Give Miers A Break: Sure I Will

18 October 2005

I will give Harriet Miers a break and listen closely to what she says in the upcoming hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. However, it will have little to do woth Melanie Kirkpatrick's Opinion Journal column Give Her a Break I will listen and evaluate becasue it is the fair and correct thing to do in looking at everynominee for any position. I originally was a part of the revolt but was called back to conscience by Lindsey Graham, who rightly demanded a little quiet so we could learn who Ms. Miers is and about her views on important constitutional questions.

It is the lack of imformation about Ms. Miers and the back door attempts made by the administration and supporters that makes me uncomfortable. Why not go completely public with your campaign in support of the nomination? The senators are not even sure, but yet Mr. Dobson knows. This is just not right.

Persidnet Bush has nominated wonderful people in the past, so that does give comfort, however, these individuals were known quantities that we could honestly evaluate. Ms. Miers is not in this category and the writings that have been released are not convincing. However, we should not rush to dismiss her, but should evaluate her nomination in context.

The ire provoed by this nomination is due in no small part to President Bush's commitment to nominating strict constructionist judges. The fear is justified because of David Souter. However, we are not yet in a position to say that she is unequivacolly unqualified, although it looks that way. I am hearing good things coming out of her meetings with senators. However, it really is about how she handles the hearings becasue many people can dazzle in a one-on-one meetin, but falter in an open public hearing.

The president has fought hard to keep his promise because of Democrat filibusters of his nominees. However, many of them are now sitting on the bench and the ones that aren't are being denied for specific reasons. One example is Mr. Saad who has been help up since the improper revelation of Sen. Reid of the contents of a confidential FBI report which biases his chances. Another is example of a stalled nominee is Mr. Haynes, who is held up in committee becasue of his role in "formulating" the policy that contributed to the environment that led to the prosoner abuse scandals that have not completely run their course yet.

The renominations and recess appointment show that President Bush does not back down when he wants something. However, the reason for the Democrat filibuster was becasue President Bush had not sought the advice of the Senate, although the constitution requires it. The important thing is the requirement is to seek but he doesn't necessarily follow the advice. Weather the President follows the advice or not the Senate has a Constitutional duty to give the nominee an up-or-down vote, providing the nominee makes it out of committee. The committee is the proper place to stop an unqualified nominee.

It is true that Mr. Estrad's nomination languished completely. However, Ms. Rogers, Mrs. Owen, and Mr Pryor were all confirmed because of a deal made by 14 senators who wanted to return to other business and not take up all of the Senate's time on judicial nominations. "Extraordinary circumstance," the provision in the deal that troubles most conservatives is does not include the ideology of the nominee. An extraordinary circumstance would be a unqualified nominee or one that lack personal character or has ethical issues. If President had wanted to nominate Luttig, Jones, or Alito he would have. The point is that it is very likely that he would have nominated Ms. Miers even absent the deal becasue he "knows her heart." The conservatives should question and direct thier ire at President, a lame duck because regardless of the Group of 14 the ball is in his court when making the nomination. It is his legacy, not that of the Senate.

Directing the ire at Lindsey Graham and John McCain is not fair. They were trying to do what was best for the country and the Senate as an institution. Going down the nuckear road over the judicial nominees would have started us down a slippery slope toward eliminating all filibusters. More important though it would have foreever changed the operation of the senate becasue in order to institute the "Constitutional Option" as the Republicans called it would have meant breaking rule V in order to change Rule XXII in order to allow the President of the Senate Dick Chaney to overrule the parlimentarian and rule the filibuster dilatory. This has grave consequences becasue it makes the Senate in general and the nomination process specifically more political. This ia a road we did not want to go down. Sen. Graham was and is a 'yes ' vote if it becaomes necessary, but lets hope and pray it does not.

We have no obligation to support Ms. Miers nomination, but we do need to "be quiet" and giver her a chance to prove her case in the hearings. The president is do some deference, but that does not mean to roll over and not think and evaluate.

 Create your own free wiki!Help Add to Del.ici.ous Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to fUrl Add to SpurlPublic, not yet premium Privacy Policy RSS