Hugh Hewitt goes methodically through all the anti-Miers arguments. Great post, but marred by the fact he posted from the air, and all the em dashes and apostrophes are turned into strange diacritical marks. Read it anyway. He's especially right to question the pro-life credentials of Mier's critics --three of whom-- (Krauthammer, Brooks, Frum) are not pro-life, which gives them no standing in my book to be commenting on the matter of judges (because if you can't see the problem with Roe, Doe & Casey, do you understand the Constitution at all?). See especially his discussion at the end of the lengthy post on the political implications of this battle. He gives Bill Kristol's argument its due.
The really interesting political question is not whether the Miers nomination is causing a Republican crack-up, but whether it's causing the crack up of the Claremont Institute? Just kidding --it's a fun and lively debate. Eastman, West & Pestritto v. Masugi & Reeb --scroll down on their site to find links to all their thoughts.
As briefly as I can, here's my response to the three Claremont Miers critics.
Eastman. It’s a smear to say the people he bizarrely calls “doves” (by which he means social conservatives) are big government Conservatives (hasn't he read Jody Bottum on the new fusionism?). That’s the Liberal line –the big, scary Catholics and Evangelicals are trying to take over everything and impose Christian shar’i’a on us all. I’m sure that’s not what he meant, but it’s the logic of his remark. (Bristle, bristle). On the contrary, as a practical matter, you can --not quite but almost-- tell who will favor small government and federalism by their approach to Roe, since Roe has come to be shorthand for "judicial overreach of the first water" among "movement" Conservatives. But this is a tangent.
Substantively, Eastman seems to abandon Abe Lincoln when he chooses as a test case for Miers the Oregon right-to-die statute. He says the “federalist” position would be to let Oregon have its “idiotic” (his word) law. Does he really mean to say that the Federal government should not be involved in any "moral issues" at all? Surely assisted suicide relates to the inalienable right to life set forth by the Declaration of Independence? The Constitution exists to secure the natural rights of American citizens –so what would be a Federal question if that isn’t? Maybe Lincoln should have just let the Missouri Compromise ride, sticking with his law practice?
Substantively, Eastman seems to abandon Abe Lincoln when he chooses as a test case for Miers the Oregon right-to-die statute. He says the “federalist” position would be to let Oregon have its “idiotic” (his word) law. Does he really mean to say that the Federal government should not be involved in any "moral issues" at all? Surely assisted suicide relates to the inalienable right to life set forth by the Declaration of Independence? The Constitution exists to secure the natural rights of American citizens –so what would be a Federal question if that isn’t? Maybe Lincoln should have just let the Missouri Compromise ride, sticking with his law practice?
UPDATE: If anyone still cares, see John's comment and my response in the comments section.
Tom West's objection Paul at Powerline has already amply dealt with. She was talking about keeping districts proportional, not race quotas.
R.J. Pestritto offers the most reasoned objection to Miers; I can’t really quarrel with it, beyond reiterating that a President who has given us more than 200 truly great judges does deserve a little trust. The President said when he nominated Miers that he did so because he shared Justice Rehnquist’s view that the Court could benefit from having members from diverse backgrounds (by which the Prez means diverse professional experience, not racial and ethnic diversity). The President wants to cut the Court down to size, and he’s trying to put a nominee with practical experience and common sense on it for that reason.
Miers’ Conservative critics are basically arguing that there must be no diversity of background on the Court, but instead, as Masugi put it in his response to Judge Bork, the Federalist Society should be a kind of guild for SCOTUS. They're free to argue that, but let's see them state it thus baldly and defend it, instead of hurling insults at all and sundry.
P.S. How bad can a person who packs heat and knows the 2nd amendment is an individual right be?
