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 should introduce you to the "single term President, just like his Daddy" crowd.
The were as wrong then as you are now.
She knows how, there's evidence of that - for example her law degree for starters. But like you, I am uneasy because I don't know the "substance" of her interpretation. I can only infer it. So far, I haven't found any material that creates an inference that I object to.
It's too bad that criticism of the selection is taken as criticism of the person. From what I've read, she is very very nice, generous, charitable, etc. I don't like the pick, but it's not because I think I wouldn't like her.
Is that the best defense you could come up with for her? At least she isn't Bill Clinton? That's pretty sad.
New tidbit I just saw.
This gal packed heat several years ago.
She owned a .45 caliber pistol for self defense.
I'd call that a pro gun justice and yep, I like that.
As did President GW Bush
Just shows how wrong smart people can be
Yes, she may be absolutely wonderful as a human being, and great to work with. That has nothing to do with how she would interpret the Constitution. There were many nominees with whom we wouldn't be reduced to reading tea leaves in order to discern how she views the Constitution. And, following the Ginsburg precedent, we're certainly not going to find out during the confirmation hearings. The Senate would be well within their rights to reject the nominee simply because her qualifications and philosophy can't be discerned. She deserves an up or down vote.....and if a Senator, Democrat or Republican can't reasonably conclude how she will function on the Supreme Court then they should vote no. Harriet Myers qualifications would be fine for a District Court Judge or perhaps even on a Court of Appeals. She does not possess the level of qualification that we should expect (and were promised) of a SCOTUS nominee.
If indeed a SCOTUS pick is more important than picking a president (which I firmly subscribe to), then this pick by Bush should make us vomit even more, considering that she will be one of 9 justices in SCOTUS for (in some cases) the rest of our lives, or will take many of us into their retirement years.
Bush loyalists can give it their best shot, but there is no way to sugarcoat this horrible and inexplicable decision by Bush.
I give up. Who the heck is this bedwetter? I never heard of him/her.
I agree with you. I am not going to issue pronouncements on whether or not Miers is a good person or not, or even if she is a conservative. What I do take issue with is that we have no evidence of her ability to do this job, and secondly, we know that there is a long list of wonderful candidates who should have been considered before her for the position. If President Bush felt she deserved to be a judge, all well and good - let her have a position in some circuit court before elevating her to the highest court in the land. It irks me that there are so many brilliant people who have been ruthlessly ignored in favour of her, and the reasoning for this purposeful indifference seems shaky.
That should concern us all. Being blind to the flaws in this selection process helps nothing, just as much as being totally critical of the President helps nothing. We must approach the matter with reason, tact and with a healthy dash of skepticism.
Regards, Ivan
Good post, as usual. Salute.
President Bush is...well President. He gets to pick-if you all want to pick a Supreme Court Justice, get a campaign together, run in 2008 (win) and try to elect a few senators with guts...so you can pick outspoken conservatives. I don't blame President Bush. If I had to rely on the Senate for a battle with Dems, I would er pick the most conservative stealth candidate I could find. It seems to me, this is what happened.
Yeah, that's Harry Reid's job.
This gal packed heat several years ago.
She owned a .45 caliber pistol for self defense.
I'd call that a pro gun justice and yep, I like that.
If I were a lib justice I might keep that in mind in considering whether to "attack" her with a "scathing dissent"! LOL
I am sick of this whining and second guessing. It is not very becoming, and reminds me of the other party. This is just outrageous behavior.
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.