Posts on Manuel Miranda

I had been on vacation for the last several days, so I missed this little nugget when it first surfaced last week:

Jon Kyl, the second-ranking Republican in the U.S. Senate, warned president-elect Barack Obama that he would filibuster U.S. Supreme Court appointments if those nominees were too liberal.

Kyl, Arizona’s junior senator, expects Obama to appoint judges in the mold of U.S Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and Stephen Breyer. Those justices take a liberal view on cases related to social, law and order and business issues, Kyl said.

“He believes in justices that have empathy,” said Kyl, speaking at a Federalist Society meeting in Phoenix. The attorneys group promotes conservative legal principles.

Kyl said if Obama goes with empathetic judges who do not base their decisions on the rule of law and legal precedents but instead the factors in each case, he would try to block those picks via filibuster.

That would be the same Jon Kyl who, as Steve Benen pointed out, supported the "nuclear option” back in 2005 to do away with the filibuster regarding judicial nominees.  It would also be the same Jon Kyl who explicitly argued that junking the filibuster would in no way ever hamstring Republicans because they would be too principled [PDF] to ever even try to use it down the road:

My friends argue that Republicans may want to filibuster a future Democratic President’s nominees. To that I say, I don’t think so, and even if true, I’m willing to give up that tool. It was never a power we thought we had in the past, and it is not one likely to be used in the future. I know some insist that we will someday want to block Democrat judges by filibuster. But I know my colleagues. I have heard them speak passionately, publicly and privately, about the injustice done to filibustered nominees. I think it highly unlikely that they will shift their views simply because the political worm has turned. So I say to my friends: what you say we Republicans are losing is, in fact, no loss at all.

And while we are on the subject of right-wingers suddenly changing their tune regarding judicial nominations, I found this rather amusing:

But Manuel Miranda, chairman of the Third Branch Conference, a coalition of conservative activists who have weighed in on Supreme Court appointments, warned that judicial nominees similar to Marshall and Brennan would face strong opposition.

“Outside groups will always push to the extremes to get people who would be turning back the clock to Brennan or Marshall,” said Miranda.

That would be the same Manuel Miranda who has been a one-man right-wing judicial confirmation army ever since he lost his job on the Hill after accessing internal Democratic memos.  Miranda was the primary force behind just about every right-wing “grassroots” effort to force the confirmation of President Bush’s judicial nominees, as well as their effort to compel Harriet Miers to withdraw her Supreme Court nomination.  So it’s pretty interesting that he’s suddenly concerned about “outside groups” pushing “extreme” nominees … and even more interesting that he’s now quite concerned that Obama’s nominees will “turn back the clock.”

While the rest of you were enjoying a lovely Friday evening with friends and loved-ones, I was stuck watching the final hours of the Values Voter Summit featuring Mitt Romney, who was as thrilling and entertaining as ever, especially considering the truly awful "Court Jester Award Ceremony" that followed. 

In an attempt to bring a little levity to what was an otherwise soul-crushingly dull event, the Family Research Council decided to have its own awards ceremony where they highlighted courts, court rulings, and individual judges they dislike.  But since, obviously, the members of the Supreme Court or Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals weren't going to attend to pick up their "awards," FRC decided to have right-wing figures accept them on their behalf ... and attempt to be funny doing it. 

So how did that work out?  Not well. 

Here's Manuel Miranda accepting an award on behalf of the US Supreme Court and giving us his "humorous" rendition of what goes on during SCOTUS conferences:

Who says conservatives aren't funny?  I do!

The Hill reports that even though John McCain has repeatedly and explicitly promised to nominate judges like John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, the Right is still a little unsure that they can trust him and so they decided to work explicit language into the GOP platform in order to send him a clear message:

Republican conservatives have given John McCain a warning on what kind of justices he may appoint to the Supreme Court as president.

Their message: no surprises.

Authors of the 2008 GOP platform have included specific language urging Sen. McCain (Ariz.), the party’s nominee, not to appoint “stealth nominees” to the court. That language was the result of lobbing by the conservative activists.

…

The platform makes clear that McCain should appoint jurists who have clearly defined views of constitutional interpretation.

It states: “We oppose stealth nominations to the federal bench, and especially the Supreme Court, whose lack of a clear and distinguished record leaves doubt about their respect for the Constitution.”

