The Interocitor

Will Explains the Problem with Miers

George Will's latest refutation of the pro-Miers argument hits the nail squarely on the head. The point is not who she is or how she'll vote, but whether she will bring anything to the table:

In their unseemly eagerness to assure Miers's conservative detractors that she will reach the "right" results, her advocates betray complete incomprehension of this: Thoughtful conservatives' highest aim is not to achieve this or that particular outcome concerning this or that controversy. Rather, their aim for the Supreme Court is to replace semi-legislative reasoning with genuine constitutional reasoning about the Constitution's meaning as derived from close consideration of its text and structure. Such conservatives understand that how you get to a result is as important as the result. Indeed, in an important sense, the path that the Supreme Court takes to the result often is the result.

There is no end of indication that Miers' approach to the Constitution is result-based. Further, there is no indication that we, or indeed, she, knows what result that would be. It is no good to replace semi-legislative thinking with unclear thinking. In that sense, she is Souter. This may be a reason why "stealth" is a bad strategy: anyone who has such a paucity of work to achieve stealth hasn't the experience, knowledge or temperament to succeed as a justice. True, O'Connor was constantly splitting the baby, but at least we had some idea she knew which baby to split. With Miers we don't even have that.

Then he throws down the gauntlet:

Still, Miers must begin with 22 Democratic votes against her. Surely no Democrat can retain a shred of self-respect if, having voted against John Roberts, he or she then declares Miers fit for the court. All Democrats who so declare will forfeit a right and an issue -- their right to criticize the administration's cronyism.

As for Republicans, any who vote for Miers will thereafter be ineligible to argue that it is important to elect Republicans because they are conscientious conservers of the judicial branch's invaluable dignity. Finally, any Republican senator who supinely acquiesces in President Bush's reckless abuse of presidential discretion -- or who does not recognize the Miers nomination as such -- can never be considered presidential material.

Or even senatorial.

UPDATE: NZ Bear suggests that everyone state their postion on Miers, so, for the record: "I oppose the Miers nomination."

The New Math

In an article about the recent spurt of inflation after Katrina, the LA Times offers this gem:

As a result of the inflation, Social Security recipients in January will get a 4.1% cost-of-living adjustment, their biggest annual raise since 1991. But Bill Novelli, chief executive of AARP, formerly the American Assn. of Retired Persons, said the adjustment would be "eaten up by rising gasoline and heating costs, another double-digit increase in the monthly Medicare Part B premium and escalating healthcare bills."

Just think. The upcoming cost-of-living increase for Social Security recipients is being "eaten up" by inflation! I blame Bush.

Suddenly a Backbone

President Bush has spent 5 years compromising, negotiating, consulting and generally appeasing Democrats in Congress. Now he gets into a fight with his own base and all of a sudden he has a backbone?

Mr. President, why can you make your stand WITH us, instead of AGAINST us? What happened to "A uniter, not a divider"? If Miers withdraws and Janice Rogers Brown is nominated, you'll have a united party at your back for the rest of your term.

Or, you can drive over us, welch on your promises, get your friend on the Court, and become a lame duck with 3 years to go. You cannot DO THIS to your base and expect future support. Those Democrats in the Senate who you hope to appease are laughing their asses off watching you destroy yourself.

Tragic, really.

Another defense of Miers

"Even if [s]he is mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance? We can't have all Brandeises and Cardozos and Frankfurters and stuff like that there."

-- reusing Roman Hruska's famous defense of Harold Carswell's failed 1970 nomination

Gang of 14 Stikes Again!

If this LA Times article on Karl Rove's comments to James Dobson is true, the so-called Gang of 14 has more to answer for. One of the things about any serious conflict is that there are always those who try to short-circuit it before resolution. It is often a mistake (see Compromise of 1850), simply allowing the wound to fester and the tension to escalate.

In that conversation, which has been the subject of feverish speculation, Rove also told Dobson that one reason the president was passing over better-known conservatives was that many on the White House short list had asked not to be considered, Dobson said, according to an advance transcript of the broadcast provided by his organization, Focus on the Family.

Dobson said that the White House had decided to nominate a woman, which reduced the size of the list, and that several women on it had then bowed out.

