I’m a bit dismayed that the “litmus test” has become acceptable. It seems to me that, in the past, the idea of applying a “litmus test” was anathema, as in, “we will not apply a litmus test in determining the worth of this nominee”. Which is to say, asking whether a particular nominee was in favor or against the right of abortion was out of bounds. Democrats were not supposed to chose a judge based on their “pro-choice” views, and Republicans were not supposed to chose a judge based on their “pro-life” views. Obviously, those were factors, but they were, publicly at least, downplayed.
Now we have a situation where the particular religion of Harriet Miers, and by direct, intentional implication, her religion’s stance on abortion, is an admitted factor in her nomination. Actually, more than admitted. A TOUTED factor in her nomination. I’ve got to say, as a life-long Republican who voted for Regan twice, Bush I twice, Bob Dole, and for Bush II, the first time, with great enthusiasm, I am dismayed. Perplexed, bewildered, and dismayed.
I’d like to know more about this Valley View Church Miers belongs to. Are they “trespassers” or “debtors”? Their affiliation with the North American Christian Convention doesn’t reveal much about any actual beliefs:
Yet having had Meir’s piety thrust in our faces, we deserve to know exactly what it means. I hope the president is more forthcoming when next he brings this up.
The Bad Astronomer has some thoughts regarding Miers’ church.
I don’t like to see a religious litmus test in either direction for or against, but I’m very nervous now about her thoughts on church/state separation, creation/evolution, etc, and there’s no doubt those sorts of issues will come up many times in the coming years.
Did it bother you that Democrats such as Senator Feinstein explicitly stated that she would not vote for someone who wouldn’t uphold “a woman’s right to choose”? And that’s the reason she gave for her no vote on Roberts. Is that not a litmus test?
The Republicans are doing the same thing now. “Evangelical” is a way of letting people know she’s pro-life. Interestingly, though, the litmus test seems to be applied more stringently to Bush’s appointments. Ruth B. Ginsburg got almost all the GOP votes, and surely no one thought she was pro-life. But the Republicans are making noise now about Miers.
OTOH, don’t get too caught up in the pre-vote posturing. Much of it is for the voters in the Senators’ districts. I’ll be very surprised if any of the GOP Senators vote against her.
Thought for 4:00 am: If William Rehnquist had held on for a few more months, and John Roberts was confirmed as an associate justice… would we now be discussing the prospect of Chief Justice Miers?
It was, yes. The AP story from this morning ended with some nicely probing questions.
I think I’ve done a fair job of staying open-minded about Miers, but the fact that we’re hearing about her religion, and not much else, has come to bother me. Despite what McClellan says, I have heard little about her qualifications. I get it, she won’t “legislate from the bench.” I don’t know why anybody should believe it, nevermind that it’s a catchphrase.
So what’s inherently wrong with “litmus tests” anyway? It’s a political position, lifetime power is being given to people who will apply their own principles and experiences to the making of laws, so why would any standard that would predict their behavior be off-limits? Ideologues of *any * stripe *should * be kept off the bench. For the Senate to refuse to consider the possibility of a nominee being an ideologue would be irresponsible.
If only it were that easy. An idealogue is defined as “One given to fanciful ideas or theories”. Guess it all depends on which ideas one considers to be fanciful. To some people, the concept of “originalism” is fanciful. To others it’s the most principled way to interpret the constitution. To some people, the concept of a “living constitution” is fanciful. To others it’s the most principled way to interpret the constitution.
In case I haven’t been clear enough, the mindset that needs to be kept off the bench is the one that says “My approach is by definition the only correct one, anyone who disagrees is wrong and needn’t be listened to, much less seriously considered”. Put any label you like on that if “ideologue” doesn’t do it for you; it’s the substance that matters. The fox vs. hedgehog analogy works too, if you prefer.
Your link is to “ideology”, not “ideologue”. I got my definition from dictionary.com.
But I agree 100% with your second paragraph. That applies to the folks who say “No more Justice Souters” or “no more Justice Ginsburgs” as well as “No more Justice Scalias”.
No, there isn’t. And I won’t say she’s unqualified; maybe “minimally qualified” would be a better term.
But even her supporters within the Administration are saying ‘support her because she’ll rule in our branch’s favor in disputes between the Presidency and the other branches.’
With well over three years left in the Bush Administration, I’d say this constitutes “being in some way or other personally allied to” her appointee.
That’s because I’m not using “originalism” but “original intent.”
I think Scalia and I would agree that text, in and of itself, can’t have intent. Since his sine qua non is the original meaning of the text, rather than what its writers intended it to mean, Scalia and I are discussing two different things. All he’s saying about original intent is that he’s not starting from the same place they are.
That’s because the job of interpreting the Constitution is, by and large, in the hands of SCOTUS. Any school of thought, any approach to interpreting and applying the Constitution, would seem to be potentially useful to anyone who’s in a position to have to do that.
Can’t argue with you there.
I don’t see that that’s a contradiction.
Few (I hope) who believe in a ‘living Constitution’ feel that the meaning of the document should change with every passing breeze, and hardly anyone who takes the Constitution seriously in any way believes that the Framers have nothing to contribute. Someone who believes that the original intent of the Framers should be adhered to as closely as possible is going to give the words of the Framers absolute deference; us libruls are going to accord them great deference, just not total deference.
So believing that originalism of either school is an extremist judicial philosophy is hardly contradictory with quoting Madison, Hamilton, etc. when their words are relevant.
I’m sure you did; I haven’t been able to keep up with everything here lately.
As always, it’s enjoyable to debate an issue with you!
As always, eager to be in the forefront of people who speak too soon…
The nomination will not go forward. A plausible excuse will be found (given that the word “plausible” can be generously defined…). I’m leaning towards the “too contentious and divisive for America in a Time of War, due mostly to the perfidious and scurrillous attacks by liberals…” meme, since she hasn’t much of a family to spend time with.
Didja hear that Pat Robertson called George Will a “bow-tie pansy”? Well, he didn’t, thats just a baseless rumor. So stop saying it right now, you hear? I’m entirely opposed to the spreading of such baseless rumors, like the one about Meirs, Hecht, and Owen in a three way ugly orgy. Completely without foundation. You heard it here first.
Do you mean Bush will withdraw her name, or the Republican Senator will reject her. If the former, not a chance. If the latter, I give it a 10% chance.
Maybe Bush has some secret info on her that he can leak to the press if he wants to withdraw her. She smoke pot, or didn’t pay social security for her housekeeper. But I just don’t see Bush backing down on this.
Hey, he wrote a book on baseball. How’s that for masculine street cred!
Yeah, but it was all like “the fielders are poetry in motion” and “dawn broke on an innocent tableaux, the players in tune with the rythyms of the vernal equinox.”* Very pansy.
I mean it won’t get that far. Bush will reluctantly withdraw her name on a basis that is entirely outside of his control, preferably a basis that makes it appear that it is entirely due to the partisan nastiness of the libruhls. Republican senators would rather nail thier peckers to a tree than vote on her, period. Right now, she’s radioactive in about nine spectra. Bush will flip-flop in a forceful, leaderly fashion. That is to say, somebody else will do it for him, probably her.
A litmus test was wrong then, and it is wrong now. It should not be applied to anyone on either “side”. IF there is a history or paper trail, that should be used instead.
