October 17, 2005

Miers as the Bizarro Brown.

David Bernstein notes that blogosphere conservatives seem to have fixed on Janice Rogers Brown as the ideal choice for the Supreme Court and that Miers is the perfect opposite of Brown:
In terms of her record, her outspokenessness, her visibility, her willingness to court controversy in defense of her principles, her independent-mindedness, and just about everything else, Harriet Miers is basically the anti-Brown (or, if you prefer, the Brown of the Bizarro universe). The only thing they seem to have in common is that Miers -- as dull as Brown is interesting, as moderate-seeming as Brown is radical, as untested as a judge as Brown is experienced, as fiery a rhetoritician as Miers is a mouther of platitudes, as establishmentarian as Brown is individualist--may not be confirmable, either.
The two women present very different confirmability problems, however. If you're going to have a fight, why would you choose to have the Miers fight rather than the Brown fight? If the answer is that Bush didn't think people would fight Miers, why did he misunderstand his own party so badly?

Or is this, once again, misunderestimating Bush? The Brown fight would galvanize Democrats. The Miers fight leaves them completely confused.

6 comments:

Goesh said...

I for one had bet that old, wishy-washy, fat white men wouldn't have gotten too sassy with a Black, former California SC Justice. Nope! She would not have tolerated any high-tech Black woman bashing/sexism/racism. I weep for my lovely Janice, pining away on a lowly federal bench like she is.

XWL said...

If the Justice Stevens rumors are true (declining health, an agreement to announce his retirement a month or two after the current round of confirmations), the Miers fight could be seen as a set up for the Judge Brown fight.

I doubt all this, and since I personally admire Justice Brown and find her positions refreshing, well-reasoned, and similar to my own thoughts all those facts conspire to virtually guarantee that she can't ever be considered for the highest court of the land.

And the idea that Justice Stevens would allow Pres. Bush to appoint his his successor while still coherent and breathing seem like a very long shot.

amba said...

Brown is virtually a female Clarence Thomas, which would make her the ideal Bush nominee if he could do what he really wanted. Whatever else you might say about her, she is a fascinating person. But her confirmation (or not) would be a prolonged, knockdown-dragout battle. I am somewhat sympathetic with conservatives' disappointment that Bush didn't have the guts to engage that battle, approval ratings be damned. That would have been a real "litmus test" of this country, in the original sense that we would have seen exactly what color the paper turned.

Paul said...

Why does "Do the right thing" apply to everyone else in this country except politicians?
Why is the soldier facing death told to do the right thing?
Why is a student finding themselves with access to test answers told to do the right thing?
Why do we teach our children from birth to do the right thing and in most families expect that of them?
Why only in our august bodies, including the Presidency, full of high wages, perks, fawned over by underlings, speeches full of "Do the right thing" to others, why is it they can ignore their own advice? Why does this one group of people expect it, preach it and sanctify those that do it, why is it they can fail those words?
The President, everyone of those who preach it should certainly be expected to follow that phrase.
Confirmability problems or not, if Brown would be the best Justice, then she should be facing hearings, not Miers.

michael a litscher said...

If I was given two choices, that being:

A) Confirm a moderate, and retain control of the senate, or

B) Confirm Janice Roberts Brown, and loose control of the senate

I would choose B, as we have the opportunity to regain control of the senate every two years. Not so with the supreme court.

And no, it has nothing to do with wanting to pick a fight with Democrats.

It has everything to do with wanting a strict constructionist on the supreme court who writes such intelligent, well-researched, well-reasoned, and persuasive arguements that other SC judges, who wouldn't normally be, are influenced to concur.

Replacing one justice for another does more than change that one vote, as the justices don't operate in a vacuum.

How much influence could Miers have with the other justices? Not nearly as much as Brown would.

Jeremy said...

Well, a lot of the conservatives want a fight. Brown would give them a fight.

Miers seems to be a very meek person. Brown on the other hand seems to seek confrontation, or at least good as dishing back what she gets.

Perhaps more importantly, JRB is somewhat like Thomas, conservative with libertarian leanings.