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.
Valley girl, are you? "That's like the purpose of this forum................." bespoke someone without the command of good English.
And the purpose of this forum is stated on the front page. I suggest that you familiarize yourself with the stated objectives of FR.
I want political naifs to stop pretending to be "experts" and spewing all kinds of banal, inane "feelings" all over the place. That's what I would like to have FIRST!
Next, I would like you and your ilk to realize that Conservatives/Republicans can NOT undo almost 100 years of Liberal lunacy in the twinkling of an eye.
And finally, I would really, really, REALLY like the weak kneed and spineless gutless GOP wonders in both Houses to stop acting like whipped animals.
Thanks for asking what I want. :-)
How you figure I'm incorrect. I just stated the very same thing. It's not all the Presidents fault, it's the weak kneed Republican Congress as well.
Never wanted to be, nor am I a lawyer.
The CATO Institute is Libertarian and I hate Libertarians.
And as to being "unimpressed", dear, you are about as impressive as a drunk slug.
I take stand on lots of things. I have stated my position on this topic; however that tinfoil is wrapped far too tightly about your head and the blinkers don't help you much either; Kreskin.
You should see the Pirro threads. Her apologists SOLE reason for how she can "beat Hillary" and "bloody Hillary up" in ulta-Democrat NY is that she "looks nice" on TV.
You kidding? He writes about 7-9 majority opinions per year--same as all the other Justices.
I said "majority opinion"
Frankly, I "Google'd" for some information on majority opinions, read some judicial sites like FindLaw and several law school sites that archive USSC documents, the USSC blog, and Clarence Thomas has only one to his credit.
Pirro is a tough DA with a record to debate. Plus, Senator is not a lifetime appointment.
I hope Meirs turns out to be great, but I am not comfortable taking the risk when so much is at stake and boiling it down to GWB playing Texas Hold'em or some other silly analogy.
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.