Flap's Blog – FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog

George Will STRIKES OUT with Defending the Indefensible.

Such is the perfect perversity of the nomination of Harriet Miers that it discredits, and even degrades, all who toil at justifying it. Many of their justifications cannot be dignified as arguments. Of those that can be, some reveal a deficit of constitutional understanding commensurate with that which it is, unfortunately, reasonable to impute to Miers. Other arguments betray a gross misunderstanding of conservatism on the part of persons masquerading as its defenders.

Miers’s advocates, sensing the poverty of other possibilities, began by cynically calling her critics sexist snobs who disdain women with less than Ivy League degrees. Her advocates certainly know that her critics revere Margaret Thatcher almost as much as they revere the memory of the president who was educated at Eureka College.

Next, Miers’s advocates managed, remarkably, to organize injurious testimonials. Sensible people cringed when one of the former Texas Supreme Court justices summoned to the White House offered this reason for putting her on the nation’s highest tribunal: “I can vouch for her ability to analyze and to strategize.” Another said: “When we were on the lottery commission together, a lot of the problems that we had there were legal in nature. And she was just very, very insistent that we always get all the facts together.”

Miers’s advocates tried the incense defense: Miers is pious. But that is irrelevant to her aptitude for constitutional reasoning. The crude people who crudely invoked it probably were sending a crude signal to conservatives who, the invokers evidently believe, are so crudely obsessed with abortion that they have an anti-constitutional willingness to overturn Roe v. Wade with an unreasoned act of judicial willfulness as raw as the 1973 decision itself.

In their unseemly eagerness to assure Miers’s conservative detractors that she will reach the “right” results, her advocates betray complete incomprehension of this: Thoughtful conservatives’ highest aim is not to achieve this or that particular outcome concerning this or that controversy. Rather, their aim for the Supreme Court is to replace semi-legislative reasoning with genuine constitutional reasoning about the Constitution’s meaning as derived from close consideration of its text and structure. Such conservatives understand that how you get to a result is as important as the result. Indeed, in an important sense, the path that the Supreme Court takes to the result often is the result.

As Miers’s confirmation hearings draw near, her advocates will make an argument that is always false but that they, especially, must make, considering the unusual nature of their nominee. The argument is that it is somehow inappropriate for senators to ask a nominee — a nominee for a lifetime position making unappealable decisions of enormous social impact — searching questions about specific Supreme Court decisions and the principles of constitutional law that these decisions have propelled into America’s present and future.

To that argument, the obvious and sufficient refutation is: Why, then, have hearings? What, then, remains of the Senate’s constitutional role in consenting to nominees?

It is not merely permissible, it is imperative that senators give Miers ample opportunity to refute skeptics by demonstrating her analytic powers and jurisprudential inclinations by discussing recent cases concerning, for example, the scope of federal power under the commerce clause, the compatibility of the First Amendment with campaign regulations and privacy — including Roe v. Wade .

Can Miers’s confirmation be blocked? It is easy to get a senatorial majority to take a stand in defense of this or that concrete interest, but it is surpassingly difficult to get a majority anywhere to rise in defense of mere excellence.

Still, Miers must begin with 22 Democratic votes against her. Surely no Democrat can retain a shred of self-respect if, having voted against John Roberts, he or she then declares Miers fit for the court. All Democrats who so declare will forfeit a right and an issue — their right to criticize the administration’s cronyism.

And Democrats, with their zest for gender politics, need this reminder: To give a woman a seat on a crowded bus because she is a woman is gallantry. To give a woman a seat on the Supreme Court because she is a woman is a dereliction of senatorial duty. It also is an affront to mature feminism, which may bridle at gallantry but should recoil from condescension.

As for Republicans, any who vote for Miers will thereafter be ineligible to argue that it is important to elect Republicans because they are conscientious conservers of the judicial branch’s invaluable dignity. Finally, any Republican senator who supinely acquiesces in President Bush’s reckless abuse of presidential discretion — or who does not recognize the Miers nomination as such — can never be considered presidential material.

An intemperate snobbish piece. Flap reproduces it in its entirety and George Will’s email address so that you can let him know what you think.

georgewill@washpost.com

Although Flap no longers supports Harriet Miers’ confirmation, he does not subscribe to this tripe, nor does he personally attack the motives and civlity of others who support her.

The paragraph regarding “crude people” is just about enough.

George Will you are a MORON!

H/T: Metamorphosism for the graphic

Read other takes on this MORONIC piece:

Hugh Hewitt – President Will, Justice Powell and Chief Justice Wilkinson.

President Aristotle – Miss Miers the originalist and Mr Will

Jed Babbin – Will’s Dud Nuke

Flap again appeals for civility in the debate.

Technorati Tags: Supreme Court, George Bush, Harriet Miers, George Will, Hugh Hewitt

I oppose the Miers nomination.

The Truth Laid Bear has Call to Bloggers: Take Your Stand on Miers

Flap opposes the Miers nomination.

Armed Liberal, Flap’s partner in the Galloway protest is opposed too.

Captain Ed at Captain’s Quarters has Bad News Turns Into Flood On Miers.

In response, let me say that I have supported Miers’ confirmation up to now, almost exclusively on two bases: presidential prerogative and an assumption of basic competence, both on her part and the White House. The questionnaire has my confidence in the second basis badly shaken. The slapdash manner of its preparation tells me someone isn’t taking this seriously, and since Miers has her name on it, that’s her responsibility. The way she managed to antagonize Specter adds to that impression. She’s striking me as an imprecise and sloppy nominee for a position that requires absolute clarity and precision.

