UPDATE : There is general consensus on this post, with a few dissenting opinions, that Miers will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade if her nomination is confirmed.
Looking beyond Roe, it is critical to understand this : leaders and strategists of the Christian supremacy movement laid out - over two decades ago - a strategy of both taking over and also weakening the federal judiciary. The Miers nomination is almost surely part of that strategy, and Miers almost surely holds legal views that she will not divulge prior to a vote on her nomination. That would be in keeping with the general tactic of the Christian right movement - to advance by stealth and incremental but relentless change.
But what to think about the Miers nomination itself ? Is it a terrible politcal blunder ? Or is it a Rovian play ?
:
Inside - the Miers nomination, Karl Rove, and the Christian right
Some on this discussion have suggested that the overturning of Roe is a foregone conclusion, one that the Democrats should accept and move on. Others hold that the GOP would never want to overturn Roe because the abortion issue energizes the Christian right's base. But, the end of Roe would be unlikely to mean the end of the issue - the legality of abortion rights would likely simply devolve to the state and the struggle would continue.
Meanwhile, there are plenty of other red-meat issues for Christian supremacist right leaders to toss the way of the faithful, notably gay marriage and the very existence of gays themselves. The Christian right will always find news groups to demonize : American muslims, athiests, unitarians, pornographers, greens.... the list of possible targets for vilification is long indeed.
But what to think about the Miers nomination itself ? Is it a terrible politcal blunder ? Or is it a Rovian play ?
Background elements to consider : the Plame investigation concludes very soon - I may be overeaching my purview, here, but it seems likely that having another dedicated Bush partisan on the Supreme Court would prove very handy, not only in terms of the Plame affair but also for the legal investigations now swirling around Bill Frist, Tom Delay, Jack Abramoff, and other key GOP figures. Recall : Gore vs. Bush was decided on a 7-2 vote, but in terms of the decision to actually stop the Florida vote recount, the alignment was 5-4 : One vote can count, and very much so.
Miers and Strict Constructionism
Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, on Miers :
“This President has kept no promise more faithfully than his promise in 2000, and again in 2004, that he would nominate only strict constructionist, original intent jurists to the Supreme Court.”
Harriet Miers has said that she favors the "strict constructionst" ( or "original intent" ) approach to constitutional interpretation.
Now, some legal scholars argue that the "original intent" approach has its own liberal tradition :well and good but largely irrelevant.
When Harriet Miers speaks of "strict constructionism" she is not referencing the liberal tradition of that term. Not at all - Miers holds the strict constructionist approach of the Christian theocratic right.
The reductio ad absurdum of "strict constructionism" is this - the founders allowed for the legality of slavery, and they did not extend the voting franchise to women. So - for example - one could logically infer that "strict constructionists" want to legalize slavery and strip women of the right to vote.
And - indeed - there are influential thinkers in the Christian supremacist movement who do argue for that. ( That's not suprising given Dominionism's roots in Christian Reconstructionism. ) It is true and best remembered that not all - or even most - in the movement hold such views. Nor does - for all we know - Harriet Miers.
But on this you can rest assured - Miers may very well prove more ideologically extreme than any sitting supreme court justice, and her interpretation of "original intent" is likely far from innocuous.
The bloc of the Christian right that is intent on absolute political power - call it supremacist, dominionist, or theocratic - has long awaited a "payoff" : big results.
Harriet Miers could very well represent such a payoff - to assume any less would be foolish.
______________
Meanwhile John Dickerson, chief political correspondent for Slate, has
a superb analysis of the Miers nomination within the context of GOP coalition politics:
( excerpt, from the introduction )
"On the one side, James Dobson, Miers' fellow parishioners at Valley View Christian Church, and President Bush speak for her heart. On the other, George Will and William Kristol and others who swooned for John Roberts decry her unimpressive legal mind.
In this battle, the White House has clearly sided with the churchgoing masses against the Republican Party's own whiny Beltway intellectuals."
_________________________________________
Time is not currently on George Bush's side. Possible indictments in the Plame case loom, key GOP leaders are beset by indictments and scandal, and the clock is running on the '06 election.
