Robert G. Kaiser
Washington Post Associate Editor
Monday, October 3, 2005
3:00 PM
Washington Post associate editor Robert G. Kaiser was online Monday, Oct. 3, at 3 p.m. ET to discuss President Bush's nomination of White House Counsel Harriet Miers to replace Sandra Day O'Connor in the Supreme Court.
The transcript follows.
____________________
Poughkeepsie, N.Y.: Thank you for your time and insight, Mr. Kaiser.
As the day has progressed I've been watching various blogs and papers react to the Miers nomination and it has looked to me as though there is crescendo of anger and despair emerging on the right. Bill Kristol is apparently "Disappointed, Depressed, Demoralized", but the Weekly Standard Web site has been down most of the day because there has been so much traffic. Do you have a sense that there is widespread disappointment on the right? If so, does it add up to a mutiny of any significance either for Bush's presidency or the nomination?
Robert G. Kaiser: Good day to all. This is one of those moments that this newsroom loves--a genuine surprise, leaving ideologues on all sides confused--and us too. But our confusion will be gone within the next six hours, as everyone works together to prepare tomorrow's Washington Post. Then everything will be clear! Hopefully.
Yes, there are definite rumblings on the Right. Best evidence: Vice President Cheney, visiting Camp Lejeune in North Carolina, was suddenly available for an interview with Rush Limbaugh a couple of hours ago. Cheney's obvious mission was to calm Rush and his fans. Rush used the word cronyism to describe the appointment of Ms. Miers.
Will there be a significant mutiny? Don't know. Stay tuned.
_______________________
washingtonpost.com: Cheney on Rush Limbaugh Today (Transcript)
_______________________
Alexandria, Va.: So the President has been saying that his favorite Justices are Scalia and Thomas and he'll nominate judges "like" them.
Well, do you think he has? Like him or not, he's a guy who's comfortable in his own skin and apparently has nominated two people he's comfortable with as opposed to people who are perhaps more strident, arrogant and outwardly opinionated.
Robert G. Kaiser: There is no evidence I know of that would suggest that either Roberts or Miers is in any meaningful way like Thomas and Scalia.
_______________________
Greenwood Village, Colo.: If Bush doesn't have any more Supreme Court vacancies to fill during his term, the next President will likely have two. If, after the confirmation of Roberts and presumably Miers, the court does not move decidedly to the right, do you believe this will energize the conservative base of the Republican party to reject candidates such as Frist, McCain and Giuliani?
Robert G. Kaiser: Good question. I learned long ago not to try to look so far into the future. Who knows what surprises lurk out there around the next bend in the road? Not I. But you are right; if Miers and Roberts turn out to be rather pragmatic center-right conservatives on the court, then the next vacancy or two or three will be all the more significant.
_______________________
Salt Lake, Utah: Hi Mr. Kaiser,
Thank you for doing this chat - it is always a pleasure to read your thoughts.
It seems like we have forced ourselves into a situation where we assume that the only nominees that will survive a confirmation process are those without any paper trail. Of course, besides the fact that we severely limit the available pool of nominees, it is a bit frightening to see that we know less and less about the candidates.
Do you think the pendulum will ever swing back to the point where people with several years of judicial experience can be nominated?
Robert G. Kaiser: Well, I hope so, and I do expect that pendulum to swing back. This is a really bad moment for President Bush, almost certainly the worst of his presidency. His low poll numbers, the situation in Iraq, the two hurricanes and their aftermath, the Frist and DeLay matters--this is just a bad dream coming true at the moment. So it makes a lot of sense to me that he would look for a nominee without a paper trail or a meaningful reputation on the controversial issues to replace Justice O'Connor. This was a safe choice, perhaps a really shrewd one. It's a choice made by a president who, just now, is very much on the defensive.
_______________________
Hampton, Va.: This is one of those moments that will look truly awful 20 years from now. Where is Bush's spine? Do the Senate Democrats scare him that much?
