Why Miers must be rejected
has sent me this eloquent and heartfelt statement contra Miers which a correspondent had written to him. I’ve edited it slightly for usage:
It is not enough, today, to nominate a conservative. We must not confirm her, regardless of what she believes in her heart of hearts, regardless of how she would vote on the bench. There are systematic interests at stake here.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 11, 2005 07:25 PM | Send
Nominating stealth nominees with 55 seats is the problem. If we now refuse to nominate someone who’s ever said anything we agree with in public, it means abandoning the 20 year fight to claim that the legal mainstream is not defined by the New York Times and the angry left. It means that, regardless of how many elections we win, regardless of how many Senate seats we hold, regardless of what promises our presidential candidates make, we remain the exotics who can’t be trusted, the ugly word not mentioned in public company. Accepting this nomination means that the movement and the party have finally and fully internalized our abuse.
We cannot accept a nomination who, at best, has refused ever to state what she really believes or how she actually thinks, especially on the basis that anyone who did would be unconfirmable. In so doing we telegraph that, truth be told, we are a bit ashamed of our views too. It would tell the next generation of great conservative legal minds: keep your head down and your mouth shut, avoid the professoriate, do not publish, do not discuss your views with your friends, and if at all possible avoid the lower courts too.
And confirming her would mean discrediting everything we’ve believed in and fought for for years, making a joke of everything we’ve said about the judiciary for a generation. We’ve opposed identity politics and victimology. Now we are told by our leaders that opposition to her is “sexist.” We’ve stood for standards. Now we are told that questioning her credentials is elitist. We’ve pilloried the Democrats for using the religion of a nominee as a proxy for how he will behave on the bench. Now we are told to trust Miers, because she’s an evangelical Christian and therefore would be good on the bench. We’ve maintained that judging is about the rule of law, not about personal beliefs and desired outcome. Now we are told to trust her, because she is pro-life and will reach our desired outcome. We tried to end the judicial filibuster, arguing that a simple majority vote wouldn’t make the Senate a rubber stamp for the President, because we would use our independent judgment in weighing the credentials and abilities of the candidate. Now we are told we must support this nominee because the President does.
No single vote on the Supreme Court is worth the damage that this would do to the legal culture and to the future of the Court.