Explaining the Selection and Rejection of Harriet Miers: George W. Bush, Political Symbolism, and the Highpoint of Conservatism
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15763/issn.2374-7781.2008.29.0.253-270Abstract
Following the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and the death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist in the summer of 2005, President George W. Bush appeared to be in alliance with conservatives in his desire to fill the two vacancies with strong ideologues who would push the Supreme Court to the right. However, after pleasing conservatives with his selection of John Roberts for one of the vacancies, President Bush angered many of his ideological brethren by choosing White House counsel Harriet Miers for the other. This article considers why the president decided on Miers and why her selection upset so many conservatives. It concludes by suggesting that Miers’s forced withdrawal represented a highpoint in the conservative effort to transform the Court.References
Abraham, Henry J. 1999. Justices, Presidents, and Senators: A History of the U.S. Supreme Court Appointments from Washington to Clinton. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
Abramowitz, Alan I. 1995. It's Abortion Stupid: Policy Voting in the 1992 Presidential Election. Journal of Politics 57:176-186. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2960276
Apple, R.W. 1989. Backlash at the Polls. New York Times, November 9.
Apple, R.W. 2000. Courting of Voting Bloc Poses Question of Motive. New York Times, August 2.
Balz, Dan. 2005. Rep. Davis Warns of Backlash if Roe v. Wade is Overturned. Washington Post, November 17.
Biskupic, Joan. 2005. Sandra Day O'Connor: How the First Woman on the Supreme Court Became Its Most Influential Justice. New York: Ecco/Harper Collins.
Bumiller, Elisabeth. 2005. Pillow-Talk Call for a Woman to Fill O'Connor Seat. New York Times, July 18.
Ceaser, James, and Andrew Busch. 2005. Red Over Blue: The 2004 Elections and American Politics. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
Clayton, Cornell W., and Howard Gillman, eds. 1999. Supreme Court Decision-Making: New Institutionalist Approaches. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
DeParle, Jason. 1990. Souter Gives Little Comfort to Wary Conservatives. New York Times, September 17.
Gillman, Howard, and Cornell Clayton, eds. 1999. The Supreme Court in American Politics: New Institutionalist Interpretations. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
Gitenstein, Mark. 1992. Matters of Principle: An Insider's Account of America's Rejection of Robert Bork's Nominations to the Supreme Court. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Graber, Mark A. 1993. The Nonmajoritarian Difficulty: Legislative Deference to the Judiciary. Studies in American Political Development 7:35-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0898588X00000687
Graber, Mark A. 2005. Constructing Judicial Review. American Review of Political Science 8:425-451. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.8.082103.104905
Greenburg, Jan Crawford. 2007. Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court. New York: Penguin.
Greenhouse, Linda. 1987. Reagan Nominates Anthony Kennedy to the Court. New York Times, November 12.
Jordan, Lara Jakes. 2004. Specter Warns Bush on Picks for Top Court. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, November 4.
Kahn, Ronald and Ken I. Kersch. 2006. The Supreme Court and American Political Development. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
Keck, Thomas M. 2007. Party Politics or Judicial Independence? The Regime Politics Literature Hits the Law Schools. Law & Social Inquiry 32(2):511-544. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4469.2007.00067.x
Kristol, William. 2005. Disappointed, Depressed and Demoralized: A reaction to the Harriet Miers nomination. Weekly Standard, October 3.
Maltz, Earl M. 2003. Anthony Kennedy and the Jurisprudence of Respectable Conservatism. In Rehnquist Justice: Understanding the Court Dynamic, ed. Earl M. Maltz. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.
Massaro, John. 1990. Supremely Political: The Role of Ideology and Presidential Management. In Unsuccessful Supreme Court Nominations. Albany: State University of New York Press.
McMahon, Kevin J. 2007. Presidents, Political Regimes, and Contentious Supreme Court Nominations: A Historical Institutional Model. Law & Social Inquiry 32(4):919-954. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4469.2007.00083.x
Morgan, Richard E. 2006. The Failure of the Rehnquist Court. The Claremont Review of Books 4(Spring):6.
Nemacheck, Christine L. 2007. Strategic Selection: Presidential Nomination of Supreme Court Justices from Herbert Hoover to George W. Bush. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
Peretti, Terri. 1999. In Defense of a Political Court. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Perry, Barbara A. 1991. A "Representative" Supreme Court? The Impact of Race, Religion, and Gender on Appointments. New York: Greenwood Press.
Rosen, Jeffrey. 2006. The Most Democratic Branch: How the Court Serve America. New York: Oxford University Press.
Rosenthal, Andrew. 1989. G.O.P. Leaders Urge Softer Line about Abortion. New York Times, November 10.
Savage, David. 1992. Turning Right: The Making of the Rehnquist Supreme Court. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Scherer, Nancy. 2005 Scoring Points: Politicians, Activists, and the Lower Federal Court Appointment Process. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Harold J. Spaeth. 2002. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615696
Selzer, Richard A., Jody Newman, and Melissa Voorhess Leighton. 1997. Sex as a Political Variable: Women as Candidates and Voters in U.S. Elections. Boulder, CO: L.P. Rienner.
Stone, Anne E.W. 1992. A Way Out for Republicans on Abortion. New York Times, April 23.
Sunstein, Cass R. 2005. Radicals in Robes: Why Extreme Right-Wing Courts Are Wrong for America. New York: Basic Books.
Toner, Robin. 1990. Why Some Republicans Lament Chief's Absence. New York Times, November 29.
Toner, Robin. 1992. New Worry for Bush. New York Times, January 22.
Toner, Robin. 1992. Pennsylvania Abortion Case Adds an Edge To the Election. New York Times, January 26.
Toner, Robin. 1992. Ruling Eases a Worry for Bush, But Just Wait, His Critics Warn. New York Times, June 30.
Toobin, Jeffrey. 2007. The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court. New York: Doubleday.
Tushnet, Mark. 2005. A Court Divided: The Rehnquist Court and the Future of Constitutional Law. New York: W.W. Norton.
Whittington, Keith. 2007. Political Foundations of Judicial Supremacy: The Presidency, the Supreme Court, and Constitutional Leadership in U.S. History. Princeton.
Witt, Elder. 1986. A Different Justice: Reagan and the Supreme Court. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
Yalof, David Alistair. 1999. Pursuit of Justices: Presidential Politics and the Selection of Supreme Court Nominees. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with American Review of Politics agree to the following terms:
The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:
Attribution: other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;
Non-Commercial: the materials may not be used for commercial purposes;
Share Alike: If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.
with the understanding that the above condition can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.
The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a pre-publication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access). Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.
The Author represents and warrants that:
the Work is the Author’s original work;
the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
the Work has not previously been published;
the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.
The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.
