Harriet Miers: Good for 2006 Midterm Elections

Many conservatives have continued to support the President in spite of unpopular decisions for two reasons and two reasons only; the War on Terror, and judicial nominations.  With the nomination of Harriet Miers, the base feels betrayed, with some promising to stay home in the 2006 midterms.

In contrast, I foresee her nomination and confirmation energizing the base for midterm elections. Why? Imagine two scenarios with me.

In the first, President Bush nominates a Luttig or Jones, giving conservatives the fight they so desperately want over judicial philosophy. The debate virtually shuts down the Senate, possibly leading to a filibuster. No significant legislation is passed. Political activists may love the debate, but the average voter will see it as partisan politics as usual, causing them to yawn and stay home on  election night.

In the second, Harriet Miers, having been recommended by Harry Reid, is confirmed in time to vote on key issues in front of the court this term.  Considering the emphasis President Bush has put on changing the court, her involvement in that cause, and his personal knowledge of her philosophy, I have no doubt that she will be voting with Scalia and Thomas. What will the court be considering this term?

The court has already granted review in 48 cases, enough to fill the new term's argument calendar into February. The list includes cases likely to produce vigorous debates among the justices, leading to decisions that may help to define the Roberts Court. Abortion, religion, free speech, the death penalty and federalism are among the subjects at hand. The court's announcement on Tuesday that it was adding two campaign finance issues to the calendar raised the temperature of the new term considerably.

With issues such as abortion, religion, and campaign finance on the court's docket, it's quite possible, even likely, that Harriet Miers' replacement of O'Connor will result in an immediate shift to the right from our highest court on key conservative issues this term.

Which is more likely to energize the base for 2006, a debate on judicial conservative philosophy, or an actual demonstration of the court stemming the tide of judicial activism?

Given the choice of the debate, which will be followed only by the choir, or actual results, which will be discussed around the water cooler, I'll choose results every time.

For that reason, I am part of the Coalition of the Chillin'.  Note, I speak only for myself on this issue, not for the other authors at M.A.W.B., though I'd love to hear their take on the debate.

Update:  Cross posted to Redstate.org where it's been promoted to the front page.  Join in the comments there.

Comments

[aelfheld]

Don't assume that Miers is conservative just because Bush likes her - remember who turned McCain/Feingold into law.

BTW, I don't love the idea of long and noisy debate and/or filibuster in the Senate (conducted in a manner befitting playground arguments), but the idea of shutting down the Senate warms the cockles of my flinty heart.

[R-Five]

You've got the politics right I think, good post. And maybe Harry Reid has effectively neutralized the cronyism charge. But I would rather have more people involved, and studying a proven record, not the personal recommendations of a few.