Robert G. Kaiser: See above. I think I understand where you are coming from, and I think a lot of loyal conservatives are going to share your view, but I'm not convinced it's entirely fair given the overall political situation.
Sure, Bush could have picked a fight with the Senate by picking an unabashed, forceful, anti-Rowe conservative, but at what cost politically? Remember, there are quite a few pro-choice Republicans still in the Senate. And there are three more years in Bush's term. A knock-down battle now could have left Bush in a pretty deep hole for those three years, no? I think so.
I honestly don't think the Senate Democrats scare Bush at all. I think he is worried about 38% approval ratings and other signs of real political weakness at the moment.
_______________________
London, U.K.: How can this be perceived as anything but total capitulation by Bush to the Democrats? This woman gave money to Al Gore, for goodness sake. Bush is making a rash decision while his poll numbers are low -- a decision that we're stuck with for 20 years.
We elected a conservative President. We elected a conservative House. We elected a conservative Senate. WE KNEW WHAT WE WERE DOING! Give us a conservative nominee!
Robert G. Kaiser: This raises a lot of interesting questions for me. Do you honestly think that the small majority that reelected Bush, the smallest ever for an incumbent running for reelection, expected or wanted him to transform the Supreme Court in a staunchly conservative direction? I don' t think there's any evidence of that. On the contrary, polls continue to show strong majorities, for example, for keeping abortion legal. The country is not as conservative as this president or this Congress, judging by extensive polling by us and others.
I don't doubt that you knew what you were doing, but I don't doubt either that Karl Rove and President Bush knew what they were doing this weekend when they settled on Miers.
_______________________
Austin, Tex.: Leaving ideology aside, what's your impression of the nominee's resume? She's not a heavyweight legal scholar like Scalia (or, apparently, Roberts), but she's had a fairly impressive career. (In other words, she's no "Brownie," despite what the leftwing blogs are saying.)
I'm asking in part because I think the "cronyism" charge will only work if her opponents can argue convincingly that she's not well-qualified to be on the Court.
Can they do that?
Robert G. Kaiser: My first reactions are similar to yours. This woman is interesting. She devoted her life to her legal career; she did extremely well at it; she broke a lot of barriers for women lawyers in Texas; she is held in a high regard by many of her colleagues. A lot of people seem to think that only judges should go on the Supreme Court, but I disagree with that. In my personal opinion the Court has long been in need of more members who have played in the political arena and seen the blood flow up close--as both Rehnquist and O'Connor did.
Today the comments from Democrats and liberal interest groups make clear that they have found no handle to attack Miers yet. They'll keep looking.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: So some bloggers are saying Miers would be the least-credentialed Supreme Court Justice since Abe Fortas. But this strikes me as entirely unfair to Fortas, who was editor-in-chief of the Yale Law Journal, a Yale professor, and ran the SEC. Isn't it fair to say Miers would be the least-credentialed Supreme Court Justice in generations? And while that doesn't necessarily disqualify her, can't we admit that it's pretty shocking for a Supreme Court nominee (1) never to have been a Judge; -and- (2) to have such an undistinguished legal career (even if we credit her with the positions she's attained through her friendship with Bush.) I don't mean to be a snob, but putting aside her political connections, I'm not so sure Hogan and Hartson would bring her in for an interview, much less hire her.
Robert G. Kaiser: She was the managing partner of a successful 200-member law firm and then, after it merged with another, co-managing partner of a 400-member firm. Those are real credentials. I wonder if you're right about Hogan & Hartson.
I will leave it to others to say what credentials are sufficient. Personally I don't think the Republic is in danger because Ms. Miers hasn't been a judge.
_______________________
Herndon, Va.: Well, Bush will certainly get unanimous Senate approval for this one. This is a truly awful pick, borne out of his weakness in the aftermath of the hurricanes and the drumbeat of bad news from Iraq. Six months from now, would he make this pick? I doubt it. We're going to regret this for years to come...
