ConfirmThem

By AndrewHyman Comments () / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

The Democratic Senate Minority Leader is thanking the President for nominating Miers, but emphasizing he may vote "no" anyway. I agree that it's best to remain uncommitted until the hearings.

Meanwhile, one of our readers emailed with this:

You are all prejudging Harriet Miers based on a mountain of ignorance. I know Harriet Miers, so I know how wrong you are. It’s obvious that you don’t intend to give her a fair shake. But ponder whether this might just be the case: Bush had a choice between naming a conservative originalist who could be readily confirmed, or naming a conservative originalist who could bring about a bloody Senate battle. Which choice is the most intelligent?

Actually, the opinion here at confirmthem has not been monolothic. Carol hasn't criticized Miers, and I have also expressed hopes that she will offer more encouraging testimony than Judge Roberts did. I view the concept of "legislating from the bench" as being pretty much synonymous with the concept of "substantive due process" (which is the bogus doctrine that underlies many of the Court's most controversial cases, from Roe v. Wade to Lawrence v. Texas). Justices Scalia and Thomas are on record against the doctrine, Judge Roberts expressed support for it, and we'll see what Ms. Miers does.

President Bush gave a press conference today, defending the nomination. An excerpt is below the fold.

Q Thank you, sir. You said a few minutes ago that you're proudly conservative, but there was a lot of hand-wringing when you made your nomination yesterday on Harriet Miers. Bill Kristol said he was "depressed and demoralized," and Rush Limbaugh said it was a "nomination out of weakness." What do you say to these critics, specifically, and how can you convince them that she is as conservative as Justices Scalia and Thomas?

THE PRESIDENT: I guess I'll start over. I hope they're listening. First, she's a woman of enormous accomplishment. She is -- she understands the law, she's got a keen mind, she will not legislate from the bench. I also remind them that I think it's important to bring somebody from outside the system, the judicial system, somebody that hasn't been on the bench and, therefore, there's not a lot of opinions for people to look at.

Harriet Miers will testify; there's going to be a lot of attention paid to her testimony. First of all, she will go meet with the senators, individually, and then she'll answer questions. And people will get to see not only her strength of character, but will get a sense of her judicial philosophy. I'm hopeful she'll get confirmed, and then they'll get to read her opinions. And what I believe, and what I know is important, is that she doesn't change over the course of time. And had I thought she would change, I wouldn't put her on there. And I recognize that if you pick somebody from outside the judicial system -- in other words, you pick somebody that's not a judge and they didn't -- hadn't written a lot of opinions -- then people are going to guess, and they're going to speculate.

I don't have to guess and speculate about Harriet. I know her character, I know her strength, I know her talent, and I know she's going to be a fine judge.

Bill.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. You've spoken a lot today about knowing Ms. Miers and knowing her history and knowing what she's about. Earlier this summer, you stood up for Rafael Palmeiro when you were asked about whether or not you thought he took steroids, and then he tested positive. Do you think he should face perjury charges?

THE PRESIDENT: I think that steroids ought to be banned from baseball. And Jackson asked me -- sitting right over there -- about his statement, and I said I believed him when he testified. But let me be very clear about this. Steroids ought to be banned from baseball. And I'm sure the Congress will look as to whether or not he broke the law.

Hmm. Have we got a Pameiro situation here?