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 don't think Thomas is "unquestionably brilliant," even today. But he, for sure, was not known as such in 1991. Go back and read the news stories of the day. Even conservatives were nervous.
"Coward"? "Weak" ?
"Not a dimes worth of difference between the two parties" ?
With such politically savvy people, such as you and the rest of the fair weather friends and whingers on FR, it's a wonder that all of you aren't either elected office holders or pundits! /sarcasm
"Because if cases never come before them dealing with that issue, they don't make public pronouncements like politicians do. These are supposed to be judges dealing with issues and cases that come before them, not public policy issues like RAT judges frequently do."
Oh, this is such a convenient excuse. You demand a paper trail from her--and then excuse the glaring omission from your preferred candidates.
We would have felt the same way as when he appointed Breyer and Ginsburg.
The man did have a way with words, didn't he?
Its not an excuse, that is how judges are supposed to conduct themselves. I thought Roberts was perfect in how he dealt with this issue and fit the mold of what we should expect.
A judge should decide cases on the facts before them.
I hope you are right and I am wrong on this pick. The SC justices have enormous powers. This is not job that leaves with each administration. Its like the mob, your in for life and the only way you really leave is in a coffin.
Can't you drama queens come up with something new other than the same old boiler plates?
"Its not an excuse, that is how judges are supposed to conduct themselves. I thought Roberts was perfect in how he dealt with this issue and fit the mold of what we should expect."
Miers wrote an article that laid out an originalist interpretation of the RKBA in a couple of short sentences. Well, guess what? Neither Luttig nor Brown could bring themselves to do that, even before they became judges.
"A judge should decide cases on the facts before them."
Including the fact of what the RKBA meant to the founders. But, somehow, Luttig and Brown get a pass on the topic, while you demand that Miers have voluminous writings on everything and anything.
I don't need to read the newstories. I read his work from the DC Circuit Court! All I needed to know.
That way I didn't have to rely on the media or someone's opinion of him for what he thought about the law.
Do that for this nominee. . .can you?
Debateable. I don't think I've ever read where he's written the majority opinion on any case that came before the USSC.
You're only spouting bulletpoints the Democrats, Greens, Socialists, Communists and faux Conservatives who've never liked the President to begin with have said time and again, no matter what he says or does.
I seem to recall him authoring a majority opinion on a major antitrust case. I could be misremembering on that point, but I do remember reading the opinion and thinking highly of the thought and logic behind it.
Thomas, fourteen years after joing the SC, still asks very few questions of lawyers who present their cases to the court.
While I admire Clarence Thomas, he is not the brightest bulb on the Court.
Thomas wrote the 5-4 majority opinion -- over Scalia's dissent -- in a case condemning the U.S. government for seizing "excessive fines."
Source: CNN
Thomas, fourteen years after joing the SC, still asks very few questions of lawyers who present their cases to the court.
While I admire Clarence Thomas, he is not the brightest bulb on the Court.
I concur.
Thomas doesn't ask questions because he believes he's better off just listening.
Whether or not he asks questions is a bad judge of his intellect.
You are incorrect. It's a large majority of the Senate Republicans who don't want to go to bat for this President or the House of Representatives. Those Senators cave in even when Schmuck puts his glasses on the end of his nose, or Uncle Ted clears his throat before speaking at the podium.
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.