Robert G. Kaiser: I've already commented on your general proposition, but want to question your assumption that in six months, things will be much better for Bush. What do you base that prediction on? I'd say the odds are pretty good that things will actually be worse in six months, though again, I am out of the predictions business. But tell us, what do you think will improve for him in these six months?
_______________________
Arlington, Va.: Let's check the box score:
Democrats gleeful.
Media happy.
Right-wingers apoplectic.
How can the headline be anything but "Democrats win"?
Robert G. Kaiser: Well, I'm not going to hire YOU as a Post reporter! Democrats look surprised and a little baffled, but not gleeful. Ditto the liberal interest groups. "Media happy" implies a monolithic media that has made clear a shared view of the appointment. Where and how? Not all "right wingers" are apoplectic; a number of conservative individuals and groups have issued comments friendly to Miers.
So, if you look in tomorrow's Post, you'll find that the headline is NOT "Democrats win."
_______________________
Iowa: Another country heard from: The local (right-leaning) radio host this noon pronounced Ms. Miers as a great choice because if the Senate Democrats derail her nomination, the President will then be free to nominate a far more avowed, hard-line conservative the next time, with the great advantage of having made the Democrats appear to be whiney obstructionists. This seems to be a divergent view from what some of your conservative posters are offering today?
Robert G. Kaiser: Thanks for posting. And hey, we think Iowa is part of THIS country.
_______________________
New York, N.Y.: How is it that a person with no experience as a judge be considered for a position as a Justice in the highest court? Would that not be a drawback for her?
Thanks for taking my question!
Robert G. Kaiser: Many previous Supreme Court justices had no previous experience as a judge, including to of the last three Chief Justices: Earl Warren and William Rehnquist. Personally I welcome appointments that bring greater diversity to the Court.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: Dear Mr. Kaiser:I must tell you respectfully that your hatred of President Bush is incredibly obvious. As such, why do the Powers That Be continue to assign you to these chats about administration activities? I'm afraid I don't even bother reading your chats anymore because your responses are so predictably sour and condemnatory of the White House.
Robert G. Kaiser: Well, what's a guy to say about this? Only this: President Bush and I belonged to the same fraternity at Yale (he a few years after I did); I have never met him in my life; I feel no "hatred" for him, and such feelings do not come naturally to me, in private life or professionally. Do I think Bush will be recorded in history as a great president? On the basis of his record to date, I do not. Am I open to the possibility that he could still combine success in Iraq, a booming second-term economy and breakthroughs in Iran, Korea and such to create a good record for himself? I am.
Now I have a question for you: If you no longer read these chats, why are you asking questions in them? How will you know if your question was answered? I guess you won't.
_______________________
Newark, N.J.: Why couldn't Bush just wait a month to make a selection? He's at rock-bottom now, but political tides shift quickly. With DeLay, the hurricanes, and gas prices battering him, why the need to hurry? Awful choice. Why do we need Republicans if they act like Democrats?
Robert G. Kaiser: We don't know the thinking in the White House about a delay Vs. fast action, but fast action makes sense to me. Everyone has been waiting for this choice. Sandra Day O'Connor wants to leave Washington as soon as she can (her husband is seriously ill). Of course the political tide could turn, but it could also turn for the worse, no?
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: Today's nomination is beginning to confirm a hypothesis that I have been working on. It seems, despite their statements to the contrary, neither President Bush as any interest in seeing Rowe v. Wade overturned. At first, I thought that Sutter was a blunder - but now with the Roberts and Miers nominations I have to believe that they are consciously choosing pragmatic moderate conservatives (a position I am not unhappy with as a moderate conservative who has little interest in the "culture wars"). What's your opinion on this?
Robert G. Kaiser: Thank you for this very good question. I will not try to read the minds of either Bush, but as analysis, I think yours is sound. Look at W. Bush's record: like his father, he has studiously avoided ever trying to divide the country on abortion. I suspect he is more anti-abortion personally than his father was, but that's just a hunch, not information. And I see no evidence that he disagrees with the political conclusion that leaving the abortion dragon where it is lying makes sense. Remember, a strong majority of Americans wants abortion to be legal in some circumstances. That's a hard fact to evade, politically. If you're trying to build a new Republican majority in the country, would you make an anti-abortion plank central to your platform? No. Reagan, Bush I and Bush II have all avoided doing so.
