Mort Kondracke on Miers: Not His Finest Moment
Sloppy, sloppy piece from a normally astute commentator on the Miers nomination. Here’s Mort Kondracke on Miers and abortion:
On their hottest-button issue, abortion, Bush claimed not to have discussed matters with Miers and he claimed not to have imposed a litmus test. But the manager of her 1989 campaign for the Dallas City Council said that Miers is “on the extreme end of the anti-choice movement.”
Lorlee Bartos, now a Web logger in Dallas, told the Dallas Morning News that Miers was “pro-choice in her youth” but underwent “a born-again, profound experience” that led her to oppose abortion. Despite such evidence, Democrats are holding their fire on Miers, apparently in deference to the Napoleonic dictum that one is well-advised not to interfere when the enemy is in the process of destroying itself.
Despite such evidence? Hearsay from the manager of her City Council race 16 years ago is evidence? I suppose it is…very weak evidence, one might say.
Then there’s Kondracke on the upcoming hearings:
Miers’ Senate judiciary hearings will be even more suspenseful than Roberts’ were.
Well, yes, I suspect they will be…after all, waiting to see if the sun will rise in the morning is more suspenseful than the Roberts hearing were.
I’m not sure what insight we are expected to take away from this article…that conservatives aren’t happy? That Miers will probably be confirmed anyway? Well, yes, and yes…and?…
Why do people assume a Roe litmus test was applied to Miers and not to Roberts, who was vetted by Miers? Or rather why does it define the Miers nomination but not the Roberts nomination? And is she allowed to be pro-life even if she hasn’t assured the President she will vote to overturn Roe? This is all ridiculous.
Here are the scenario’s that change things-
1. The GOP Senators will have to get a ‘gang of 6′ to tell the President that she is unsupportable. Given their inability to buck the party, no one wants to lead that charge, let alone go look for five other Senators. The risk of torpedoing a Bush nominee, and the effects it may have on their reelection. She’ll get her hearing-and the Republicans who are queezy, will be given the opportunity to examine her credentials. Watch for a suspension of the Ginsburg rule-she will be required to answer. The dems can continue to sit back and watch…
2. The only thing that will move this ball for the dems, is the reality that she may be a Scalia-parrot. Replacing the ’4′ on a conservative scale/O’conner, with waht may be a ’9′, will start to sink in. I’m shocked at the restraint shown by Neas…but if she comes out as ‘pro-life’ (actually just pro-states rights), he will have to start up the ads. The die hard dems are getting nervous, but are paralyzed, in the hope that the GOP will do their bidding-
The problem is that if she fails to be confirmed, more likely from abstentions than ‘no’ votes, the opportunity to put out a conservative with credentials will be golden.
3. She has to make it out of committee. The dems would be wise to abstain from voting-leave it on the republican’s conscious-can the dems on the judicary committee refuse the opprtunity to sand bag a Bush ‘crony’(their words, not mine)?
Prediction:
Look at the Republican members:
Hatch, Sessions, DeWine, Graham, Cornyn, Brownback, Coburn, Grassley, Kyl.
All are in safe seats, except DeWine. Graham is questionable as to how he’ll vote. Grassley is at odds with his wish to give health care to the childless adults of NO and what the Whiteohuse wants, and did in fact carry Social Security reform for Bush…but now feels jilted by the Whitehouse failing to back his plan. Grassley is a good man, and loyal, but he has been shafted as of late, afte sticking his neck out for the Bush admin. He’ll vote yes, for Hatch, as I’m sure he still is loyal to him, but it won’t be a yes vote to support Bush. If Grassley says no, a big if, this thing ends in committee.
The Dems:
Leahy, Kennedy, Biden, Kohl, Fienstein, Feingold, Scumer, and Durbin.
Do they dig in, start a fight…and hope for a defection…or let her pass, so that the GOP will gut itself in full Senate? They are asking themselves, do we let her pass, and run the risk that she is confirmed or fight her in committee as an ‘unqualified crony’ and spare the GOP the spectacle? Would her possible confirmation weaken the GOP, or would her rejection strenghten them?
She comes out of committee without democratic reccomendation…without anything to base their opinions on, it is a strong position. If they defeat her, are they doing the GOP a favor.
(This whole thing got started when Harry Reid let slip, “Harriet Meirs would be an appropraite nominee”-Rove and Bush probaly hadn’t thought about, until they heard that, finished laughing their asses off-and thought ‘slam dunk’ conservative, approved by Reid.)
She will be confirmed, the pundits will spend a few more years reading her opinions, the ones that she shares with Thomas and Scalia, and try and sound smart by pointing to her lack of intellect, while she is sharing a 100% record of voting with Scalia. Best of luck to Frum and NRO, spinning that her appointment was a huge failure.
MtL: One question–given that the Gang of 14 has given its tacit approval to the Miers appointment, won’t the “gang” in point one have to be at least 13 Republicans willing to go against the President? I admit math isn’t my strong suit, but that number seems a lot harder to achieve and changes the scenario for me. Otherwise I think you’re dead on, especially the last point.
We might have to get us some new pundits.
How is her appointment not a huge failure if she votes 100% of the time with Scalia? I don’t mean politically, I mean for the country. If she’s nothing but a Scalia parrot, we are in seriously bad shape. Even Thomas and Scalia disagree a whole lot more than some other pairs of justices, and that’s as it should be. If Miers does not have at least a few serious disagreements with Scalia (or Thomas, or Roberts), she would almost certainly be a bad justice.
“How is her appointment not a huge failure if she votes 100% of the time with Scalia?”
If you want a law, write it. Don’t ask the SC to make one for you. Unelected, unaccoutable…
Best have them interpret, and not create.
“Even Thomas and Scalia disagree a whole lot more than some other pairs of justices…”
What other pair do you mean?
Scalia-lite, baby…except that Marijuana thing, Clarence batted it out of the park.
Gang of 14-their commitment is that a justice deserves an up/down vote, not confirmation.
Eugene Volokh did a comparison a while ago and it turns out Scalia and Thomas rank something like sixth among the pairs of justices who agree with each other most. Calling Thomas Scalia-lite is both insulting to his intelligence and in contradiction with the facts.
As for that first part of your comment, I can only assume you are claiming that there is no ambiguity in the Constitution or the laws. That is, at best, nonsense.
You got the link to Volokh?
I’d love to see those numbers….
The Scalia light comment was in regards to Meirs…