This entry was posted on Thursday, October 27th, 2005 at 6:36 am and is filed under Reasonable. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
5 Responses to “Harriet Miers withdraws her nomination”
Is it so reasonable that her replacement will likely be a more competent hard-line conservative (albeit more qualified)? Don’t you feel that struggle in your soul between the idealist, who wants a qualified jurist, and the realist who, knowing that whoever is nominated will likely vote scalia-style, would rather have an unpersuasive incompetent ninny like Miers?
I’ve got to say (though I admit it is a hard choice) that in the end I would prefer a qualified jurist (even of the scalia mode) to an incompetent one (in the mode of Thomas). Indeed I think it’s embarrassing how some members of the Democratic Party are repping like they would approved Miers, when 1) they likely would have voted against her and 2) they must be as aware as the rest of us that she was fundamentally unqualified.
Schumer and Kennedy just seem so jaded delivering these ridiculously two-faced statements. The only even half-way reasonable comment I’ve heard thus far was from Dianne Feinstein who commented that while “Harriet Miers wasn’t the best thing since sliced bread as a legal mind. She was the president’s nominee and deserved seen by the Judiciary Committee.”
There’s got to be a better way for democrats to spin this than having to take Miers’ side. They should be able to both assail Bush for putting up an unqualified nominee and stand firm that her failure as a nominee was a result of that lack and not of her moderate(?) views.
It’s never reasonable to stand behind incompetence.
I also disagree with you that the next nominee is definitely going to be more conservative than Miers. An equally moderate but vastly more qualified nominee is a smart choice for Bush right now. Arlene Specter and the more moderate Republicans aren’t going to stand behind a crazy right nominee and given the state of Bush/The Republican party at the moment the practically minded among them aren’t going to want to risk a democratic filibuster which could further alienate them from the public and potentially give the Democrats a real sense of purpose/cause to rally behind.
Then again who knows? But regardless I stand by the claim that Harriet Miers withdrawal was reasonable.
As someone who spends way too much time (not) studying the law, I must agree that I too would rather an intelligent, thoughtful conservative than an incompetent justice. Ideally it would be someone who actually did their best to interpret the letter of the law, and not to appeal to various political factions (as they may no longer have much motivation to do once confirmed). While I am far, far from it, legal conservatism is not actually about the token issues that right wingers love to bring up these days—abortion, gay rights, etc. That is, at least in theory…
Yes, yes, there’s much more to being on the Supreme Court than the flagship issues, say, cnn reports. But, c’mon, I know you want to come off as mild-mannered, open-minded, and beholden to good law, but does that struggle I referred to above not enter your souls?
E.g., here comes “Scalito”—you both got your wish, since he’ll likely be nominated unless he smoked quantity back at Yale Law a la D. Ginsburg. And he’s a temperate jurist who has never resorted to scathing comments in his decisions like Scalia. And he seems smart enough to support his decisions in the best law possible given his viewpoint.
It can be debated if R v W going down would be better for the pro-choice movement in the long run, but here’s a guy who believes legally compelled spousal notification for abortions is constitutional. But hey, it was a well-written legal argument he made in the dissent. Now I know it was a given that Bush would (eventually) nominate such a type, but I’m not sure myself that I wouldn’t prefer an incompetent ninny with no powers of persuasion over her peers, even if it prolonged the inevitable division in the court as brilliantly documented by E. Lazarus in Closed Chambers.
Of course, if either of you are pursuing a SCOTUS clerkship, I can see where you’re coming from.
But seriously, make a stand on your blog. Alito: reasonable, or unreasonable?
October 27th, 2005 at 10:59 am
Is it so reasonable that her replacement will likely be a more competent hard-line conservative (albeit more qualified)? Don’t you feel that struggle in your soul between the idealist, who wants a qualified jurist, and the realist who, knowing that whoever is nominated will likely vote scalia-style, would rather have an unpersuasive incompetent ninny like Miers?
October 27th, 2005 at 11:51 am
I’ve got to say (though I admit it is a hard choice) that in the end I would prefer a qualified jurist (even of the scalia mode) to an incompetent one (in the mode of Thomas). Indeed I think it’s embarrassing how some members of the Democratic Party are repping like they would approved Miers, when 1) they likely would have voted against her and 2) they must be as aware as the rest of us that she was fundamentally unqualified.
Schumer and Kennedy just seem so jaded delivering these ridiculously two-faced statements. The only even half-way reasonable comment I’ve heard thus far was from Dianne Feinstein who commented that while “Harriet Miers wasn’t the best thing since sliced bread as a legal mind. She was the president’s nominee and deserved seen by the Judiciary Committee.”
There’s got to be a better way for democrats to spin this than having to take Miers’ side. They should be able to both assail Bush for putting up an unqualified nominee and stand firm that her failure as a nominee was a result of that lack and not of her moderate(?) views.
It’s never reasonable to stand behind incompetence.
I also disagree with you that the next nominee is definitely going to be more conservative than Miers. An equally moderate but vastly more qualified nominee is a smart choice for Bush right now. Arlene Specter and the more moderate Republicans aren’t going to stand behind a crazy right nominee and given the state of Bush/The Republican party at the moment the practically minded among them aren’t going to want to risk a democratic filibuster which could further alienate them from the public and potentially give the Democrats a real sense of purpose/cause to rally behind.
Then again who knows? But regardless I stand by the claim that Harriet Miers withdrawal was reasonable.
October 27th, 2005 at 1:28 pm
As someone who spends way too much time (not) studying the law, I must agree that I too would rather an intelligent, thoughtful conservative than an incompetent justice. Ideally it would be someone who actually did their best to interpret the letter of the law, and not to appeal to various political factions (as they may no longer have much motivation to do once confirmed). While I am far, far from it, legal conservatism is not actually about the token issues that right wingers love to bring up these days—abortion, gay rights, etc. That is, at least in theory…
October 31st, 2005 at 12:10 pm
Yes, yes, there’s much more to being on the Supreme Court than the flagship issues, say, cnn reports. But, c’mon, I know you want to come off as mild-mannered, open-minded, and beholden to good law, but does that struggle I referred to above not enter your souls?
E.g., here comes “Scalito”—you both got your wish, since he’ll likely be nominated unless he smoked quantity back at Yale Law a la D. Ginsburg. And he’s a temperate jurist who has never resorted to scathing comments in his decisions like Scalia. And he seems smart enough to support his decisions in the best law possible given his viewpoint.
It can be debated if R v W going down would be better for the pro-choice movement in the long run, but here’s a guy who believes legally compelled spousal notification for abortions is constitutional. But hey, it was a well-written legal argument he made in the dissent. Now I know it was a given that Bush would (eventually) nominate such a type, but I’m not sure myself that I wouldn’t prefer an incompetent ninny with no powers of persuasion over her peers, even if it prolonged the inevitable division in the court as brilliantly documented by E. Lazarus in Closed Chambers.
Of course, if either of you are pursuing a SCOTUS clerkship, I can see where you’re coming from.
But seriously, make a stand on your blog. Alito: reasonable, or unreasonable?
December 5th, 2006 at 10:25 pm
mitsubishi car dealer