Conservative activists led by Manuel Miranda, chairman of the Third Branch Conference, a coalition of conservative leaders active on judicial matters, began pushing for the platform changes in May. It began a minuet between the McCain campaign and its conservative skeptics that eventually shaped the presidential platform.

The last time the Right was sending McCain explicit messages about what it expected from him, they were telling him that his choices of running mate were patently unacceptable, to which he responded by utterly capitulating and giving them everything they wanted in Sarah Palin.  In fact, it seems as if his caving to their demands on Palin has actually helped assuage their concerns about his willingness to do their bidding:

Conservative leaders who worked on the platform said the strength of the document and McCain’s selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as a running mate eased concerns that lingered right up until the convention.

“The two combined changed everything,” said [David] Keene [of the American Conservative Union.]

If one thing is for sure, it is that the paramount issue for the Right over the last several years has been gaining control over the federal judiciary and especially the Supreme Court. This has been the one unifying theme of their efforts to rally behind John McCain and one McCain himself has been citing at every opportunity.

So it was to be expected that this sort of article from CNSNews would emerge sooner or later, in which just about every right-wing judicial activist is given an opportunity to attack Joe Biden as the man single-handedly responsible for everything that is wrong, from their perspective, with the judicial nomination process:

[C]onservatives say that for 27 years, Biden has served as a liberal front man for attacking conservative judicial nominees and principles – notably during the confirmation hearings of Judges Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas.

…

"Liberal special interest groups worked hand-in-hand with the liberal members of the Judiciary committee to sink Bork, and Biden was in charge of it all," [Focus on the Family's Bruce] Hausknecht said.

[Federalist Society Founder Stephen] Calabresi said that even though it was Biden’s liberal compatriot on the committee, Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) who was the most visible in leading the attack on Bork, Biden was hardly a mere bystander.

"It’s important to remember that Sen. Biden was the chairman of the committee during the Bork nomination and the Thomas confirmation fights," Calabresi reiterated.

As John McCain prepares to deliver his remarks on the future of the judiciary today in North Carolina, it looks like he will be under some close scrutiny from the Right, who are growing fed up with his seeming reluctance to throw them red meat:

In town-hall meetings, Sen. McCain makes a point to explain his positions on terrorism, taxes, the economy, energy and health care. But in his prepared remarks, he never mentions abortion, same-sex marriage, judges or gun rights. When asked, he often responds quickly and moves on.

"Imagine if you were an economic conservative and someone never talked about tax policy unless they were asked about it," said Charmaine Yoest, a vice president at the Family Research Council, a conservative advocacy group focused on social issues.

Asked whether she thinks Sen. McCain really cares about the abortion issue, she said, "I don't know, and that's his problem."

As such, many of them are launching a campaign to make the issue of judges a centerpiece of the upcoming election:

Conservative leaders also want the party to embrace language that would instruct Senate leaders to make the confirmation of nominees a higher priority. Conservatives say Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) must press Democrats harder to confirm several controversial nominees, such as D.C. Circuit Court nominee Peter Keisler and 4th Circuit Court nominee Robert Conrad Jr.

Manuel Miranda, a former aide to ex-Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), circulated a draft Monday of principles for the GOP platform committee to consider. Several conservative leaders quickly endorsed it. 

Paul Weyrich, chairman of the conservative Free Congress Foundation, said he supports including the language on judicial nominees in the party platform.

“I think the more we particularize that whole issue, the more people focus on the topic,” Weyrich said. Making detailed guidelines on judicial nominees part of the platform would also help social conservatives hold McCain to account if he is elected president.

“You can compare what the party says with any subsequent action by its nominees,” said Weyrich. 

And while McCain is delivering his remarks, Republican National Committee officials will be courting right-wing leaders on this effort having “invited social conservative leaders based in and around Washington, D.C., to attend a meeting Tuesday morning where former Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.) will give them a preview of McCain’s remarks.”   

Already McCain surrogate Sen. Sam Brownback is making the rounds assuring the Right that it’ll like what it hears and, judging by excerpts of McCain's remarks and preliminary press coverage, it certainly looks like that will be the case:  

Republican presidential candidate John McCain said on Tuesday he would appoint judges in the mold of conservatives John Roberts, Samuel Alito and former Chief Justice William Rehnquist if he were elected in November.

