Along with the cartoon, The Conservative Voice Daily‘s e-mail sent “RNC Abandons Conservatives” by Nathan Tabor and, around the same time, BooMan sent me the link to John Fund’s shocker, in today’s Opinion Journal, on how Karl is selling Harriet with a lot of big promises or, if you’re Senate Judiciary chair Arlen Specter, “backroom deals.”
The nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court is such a below-the-belt blow to conservatives — leaving them angry, marginalized and ignored — that they’ve been protesting at full volume, and digging so hard for the goods on Miers that they make the Gannongate teams look like a bunch of “I Spy” kids.
The anger! Robert Bork to Chris Matthews: “Now I think we’re learning that she is disqualified or unqualified. … She can’t write, and she can’t think except in cliches, apparently.”
BORK: [S]he wrote a column for the “Texas Bar Journal” and it’s nothing but cliches of thought and the writing is terrible. It’s not anything like a Supreme Court justice should be.
MATTHEWS: So the tight, economic of a court decision, she is not capable of writing?
BORK: Apparently not, as far as one can tell.
NYT columnist David Brooks, reports The Washington Note, wonders as well: “Can She Write a Clear Court Decision? Can We Confirm a Ghost Writer?”
Beyond her, um, lack of skills, there’s her uncharted terrority on key conservative issues.
Armed with detailed notes provided to him anonymously, John Fund is able to describe, in-depth, the now-infamous Oct. 3 conference call to Christian conservative leaders about the Miers nomination. Fund’s Opinion Journal piece is titled “Judgment Call: Did Christian conservatives receive assurances that Miers would oppose Roe v. Wade?”
Here Come Da Judges
Fund tells us that “[a]lso on the call were Justice Nathan Hecht of the Texas Supreme Court and Judge Ed Kinkeade, a Dallas-based federal trial judge.” The two judges joined moderator Rev. Donald Wildmon of the American Family Association, James Dobson, and “Gary Bauer of American Values, Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation and the Rev. Bill Owens, a black minister.”
Mr. Dobson [interviewed by Fund for this story] says he was surprised the next day to learn that Justice Hecht and Judge Kinkeade were joining the Arlington Group call. He was asked to introduce the two of them, which he considered awkward given that he had never spoken with Justice Hecht and only once to Judge Kinkeade. According to the notes of the call, Mr. Dobson introduced them by saying, “Karl Rove suggested that we talk with these gentlemen because they can confirm specific reasons why Harriet Miers might be a better candidate than some of us think.” …
Continued BELOW …
What followed, according to the notes, was a free-wheeling discussion about many topics, including same-sex marriage. Justice Hecht said he had never discussed that issue with Ms. Miers. Then an unidentified voice asked the two men, “Based on your personal knowledge of her, if she had the opportunity, do you believe she would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade?”
“Absolutely,” said Judge Kinkeade.
“I agree with that,” said Justice Hecht. “I concur.” […]Judge Kinkeade, through his secretary, declined to discuss the matter. Justice Hecht told me he remembers participating in the call but can’t recollect who invited him or many specifics about it. He said he did tell the group that Ms. Miers was “pro-life,” a characterization he has repeated in public. But he says that when someone asked him about her stand on overturning Roe v. Wade he answered, “I don’t know.” He doesn’t recall what Judge Kinkeade said. But several people who participated in the call confirm that both jurists stated Ms. Miers would vote to overturn Roe. […]
The conference call will no doubt prove controversial on Capitol Hill, always a tinderbox for rumors that any judicial nominee has taken a stand on Roe v. Wade. […]
Some participants in the Oct. 3 conference call fear that they will be called to testify at Ms. Miers’s hearings. “If the call is as you describe it, an effort will be made to subpoena everyone on it,” a Judiciary Committee staffer told me. It is possible that a tape or notes of the call are already in the hands of committee staffers. “Some people were on speaker phones allowing other people to listen in, and others could have been on extensions,” one participant told me.
Here Come Some Mo’ Judges
The two judges’ participation in the call is buttressed by today’s appearance of six former Texas Supreme Court Justices for a photo-op at the White House — and to try to calm the conservative uproar:
“U.S. President George W. Bush (2nd R) speaks as he poses with former Texas Supreme Court justices in the Oval Office of the White House to show support for the pick of Harriet Miers for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, October 17, 2005. (L to R) Former Associate Justice of Texas Supreme Court Eugene Cook, former Associate Justice of Texas Supreme Court Raul Gonzalez, Attorney General of Texas Greg Abbott, (seated) a former associate justice of Texas Supreme Court, former Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice John L. Hill, former Associate Justice of Texas Supreme Court James Baker, Bush, and former Associate Justice of Texas Supreme Court Craig Enoch were present. (Yahoo/Reuters)
(By the way, the White House’s press release is a quick paste-up job, without even the full names of any of the former justices.)
