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.
Very well said! Thank you.
So, the President rewards his personal attorney for her loyalty with a lifetime appointment to the nation's highest court.
Shouldn't he be rewarding his countrymen who voted for him by appointing someone qualified for that position?
Very easy - Brown, Luttig, or any other person of Roberts like stature.
That the best you can do is that you trust Bush says nothing of her record or qualification.
Great argument in support of a lifetime appointment.
"That the best you can do is that you trust Bush says nothing of her record or qualification."
Are you a member of the judicial-academic complex who is POd that one of his buddies didn't get the nod, perchance? I mean, she's not from the Ivy League, she doesn't have the "right" experience
You insist on a very specific background for Supreme Court nominees. We've done that.
That background gave us Kennedy, O'Connor, and Souter.
The burden of proof is on you to show how Brown or Luttig will not suddenly "grow" if nominated and confirmed.
The Bushbots should consider two things.
1. How would they have felt if Clinton appointed Vince Foster or Web Hubble to SC????
2. How would you feel if GWB picks his personal CPA to replace Greenspan?
"1. How would they have felt if Clinton appointed Vince Foster or Web Hubble to SC????"
About how I felt when he nominated Breyer and Ginsberg.
"2. How would you feel if GWB picks his personal CPA to replace Greenspan?"
Depends. Is he any good as a CPA?
I could care a wit whether she is a Christina or Jew. I could care a wit whether she went to Pace Law School (Where I went 3rd Tier) or graduated Yale. I could care a wit whether she was on law review or not since that does mean squat.
I care about the following:
1. No record whatsoever to base or judge her opinions. Litigators are typically trial lawyers who believe the ends justify the means etc etc. Its just an attitude amongst layers of that stripe.
2. She is 60 years old. Roberts is 50 y/o. Ten years on the bench is huge amount time. Let's assume a RAT wins in 08 and gets relected. There is a good chance she will be near retirement. Is that how we want to treat this appointment.
3. There were many many many more qualified people. Can you honestly say she was the most qualified for the job?
4. The best argument put forth in her support is "I trust GWB". That's ridiculous. This is not something that should be left to chance considering it may be his last appointment. Additionally, this is the appointment to change the balance of the court. Do we want to risk it?
5. This appointment opens GWB to the charge of cronyism at a time where he had a great experience with Roberts. It diminishes not only Meirs who seems of a lower tier, but GWB as well.
She may be better than the rest once she is seated, and I hope for all sake that she is, but the evidence is just not there to conclude that at this point.
"No record whatsoever to base or judge her opinions."
I take it you haven't read her take on RKBA.
"She is 60 years old."
SFW? If she's as much of a disaster as you say she is, then that's a plus.
"There were many many many more qualified people."
Define "qualified." You keep harking back to a particular mold that has given us such shining lights as O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter. Do better than that, please.
"Can you honestly say she was the most qualified for the job?"
Yes, because there's only one opinion about qualifications that counts: the President's.
This nomination has done much to illuminate the character (or lack thereof) among certain so-called "Christians" and "conservatives," prominent and not-so-prominent.
"The best argument put forth in her support is "I trust GWB". That's ridiculous. This is not something that should be left to chance considering it may be his last appointment. Additionally, this is the appointment to change the balance of the court. Do we want to risk it?"
Where's the writings by Luttig and Brown on RKBA? I say that their silence on that critical issue permanently disqualifies them.
"This appointment opens GWB to the charge of cronyism at a time where he had a great experience with Roberts."
I recall they said the same thing when he nominated Cheney.
Again, you did not give one coherent defense of this nomination on her own merits other than:
1. I trust GWB;
2. Her lack of qualifications is a qualification.
I hope she turns out great, but her record is simply inconclusive one way or the other.
What on earth is wrong with Bush? There were scores of choices that would have been far and away better choices.
I am so disappointed with he and his daddy. They are moderate at the very most. Bush has shown himself to be more liberal than I had hoped.
"Again, you did not give one coherent defense of this nomination on her own merits other than (lying bullsh!t snipped)"
OK, I explained this to you once, nicely. Now, I've lost my patience.
You are a liar. You insist on lying about what I have said. You are therefore completely unqualified to judge anyone else's qualifications, liar.
Read some of the responses to my posts. The Bushbots are in the twilight zone.
They say to trust him as the sole criteria. This coming from a president who signed CFR admitting at the time that it was unconstitutional.
Ok. Please tell me what in your mind qualifies her for the job moreso than say Kenneth Star or Ted Olsen for the job other than the fact that she was GWB's personal attorney and you trust him?
I'm not trying to be difficult, but trying to see where some of you are coming from saying that she is a better pick than the huge farm team we have of other potential people?
come again on Thomas?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas
Thomas was unquestionably brilliant.
"Ok. Please tell me what in your mind qualifies her for the job moreso than say Kenneth Star or Ted Olsen for the job other than the fact that she was GWB's personal attorney and you trust him?"
Her money quote on RKBA, which is a simple, originalist view on the subject. She has gone where no recent (since 1916) Supreme Court nominee has dared to. Luttig? Deafening silence on RKBA. Brown? Same. In my mind, they are utterly disqualified from serving on the bench because of this silence.
"I'm not trying to be difficult"
Bulls***.
"but trying to see where some of you are coming from saying that she is a better pick than the huge farm team we have of other potential people?"
RKBA. If the farm team refuses to take the field for that issue, then how do we know that the farm team is as good as advertised? How do we know we're not getting an O'Connor, a Kennedy, or a Souter?
I just don't get why all conservative talk show hosts are against Miers, I don't understand why Ann Coulter is out all over the airways dogging President Bush. It is amazing to me that she is not even given a chance.
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.
I hope she turns out great. However, since we only know her based on what GWB tells us, you cannot fault many of us for being worried and skeptical, especially since being burned in the past.
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.