THE CURIOUS CASE OF HARRIET MIERS

HARRIET MIERS IS REMARKABLE and the case against her is as well. [story]  The remarkable woman is well accomplished and the case against her is as well.  The well acomplished woman is exceptional and the case against her is as well.  The case against her is being led by Republicans, which means the man who called Miers remarkable, well accomplished and exceptional is in trouble, in case you didn't know.

RECOMMENDED READING
Maha yesterday pointed to Hoagland who points to the problem The Heretik has pointed to before: talking the talk and walking the walk.

If a well-crafted speech about Iraq or a bristling, uncompromising defense of a murky judicial nomination could resolve those thorny problems, Bush could cross them off his list. But they can't. So he can't. [WaPo]

THE HERETIK NOTES some people talk the talk and some people walk the walk.  Some may have talked too much.  Bush is remarkable himself for several reasons.  Not only does he talk the talk and not walk the walk.  When he talks, he still thinks people will walk his way.  Even Republicans now step in a new direction as Bush marches over a new cliff, all to the sounds of a different drummer in his own head playing "Hail to the Chief" as Bush free falls further away from reality.

THE SKY MAY BE FALLING, BUT MEANWHILE BACK ON EARTH [Joe Gandelman/The Moderate Voice] Miers isn't prepping for hearings just to fill time in between steaming over anti-Harriet comments made by Bill Kristol and Pat Buchannan.
And, indeed, that's the present political context: the Republican party, the epitome of a disciplined party after surviving the bitter divisions of the early to mid-60s to finally become the party stamped with Ronald Reagan's conservative values, is now creaking with strains amid not-so-subtle hints of future political retribution.

THE HERETIK STILL SEES Bush with his head up there in the clouds on this.  The man who thinks himself heavensent and still loaded with political capital will be getting a note from the right side of the political bank.  There will be hell to pay.

WHO IS STANDING IN LINE? [Captain Ed] The analysis has the conservatives breaking up into three factions -- the Loyalist Army, the Rebel Alliance, and the Trench-Dwelling Dogfaces. [more in WaPo]

A LOSING CARD? [American Spectator] It appears that conservatives' long simmering distrust of moderate chief of staff Andrew Card has been confirmed with the nomination of Harriet Miers.  Sources inside the White House say Card in several meetings literally shouted down opposition to Miers during the vetting process. "Harriet was his pick all the way up 'til the President jumped on board wholeheartedly," says a White House staffer. "This was not a Rove pick or Laura Bush pick. It was Card's pick."

THE HERETIK NOTES Bush's ace Card can now expect to be trumped regularly.  Or will his other shortcomings now be trumpeted?  Oy.

WHERE HAVE WE SEEN AND HEARD THIS BEFORE? [John Fund/WSJ] But that ignores the fact that every Republican president over the past half century has stumbled when it comes to naming nominees to the high court. Consider the record:

After leaving office, Dwight Eisenhower was asked by a reporter if he had made any mistakes as president. "Two," Ike replied. "They are both on the Supreme Court." He referred to Earl Warren and William Brennan, both of whom became liberal icons.

Richard Nixon personally assured conservatives that Harry Blackmun would vote the same way as his childhood friend, Warren Burger. Within four years, Justice Blackmun had spun Roe v. Wade out of whole constitutional cloth. Chief Justice Burger concurred in Roe, and made clear he didn't even understand what the court was deciding: "Plainly," he wrote, "the Court today rejects any claim that the Constitution requires abortions on demand."

Gerald Ford personally told members of his staff that John Paul Stevens was "a good Republican, and would vote like one." Justice Stevens has since become the leader of the court's liberal wing.

An upcoming biography of Sandra Day O'Connor by Supreme Court reporter Joan Biskupic includes correspondence from Ronald Reagan to conservative senators concerned about her scant paper trail. The message was, in effect: Trust me. She's a traditional conservative.

TRUST ME, THE HERETIK remembers is what Bush requests on all his decisions.  Is there some greater hand to be trusted that moves nominees away from their previous views when they rise to the court?  What happens to some “conservative” judges who becomes justices may possibly be a greater sense of justice entering their minds when great moments in history demand no less.

Comments

[catherine]

I keep saying that the number one reason that he wants to appoint her is that she has seen every piece of paper that has come into the Oval Office. This way she can never testify against him.