Thinking Strategically
It's a bit hard to know what to recommend to Democrats with regard to the Miers nomination. The best overall approach is probably to try and remain uncommitted while staying sufficiently non-hostile to keep sowing conservative doubts about her. The thing the right most fears is that less-than-brilliant justices will be too easily swayed by insidious "legal elites," foreigners, and media types into shifting left. So insofar as Democrats want to engage in some praise, it would be ideal for them to focus on the idea that Miers is open-minded, someone willing to listen to arguments and be persuaded, who possesses the capacity to grow in office. It might be ideal to mention that justices drawn from outside the ranks of the federal judiciary (Earl Warren, David Souter) can bring "new perspective" to controversial issues.
At the same time, more-or-less everyone except Hugh Hewitt is disquieted by the closeness of her relationship with the president. There's obviously a very legitimate generic concern here, the whole point of the judicial system is to not stack it with the president's buddies and retainers. Notably, the main substantive rationale for picking Miers seems to be that she'll give the president a free hand in torturing people willy-nilly, locking them up indefinitely without evidence, etc.
At the hearings, it's probably worth asking her some questions about her apparent support for the International Criminal Court which provides the opportunity to simultaneously gin up fears among the conservative base and probe the White House's apparent proclivity for war crimes.
I agree and would add that Democrats should bring up her fealty to corporate interests as a way to define the differences in values between the parties. If it also points out to religious conservatives that business concerns are a hell of a lot more important to Republicans than social issues all the better.
October 4, 2005 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that the Democrats need to shut-up at this point and listen. There will be plenty of time to talk during the hearings process. We know little about her and that should lead with the strategy of 'not talking until we know what we are talking about'.
Besides, it has been a long time since we have been able to watch one wing of the Republican party start to eat their own. If is rather refreshing theater.
October 4, 2005 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the dems should vote for her confirmation short of any bombshells at her confirmation hearings. I look at it this way...she is a former dem and barring her having a "constitution in exile" philosophy the chances are much greater that she will end up being like Souter or Kennedy rather than Scalia or Thomas.
But I think everybody will be watching the hearings very closely to see what she believes in judicially...
October 4, 2005 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know how she can be characterized as a stealth candidate.
Even as a democrat she was anti-abortion. She will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.
She also won't restrain the use of torture by the administrative branch.
October 4, 2005 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would be nice if the actual U.S. Constitution could make an appearance at the hearings. At the very least, it would be educational. I think people forget the constitution is only a few pages long and can be read in about 5 minutes.
Could one Senator go over it, line by line, and ask the nominee her opinion as to its meaning? A sample- Article I, Section 9, Clause 2:
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
Just ask her if she feels we are being invaded or a rebellion is taking place currently and watch her squirm...
Or how about Clause 7 of the same section?
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
Ask her if she thinks all expenditures are being accounted for in Iraq and the hurricane relief effort.
October 4, 2005 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Strategy, at this point, depends a great deal on how much discipline Reid can count on. Strong discipline, say a willingness to filibuster on his say so (for the next nominee), might allow an opening that could be very politically damaging to Republicans.
If Reid could figure out a way to get Mier's voted down on a full vote, meaning Republicans helped kill her nomination, followed by a filibuster of anyone that appears to right of Mier's could put Bush in a very weak position, if Reid could win the PR game while filibustering.
I think the American people want a judge who is more moderate than Bush's social conservative base would tolerate, and the more we could make this hurt the better.
October 4, 2005 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Largely reposted from another thread:
This is a win-win for the current occupant of the Oval Office. Both he and Harriet Miers intend for her to get on the bench, and intend to fight hard to that end. If she does, wonderful: a full-out Bush crony/toady gets a Supreme Court seat.