"What Karl told me is that some of those individuals took themselves off that list and they would not allow their names to be considered, because the process has become so vicious and so vitriolic and so bitter that they didn't want to subject themselves or the members of their families to it," Dobson said, according to the transcript.

The only good thing about this pin not being pulled is that it could have been done now, after the Democrats filibustered someone like Janice Rogers Brown on national television. It's one thing to knife people in the back, as one can do while the NY Times looks the other way. It's quite another to do in prime time to an up-from-poverty black woman. I'd be surprised if Brown backed down from this fight.

In fact, I'd be a bit surprised if anyone did: this smells like damage control to me.

Miers: A Political Rorschach Test

The problem with the Miers nomination isn't really about Miers. It's about Bush. He should never have to say "trust me." That he has had to say it -- and it hasn't worked -- shows how lost his base is trying to figure out the Administration's policies, or lack thereof.

In short, we're offered a Rorschach test, where we see everything we fear from an administration that's played both sides against the middle once too often. This was supposed to be the big payoff, after all.

The social conservatives see a lost chance against Roe. The libertarians think that her only conservative credentials are Christian, when they're worried about the free political speech, eminent domain and the overreaching federal state. Rank-and-file Republicans are going to trust their President more time, but they're not happy either.

A president, like say, Reagan, could pick a total unknown like O'Connor and everyone lined up for the vote. No question we'd support her, because, well, Reagan was the Man. Bush can't get away with it, and the really annoying part of it is he doesn't understand why not.

Heh

iPod Nano

Got my first iPod, a 2GB Nano. It's way cool. I'm not all that focused on current music (my tastes seem to have ossified somewhere in the 80's), but this little gadget has me buying music again. Besides the instant gratification of the Apple music store, the ease of use of iPod and the simplicity of the iPod's PC software (I "ripped" half my CDs into my PC yesterday in a couple hours: insert, click, insert, click...) is rekindling my interest greatly.

Who knows, maybe soon I'll be able to make informed comments over at A Small Victory.

Tax Alternatives

Bush's tas reform commission is due to report November 1st, and a lot of ideas are floating up out of the deliberations. The Los Angeles Times has been reporting on them the last fiew days, and a few things stand out.

Today, they report on "the X Tax", which appears to be a revamped income tax on earned income only.

To the taxpayer, the proposed X tax might look a lot like an income tax with a blanket deduction for dividend and interest income, capital gains and other income from investments.

The article goes on to talk about the various consumption taxes that are being considered.

Yesterday,they reported on ideas about limiting middle-class deductions, particularly the mortgage interest deduction.

The mortgage-interest deduction saved homeowners $61.5 billion last year. No one expects the commission to recommend its elimination.

Instead, the panel may consider scaling back the deduction for mortgage interest on second homes or home-equity loans, and changing the deduction for property taxes, among other things....

"Everything's on the table," said Charles Rossotti, a panel member who was commissioner of internal revenue from 1997 to 2002.

Well worth reading. And again, one wonders what the President's objectives are.

UPDATE: The NY Times has more. Who appointed these people? Oh. Right.

Why Stealth?

There are three reasons given for George Bush's choice of Harriet Miers:

• She is a long-term associate of his, and he knows how she thinks.
• She is a born-again Christian, and Bush wants this group represented on the Court.
• There is no paper trail, making informed opposition difficult.

The first two points, from Bush's point of view make perfect sense. The last one begs a question: just whom is this "stealth" aimed at?

One naturally would assume that it is aimed at the Democratic opposition, but this doesn't really make any sense. The Democrats have, as their highest priority, preserving the "abortion right" and furthering increased social liberalism. This is nearly the only area where Harriet Miers views are predictable, and the Democrats will not be happy with them. If there is stealth here, it is only in Democrat's hopes: maybe she's a moderate in other areas.

But it is becoming increasingly clear that President Bush's "stealth" strategy is aimed at Republicans, not Democrats.

In the Republican camp are at least three main groups:

• The Social Conservatives, or Christian Right, focused almost entirely on social and family issues.
• Traditional Republicans, who add smaller government, reduced economic regulation, lower taxes, a balanced budget, immigration control, state's rights, and a strong defense to a reduced or nonexistant interest in social issues.
• Libertarians, who add strong support for individual liberty to the Traditional Republicans' economic and defense issues, while being generally unsupportive of the immigration or social agenda.

Traditional Republicans make up the bulk of the party, as always, with the Christian element growing and the libertarians on the defensive.

President Bush was elected as a Traditional Republican, but over his term he has increasingly tilted into the Christian camp, giving strong play to social conservatives while promoting large government initiatives at great cost, alienating the other two wings. Were it not for his strong National Defense policies, Bush's relations with Traditional Republicans would have weakened long since. Libertarians have been unhappy since McCain-Feingold was signed. Currently, George Bush is governing as a socially conservative, economically liberal advocate of a large and increasingly powerful federal government.

In the run-up to this Court nomination, nearly all of the leading judicial candidates were in of the Traditional Republican persuasion, with some nods to the other wings: judges like Scalia (social conservative tendencies) or Thomas (libertarian leanings). Apparently, this is not what George Bush wants on the Court. What he wants is a centrist on economic and liberty issues, supportive of federal power, coupled with an overriding commitment to the Christian Right's social agenda.

But to nominate someone who clearly has these qualifications would create a revolt in the Party, so we have Harriet Miers. The stealth is against us. I hope we realize it in time.

Those Republicans who still favor personal liberty, governmental restraint, prefer the local to the federal, and have little investment in the social conservative agenda, have much to lose from a Miers appointment.

Miers is our Souter. And it is no accident.

Update: Welcome Instapundit readers. Also check out Patterico's ongoing commentary on the Meirs nomination.

More: As I said.

Go ABA!

I never thought I'd be hoping the ABA trashed a Republican appointee as "unqualified" but here it is. Harriet Miers might be qualified to be a district court judge, or possibly a Texas state supreme court justice. With the wind firmly at her back, she might even qualify for a circuit court post in Texas.

But the US Supreme Court? Have we gone so far that only politics matters and jurisprudence or experience are ignored? Seems like bass-akwards to me.

UPDATE: No, this is not a news announcement -- it's a desire to see a news announcement. Any port in a storm.

Bush's lame duck choice

George Bush has finally confirmed my belief that he's become a lame duck. Presidents define the agenda and lead the nation where their vision takes them. Lame ducks have their agenda defined for them.

The pick of whatshername to the Supreme Court is the culmination of a month that's seen Bush asleep during a national disaster, a congressional agenda that seems to be driven solely by pork, and endless meandering in Iraq. You'd almost think that the man's drinking again. It's increasingly hard to explain how a president that was so recently re-elected has so completely lost control of the agenda.

Katrina hits, and everyone looks to the President and he's where? And saying what? Trust my people? And then it turns out his people are clueless mediocrities and frauds. This may help explain Iraq, too: his people there haven't exactly covered themselves in glory. If it was a war for oil, you'd at least think we'd have oil.

Now he appoints his former staff secretary and crony to the US Supreme Court. Why? Hard to say. It can't be because everyone who heard the idea thought it brilliant. Usually Republican senators are lining up to applaud the President's choice. Not this time. The dog that didn't bark.

The best -- best -- argument being made is "Trust the President."™ If only. I trusted him on McCain-Feingold. I trusted him on fiscal responsibility. I trusted him to fight and win the war in Iraq. I trusted him to hire competent people. But, above all, I trusted him to appoint more justices like Thomas and Scalia. OK, Roberts wasn't quite what I wanted, but we all knew that was a strong choice and could be very good. But. This. Sucks.

I'm done with Bush. The man who came into office as a compassionate conservative has revealed himself to be, instead, a fiscal liberal whose only connection to the right are his occasional forays into Christian demogogery. I kept telling myself, yes, he's screwed up foreiggn policy, and his domestic policy is either comatose or spendthrift, but at least he'll deliver on his promise of dragging the Supreme Court to the right. Now this. A dumber O'Conner, if you can believe it.

The two worst nominees for the Court in my lifetime were Fortas (a crony) and Carswell (unqualified). Now we get an unqualified crony.

Time for someone to rally the Republicans in the Senate. Paging John McCain.