Trap sprung
Regardless of how you feel about the Miers nomination, you have to be willfully obtuse in order to miss the fact that Bush’s team is handling at least one half of the aftermath brilliantly. How so, you ask? By highlighting her religion. Miers, like Bush and like your humble writer, is an evangelical Christian–and may possibly be the first such person on the Supreme Court, at least of the modern variety. What makes this so brilliant? The simple fact is that when you hoist the evangelical flag, it drives some people into something of a fury. It’s like a big juicy steak, and there are some who just can’t resist going after it.
And then the trap springs. Because Americans don’t like seeing Christians attacked for being Christian, period. And that’s what’s happening. Liberal groups, of course, are going after it. Dick Durbin, unsurprisingly, couldn’t stop himself. And now Captain Ed notes that it’s spread to the various arms of liberal media. As the Captain mentions, Miers is not particularly popular with evangelicals–yet. But if the hearings include even a smidge of anti-Christian language from Democrats, that will change quickly, and any question of her nomination being approved (a somewhat silly question even now) will disappear.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. To comment, please register. No profanity, please. Non-family-friendly words will be changed to amusing euphemisms as suits the author.
October 14th, 2005 at 3:12 am
The Religious Litmus Test
Everyone is jumping all over President Bush for making religion a litmus test for selecting Harriet Miers as judge. Here’s an example, from Captain Ed.
… the White House has openly embraced religion as a key qualification for the nominat…
October 14th, 2005 at 3:19 pm
I, too, have to gaze in awe at the political skill of this particularly cunning trick.
First, Bush gives us the three best possible reasons to support a nominee, 1, She is a woman. 2, She is an evangelical Christian. 3. She is a close friend of George Bush, like Arlen Specter. Now, all debate has to be centered on three questions 1. Who is the best woman for the job? 2. Do we love or hate “evangelical” Christians? 3. Do we trust that Miers will do exactly as Bush wants? None of this silly and divisive discussion of Constitutional Philosophy! Who needs it? How could this strategy fail to unite the Country? Brilliant! Tricky! Brilliant!
October 14th, 2005 at 6:16 pm
If you want to discuss Constitutional Philosophy, start a club. If you want to get conservative justices on the bench, support Harriet Miers.
October 14th, 2005 at 7:32 pm
“trap sprung”–nice try.
We don’t need another club to discuss Constitutional Philosophy, we need proven constructionsists on the bench. We can’t afford to “just trust” the President’s word, when so much is at stake. This is a life time appointment. If Bush wants support from his party’s base, he should pull the nomination or better yet, Harriet Miers should say, “No thank you.”
October 14th, 2005 at 7:41 pm
Drop back one post: the base is a-okay with Miers. And I’d rather trust the president than most anyone else. And you’ve always got to trust someone, no matter who gets put on the court.
October 14th, 2005 at 7:55 pm
If you mean “who is the base”, I’m ahead of you. Read my comment there.
October 14th, 2005 at 8:50 pm
I would think your whole point would be not to put “conservatives” on the bench but to seat “Goddard Core” judges, people for whom ideology takes a back seat to Republican power loyalty. People who are Republican first and conservative or constructionist (or not, of course, it really doesn’t matter as long as you are “Core”) as an after-thought.
On that criterion, Miers would appear to be a homerun. Isn’t that why you REALLY support her? Be honest. Are we, suddenly, to be more political about the judicial branch than the legislative or executive, trusting W. for a constitutional conservative? Why does it suddenly matter to you now? Judging the GOP power elite on principle is your arch-nemesis! You are eloquent in opposition to it! Viability is all that matters!
Tell me she’s loyal, I believe you. Tell me the McCain/Feingold bill (one of many that measure this President’s commitment) is “constitutionally conservative” and I can go back to laughing.
October 14th, 2005 at 9:31 pm
Please elaborate for me how a judge would go about putting “Republican power loyalty” ahead of ideology? In reality, I would prefer that they would put the law ahead of both, but reality is obviously not high on your priority list.
October 15th, 2005 at 6:47 pm
Thanks for pointing out the evangelical christian part–her being the first that is. It’s huge because most others have tended to be hard to nominate and confirm because they were so outspoken…saying more than they should perhaps. Someone like Roberts, a Catholic, is much better at isolating his beliefs from public view–not always a good thing mind you, but he was brilliant at his hearing.