If -- and this scenario may only have played out in Karl Rove's mind, being too complex for the crony-appointer-in-chief -- Democrats and a few Republicans raise such a stink about her subminimal qualifications and repugnant post-Michael-Brown crony status that her nomination fails (by vote or withdrawal), the time would be perfect to send to the battle-weary Senate a sharp non-crony hard ideologue like Luttig ("All through the Miers hearings we heard Democrat after Democrat saying that it wasn't her ideology they were concerned about, it was her lack of experience. Now we've got someone with tremendous experience and they say oh no, it's all about ideology.") or Owen (As Luttig, plus "Will these Democrats ever tire of bashing qualified women? They pretend to be pro-woman, but every chance they get to show it, they find some excuse to say they're unacceptable.")
The Democrats as a whole have 20/200 vision, and are almost guaranteed to take the Miers-bashing approach that seems most likely to have a high payoff sometime in the next twenty-seven seconds. An intelligent approach would be to lay out ALL the requirements for O'Connor's replacement, and make clear that they exclude a large swath of would-be nominees, and that she is near the bottom of those. Miers should not be allowed, even in failure, to lower the bar for admission to the highest tribunal in the land.
October 4, 2005 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's what I'd recommend as a strategy:
Treat Miers with respect and don't rush to judgment. We simply don't know anything about her at this point.
Insist that Bush relinquish attorney-client privilege (and executive privilege) and release all documents in which Miers provides advice to him. Miers' only relevant experience is her experience as Bush's counsel (her corporate law career is unlikely to tell us much about her opinions on the issues she will need to decide on the court). There is absolutely no way the Senate can evaluate her qualifications and hire her without seeing her work. And that work needs to be released by Bush.
Insist that Miers answer questions in depth. Roberts had some record. Miers has none. Because of this the Senate has a duty to ask more questions of Miers than it did of Roberts--and to insist on answers.
Keep reminding the American people about the Senate's duty to ensure the candidate is a strong one. Mention Michael Brown repeatedly. He may have been an excellent campaign manager for Bush, but it turned out he didn't have the skills or experience to run FEMA. We can't make a similar mistake with a supreme court justice who is appointed for life and has the power to change the direction of American law. Given her relative lack of experience, the Senate must be particularly diligent. Continually express concern about not appointing someone too inexperienced for the job. The American people will understand that concern, and their collective antennae are raised in search of any signs of incompetence and cronyism after Brownie's disasterous failure.
If the documents aren't released and Miers doesn't answer questions, vote against her (and filibuster if necessary). As a nation, we can't take a risk--remember Michael Brown! And if the Senate keeps giving in when nominees refuse to be cooperative, the Senate will only continue its slide toward impotence and continue to get no useful information from nominees. This is bad for the country, because good oversight is essential to good government and the elimination of corruption.
If documents are released and Miers answers questions, vote for her if you like what you hear--vote against her if you don't. (Don't filibuster in this case.)
October 4, 2005 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
To me, the best strategy for the left is to play up the cronyism angle. Even if that doesn't affect the Miers nomination, it's going to hurt Bush for the rest of his Presidency.
October 4, 2005 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
October 4, 2005 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
As liberals and leftists, we ought to be able to say that the president and the senate should do better than the "nearness of comforable banality" standard.
October 4, 2005 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
One slight modification to the strategy I outlined above:
If Bush provides documents and Miers answers questions, but Miers proves to be an extreme candidate or an unqualified candidate and the republicans won't act like responsible leaders and vote against her, then by all means filibuster. But a filibuster should be a last resort. If Miers provides enough information and turns out to be a reasonable candidate, I wouldn't filibuster but would leave it up to individual senators to make up their minds based on their own consciences. There's a chance Miers may turn out to be a moderate. If this is the case, the democrats (and the country) will have done well given who our current president is.
October 4, 2005 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just cleaning up at this point...
I understand Reid's position, but I am not under the impression that he is locked into voting for her. In fact, Reid's support, as a Democrat rather than as a prolifer, has actually done damage to the nomination, and I find it hard to believe he was aware that would have been the case.
October 12, 2005 8:33 AM | Reply | Permalink