_______________________
Democrats not gleeful?: Maybe not the extreme-left, who would be unhappy with anyone that Bush nominated. But considering that the Democratic leadership is enthusiastically backing Miers, and that conservative blogs are full of comments about how Bush has betrayed them and that they're going to stay home in 2006, I think that (for the time being anyway) mainstream Democrats are extremely pleased with this turn of events.
Robert G. Kaiser: You may know more than I about the reactions so far, but what I read from Leahy and Reid earlier was very, very cautious, not gleeful.
_______________________
Arlington, Va.: If two vacancies had occurred in the President's first term, would Roberts and/or Miers been nominated ?
Robert G. Kaiser: I doubt it.
_______________________
New York, N.Y.: Mr. Kaiser,
You mention that the left has found no handle to attack the nomination. But my question is - do you really think that it is necessary to find that "handle." Like you said, many on the right are having trouble accepting this nomination. Would it be smarter, strategically, for Democrats to just stay out of the fray? What is the possibility of a potentially damaging fight within the conservative ranks?
Robert G. Kaiser: Good questions, can't answer them yet.
_______________________
Annandale, Va.: I wonder if Republican Party strategists, Bush and his handlers, actually have ever had any intention of getting a Supreme Court that would overturn Roe v Wade. After all, the party has run many, many successful national campaigns on the premise that they will deliver all that the religious right is hoping for, but never actually seem able to deliver once in office (this worked two times for Reagan, and two times for Bush). If they ever actually do lose abortion as an issue, they risk the otherwise questionable coalition of fiscal conservatives (the American money base) with social conservatives (a great number of whom should otherwise be looking at a less status quo economy). Keeping the judicial branch on the fence just makes good sense for producing a permanent Republican majority.
Robert G. Kaiser: You have echoed my sentiments, above.
_______________________
Detroit, Mich.: I'm a Democrat. I'm pretty gleeful! I can't imagine Bush picking a Gore supporter for the Court! The Senate Democrats did their job perfectly!
Robert G. Kaiser: Thanks for confessing. Do we know that she actually favored Gore over Bush, or merely that she gave Gore some money? I have grown cynical in this town, where lots of people and PACs give to both sides in the same race.
_______________________
Seward, Neb.: Kaiser hates Bush? Jeez- I thought you were being rather deferential and rather generous in your observations regarding the Mier pick
Robert G. Kaiser: That's my long-lost cousin in Seward, probably. But I'm grateful anyway!
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: I work for the Congressional Research Service, and we would like to thank President Bush for choosing a nominee with absolutely no paper trail. That means we won't have to waste time, effort and trees providing copies of all her reported decisions and other writings to all who request these.
Robert G. Kaiser: This is an interesting aspect to the choice of Miers. Reporters as well as Senators will be frustrated by the lack of her words.
_______________________
Bethesda, Md.: This seems like a hurried pick. Did the President rush this one out there to dilute the media coverage of the Rove/Cheney/Libby/Frist/DeLay/Abramoff/Safavian/Williams ScandalPak (tm)?
Robert G. Kaiser: I doubt it.
_______________________
New York, N.Y.: Do you think that Ms. Miers will be hurt by having to follow the performance of Chief Justice Roberts' during his confirmation hearings? Will Senators expect her to meet the standard he set in regards to vast knowledge of Supreme Court precedent, since she is not a constitutional expert? And, if she is not able to meet that standard, will it hurt her chances?
Robert G. Kaiser: Good question. I thought about this problem watching Roberts testify last month. I think anyone you could imagine would have a hard time following that performance. But I also think that as of this afternoon, she looks like someone it won't be easy to muster strong opposition to. Of course I have no idea what may come out in the days ahead.