Despite these considerable efforts — and questionable conduct in making behind-the-scenes assurances to conservatives that Harriet is cool on Roe v. Wade and abominable homosexuality (Miers’ gay rights views are major concern of conservatives) — conservative pundits aren’t reassured. And conservatives lament how their outspoken concerns about Miers’ nomination will affect the future:
Here Come The Unhappy Judge
On Thursday’s MSNBC Hardball, Chris Matthews interviewed former Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork.
BORK: Oh, he’s going to fight for it, and I think he’s—and, by the way, if she should be defeated, for some reason, which I don’t think she will be, his next nominee will be a real jab in the eye to the conservatives because he …
MATTHEWS: You think they’ll go to Gonzales where he wanted to go in the first place?
BORK: I don’t know where he will go, but I think he [Bush] is so fed up with the conservatives, that they can’t expect anything good out of him in the future. …
Tablor’s previous articles at the Voice include “Charles Darwin Disagrees with Homosexuality,” “Adultery Is Killing the American Family,” and ever popular themes like “Liberals Hate GOD (Why do you spell God in ALLl CAPS, NATHAN?)” and the ground-breaking story, “Believe It or Not: Abortion Causes Illegal Immigration.” (Oh, we believe, oh yeah.)
Mr. Tabor’s “lonely eyes” today are cast upon the Southern Democrats:
[T]he Republicans were the party of Abraham Lincoln and the War of Northern Aggression. Folks down South had neither forgotten nor forgiven Sherman’s March to the Sea, or the occupying troops and carpetbaggers …
The Democrats were decent, church-going, patriotic citizens who believed in God and country, in that order. They toiled in fields, factories and textile mills. They enlisted in the Armed Services in disproportionately high numbers during wartime. Their core values were what we call conservative today.
Then the 60s came along, claims Tabor, and messed up the Democrats for — like — forever. But, Tabor asks, can those conservative Southern Dems cast their lonely eyes to the Republicans? Not at the moment::
Sadly, the Republican Party leadership has begun to promote so-called moderates like Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Arnold Schwarzenegger under its newfound “Big Tent” philosophy. Now conservatives are faced with the same challenge that Southern Democrats faced in the 1970s. But, unlike Southern Democrats from a few decades ago, modern conservatives do not have a viable option in the other major party.
All “conservatives” have a choice. We could join forces with the Southern Democrats to form a new party; we could look to one of the existing third parties; or we can stand our ground and fight for that which we built. I believe we should fight for control of the party we built. The Republican Party cannot sustain itself on its “moderate wing.” The GOP needs conservatives to maintain its majorities and to win national office. Conservatives, not moderates, built the Republican Party.
Like many other conservatives, Tabor criticizes Miers’ nomination: “If W Is Conservative, Why Miers?.
Fund concludes today’s revelatory piece:
There are philosophical reasons for Republican senators to oppose Ms. Miers. In 1987, the liberal onslaught on Robert Bork dramatically changed the confirmation process. The verb to bork, meaning to savage a nominee and distort his record, entered the vocabulary, and many liberals now acknowledge that the anti-Bork campaign had bad consequences. It led to more stealth nominees, with presidents hoping their scant paper trail would shield them from attack.
President Bush has now gone further in internalizing the lessons of the Bork debacle. Harriet Miers is a “superstealth” nominee–a close friend of the president with no available paper trail who keeps her cards so close to her chest they might as well be plastered on it. If Ms. Miers is confirmed, it will reinforce the popular belief that the Supreme Court is more about political outcomes than the rule of law.
And that outcome will disappoint not only the lonely conservatives, but the similarly powerless liberals.
If she doesn’t withdraw, Ms. Miers will let us all know more when the hearings commence, tentatively slated for Nov. 7.
All emphases mine.
What Chris Matthews also said to Bork:
MATTHEWS: You know, I always thought that the worst thing that happens to you when you go to law school is you learn how to write in subordinate clauses and you can never say anything in the active voice anymore. You forget the simple sentence. She is the worst case I have ever seen. Let me ask you, beyond her literary lack of ability, what do you think stuns you about this nomination, why the president believes it’s worth fighting for? Because he is going to fight for it, he says.
she was going down two days after her nomination. Anyone want to place some bets?
Ordinarily, I’d predict that she’ll be the most prepared nominee ever. But, given the WH’s sloppiness in prepping its nominees, it’s all up to Harriet to do the studying, on her own. And she needs a lot more help than she’s going to be able to give herself.
