(Adapted from a comment I left at OTB).
It strikes me that Harriet Miers’ nomination has wholly redefined the notion of a “stealth” candidate.
While I agree, overall, as to the nature of these Senate questionnaires, it does seem to me that the inability of Miers to deal with them underscores the fact that it is requisite to appoint someone who has spent some time actually thinking about these things prior to their nominations. “Coaching” only goes so far.
Normally I tend to find the Senate “research” at this point of the nomination cycle to be absurd, but in this case, it is all we really have–we knew far more at this stage about Thomas and Souter than we do about Miers, and they were the quintessential “stealth” candidates up and until this point.
Consider how much more we, the informed public, knew about Roberts at this point in the process versus what we know about Miers.
As time goes by, my opposition to Miers continues to be reinforced.
“Consider how much more we, the informed public, knew about Roberts at this point in the process versus what we know about Miers.”
What did we know about Roberts? Most people can’t name a single case he “referreed” while a judge. Everything he argued while an attorney became “views of my client”. Memos written in the Reagan Justice dept became ideas that he may or may not still hold. As I asked once before…Name a single case that Roberts presided over as judge.
After his early days as a justice dept low level staffer, Judge Roberts learned to leave no tracks. Don’t get involved in messy policy, or messy cases as an ill timed opinion could cost a chance at the top. But do go to the dinners and conferences where influential conservatives hang out.
Miers, on the other hand, has been involved in policy issues, both in Austin and Washington for years. Taking chances to get things done is not the path that would be taken if one were preparing for the job for 30 years. Jobs on lottery commissions are messy, filled with peril for the ambituous. State and Federal administrations always have strong critics. Being associated with one is not the normal ticket to the Supremes.
But on the other hand, picking people of substance for positions in related fields is what W has done consistently. Sec of state — Pick a General. Veep — Pick a Fortune 500 Exec. Security Advisor — pick the Stanford Provost. Indeed, Bush himself doesn’t have the normal presidential path to power — no law degree, business leader, short tenure as a politician.
I’m still taking the over when compared to Robert’s 78 confirmation votes. I don’t see any Republican breaking rank to oppose the president and the 2-1 majority of conservatives on this (according to CNN/Gallup/USAToday). It will take more conviction than has been shown to date for Lott/Kyl/Brownback/Coburn to lead an insurrection.
Comment by Buckland — Thursday, October 20, 2024 @ 10:11 am
In regards to cases and Roberts: you could have at least looked it up. The information was available. There is a difference between what peope can name off their heads and there actualyl being no information.
Further, there was a better picture of his qualifications by the time hearings started than is the case now. To argue otherwise is absurd.
And the Veep in question had an impressive governmental resume (Congressman, Chief of Staff for Ford, SecDef, etc.) and the SecState in question served in serious foreign policy positions in the first Bush administration and was a foreign policy scholar before being named to the current Bush administration. To reduce their resumes as you did obscures their true records to make them seem more comparable to Miers, when they clearly had different career paths that logically fed into their current positions, while Miers’ path does not.
Now, you may well be right about the final vote–but that still doesn’t mean she was the best candidate for the job.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Thursday, October 20, 2024 @ 10:22 am
“In regards to cases and Roberts: you could have at least looked it up.” So Robert’s judge time was vital, but not vital enough to spend 2 minutes Google time researching?
“To reduce their resumes as you did obscures their true records to make them seem more comparable to Miers, when they clearly had different career paths that logically fed into their current positions”
That’s my point exactly. Reducing a resume just to general, or indeed president’s lawyer and presidential crony, obscures the background that prepares one for a job. Adminstration experience, knowledge and talent well rewarded by private sector for legal expertise, and policy experience at state and federal level are paths that prepare for the SCOTUS.
Comment by Buckland — Thursday, October 20, 2024 @ 10:59 am
But, my point on resumes is that if you compara Cheney and Rice to Miers, Miers comes up short for the position for which she has been nominated, while Cheney and Rice do not.
Certainly Roberts’ resume was far more impressive than Miers’.
And in re: Googling/other research–the point is quite simple–with Roberts there was information of relevance to find, and much had been disucssed, in Miers’ case there isn’t anything to find of conequence.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Thursday, October 20, 2024 @ 11:02 am