Could the Miers nomination be a ruse, intended to draw the fire of of Democratic filibuster so that Bush could trot out the REAL candidate after Miers' had been withdrawn ? : less likely for the factors cited above.
Karl Rove, the man who alleged has said "I put churches in schools", seems to be personally managing the Miers nomination. Is it all blunder ? Rove is allegedly, reports the Washington Post, briefing key Christian right leaders with confidential information concerning Miers - information which Rove has not disclosed to the GOP at large.
Why would Rove do this ?
Consider : in the end, the GOP - regardless of what they may have said publicly - will still vote to confirm Miers. Meanwhile, the Democrats are becoming confused - is Miers a mistake ? Is she actually a moderate ? Should we even bother to oppose her ?
Miers may represent a high stakes gambit which - if successful - would put a Bush loyalist, from the Christian theocratic right and who opposes Roe v. Wade - in charge of the US Supreme Court.
Further, the nomination of such an inexperienced cadidate may be quite intentional : it has long been the stated strategy of the Christian supremacist right to weaken the power of the federal judiciary even as they have moved to pack that judiciary with their partisans.
____________
U.S. Senator Ken Salazar ( D-Colo. ) "said Thursday that the White House may have waived its executive privilege on U.S. Supreme Court nominee Harriet E. Miers by giving secret briefings on her to some supporters.".....
Thus reports the Peublo Colorado Chieftain. Media Matters for America picked up on the story:
"Some reporters apparently recognized the newsworthiness of Dobson's October 5 claim that the White House is providing some conservatives with information about Miers, which Dobson suggested was critical to his support, but not sharing it with senators or the public. On the October 5 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, CNN congressional correspondent Ed Henry reported that Dobson "has basically said he's been assured that she [Miers] is pro-life.""
But few media outlets paid attention.
Here's the bottom line : the White House is trying to cover up the fact that if Miers is nominated Roe v. Wade WILL be overturned.
E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post :
"James Dobson, the founder and chairman of the evangelical organization Focus on the Family, told Fox News's Brit Hume: "We know people who have known her for 20, 25 years, and they would vouch for her. . . . I know the church that she goes to and I know the people who go to church with her." On the Wednesday edition of his radio show, Dobson was more specific: "I know the individual who led her to the Lord."
Rather mysteriously, Dobson, who was briefed on the nomination by Bush's chief lieutenant, Karl Rove, told Hume: "I do know things that I am not prepared to talk about here." He was equally cagey with the New York Times: "Some of what I know I am not at liberty to talk about.""
As a working assumption, consider this : the proposition that some of the alleged conservative opposition to the Miers nomination may have been intentionally engineered by the Bush Administration by divulging key information on Miers only to key religious right supporters such as Dobson.
Basically, it may be a high stakes crap shoot : some Democrats would be convinced, by the opposition to Miers, of her "moderate" nature. Some Republicans might not vote for her. But the bulk of the Christian right will support the nomination.
In short, it's a Rovian high stakes play. A high risk gambit. Even if the whole Bush Administration were chased out of the White House the Miers nomination might be an overall win or at least a draw. Don't underestimate this. Even if Rove were thrown in prison, he might still consider a successful Miers nomination to be an overall victory.
Further, Bush would be placing an intensely loyal partisan in the nation's top judicial slot at a time when his administration was beset by steadily tightening investigatory nooses.
This is - at base - a simple ploy : own the referee.
If any of the investigatory nooses tightening around the Bush Administration creates a legal crisis ( and such could probably gussied up with Congressional aid ) Miers would be in place to preside over the fix.
That would not be the end of it - only the beginning : if Dr. James Dobson - whose views extend to advocating whipping 15 month old toddlers as a disciplinary measure - is a key supporter of Miers, rest assured of this : the availability of birth control to unmarried couples, cemented in Griswold v Ct., will be called into question.
And much more, rest assured.
Dr. Dobson does not play games, and he is - by his own admission - at ease with whipping small dogs and children : a Machiavellian intent on theocratic domination.