Jackson Free Press

Before we despair over new Bush Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, let's bear three things in mind...

1. We don't know where she stands, ideologically.

2. She has never married.

3. She has been nominated by President Bush.

The only other Supreme Court justice to hold all three distinctions? David Souter.

Yeah, I'm not that hopeful, either. But John Roberts came through the nomination process looking a lot more like Anthony Kennedy than Antonin Scalia, so it may be that we liberals are being a little too paranoid about Bush's Supreme Court appointments. Remember that, as much as he needs the right wing to win elections, his real love is for the corporate world. In politics, being socially right-wing tends to go together with being fiscally right-wing; but in the judiciary, it's hard to find a qualified candidate who has a consistently conservative record in both areas.

Bush also knows, as all Republican leaders probably do, that actually overturning Roe v. Wade would create a backlash among moderates and fiscal libertarians, and quench the wrath of the Religious Right--essentially destroying the coalition that makes up the Republican Party as we know it. It could be that Bush, like his father, is deliberately working to make sure that, for all the occasional screwball judicial appointments, a 5-4 slate of extreme social conservatives never materializes on the Supreme Court. It would be more practical for him to appoint justices who will promote the Republican social policy agenda in less controversial ways (cases dealing with parental consent, partial-birth abortions, interstate recognition of gay marriage, government-endorsed religious symbols, etc.), while focusing on the much less politically hazardous goal of loosening restrictions on the corporate world. It would certainly be in his party's best interests for him to do so.

My gut tells me that Republican politicians who say they want to ban abortion have a lot in common with dogs who chase cars. They run like the dickens, but they have no idea what they'd do if they actually caught up.

Previous Comments

ID

103056

Comment

Here's what James Ridgeway is saying about Harriett Miers over at the Village Voice. By nominating Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, President Bush is turning to a trusted advisor who has a reputation for keeping her mouth shutóand putting her in a key position for damage control. Her nomination might make people like Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, and Tom DeLay breathe a little easier. She is, as Bush has said, "a pit bull in size 6 shoes." If confirmed, Miers will be the presidentís woman on the Supreme Court. She would replace Justice Sandra Day OíConnor, a Republican pick for the court who has turned out to be more of a swing voter than some right-wing Republicans would like. Never a judge, Miers is a longtime GOP functionary, and has pumped thousands of dollars into the campaigns of right-wing GOP stalwarts in Texasófrom Phil Gramm to Kay Bailey Hutchison. It must be noted that in 1988 she gave money to Democratsó$1,000 to Al Gore in his first try for president and $1,000 to Lloyd Bentsen for Senate. Above all, Miers is loyal to President Bush. Itís hard to imagine her putting faithfulness to the Supreme Court above faithfulness to the Bush family. _____ One thought making the rounds is that Bush is appointing someone who will be loyal to him if he ends up brought up on charges, say in the Plame scandal. Basically, screw the hard-right if Bush's tush is on the line. Not my theory necessarily; just thought I'd share the poop.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-10-03T18:13:28-06:00

ID

103057

Comment

And, FWIW, I've never truly believed that the Repubs would purposefully ban abortion, much for the reasons Tom stated. It's a wedge issue, and putting up candidates who have unclear records on the matter might be one way to save a procedure that is politically volatile, while being personally useful. Hey, you can't blame Bush if they turned out to be liberal pigs once they got in there. You know, like Souter. Of course, all this may be wishful thinking and we're actually headed into a period of fascist "justice." I pray not.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-10-03T18:15:56-06:00

ID

103058

Comment

Interesting theory I haven't really looked at before, and it certainly makes sense. You'll note that the other name that has dominated this process, during both vacancies, was that of former White House counsel and current attorney general Alberto Gonzales--a moderate to whom Bush refers as "mi abogado," or "my attorney." So now, in the event of a scandal, he would have Gonzales responsible for the decision as to whether or not to appoint a special prosecutor, and Miers on the Supreme Court. Both being, of course, attorneys who have represented the president as a client in the past. Of course, there's a chance that Miers might recuse herself if faced with such a case. That's what Rehnquist did in 1974's United States v. Nixon; because he'd served under Nixon's attorney general, he felt that there was a conflict of interest preventing him from ruling on whether or not the Watergate tapes could be released. An 8-0 ruling made the recusal almost irrelevant, but of course that was a much more liberal court. I'm not clear on how many of the five Republican appointees in Bush v. Gore put a halt to the recounts due to consistent legal principles and how many did so because they wanted another Republican in the White House, but I did find it odd that Scalia and Thomas, long known as advocates for state's rights, had a change of heart when they broadened federal authority to overturn the Florida Supreme Court's ruling. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-10-03T18:29:51-06:00

ID

103059

Comment

The risk of fascist "justice" keeps me up at night, too. But every time there's a new scandal, I take heart in the growing evidence that these folks don't really care about the goals of the Religious Right, or even about the future of their own party. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-10-03T18:37:36-06:00

ID

103060

Comment

Yeah, funny that there's twisted hope in that fact, I guess.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-10-03T18:40:18-06:00

ID

103061

Comment

If I may make one more point: It drives me BONKERS that people are such hypocrites. That is, they're against abortion for other people because they can get them with private doctors; they're in favor of the Drug War because it locks up black "thugs," but doesn't target their little weekend habits; that they're against sexual tolerance for everyone but themselves. I really don't get how people go through life as such posers. I mean, DON'T GET IT. Sigh.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-10-03T18:46:27-06:00

ID

103062

Comment

I keep waiting for the "religious right" to wake up to the fact that they've been horribly used in keeping one of the most corporate Presidents in history in office. Bush doesn't care about their concerns, as long as they vote Republican. He can't overturn Roe V Wade, even though I can justify it in a couple of easy steps. :D I mean, in reality, all the "religous right" could vote democratic and nothing would change, really. Different names on the doors, same attitudes towards people on the inside.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2005-10-04T10:50:49-06:00

ID

103063

Comment

Amen, Ironghost. I started to post a response, and it got so long that I just made a new blog entry out of it. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-10-04T16:10:31-06:00