Posted on 10/07/2005 9:57:33 AM PDT by quidnunc
To hear the howls from conservative commentators following President Bushs nomination of Harriet Miers, you would think that Bush just sold a seat on the Supreme Court to someone whos a cross between Ann Richards and Barney the White House pet. Half the critics arent certain that Ms. Miers shares their views or will vote the way they want on key issues. The other half complain that Ms. Miers has no qualifications to be on the Court, having been neither a judge nor a scholar. All of the critics assume that it is more important that their preferences for appointment to the Court be respected than that the Presidents choice be given presumptive weight.
The critics should take a deep breath, count to ten, exhale and stop whining.
Lets start with the qualifications issue. Having spent 30 years in academia, including 14 years as a dean, I have strong respect for those who have enough passion about legal concepts to write and speak about them. I also have enormous respect for the work of judges, and have many extraordinarily able friends on appellate courts who would have topped my own list of best nominees for the Supreme Court. Ms. Miers wasnt my pick, and wouldnt have been if I had been choosing, because she doesnt bring to the Court demonstrated excellence in the skill set that I value most for that position. But its not my decision to make, and none of my own credentials gives me the right to tell the President who should sit on the Court. They do, however, give me standing to answer some of his critics.
First, its wrong to say that Ms. Miers only qualification for the court is friendship with the President. Of course, her close association with the President put her in a position to be selected. Just as, for example, Robert Jacksons close association with Franklin Roosevelt led to his appointment to the Court. Yet Miers isnt some childhood friend of the Presidents who was nominated out of friendship alone. She is a close associate who has worked for and with the President for years, providing legal services, advice, and counsel on policy and personnel matters someone the President has seen at work day in and day out for years. Shes someone whose views and values the President knows and whose legal skills have benefited him for more than a decade.
-snip-
Here's an idea: stop whining about whining.
Why defile the dog with Ann Richards?
It was Bush who shot us in the foot by nominating an unqualified nominee. Demanding a well-qualified conservative is not "whining".
Good point.
The constitution gives us the definition of qualifications..
Up...the MSM and the Dims are loving this mess. I guess we want to be the minority.
I'm as conservative as anyone on this board. I'm not happy with everything W has done, especially on illegal immigrations and spending. But we have three more years affect change. It takes time for people in the middle who have actually started to think of themselves as Republicans to adopt more conservative positions. Like most of us, I didn't do it all at once.
Just like the Dims, we can run these people off. The MSM and the Libs know it (the Libs are really good at it themselves). The Media is using our words to defeat us.
So, for those of you who keep whining about RINOs, whining about Bush, saying you aren't going to vote for the Republicans, I look at it this way:
You've already done more damage than your vote will make up for anyway. You've disengaging from the process.
So who cares what you think?
Great article. Best anti-whine article yet. I'd love to force-feed it to Krauthammer, just to name one of the particularly shrill whine-babies I've read today.
We need someone practical. We need someone pro-business. We need someone who's head is not in the intellectual clouds of judicial elitism.
Thank you, Mr. President.
By "stop whining" he means just bend over and grab your ankles. Don't worry, he sent his assistant to the limo for some vaseline.
Which is better: An "unqualified conservative or a well-qualified liberal?
Because President Clinton is going to pick a bunch of those if we don't get our act together.
************
LOL! Good question.
I'd go with "qualified conservative," but for some reason you didn't offer that as an option.
Which is better: An "unqualified conservative or a well-qualified liberal?
I'd go with "qualified conservative," but for some reason you didn't offer that as an option.
_____________
Oh, that's right...it's my job to provide you with options. I should have consulted you first. However, I didn't see you provide me with a list of qualifications for a SCJ? You just say Miers is "unqualified."
Why?
I also like the fact that she's not Ivy league. Here is someone who's actually been affected by some of these goofy decisions these judges make.Yup. We don't need no ivy leaguers. We don't need no thought control.
I am not saint, but what you say, it's important, whether I agree with it or not.
I love you all!... bartender... fill it up please :))
I didn't say it was your job. YOU are the one who took it upon YOURSELF to ask the entire FR community its opinion of the following:
Which is better: An "unqualified conservative or a well-qualified liberal?
Well, I offered you my opinion, saying that I would prefer a qualified conservative, and pointing that, for whatever reason, you did not offer that as an option to choose from. Next time, if you don't want my opinion, don't ask.
Jeez, everyone is sooooo sensitive around here lately!!!
That is the best point yet made in the confirmation debate.
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.