 8:31 PM