Thursday, October 13, 2005
Memos on Miers
I have been giving the nomination of Harriet Miers some more thought, especially in all of the further commentary on both sides of the issue, particularly from fellow conservatives. I have some free-form thoughts about the whole dust up in no particular order:
Memo to Hugh Hewitt: In Dana Milbank's piece in the Washington Post, Jonah Goldberg was quoted as saying that the really big disappointment with Dubya was over the response to Katrina and the unchecked spending. Addressing this context would be helpful in the debate over Ms. Miers. I think many of the issues of immigration, federal spending and the like were bubbling below the surface and they hit an emotional flashpoint with the Miers nomination. It doesn't justify the continuation of The Big Sulk in any way, but I think it would go a long way towards addressing the trust issue with this president.
Memo to The White House: Will you people please stop with this "you're being sexist!" nonsense? I can't think of a single conservative critic who has said that she shouldn't be nominated because she is a woman. I haven't heard or read any conservative critic say that men are or would be better judges than women. Charges of sexism are usually the provence of leftists in our country, not responsible adults in this administration. Steal a page from Hugh Hewitt or borrow a page from Beldar if you want to sound cogent and intelligent on this issue, but please put the "sexist" charge back in the box for others.
Memo to David Frum: if the nomination were indeed sinking and if she were to be voted down, then this would make for a self-fulfilling prophecy, would it not? So I'm clear on this, not getting behind the nominee helps sink her so you and your colleagues can say "see? We told you she wasn't good enough for the court!" The benefit of this scenario would be what exactly? Note to the gang at NRO: does anyone there have personal recollections of when the late justice Rhenquist was nominated by Richard Nixon? Is it possible for anyone there to imagine a high jurist not coming from the appellate courts, seeing as how we haven't had one in 30 plus years at the very least?
One final thought: Let's assume that the insinuations made by Mr. Frum and his anonymous sources are right and Ms. Miers is a completely blank slate except for what her client du jour of the moment inputs into her head and she heads to Capitol Hill to represent the president's views there. I think that even if she were merely representing the president's views and not "her own", then by all means let the views of Dubya come into full view on national t.v. Not even the sulkiest of her critics seriously question her skill as an advocate and lawyer. Ms. Miers deserves to be heard for better or for worse. I have gotten over my letdown and I think she will be a fine nominee and hopefully a fine justice.
Memo to Hugh Hewitt: In Dana Milbank's piece in the Washington Post, Jonah Goldberg was quoted as saying that the really big disappointment with Dubya was over the response to Katrina and the unchecked spending. Addressing this context would be helpful in the debate over Ms. Miers. I think many of the issues of immigration, federal spending and the like were bubbling below the surface and they hit an emotional flashpoint with the Miers nomination. It doesn't justify the continuation of The Big Sulk in any way, but I think it would go a long way towards addressing the trust issue with this president.
Memo to The White House: Will you people please stop with this "you're being sexist!" nonsense? I can't think of a single conservative critic who has said that she shouldn't be nominated because she is a woman. I haven't heard or read any conservative critic say that men are or would be better judges than women. Charges of sexism are usually the provence of leftists in our country, not responsible adults in this administration. Steal a page from Hugh Hewitt or borrow a page from Beldar if you want to sound cogent and intelligent on this issue, but please put the "sexist" charge back in the box for others.
Memo to David Frum: if the nomination were indeed sinking and if she were to be voted down, then this would make for a self-fulfilling prophecy, would it not? So I'm clear on this, not getting behind the nominee helps sink her so you and your colleagues can say "see? We told you she wasn't good enough for the court!" The benefit of this scenario would be what exactly? Note to the gang at NRO: does anyone there have personal recollections of when the late justice Rhenquist was nominated by Richard Nixon? Is it possible for anyone there to imagine a high jurist not coming from the appellate courts, seeing as how we haven't had one in 30 plus years at the very least?
One final thought: Let's assume that the insinuations made by Mr. Frum and his anonymous sources are right and Ms. Miers is a completely blank slate except for what her client du jour of the moment inputs into her head and she heads to Capitol Hill to represent the president's views there. I think that even if she were merely representing the president's views and not "her own", then by all means let the views of Dubya come into full view on national t.v. Not even the sulkiest of her critics seriously question her skill as an advocate and lawyer. Ms. Miers deserves to be heard for better or for worse. I have gotten over my letdown and I think she will be a fine nominee and hopefully a fine justice.
Comments:
Post a Comment