In an excerpt from a speech McCain was to give in Winston-Salem on Tuesday, the Arizona senator said he would "look for accomplished men and women with a proven record of excellence in the law, and a proven commitment to judicial restraint."

"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist -- jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference," McCain said.

In fact, so sure is the McCain camp that this speech will win over the Right that it is reaching out to them via GOPUSA seeking donations:   

We have a lot at stake in this presidential election. As a nation, we face many challenges that will require real leadership from our next president. I have said before that this election will be about the big things, not the small things, and I write to you today about one big issue in particular - the future of the U.S. Supreme Court. If one of my Democratic opponents is elected in November, you can rest assured that given the opportunity to appoint judges, they will appoint those who make law with disregard for the will of the people.

There may be at least two vacancies on the United States Supreme Court during the next presidential term. As president, I will ensure that only those judges with a strict interpretation of the Constitution of the United States are appointed. I will nominate judges who understand that their role is to faithfully apply the law as written, not impose their opinions through judicial fiat.

If you want judges who have a clear, complete adherence to the Constitution of the United States and who do not legislate from the bench to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, then I ask that you join my campaign for president today by making a financial contribution.

Right-wing activists, including Phyllis Schlafly, recently gathered at the Family Research Council to plot strategy on judges, and Manuel Miranda endorses John McCain and defends his record on the issue: "Senator McCain would not need on-the-job training on the issue of federal judicial nomination, and he is a meritocrat. He is not likely to nominate a lightweight to the judiciary."

After the failure of his Families First on Immigration effort, it appears as if Manuel Miranda has found a new job: "Miranda's official title is director of the Office of Legislative Statecraft at the U.S. Embassy in Iraq. There, he's giving instruction on democratic principles to Iraqi lawyers and lawmakers, a group of whom he escorted around the Capitol complex yesterday ... Miranda, who moved on to work as judicial nominations counsel for then-Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) in 2003, was forced from his job in early 2004 after an internal Senate investigation determined he and a junior aide had swiped 4,670 documents, memos and e-mails."

Now that Alberto Gonzales has resigned from his position as Attorney General, the Right is desperately trying to put together some complimentary parting remarks about his pathetic performance in office  - and so far this is the best they have been able to come up with:

"Alberto Gonzales' work as White House counsel filling judicial vacancies with qualified nominees who respect the Constitution will have a lasting effect in bringing integrity back to our courts," said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, a conservative lobbying group. "His example, coming from humble beginnings as one of eight children and as the son of migrant workers to becoming U.S. attorney general, should inspire others to achieve the American dream."

This, of course, provides us with an opportunity to take a look back at 2005 when Justice Sandra Day O’Connor announced her retirement.  At the time, rumors swirled that President Bush was considering nominating Gonzales to fill her seat and the Right was apoplectic:

Newsweek correctly states that “Gonzales is the only A-list contender who religious conservatives pledge, upfront, to fight.” The article quotes Tom Minnery of Dr. James Dobson's Focus on the Family saying outright about a potential Gonzales nomination: “We'd oppose him.”

In the same article, Manuel Miranda, head of the recently formed coalition of extreme conservative groups called the “Third Branch Conference” and a former Frist staffer fired for unethically reading internal Democratic judiciary staff communications, warned that a Gonzales nomination could doom the Republican Party in upcoming elections: “If the president is foolish enough to nominate Al Gonzales, what he will find is a divided base that will take it out on candidates in 2006.” Miranda went on to threaten retribution against Florida Governor Jeb Bush, if he decides to run for president. “We're not Republican patsies,” he said. “Jeb Bush can go sell insurance.”

…

In the same article, Phyllis Schlafly, a longtime radical and extreme right leader, said “Bush was very clear, and certainly his constituents believed him, when he said he would appoint justices like Scalia and Thomas. We are not in favor of Gonzales.” One of the reasons for the intensity of the opposition to Gonzales is that the Right feels that they were betrayed by President Reagan with his nomination of Sandra Day O’Connor who was, according to Schlafly, “a terrible disappointment.”

The National Review made its opposition to a Gonzales nomination clear in an editorial entitled “No to Justice Gonzales”: “[The] president has to know that conservatives, his supporters in good times and bad, would be appalled and demoralized by a Gonzales appointment. It would place his would-be successors in the Senate in a difficult position, forcing them to choose between angering conservatives by voting for Gonzales and saying no to him. If Democrats attack Gonzales . . . conservatives will not rally to his defense.”