Given that, my reliance on presidential prerogative remains … but it doesn’t outweigh my objection to getting a substandard jurist on the Supreme Court. Waiting until the hearings for her to get exposed as that will prove a political disaster for the President and the GOP. For those reasons, I’d strongly suggest that the White House look for a way out of this, and fast.

Harriet Miers was not Flap’s first choice for nomination to the Unites States Supreme Court. Flap thought President Bush would chose another Texas jurist and former Texas Supreme Court Justice, Priscilla Owen. The President should rethink his choice.

Harriet Miers’ confirmation process is not going well:

1. Numerous petitions against her nomination

2. Numerous mis-steps in the nomination process with blunders with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter and then the poorly written/constructed Senate Judiciary Committee Questionnaire

3. Numerous editorials asking for a withdrawl of the nomination here and here.

Flap understands that this choice is the President’s perogative.

However, Flap no longer believes Harriet Miers can be confirmed.

The Democrats will not vote for her because of her pro-life evangelical proclivities. John Fund of the Wall Street Journal “outed” a stealth deal on Roe v. Wade.

Republican Senators will be conflicted to vote her out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. She does not need a positive recommendation from the committee but Flap cannot imagine a majority of Senators voting for a nominee who cannot muster a majority committee vote.

So, why go through a brutal hearing process?

Harriet Miers should ask the President withdraw her nomination and she should resume her duties as White House Counsel.

The President should then nominate former Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen.

or any of these other fine federal appeals court judges:

Janice Rogers Brown

Edith Clement

Edith Hollan Jones

Charles Krauthammer has a reasonable face-saving approach here.

Technorati Tags: Supreme Court, George Bush, Sandra Day O’Connor, Janice Rogers Brown, Edith Clement, Edith Hollan Jones, Priscilla Owen, Harriet Miers

President Bush and wife Laura at the dedication of an Air Force One exhibit at the Reagan Library.

The San Francisco Chronicle has Bush visit stirs election anxiety Governor skips event — his backers call trip ill-timed

President Bush sought to draw a link between himself and former President Ronald Reagan on Friday, comparing his war on terrorism to the Cold War — even as a political cold war continued between Bush and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who was a glaring no-show during the president’s two-day California trip.

Reagan “recognized that freedom was opposed by dangerous enemies,” Bush said at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library here. “And … America has always prevailed by standing firmly on principles and never backing down in the face of evil.”

But Bush’s visit, at a party fundraiser Thursday night and at the dedication Friday of an Air Force One exhibit at the library before an audience of high-profile state and national Republicans, was termed “ill-timed” by supporters of the governor, who is facing a difficult special election in just over two weeks.

So, what affect will this FLAP have on the California Special Election?

Well, at least the Governor did not have to witness the Bush/Arnold hybrid protesters.

“The governor’s got challenges, and it’s a very tense time for both of them,” said Ken Khachigian, a former Reagan speechwriter and longtime political adviser. “I think they’re both extremely focused on what they’re doing, and as a result, the challenges are higher and the emotions rise.

“… The president’s trip to California will have no effect on the outcome of the special election, and the governor’s not showing up here will have no effect on President Bush,” Khachigian said. “Staff people just got carried away on both sides.”

Agreed!

The President had a good event and the Governor had a few bad press pieces but the FLAP will all but be forgotten by Monday’s press cycle.

Technorati Tags: Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Recovery Team, California Special Election, George Bush, Proposition 74, Proposition 75, Proposition 76, Proposition 77, Bear Flag League

Cross-posted to the Bear Flag League Special Election Page

and

Cross Posted to the SoCal Law Blog

U.S. Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers sits in the office of Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO) on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, October 20, 2005.

Reuters has Miers supported affirmative action: paper.

U.S. Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers supported affirmative action goals in the early 1990s when she served as president of the State Bar of Texas, the Washington Post reported on Saturday.

Miers wrote that “our legal community must reflect our population as a whole,” and under her leadership the lawyers’ association supported racial and gender set-asides and numerical targets for jobs, the newspaper reported.

The piece written in the Washington Post is titled, Miers Backed Race, Sex Set-Asides

She Made Diversity A Texas Bar Goal

The Supreme Court nominee’s words and actions from the early 1990s, when she held key leadership positions as president-elect and president of the state bar, provide the first window into her personal views on affirmative action, an area in which the Supreme Court is closely divided and where Miers could tip the court’s balance.

Her tenure at the bar association also could provide new fodder for conservatives opposed to her nomination, as President Bush seeks to quell a rebellion on the right over his selection of Miers.

To some conservatives, the types of policies pursued by the Texas bar association amount to reverse discrimination. One of the chief complaints on the right against Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales was that he clashed with conservatives who wanted to take a harder line against affirmative action.

Texas Bar Question and Answer for Harriet Miers is here.

Texas Bar Journal 1992: Inclusion, Education and Monitoring.

Another nail in the coffin for Harriet Miers’ nomination. This will not help her with any Democrat Senators and further alienates Bush’s conservative base.

Flap handicaps her withdrawl tonight (Saturday).

The President has made a mistake and MUST correct it before this nomination becomes more of an embarassment.

Captain Ed asks Is Miers A Quota Queen, Or Just Misquoted?

Patterico is still on the Ledge.