Quite frankly, I don’t see anything wrong with nominating an outsider. Those who invoke the “souter problem” against Miers seem to forget that Souter was supposedly a proven conservative. He was an insider. That’s often what “proven” means for Washington politics.
October 15th, 2005 at 9:47 pm
What actions could a Judge take to put “Republican power loyalty” ahead of ideology?
1. She could hold McCain/Feingold to be constitutional.
2. She could hold “No child left behind” to be constitutional.
3. She could construe the “interstate commerce clause” to justify the Federal Government intruding into the prerogative of the States when it concerns Republican legislation, but not when it concerns evil Democrat legislation.
4. She could loyally rule in the Republican Party’s favor in political disputes over districting, election fraud, etc., but ignore Constitutional problems with police powers as is alleged with the Patriot Act.
5. She could find the much coveted GOP-middle/left compromise on Roe v Wade and legislate it from the bench.
6. She could find the much coveted GOP-middle/left “civil unions” compromise on gay rights and legislate it from the bench “fixing” Lawrence, etc.
7. In short, she could be another Sandra Day O’Connor. http://www.thereaganwing.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=PagEd&file=index&page_id=243
…to name a few, just in theory of course.
October 15th, 2005 at 9:53 pm
My, that’s quite the theory. Fortunately, we’ll have about 25 years of Miers on the bench to see if it pans out.
October 16th, 2005 at 10:23 pm
Who’s going to win next year’s Senate race?
October 16th, 2005 at 10:34 pm
With 100% confidence, I can assure you that it won’t be Harriet Miers.
October 17th, 2005 at 2:22 pm
C’mon, Timothy, you have that same precognitive ability Medved does. You not only can see 25 years into the future, as your above post makes clear, you can determine how history would have been had principals to a given event acted differently. I don’t think you should deny us the joy of a political prophesy that’s barely over a year away. I think we should demand to know who the GOP nominee will be in ’08 as well!
Be reasonable.
“Should she survive the hearings, liberal groups may demand that Democrats filibuster her. Republican senators, already hesitant to back Ms. Miers after heavy blowback from their conservative base, would likely lack the will to trigger the so-called nuclear option. “The nomination is in real trouble,” one GOP senator told me. “Not one senator wants to go through the agony of those hearings, even those who want to vote for her.” Even if Ms. Miers avoids a filibuster, it’s possible Democrats would join with dissident Republicans to defeat her outright.” - Fund, WSJ.
Fund, obviously, failed to check with any of our GOP precogs, although I tend to agree with you for reasons other than your self-proclaimed ESP.
Harriet’s base is the Goddard Core who will vote for her out of blind core loyalty. She may lose conservatives during testimony, but she’ll pick up Democrats. So add those who vote based on substance (whatever substance there is doesn’t matter, left or right) to the unprincipled core base and you have to calculate confirmation.
October 17th, 2005 at 5:41 pm
. I think we should demand to know who the GOP nominee will be in ’08 as well!
John McCain. Come on, give me a hard one.
She may lose conservatives during testimony, but she’ll pick up Democrats.
Wait, wait–who’s the precog here, me or you?
October 17th, 2005 at 9:54 pm
So John McCain will be the GOP nominee in ‘08. So according to Timothy, is this a good thing? Just so I understand where you’re coming from.
October 17th, 2005 at 10:02 pm
It’s not the best thing, but what is? He’ll only serve one term, he’ll bring along a lot of Republicans with him, and he’ll probably get Social Security reform passed, which is my major non-social domestic policy issue. He’ll also be the first deficit hawk in the oval office in years. That’s not something I care about much compared to most issues, but you folk seem to think is vitally important.
I’ve got a serious question for you–if the choice comes down to Giuliani & McCain, which it likely does, who do you choose? I pick McCain. I think that’s the conservative choice–don’t you?
October 17th, 2005 at 10:44 pm
Timothy,
I don’t think it’s going to come down to one of those two. I hope not, anyway. I’m not for Condi either. There are a number of conservatives that would be much better, but they’re not viable (by that I mean widely known) yet, but I hope they do something quick to make them so. I don’t think we have to necessarily know who the nominee is yet. I don’t claim to be a pre-cog. I can tell you this: if it comes down to the two choices you say, there will be a major split in the party and it might be a good thing in the long run.