At the time, the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins warned that if President Bush nominated Gonzales “what you would hear would be [what] sounds like slashing the tires of the conservative movement” and stated that “our position on Attorney General Gonzales is, he holds great promise as an attorney general.” 

Well, Perkins’s first prediction was probably accurate, but his second couldn’t have been more wrong.

After a long silence, Manuel Miranda writes to David Brody to defend Fred Thompson: "I remembered the several conference calls nearly two years again which some questioned John Roberts' nomination because of the clients to whom he had given professional advice while he was a partner at a large firm. I remember explaining then that the nature of law firms is that you are on call to assist your partners to help with their clients. It is hardly a moment of conscience. And it is hardly enough to undo an unchanging political position on a defining issue."

In early January, the Washington Times reported on the emergence of a new immigration coalition, Families First on Immigration - headed by Manuel Miranda and consisting of such right-wing stalwarts as Paul Weyrich, Don Wildmon, Gary Bauer, and Lou Sheldon - that was promoting what it called the “holy grail” of compromise on immigration reform.  

Families First on Immigration’s proposed “holy grail” compromise consisted of granting citizenship to those already in the country illegally who were related to U.S. citizens while simultaneously amending the 14th Amendment’s birthright citizenship provision.  Miranda hailed the concept as “a real compromise" that was both “consistent with Christian teachings and with the rule of law.”  

Since then, Families First on Immigration hasn’t been heard from, with searches of the Lexis and Factiva databases returning a grand total of one mention of the group since late January.    

And that one mention was this recent Washington Monthly profile of Miranda, which helpfully explains why there probably haven’t been any other mentions of his stillborn coalition:

For one thing, it has no full-time staff—in fact, there don’t appear to be any staffers at all besides Miranda. It also seemingly has no mailing address, Web site, official phone number, or public e-mail address …This time, Miranda is attempting an intervention rather than an attack, and already there are signs that his proposed compromise may be too clever by half. Richard Viguerie, for instance, objected to the limited legalization Miranda proposed in his January letter, stating that any Republican seeking the presidential nomination must hold a firm line on immigration. “I know what Manny’s trying to do; that’s why I signed on to begin with. But there’s a line here,” Viguerie says. “Any Republican candidate who tries to compromise on [amnesty] will lose in 2008, and I and a lot of others will work very hard to make that happen.” And last month, when Miranda told the news organization Inter Press Service that if the Minutemen, the anti-immigration volunteer border patrol, “agreed to our fundamental principles, they could join on,” he was swiftly criticized by Hispanic evangelical leaders, who represent the fastest-growing segment of the evangelical population. “It’s great that white evangelicals are finally speaking out on this issue,” says Rev. Samuel Rodriguez Jr. of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference. “But so far, I’m not sure I’m comfortable with what we’re hearing.” Miranda, who has never found a political dustup he couldn’t win, may finally have met his match.

From Eagle Forum to FRC. Meanwhile: Evangelicals, Miranda’s coalition enter immigration debate.

Earlier this week a coalition of Religious Right leaders emerged with the goal of influencing immigration policymaking. The organizer of this coalition, Manuel Miranda, is a former member of Sen. Bill Frist’s staff who lost his position after accessing and reading internal Democratic staff documents and went on to become a one-man army fighting for confirmation of President Bush’s judicial nominees. Now that President Bush appears reluctant to keep sending controversial nominees to Congress, Miranda undoubtedly has a lot of time on his hands and has decided to branch out into immigration.  He claims that his new Families First on Immigration coalition is offering “real compromise” on the issue that should appeal to all sides by proposing a combination of increased border security, legalization for undocumented immigrants who are already in the country and, most importantly, an end to birthright citizenship guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.  

Judging by this WorldNetDaily column by Jane Chastain, the Families First on Immigration’s “compromise” proposal looks as if it is appealing to some on the Right who have traditionally been among the most militantly anti-immigration. Why the change of heart?  Even the most extreme anti-immigrant advocates understand the message voters sent to Congress – by not electing or in some cases not re-electing many GOPers who had strong anti-immigrant positions. They see the writing on the wall and from their weakened position are now cynically attempting to leverage their “support”  for something that already has strong bi-artisan support and is likely to happen anyway, in order to get something else extreme that they have always wanted – doing away with birthright citizenship.

