Great piece written by Ken Masugi for The Claremont Institute about the Miers nomination.
From my experience in the Thomas court nominations, I recall many of the accusations now being hurled at Harriet Miers. (See, most recently, this attack by Bork and this story; Specter chimes in.) Thomas, for whom I was a special assistant (1986-90) when he was Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, was called a lightweight scholar, an affirmative action appointee, and even a dangerous thinker for proposing that the Declaration of Independence gave meaning to the Constitution. Those were conservative criticisms. Thomas supporter George Will referred to his "half-baked" natural law theories.
There were grimaces when the first President Bush called him the most qualified nominee?which of course he was. (I dissent somewhat from Confirm Them?s account, which confirms me in the flaws of conservative criticism of Meirs.)
But he defied all these criticisms to become the best originalist justice on the Court and the leading conservative government official in America. Does the Thomas nomination offer a guide to understanding Miers?
As I have argued before, President Bush has a strategy with the Meirs nomination, to create a Roberts Court in a different image (hoping he can have at least another appointment). Most of Thomas?s supporters and critics regarded him as a black conservative instead of a bold thinker who saw the need to preserve freedom by undoing the bureaucratic state. To have said that openly would of course have been fatal to his nomination prospects. (SeeNo Left Turns.)
We have a better view of Bush?s ambition for Miers in Senator Cornyn?s defense of her, calling her a justice who would bring the ?dangerously out of touch? court ?back down to earth.? This means not just replacing one justice with another but altering the public perception of the court as well. Hence Meirs? faith plays a political role. To tame the Court we need a combination of skills: Thomas?s originalism, Scalia?s rhetorical brilliance, Roberts? legal skills, and now Miers? practical experience, producing a plain reading of the Constitution.
At first it seems odd that conservatives seem to be the ones ready to filibuster (led by Trent Lott?) over a lost intellectual feast/food-fight. In fact, it reflects the narrowness of conservative thinking, which has focused on replacing one justice with another, instead of considering changing the entire institution. Still the White House must have a campaign strategy for her, and she needs to impress. See Power Line’s warnings.
Mike over at Mike’s America put in more bluntly:
The problem with California CONSERVATIVES is a microcosm of the reason WHY we do NOT have a Conservative majority government. Too many of you are more interested in some vague notion of ideological purity and will allow your friends to go down to defeat by splitting the party before you will work together.
And this is what I have been saying all along. Have some faith in Bush, he is not a stupid man. I do not know if these leftwing wackjobs have finally gotten into the heads of some conservatives but the whining going on is just amazing. He is putting her up for the bench for a reason, and it is not cronyism. Have some faith people.
The idea that understanding the Constitution is beyond the ability of ordinary citizens is basically taking the leftist position of “you are too dumb to understand this” kind of elitism. This Conservative rebellion may very well end up putting the Democrats in power.
And this is what I have been saying all along. Have some faith in Bush, he is not a stupid man. I do not know if these leftwing wackjobs have finally gotten into the heads of some conservatives but the whining going on is just amazing. He is putting her up for the bench for a reason, and it is not cronyism. Have some faith people.
See author page
