Posted on 10/05/2005 10:29:24 AM PDT by new yorker 77
She's polite. Shy. Smart. Modest. Hard-working. Goes to church. Helps the poor. She immediately won the praise of the leader of the Democrats in the Senate. And yet she may end up making Justices Scalia and Thomas look like a couple of card carrying lefties.
I'm exaggerating for effect, of course, but the point is that despite the dramatic tearing of flesh that has gone on in some conservative quarters over the last 48 hours, the indications are that Bush has chosen someone who is extremely culturally conservative. Based on what little we know at this point, he's also chosen someone who favors the Patriot Act, wider presidential authority and an aggressive national security posture.
I understand the disappointment on the right. Conservatives wanted a first-rate legal and ideological gladiator to go do battle with liberals in the Senate. Instead, Bush gave them the Church Lady.
But gladiators don't receive - nor should they expect to be given - any mercy from their opponents. A humble, accomplished, God-fearing woman is a different proposition. Those who know this process understand that the first few hours and days are absolutely critical in shaping the image of the nominee for the public. Thus far, aside from the griping of conservatives, Miers' public image is developing rather favorably and isn't being radically influenced by attacks from left-wing interest groups the way other nominations would have been.
George Will argues this morning that these types of political considerations are unimportant. Qualifications are all that matter and, according to Will, Miers isn't remotely qualified:
The wisdom of presumptive opposition to Miers's confirmation flows from the fact that constitutional reasoning is a talent -- a skill acquired, as intellectual skills are, by years of practice sustained by intense interest. It is not usually acquired in the normal course of even a fine lawyer's career.
I find this line of reasoning deeply elitist and unpersuasive. Will is setting a standard (years of practice of constitutional reasoning sustained by intense interest) that would exclude a vast number of people who would make perfectly fine justices (including Senators like Orrin Hatch) as well as a number of those who've served ably on the court (including William Rehnquist who spent 16 years in private practice in Arizona and then only 3 years in the Nixon administration before being nominated to the Court).
I also find Will's complete and total deference to constitutional scholarship unsettling. Yes, we want talented, high-caliber appointments to the Court which represents, we should remind ourselves, a co-equal branch of government. It's not at all convincing to say, if you follow Will's logic, that a court made up of nine of the country's most eminent, ivy-league pedigreed constitutional scholars is going to be any better for America than a Court composed of justices who have demonstrable talent of varying legal backgrounds and perspectives. And it is undeniable that Harriet Miers is an accomplished lawyer.
So where does all this leave us? I suspect most Republicans and conservatives will become more comfortable with Miers as we move forward and most Democrats, including Harry Reid, are going to find themselves with an increasing urge to sink her nomination.
One way of doing that is to attack her religious convictions and to imply they make her unfit to serve. This is a very perilous strategy. The other way for the Democrats to derail Miers is to argue that she is unqualified due to a lack of experience and/or intellectual-horsepower. Still a tough case for the Democrats, in my opinion, though certainly a lot easier to make when conservatives are already out there doing it for them.
Or that he's done nothing of substance to attempt to reduce abortions, efforts that were ultimately thwarted by "radicals in robes."
What I am saying is that the domestic policies he prioritized-tax cuts aside-were misguided.
There is no justification for his signature of the McCain-Feingold bill, the most blatantly unconstitutional piece of legislation to be considered-let alone enacted-by the United States Congress in recent memory.
There is no conceivable defense of an energy bill that was stripped of its most promising assets-and again, I'm not necessarily ascribing blame for this outcome solely to President Bush-or a farm bill that can be described by no adjective other than "awful."
And that goes double for the obscene transportation bill.
Signing McCain-Feingold was brilliant...as it de-fanged that entire political attack against Bush.
The fly in the ointment was that SCOTUS ruled Mc-F to be LEGAL!
Future Courts won't be so error-prone. It is, however, important to place blame correctly...on the SCOTUS for that ruling, as they say that what President Bush signed was legal.
The correct outcome should have been for the bill to have been signed to de-fang the political attacks, then thrown out by the SCOTUS for being illegal.
Only by appearances. In reality, the big Transport Bill **prevents** Congress from having unfettered access to those gas-tax highway funds...after all, whatever Congress doesn't approve for highways is left to be borrowed against or otherwise spent/abused in the General Fund.
Better to spend the gas tax funds on our highways than let Congress treat those revenues as if they came from income taxes, I'd say.
I've never trusted them to be the final arbiter of what is and is not Constitutional-and considering the dubious track record of prior Courts, that's been a pretty sound decision-but I do expect conservative, Republican leaders who are invested with the powers of the presidency-and who I've voted for repeatedly-to uphold and defend this nation's bedrock legal document, which is the cornerstone of our republic.
So what is it when you cause your army to desert?
Oh, please...
"she has run a business"
"is going to make a huge difference to millions of Americans trying to do the same... even liberals."
I would hope and I quite fankly expect that she would be an effective advocate for small and medium business.
The more I see of "The Church Lady" the better I like her.
This is the Supreme Court.
Southack has got it right, but it's simpler than that. What part of his judicial appointment history (the ONLY thing relevant to this conversation) has left you underwhelmed? Look at the judges he put forward when he didn't have a Republican Senate!
There was nothing mystical about the 10 amendments in the "Bill of Rights"
Twelve were submitted to the states for ratification, and the first two were not ratified at the time. So, the "hyper-important First Amendment" was actually submitted as the Third!
