Posted on 10/04/2005 2:32:49 PM PDT by wjersey
George W. Bush has just rung the death knell for his presidency.
For the Supreme Court of the United States, a president under fire for cronyism has chosen the ultimate crony.
For the highest court in the land, a president criticized for a lack of gravitas has chosen a woman who the president's own former speechwriter describes as "a taut, nervous, anxious personality."
For one of the nine highest legal positions in the entire country, this president has ignored dozens of candidates with impeccable credentials -- top law school honors, judicial clerkships, distinguished careers in academia, lengthy experience arguing cases before the Su preme Court, superb records as federal judges -- and chosen somebody whose qualifications, on paper, are pretty good only for a lower judgeship, if she were 10 years younger.
For a long, long time, observers on the right and left have said that President Bush doesn't bear criticism well, that he has assembled an administration of "yes men" (and women), that he lives in an insular bubble of adulation bordering on toadyism. The nomination of White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court confirms that impression.
Writes former speechwriter David Frum: "In the White House that hero-worshipped the president, Miers was distinguished by the intensity of her zeal: She once told me that the president was the most brilliant man she had ever met."
Yeah, right.
Because Ms. Miers' resumé is comparatively thin, President Bush in effect is asking Americans just to trust his judgment. But this is the man who said he looked into Vladimir Putin's soul and liked what he saw.
Americans deserve to have a Supreme Court made up of the brightest and most qualified lawyers in the country. And to be sure, her resumé isn't awful. After graduating from SMU, she clerked for a federal district court judge. She was managing partner of a top Texas firm. She was president of the Dallas Bar Association and the Texas Bar Association.
Such a record commends itself for an appeals court judgeship. But it pales in comparison to new Chief Justice John Roberts, whose sterling record is now well known, and to many of the other people mentioned in recent months as potential nominees.
Judge Samuel Alito of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, for instance, graduated from Princeton and from Yale Law School, clerked for a judge on the Third Circuit, worked in the U.S. solicitor general's office and as an assistant U.S. attorney general, and served as U.S. attorney in New Jersey.
Judge Alice Batchelder of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals earned not just a regular law degree from Akron University, where she was editor of the law review, but also a master of law from the University of Virginia, and served as both a U.S. bankruptcy court judge and a U.S. district judge before her current post.
Judge Michael Luttig of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals graduated from Washington and Lee and from the University of Virginia law school, clerked for now Justice (then appeals court judge) Antonin Scalia and for Chief Justice Warren Burger, and was assistant attorney general of the United States.
Judge Emilio Garza of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals earned both bachelor's and master's degrees from Notre Dame and a law degree at the University of Texas, served three years of active duty in the Marine Corps, and was both a state district court judge and a federal district judge.
At least a dozen other potential nominees boast similarly impressive records while also filling the president's stated desire for a mainstream-conservative approach to jurisprudence.
Instead, he puts forth somebody whose chief qualification seems to be personal loyalty to him, somebody a former White House official (not speechwriter Frum) was quoted, in Legal Times, as calling a nit-picky micromanager who, first, "can't make a decision, and second ... can't delegate, she can't let anything go."
Wonderful. Just wonderful.
But forget pure qualifications: The worst thing about this nomination, if you want a successful presidency, is that it will be a political disaster. Mr. Bush already is on the ropes in the opinion polls because his White House is seen as being out of touch (guitar playing camera-mugging after Hurricane Katrina, before even flying over the disaster zone, will do that to you) and for its notorious fondness for inside baseball. ("You're doing a great job, Brownie.").
Now the Ted Kennedy left will have a field day portraying Miers as an unqualified crony while the political right remains unenthused and silent -- because it, too, considers her an unqualified crony.
And those are just some conservatives. The blogosphere Monday was full of other conservatives who weren't silent, but outspokenly angry.
A crucial decision made by an already-reeling president that energizes the opposition while demoralizing or angering usual allies can be nothing other than an unmitigated disaster.
President Bush once described Harriet Miers as "a pit bull in size 6 shoes." It's worth remembering that many are the dog owners who rue the day they unleashed their favorite pit bulls.
I'm just heart broken that the Pres didn't let the Mobile Register and other media pick the nominee.
Nothing but ad hominems against Meirs. No evidence that she would not be at least as good as Clarence Thomas, who also came onto the court with lowered expectations.
Added keyword drama queens.
Leonard Leo, executive vice president of the conservative Federalist Society, said Miss Miers "has been a forceful advocate of conservative legal principles and judicial restraint throughout her career. She led a campaign to have the American Bar Association end its practice of supporting abortion-on-demand and taxpayer-funded abortions."
10-04-05 The Washington Times
Yeah, maybe this "unqualified" nominee will inject a bit of common sense into the Court.
If she can read and analyze the law, then she's certainly qualified to be a Supreme Court justice. It's the "smarty pants" ones that you have to watch out for, those that engage in the "creative" lawyering that is destroying this country. You know, the kind that make up rights that don't exist, and ignore the ones that are there in black and white.
One of the most effective campaign lines Reagan had during the l980 was contrasting the lackluster Carter team to the people he had on board. He said that when he was elected President, he would appoint people for whom Government service was a step DOWN rather than a step up. At least in the case of Harriet Miers and Michael Brown, Bush seems to have followed the Carter model, rather than Reagan's.
Just airing things out a little bit here at FR . . . crank your speakers
http://users.wolfcrews.com/toys/vikings
Earlier today someone re-posted this article from 1991 that whined about how Thomas was going to be more Souter then Bork. Funny how the "Movement Conservatives" sing the same song every time. Guess they think we all will just forget how they whined about Roberts
I think that was Frum. Thanks, David.
Is anyone else sick of Frum? Sure, he's a smart guy but it seems like his whole agenda involves nothing but advancing the interests of No. 1.
I'm sure he could find a lot of interesting adjectives to say about Scalia's personality, but I'm not sure what they would have to do with his constitutional theories.
Compared to Souter, it's downright brilliant. She's definitely better than Ginsberg, Beyer, O'Connor, Stevens and Souter. She may be an equal to Kennedy. She's no match for Roberts, Thomas or Scalia.
The truth is that she's not such an awful pick, but the sad part is the number of far more qualified candidates who were passed over.
I didn't whine about Roberts. There is one question I haven't heard answered though. Why is Harry Reid so happy about the Miers nomination?
She's either a brilliant stealth candidate or a loser. We'll find out eventually. Ya'll have a nice day now.
This is an approved editorial from the Mobile newspaper?? This kind of language??
Well, I guess it is Mobile.
Possible scenario:
It is the dem's job (if they play their part) to mark her as unqualified, and have some of the repubs play along. She is not confirmed. The focus is now on qualifications.
The next nominee will have unquestionable qualifications (like Roberts, Ann's hysteria notwithstanding), and will be someone closer to Scalia in all the good ways (much closer...).
Or she is the intended nominee and we will all be wowed at her hearings (and confident in her non-activism).
Or Bush didn't deliver and, for once, it will be fair to say, "Bush fault!!" That the latter is possible makes me very sad. :(
Maybe because she's a born-again Christian? Well, maybe not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.