Legalities
Life, Politics and the Law From ABC News Correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg
Jan Crawford Greenburg is a correspondent for ABC News' bureau in Washington DC. She covers politics, the Supreme Court and provides legal analysis for ABC News. She is a graduate of the University of Chicago's law school and is a member of the New York bar.
RECENT POSTS
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
The Miers Mess
January 21, 2007 6:07 PM
This morning, I spoke briefly on George’s show about some of the behind-the-scenes drama surrounding the nomination of Harriet Miers and you can click here to hear the segment. The story of the nomination is a tale of missteps and disconnect at nearly every level in the administration, and I write about it in detail in my book,Supreme Conflict —including how Miers slowly came to realize (after several painful meetings) that she must withdraw.
But one of the more interesting pre-nomination stories concerns the role of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, long considered the top prospect for a Supreme Court nomination himself. The opposition of an attorney general has doomed contenders in past administrations—notably in George H.W. Bush’s. But it would not do in the case of Harriet Miers.
When Gonzales’ top lawyers in the Justice Department learned that Bush was serious about nominating Miers, they implored him to intervene. He resisted. He’d long been considered a potential nominee, and he didn’t want Bush to think he was angling for the job. For several years, Gonzales had been in the difficult position of vetting possible candidates, while being a hopeful contender himself. Lawyers in the White House counsel’s office had written up a memo on his legal background, as they did the other prospects. But his name was kept off to the side, always there, but not on the list with the others, either.
Conservatives opposed Gonzales from the beginning, because they worried he was too liberal for the Court and would drift to the left once on the bench. Gonzales, it was said, was Spanish for “Souter.” The suspicions and opposition outraged him. “I’d never be like Souter,” Gonzales angrily told one adviser. When he learned Bush was preparing to nominate Miers, he realized she would fare no better. His advisers pressed him to take his concerns to Bush, telling him he had a “duty to the President” to advise him. “Conservatives will revolt,” one said, with urgency. He hesitated.
Gonzales had known Miers for years, and they had a friendly rivalry. Both had a history of firsts: She was the first woman reaching different positions of “greatness,” as her supporters said; he was the first Hispanic breaking through barriers. He’d become Bush’s first White House counsel, edging out Miers. Now she would be Bush’s Supreme Court nominee. Gonzales concluded he had to tell Bush. But when he laid out his concerns, he realized it was too late. Bush had made up his mind. He announced Miers’s nomination three days later.
The irony is that no other adviser in the administration had been vilified by conservatives like Alberto Gonzales. Yet at the end of the day, he went to bat for them. He was the highest ranking official to try to stop the Miers nomination—a nomination that was an unmitigated disaster for the Bush White House.
I’ll be talking more about the Miers nomination tomorrow. I’ll start the day on Good Morning America with a few more pieces of news—including the story that has been an endless source of speculation for court watchers ever since O’Connor surprised us all with her retirement. I’ll discuss how Justice O’Connor came to retire before Chief Justice William Rehnquist—when the two talked and how it came about. It’s a startling story.
Then Monday night, I’ll have a report on Nightline about Justice Thomas’s real role on the Court—from his earliest days as a justice. It will shock many of you, because it is completely at odds with conventional wisdom on Thomas. And you’ll hear inside details about Thomas from past clerks, a liberal attorney who won his day in court with a key case on presidential power despite Thomas’ opposition and an exclusive interview with civil rights pioneer Julian Bond about the African American community’s view of the only the black justice on the Supreme Court.
January 21, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (5)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Jan,
This is an interesting story, to be sure, but reading the version of events you recount, I'm not sure that it follows that Gonzales "went to bat" for conservatives. That might be so if Gonzales shared the skepticism and opposition towards Miers, but that doesn't come across in your version. Rather, what comes across is that Gonzales recognized that a Miers nomination -- whatever its actual merits -- would be met with a firestorm of criticism. He attempted to dissuade the President from nominating her not out of conviction that she was not a good choice on her own merits, but because he was astute enough to realize what Bush did not: it was politically untenable. Thus, it seems to me that, if your version of events is right, Gonzales went to bat for the President's best interests, not for conservatives'.
Very much looking forward to the book. The excerpts I've seen thusfar have been great.
Posted by: Simon | Jan 22, 2007 9:32:43 AM
Simon, don't you know that the main stream media decides on the narative and *then* forces the facts to fit that predetermined theme? Since when does the media let facts get in the way of a good story?
Posted by: Cat | Jan 22, 2007 6:36:24 PM
Harriet Miers was nominated by Bush with the intention that she would NOT pass muster so he could then tell the American public that he tried to get another woman on the court but his plans were foiled. This cleared the path for him to get his real nomination through who just happened to be another male conservative.
Posted by: barbara roe | Jan 24, 2007 3:15:06 PM
These old geezers justices need to go when they become so damn frail. This is the Supreme Court we are talking about. The laws need to be changed regarding these life long positions. Some parameters regarding retirement for these gods who are dressed in black gowns is paramount... and should start being addressed.
This woman, Ginsberg clearly looks very tired and thus very old, not to mention extremely haggard..... thus clearly not at 100% function mentally and physically. My seven year old son can recognize that (and he doesn't even know yet he's a Republican.)
Ginsburg is not the only one who needs too have enough sense to step down from that position. The public has been punished enough to keep witnessing all these old Justices hanging on for dear life to keep their seat. We all know these liberal old judges are so damn worried about who President Bush would replace them with. Well, I can assure you that whoever it is, Ginsburg wouldn't be able to compete with. Her time has passed and passed and passed and passed again.
Give it a rest, Ms. Ginsberg!!!!!!!
Posted by: Camille | Mar 2, 2007 12:05:18 PM
The Congress needs a time limit. The Supreme court is fine but America's problem is that we need to limit how many terms those Boozo's can run. When you want a change get some NEW fresh blood, BUSH willbe gone but KERRY or Hillary will be with us forever and that is a sad joke. 2 terms is enough.
Posted by: Wondering why? | Mar 2, 2007 4:41:50 PM
Post a comment