So, I’m with you, Boo.
I predict she’ll be about as prepared as Brownie was…there is just something about fundies that makes them think all they need is faith to carry them through and not really have to have facts or study the issues.
But at least we’ll be spared the public scatology anyway per bushies little note to her as bestest governor ever. Then again maybe her whole confirmation hearings will be construed as a public scatology of sorts.
The passive voice does serve a purpose in legal writing. For example, a lawyer should generally choose the construction “Unfortunately, Ms. Doe was killed,” rather than, “Unfortunately, my client killed Ms. Doe.”
This is my take on Miers. (and Roe) If Roe was overturned the issue would be sent back to the states resulting in both a crazy quilt of 50 different laws and a loss of federal control on the issue of abortion. Some states would keep it legal, some would not, others would keep it legal with narrow limits. I believe that Bush would prefer to have a series of decisions that narrow Roe’s application beyond recognition rather than an outright overturning of it. Also, an outright overturning would mobilize the left like few other things. A gradual narrowing of its application would not have the same effect. Rather than appoint someone who would definitely overturn Roe, Bush opts for someone who will maintain it, someone with no paper trail for either side to seize upon, althought the lack of a trail in and of itself is some cause for concern. I believe that having a much reduced Roe in place is the aim and not the flashpoint that an overturned Roe would be.
My take: If they overturn Roe, a number of states will outlaw abortion (some states still have the laws on the books, and they wuld become effective once Roe was overturned). This would free up the anti-choice folks to concentrate their resources and focus on harassing and regulating the hell out of the abortion providers still left standing in pro-choice (and I use that term loosely) states.
Within a number of years, the only choice women would have left is the color of their burqa, if the current reign of the American Taliban is not ended.
C-posted at Daily Kos.
I read the Fund article this morning and while not at all surprised at the religious coordination I am surprised that the religious aspect is becoming so public. I would have thought they would want to keep that much more quiet. Then again Bush stupidly opened the door on that by saying her faith was part of his decision in choosing her(and fuck the constitution, right). Dobson has always been one to do his dirty work way behind the curtain, although he too stupidly opened this whole can of worms by saying on his radio show that he’d talked to Rove and he knew things…sounds a bit like he wants to prove he’s in the loop-isn’t pride a sin.
I don’t think Miers will withdraw nor will bush withdraw her-that would be admitting to a mistake. Remember he didn’t withdraw Bolton. I think this will go to the hearings and Miers will be savaged-not about Roe/Wade particularly but that she isn’t qualified in any way/shape or form. And I also hope Dobson is called to testify-that might be fun if the senators do their job correctly.
This fight within the Repub party forming around the Miers nomination is a three way thing.
It’s the God of the evangelical fascist wingnuts, versus the Grover Norquist crowd’s God Mammon, versus the God of the neocons, the War God Ares/Mars.
As a practical person with virtually no expectation for integrity to triumph in the political arena, I have to say that between these 3 “Gods”, my money’s on Mammon, (no pun intended).
The neocons and the money crowd don’t give a shit about abortion rights or about any of those other religious wingnut isues. They only care about getting more money for themselves and they are the ones, led by Fund, Frum, Kristol, Krauthammer and Brooks most vehemently opposed to Miers. They’re afraid she’ll not vote their way when they mount their final assault on the New Deal, the Commerce Clause, and all remaining social programs and structures.
I agree completely about the 3 factions in the repug party although I do think that many of the fundie wingnuts are also combined in the Mamon/War faction. Some of the heads of the biggest corporations are also fundie whack jobs…making them doubly dangerous…same with the War faction. Also many whackos like Dobson have enormous monetary clout(I read somewhere his empire is so big he has his own zip code?).
I agree that there are some powerful overlapping alliegances at work amongst the broader extremist Repub community. After all, gredd and religious zeal often go hand in hand, as do greed and war.
But the problem that always happens, (ther history of man bears this out), is that whenever several groups of crazies combine in a common effort to wrest power away from someone else, once that shabby goal is accomplished, the wingnuts always turn on each other.
There’s only room for one supreme dictator, and the idea that creatures like Cheney, Dobson, and Norquist would ever consider a longterm power sharing arrangement makes me laugh out loud at the absurdity of it. They’ll all be ripping each other to pieces eventually.
The problem for us real humans is how much damage will they do in the meantime.
Wow! Great diary! This is so much fun. 🙂
The Democrats are having an identity crisis, too … except that it’s not much of a crisis yet, as everyone’s working so hard to avoid confronting it.
So while the Republicans hash it out in bloodsport, the Democrats limp along, trying to out-reasonable each other.
Which path leads to healing and cohesion sooner?