_______________________
Atlanta, Ga.: I admit to being left-leaning, but not partisan. I must say I am surprised the donations (Gore, etc.) made so long ago are considered "today's news." Why is that? Is it fair? What am I missing? Isn't it possible she changed her mind? Aren't people allowed to do that?
Robert G. Kaiser: In today's polarized and over-heated political environment, I think these factoids are seized on as evidence that someone belongs to this or that tribe--is "one of us" or "one of them." In reality, of course, there are a lot of people out there who (like me, if I may say so) don't think in these tribal terms, but find public figures to admire in both parties, and don't divide the universe into "us" and "them."
My hunch is you'll see the strongest tribalists on right and left reacting negatively to Miers precisely because she is the sort of person who could make a contribution to Al Gore, but work for years as a loyal right-hand-woman to George Bush. This makes her more interesting to me; it makes her more suspicious to the ideologues.
_______________________
Louisville, Ky.: A piece of information: She gave money to Gore's '88 campaign. Does that make her a Democrat or clueless?
Robert G. Kaiser: Are those the only possibilities? I don't think so.
_______________________
D.C.: I wish you and your readers would stop referring to the abortion decision as "Rowe." It's "Roe," as in Jane Roe, the female equivalent of John Doe. (Apparently, abortion was such a stigma back then that women were unwilling to use their real names.)
Robert G. Kaiser: Oy, I did it again. I'm sorry! This is a really dumb mistake, I freely confess.
_______________________
Albany, NY: Your comments regarding Miers' qualifications reveal a stunning ignorance. The job of a managing partner is to "manage" a law firm. It is often the partner who is most removed from the practice of law
Robert G. Kaiser: Stunning?
I actually do know what the role of a managing partner is. I cited that as evidence that this is a serious woman respected by her peers who actually put the fate of their law firms -- and thus their livelihoods -- in her hands. That suggests to me that they had a lot of confidence in her. And that, in turn, suggests that she is no lightweight. But obviously, we have a lot to learn about Harriett Miers.
_______________________
Alexandria, VA: I've been stuck inside all day today and haven't seen any photos from the Court. Has Chief Justice Roberts continued the tradition of the late Chief Justice Rehnquist of those four gold stripes on his robe?
Robert G. Kaiser: There are no pictures from the court; Roberts has not changed that old rule. So you would have seen nothing had you not been stuck inside.
But, my colleague Chuck Lane who covers the Court and sits 20 yards from me says the new chief wore no stripes.
_______________________
Houston, Tex.: On the subject of Harriet Miers' contributions to Al Gore, etc, there were a number of conservative Texas Democrats who changed party affiliation back in the late '80's, early '90's. Conservatives should look at her switch as a victory - there's no one more zealous than a convert!
Robert G. Kaiser: thanks for posting. Of course you're right. I expect we'll learn soon when she first registered as a Republican. In Texas, as I understand it, John Connally was the first Republican politician who prompted former Democrats to do so back in the '60s. Conversions continued ever since.
_______________________
Nashville, Tenn.: I don't think you are a Bush hater. Just prior to the 2004 election you printed my comment predicting a massive Bush victory like Nixon's in 1972. Now we'll see if you print this comment, that like Nixon, he will be impeached.
Robert G. Kaiser: I'll gladly post it, but I won't agree with it.
_______________________
Nashville, Tenn.: I'll be reading tomorrow's Post but it won't be to get the Miers reaction. I'd like to see some coverage of why the floodwalls failed in New Orleans. That's the proximate cause of most of the misery that we continue to experience in Katrina's aftermath. With three reporters in the area why haven't we been reading more on this?
Robert G. Kaiser: This will be the last question today. Thanks to all.
I hope we can give you a link here to a terrific story by Michael Grunwald of The Post on the failure of the levees in New Orleans. I don't know what prompted your question--did something come out on this today? If so I have missed it. But this is a big question of great interest to The Post.
Please come back for more next time.
_______________________
washingtonpost.com: Experts Say Faulty Levees Caused Much of Flooding.
_______________________
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