In one fell swoop Chastain impugns the motives of all who support comprehensive immigration reform while simultaneously insulting hard-working immigrants:  

The motives of Democrats and President Bush are clear: The former expects to lead these new, largely impoverished, uneducated voters around by the nose; the latter wants to satisfy his business supporters who feel they are "entitled" to cheap labor to manufacture their products, mow their lawns and clean their toilets.

Chastain’s primary reason for “hope” is that this proposal pushes to eliminate so-called “anchor babies.”  Chastain’s animosity to “anchor babies” is long-standing and so it should come as no surprise that she would support the Families First plan to change the Constitution to eliminate this provision.  In 2004, Chastain suggested that any temporary guest-worker program should also require sterilization of applicants:  

Therefore, the only way to assure the American people that this "temporary" status truly is temporary is to seal up the wombs – sterilize – those who apply for guest-worker status. Or else change the law that grants citizenship to anyone who is born here regardless of the status of his or her parents.

After staying out of last year’s contentious immigration debate that drove a wedge among the GOP, mainstays of the Religious Right have now joined the debate saying they will support legalization of those already in this country – but only in exchange for doing away with the guarantee of birthright citizenship granted under the 14th Amendment. As CBN reported on Friday, Manuel Miranda, one of the chief activists organizing the Right in support of Bush’s extreme judicial nominees, has now put together a coalition of Religious Right leaders to influence immigration policymaking. In an attempt to supplant the anti-immigrant rhetoric that dominated discussions last year which analysts agree resulted in damaging the image of the GOP among Latino voters and decreased support for GOP candidates, Miranda claims “This new coalition is bigger and broader than the Secure Border Coalition that dominated the debate on the right in the last go round.”

Headline members include Paul Weyrich, one of the founders of “movement conservatism,” Donald Wildmon of American Family Association, Gary Bauer, American Conservative Union President David Keene, and Lou Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition.

Today The Washington Times gives some details of the “grand compromise” sought by Families First on Immigration.  

In letters sent today and obtained by The Washington Times, Families First on Immigration urges President Bush and leaders of the new Democratic Congress to adopt a grand compromise on the divisive issue that includes strong border security, an amnesty for illegals already here who are relatives of citizens and an end to birthright citizenship. ...

[In addition,] Families First tells Mr. Bush -- who was supported by most of the members of the new coalition -- to abandon his proposal for a guest-worker program until the rest of the issues such as birthright citizenship and border security are resolved.

While legalization of undocumented immigrants is anathema to the anti-immigrant activists of last year, the group has taken up one unusual item of the anti-immigrant Right’s agenda: the effort to eradicate so-called “anchor babies.” Under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, anyone born in the United States is a citizen. The Right has proposed skirting this constitutional mandate through a dicey regulatory change.

In another indication that the religious right is often at odds with the economic right, the coalition also wants President Bush and others to drop their strong support for guest workers. While allowing for some legalization, Families First on Immigration is borrowing the “enforcement first” stand of right-wing House members such as former Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-Arizona), who was defeated in November’s mid-term election.

The new coalition’s position would lend support to presidential candidate Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kansas), who has billed himself as the “full scale conservative” in the race but supported the Senate’s comprehensive immigration reform bill, much to the dismay of many on the far Right.

The group hopes to draw support from fellow religious conservatives in Congress such as Sen. Sam Brownback, Kansas Republican.

Mr. Brownback caused deep consternation in conservative circles last year when he enthusiastically embraced the Senate immigration bill, which was reviled by most conservatives because it would grant citizenship rights to most illegals. A member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Brownback argued that it was his Christian duty to support a bill that would help illegal aliens who came here in search of a new home away from the tyranny and squalor from which they came.

Support from Families First on Immigration would bolster Brownback’s already-strong credibility on the Right.

Families First in Immigration, organized by judges-activist Manuel Miranda, includes Weyrich, Wildmon, Bauer, Keene.

“With regard to judges,” the Third Branch Conference activist says. Ed Whelan calls for last-minute lame-duck up-or-down votes on controversial nominees.