SCOTUS odds and ends
Not all conservatives are happy about the Miers withdrawal. Hugh Hewitt:
I think Ms. Miers has been unfairly treated by many who have for years urged fair treatment of judicial nominees.Don Surber (via Blogometer):
She deserves great thanks for her significant service to the country. She and the president deserved much better from his allies.
OK, I was wrong. You were right. Hey, was it worth killing the Bush presidency? Prediction: Democratic Congress in 2006. That means winning 24 of 33 Senate seats. They will do it.Hmmm....
How much influence did bloggers have on the withdrawal? Will Beutler:
It's difficult to say how much influence the blogosphere had in all this. By most accounts, the GOP had not realized how strong the negative reaction to Miers' nod would be. But it did come at a time when the GOP realized it had to reach out to conservative bloggers, and did so re: not just Miers but also, post-Katrina, renewed concerns about cong. spending. In recent weeks the RNC and House GOP conf. have met with their constituent bloggers. And at least some WH staffers were in contact with the pro-GOP 527 RedState (and its SCOTUS-focused subsidiary Confirm Them), whose general opposition was apparent since the morning Miers got the nod. Bloggers were far from the only conservatives with serious questions about Miers' qualifications for the court, but certainly their resolve helped bolster the lobbyists, opinion-makers and decision-makers who kept the pressure on Bush and Miers throughout this process. Will there be stories forthcoming about how the CW in the right blogosphere helped reinforce skepticism about Miers? We wouldn't be surprised.I'm kind of surprised we haven't already seen such chest-thumping, considering the usually unseemly degree of blog triumphalism exhibited by Glenn Reynolds & co.
A name being kicked around as Miers' replacement is Michael McConnell, a Bush appointee to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. McConnell is apparently seen as a moderate, probably because he less than completely enthusiastic about the Bush v. Gore ruling. McConnell, however, would deserve an old-fashioned Borking, in my opinion; he is unabashedly opposed to Roe v. Wade and legalized abortion, as evidenced by this article that McConnell wrote for the Wall Street Journal a few years ago:
Roe v. Wade at 25: Still IllegitimateIf this man is nominated, I would have a hard time ever supporting any Democrat who didn't do all that he or she could to keep him off of the Court.
...Controversial decisions--even decisions that rend the body politic--are sometimes necessary. The Constitution stands for certain fundamental principles of free government, and there are times when the courts must intervene to make sure they are not neglected. But when judges act on the basis of their own political predilections, without regard to constitutional text or the decisions of representative institutions, the results are illegitimate.
The reasoning of Roe v. Wade is an embarrassment to those who take constitutional law seriously ... The court's reasoning proceeded in two steps. First, it found that a "right of privacy" exists under the Constitution, and that this right is "broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." Since this meant that the right to abortion is constitutionally protected, a state could interfere with the right only if it has a "compelling state interest" for doing so.
But the right of privacy is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution...