Miers Withdrawal

Minutes ago, the White House AP correspondent reported in the Washington Post that, “Miers Withdraws Supreme Court Nomination.”

Charles Krauthammer is now the most famous and prescient columnist in America. He wrote last week in “Miers: The Only Exit Strategy” that a White House refusal to release documents relating to her work there for President Bush would be a face-saving way to exit. That's the excuse now given by Miers and the White House for her withdrawal.

I may now be the most stubborn columnist in America. Just last night I wrote about “What is the debate over Miers?” in my Augusta Free Press column.

My thrust – in accord with a 2002 analysis by the Claremont Institute, written when on ideological grounds Democrats held up Bush nominees to other courts -- was that “original intent” of the Constitution regarding Supreme Court nominations gave presumptive weight to the choice of the President, with Senate rejection being only appropriate to a nominee not supporting the Constitution, not particular contentious interpretations of it. Also, Miers would bring a refreshing breath of practical experience in practical governance and in business to a Supreme Court dominated by judicial theorists and judicial-legislator wannabe’s.

I concluded that the Miers debate initiated by many conservative columnists, and almost all being drawn into its orbit, “exposes their outspoken aspirations on other issues as less principled than power-driven.”

I stand by that conclusion.

I, actually, share many if not most of the specific concerns about Miers by fellow columnists. BUT, overriding that are some deeper drivers:

I am even more of a “process conservative” than an originalist. The process is the core “original intent” of the Constitution.

I am less a Wall Street conservative than a Main Street conservative. Big business is very adept at caring for its own interests – excessively selfishly, and even un-American when it suits them – but America’s small businesses and proprietors have too few defenders on the bench.

Overriding all, I am a national security conservative, standing for American ideals of freedom and independence for all, here and abroad, being my guiding light throughout my life.

“Captain” Ed Morrissey, as usual on target, pointed at the reason for such vehement opposition to Miers among so many conservative commentators, in the Weekly Standard calling a “Family Squabble” their cumulative upset with other than conservative positions taken by President Bush.

Morissey is only part correct. Bush never said he was a hard-conservative. And, as much or more of the cause is that Bush must work with a Congress – even when a Republican majority – that is more concerned with local “pork” and Congress’ institutional interests (just think of the 85 Senators who voted last week to keep the boondoggle “bridge to nowhere”). And must deal with a thinly-veiled hostile mainstream media seldom missing an opportunity to skew perceptions against him and his policies. AND, most importantly, must work as a practical leader with an electorate that is NOT dominated by hard conservatives, but is actually in majority on the majority of issues much more moderate and liberal.

The Miers withdrawal may lead to a more “conservative” Supreme Court nominee, or one seemingly more clearly so. But, it will also lead to the emboldening of the intransigent ideologues among Democrats. It will weaken President Bush’s leadership ability on other issues among non-conservatives. It will weaken his hand, don’t forget the firmest, on finishing the job in Iraq. It will undermine many of the very causes that anti-Miers conservative commentators care about.

I’m proud to be one of the last and most stubborn columnists.