"She's not being nominated to head up the Small Business Administration, or even the Treasury Department. "
Neither the SBA nor the Treasury Dept establish case law. The SC does.
Since the ratification of the Constitution. Article III, Section 2 begins with the following words:
The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;
That seems clear to me, but perhaps you interpret it differently.
(The capitalization and grammar are in the original, the emphasis is mine).
"I will not not argue with you about what might be, all I know is ~ what is. ;)"
Well, certainly this appointment is what it is.
Whatever that may be...
I'd say what it "is", is a nice conservative lady who will probably vote right on abortion, probably be very tolerant of the gay agenda, probably be otherwise pretty conservative.
And I'd say what it also "is", is a choice that stuns and disappoints the conservative base, because there's too much "trust me" being demanded here on something too important.
And I'll also say what "is", is that pro-choice Republicans like Shays who used to get my vote for the sake of the caucus, won't anymore. And that means that the Democrats are very probably going to pick up a seat in the House from Connecticut, because it's always close here, and his Democratic rival isn't a wingnut. I suppose the loss of some seats in Congress don't really matter.
Since when is it the responsibility of the Supreme Court to rectify the mistakes of a president who signed atrocious pieces of legislation into law?
I believe that was the implication of Southack's prior assertion.
No?
The idea that the current Supreme Court, the author of Kelo, Lawrence-among a host of other abominable decisions, which demonstrated absolutely no regard for precedent, or the proper function of the judicial branch for that matter-would have any consideration for its Constitutionally-prescribed role is patently absurd.
It is the Supreme Court's role to invalidate unconstitutional laws, whether they are construed by the general public as being favorable or detrimental to their interests, and it has failed miserably in that capacity.
What makes you think that a thoroughly substandard nominee, who has shown no inclination to buck fashionable currents in elite opinion, or to enumerate any firm, decisive opinions on weighty Constitutional matters, is going to improve the Supreme Court as it now stands?
"There was nothing mystical about the 10 amendments in the "Bill of Rights" "
Boy, talk about humor impaired. I guess you need to review the fact that nearly every "father" was a member of a "secret society", the $bill has an Eye and Pyramid, and numbers were important symbolisms.
Because the history or numerolgoy is not taught today does not mean it did not have significance at a time or the time of the founding.
I have not checked, but the numbers 1,2,3,5,7 and 10 are all important numbers.
Maybe someone here is aware of numerology in scripture and history and can elucidate further.
"I have not checked, but the numbers 1,2,3,5,7 and 10 are all important numbers.
Maybe someone here is aware of numerology in scripture and history and can elucidate further."
Happy to oblige.
"1" is important because it's the first number. Also because it reminds people of a unique appendage.
"2" is important because it's the first EVEN number, and also the first prime number. And it takes two to maximize the utility of the aforementioned appendage.
"3", "5" and "7" are interesting because they are prime numbers.
"10" is cool because that's the number of fingers what we got. Or toes, depending on what floats your boat.
And, most interestingly, when you add them all together, it comes to 28, which is precisely 4 more than the number of letters in "The United States of America".
And 4, of course, is the number of letters in the state with the shortest name ("Iowa"), which wasn't even a state yet, which proves just how prescient the Founding Fathers were!
Since when is it the responsibility of the Supreme Court to rectify the mistakes of a president who signed atrocious pieces of legislation into law?
Fair enough, when you phrase it that way.
I believe that was the implication of Southack's prior assertion.
No?
Maybe it was, but I took it literally - a sometimes unfortunate tendency of mine. Maybe Southack himself would like to comment on our difference of understanding of his words.
Not necessarily; I agree with you that the decisions you mention (and others) have been abominable. I disagree that these decisions gave no regard to the proper function of the judicial branch. However bad the decisions themselves may have been, they were based on what a majority of the Justices of the Supreme Court believed was sound reasoning.
I am not arguing that the reasoning was sound - only that those who made it believed it to be so. Given that, I believe it is the case that the Court respects and seeks to fulfill its Constitutionally-prescribed role, at least by its own lights.
It is the Supreme Court's role to invalidate unconstitutional laws, whether they are construed by the general public as being favorable or detrimental to their interests, and it has failed miserably in that capacity.
Here, we agree completely.
What makes you think that a thoroughly substandard nominee, who has shown no inclination to buck fashionable currents in elite opinion, or to enumerate any firm, decisive opinions on weighty Constitutional matters, is going to improve the Supreme Court as it now stands?
If I implied that I did think this, I apologize: I did not intend to imply any such thing. My actual opinion of the nomination of Harriet Miers is that, in the final analysis, I know too little to form an opinion based on that knowledge alone. Hopefully, the Senate Committee hearings will provide sufficient extra information to do so.
In the meantime, and failing further enlightenment from the hearings, I see the matter this way: It comes down to answering the question: "Do I trust the President's judgement?". My answer is "Yes". You may well have a different answer, in which case time will tell which of us was right.
You trust the POTUS to appoint the correct people to fill cabinet and sub-cabinet-level agencies.
You trust him to appoint circuit court judges, perhaps.
You do not rely upon trust-and trust alone-when it comes to the single most important aspect of his presidency, short of being the Commander in Chief during a time of war.
I would invest all of my trust in Senator Orrin Hatch, were he the nominee for this position.
But if Senator Hatch came to me-or anyone else here-and proclaimed that I had to "trust" that he had correctly identified the next Scalia, or Thomas, or Sentelle, or Silberman, in Judicial Candidate X, Y or Z, the reaction would be vociferous and immediate.
Are you insane?!
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.