October 17th, 2005 at 10:51 pm
I choose Giuliani in a heartbeat.
He has bucketloads of executive experience, and was a great prosecutor and a sterling mayor.
In fact, he was the most effective NYC mayor since Koch, and more effective than Bloomberg is now.
McCain has some good ideas, but he’s been in the Legislative branch a LONG time. There’s a big difference between setting policy, and running the show.
I predict that McCain will NOT be the ‘08 GOP nominee.
October 17th, 2005 at 10:56 pm
Wow. Here’s a first. If it does come down to those two (which as I said, I sure hope not), I also predict that Giuliani will beat him in a heartbeat. They’re virtually the same in their positions, but Giuliani doesn’t have the image of betraying conservatives all the time. Giuliani remains popular because his positions are not as well known as McCain’s are. He also showed tremendous strength after 9/11 which people usually associate with conservatism, thank you.
October 18th, 2005 at 3:32 am
I don’t believe it is possible for John McCain, traitor
to the Constitution, to become President, unless, like Ford, he is someone else’s vice president and ascends by attrition. If he is the nominee (and perhaps even if it’s ”Ruby” Giuliani) it will be the best thing that ever happened to the Constitution Party. They’ve been waiting years for just such a core betrayal. Their objective has been to eclipse the GOP image as “home” in the mind of principled conservatives. The establishment that has been drawing conservative blood all these decades my hit an artery. You think the reaction to Miers was bad? You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.
October 18th, 2005 at 8:19 pm
Heh heh heh. I knew that would hit a nerve.
Doug: if McCain’s candidacy sends you off to the Constitution party, then sign me up for his campaign staff.
RiE: You’d choose the pro-gun control, pro-choice, pro-gay marriage dude from New York over the pro-life, anti-gay marriage, deficit hawk from Arizona? I expect that from a social liberal like Michael, but I expected better from you.
At any rate, I’ll save most of the McCain stuff for later. We’ll have plenty of time to talk about his candidacy in the future, and this thread was about something else entirely.
October 18th, 2005 at 11:13 pm
I maintain that their positions are virtually the same. McCain is not a deficit hawk when it comes to spending, he’s not pro-life and he doesn’t support a constitutional amendment on marriage. I don’t favor either one of them. I’m just saying that Giuliani has the image of being tougher and not betraying conservatives. I wouldn’t vote for either one of them.
And if you think it’s a good thing that conservatives leave and join the Constitution party, you’re not as loyal of a Republican as I thought you were. Isn’t your priority to win elections? What happened to the “big tent” mentality?
October 19th, 2005 at 9:56 am
What made you think I’d leave for the Constitution party? You really know how to construct a straw man, don’t you?
But let’s put the shoe on the other foot. Suppose Jimmy Carter became a Republican and won the Washington State primary for Governor. He’d be “core” in a heartbeat, perfectly acceptable to Evans/Gorton/Dunn/Reed/Hague/Von Reichbauer/Neighbors, etc. He’s even more conservative than three on that list. You’d vote for him, wouldn’t you?
October 19th, 2005 at 10:05 am
My link, above for Ruby Giuliani is broken, I think. Here’s the url:
http://www.thereaganwing.com/index.php?module=ContentExpress&func=display&ceid=19
October 19th, 2005 at 1:19 pm
Carter would make a passable Republican.
The problem isn’t that he isn’t conservative enough, it’s that he’s incompetent.
October 23rd, 2005 at 12:43 am
Well, Michael….
Trap sprung!
October 23rd, 2005 at 12:51 pm
Yes. You’ve cleverly trapped… something. I’m not clear what, but your preposterous hypothetical has surely… done something great. Good work.
October 24th, 2005 at 10:24 am
I’d say it certainly worked better than the President’s “trap” that he supposedly sprung. Doug was making the point that if Jimmy Carter was the WSRP nominee, he be “conservative enough” for “you people”. Though I know you claim not to agree with Michael on much, but you two sure come down on the same side often enough, judging by this blog.