Posted on 10/05/2005 4:03:47 PM PDT by perfect stranger
I eagerly await the announcement of President Bush's real nominee to the Supreme Court. If the president meant Harriet Miers seriously, I have to assume Bush wants to go back to Crawford and let Dick Cheney run the country.
Unfortunately for Bush, he could nominate his Scottish terrier Barney, and some conservatives would rush to defend him, claiming to be in possession of secret information convincing them that the pooch is a true conservative and listing Barney's many virtues – loyalty, courage, never jumps on the furniture ...
Harriet Miers went to Southern Methodist University Law School, which is not ranked at all by the serious law school reports and ranked No. 52 by US News and World Report. Her greatest legal accomplishment is being the first woman commissioner of the Texas Lottery.
I know conservatives have been trained to hate people who went to elite universities, and generally that's a good rule of thumb. But not when it comes to the Supreme Court.
First, Bush has no right to say "Trust me." He was elected to represent the American people, not to be dictator for eight years. Among the coalitions that elected Bush are people who have been laboring in the trenches for a quarter-century to change the legal order in America. While Bush was still boozing it up in the early '80s, Ed Meese, Antonin Scalia, Robert Bork and all the founders of the Federalist Society began creating a farm team of massive legal talent on the right.
To casually spurn the people who have been taking slings and arrows all these years and instead reward the former commissioner of the Texas Lottery with a Supreme Court appointment is like pinning a medal of honor on some flunky paper-pusher with a desk job at the Pentagon – or on John Kerry – while ignoring your infantrymen doing the fighting and dying.
Second, even if you take seriously William F. Buckley's line about preferring to be governed by the first 200 names in the Boston telephone book than by the Harvard faculty, the Supreme Court is not supposed to govern us. Being a Supreme Court justice ought to be a mind-numbingly tedious job suitable only for super-nerds trained in legal reasoning like John Roberts. Being on the Supreme Court isn't like winning a "Best Employee of the Month" award. It's a real job.
One website defending Bush's choice of a graduate from an undistinguished law school complains that Miers' critics "are playing the Democrats' game," claiming that the "GOP is not the party which idolizes Ivy League acceptability as the criterion of intellectual and mental fitness." (In the sort of error that results from trying to sound "Ivy League" rather than being clear, that sentence uses the grammatically incorrect "which" instead of "that." Websites defending the academically mediocre would be a lot more convincing without all the grammatical errors.)
Actually, all the intellectual firepower in the law is coming from conservatives right now – and thanks for noticing! Liberals got stuck trying to explain Roe vs. Wade and are still at work 30 years later trying to come up with a good argument.
But the main point is: Au contraire! It is conservatives defending Miers' mediocre resume who are playing the Democrats' game. Contrary to recent practice, the job of being a Supreme Court justice is not to be a philosopher-king. Only someone who buys into the liberals' view of Supreme Court justices as philosopher-kings could hold legal training irrelevant to a job on the Supreme Court.
To be sure, if we were looking for philosopher-kings, an SMU law grad would probably be preferable to a graduate from an elite law school. But if we're looking for lawyers with giant brains to memorize obscure legal cases and to compose clearly reasoned opinions about ERISA pre-emption, the doctrine of equivalents in patent law, limitation of liability in admiralty, and supplemental jurisdiction under Section 1367 – I think we want the nerd from an elite law school. Bush may as well appoint his chauffeur head of NASA as put Miers on the Supreme Court.
Third and finally, some jobs are so dirty, you can only send in someone who has the finely honed hatred of liberals acquired at elite universities to do them. The devil is an abstraction for normal, decent Americans living in the red states. By contrast, at the top universities, you come face to face with the devil every day, and you learn all his little tropes and tricks.
Conservatives from elite schools have already been subjected to liberal blandishments and haven't blinked. These are right-wingers who have fought off the best and the brightest the blue states have to offer. The New York Times isn't going to mau-mau them – as it does intellectual lightweights like Jim Jeffords and Lincoln Chafee – by dangling fawning profiles before them. They aren't waiting for a pat on the head from Nina Totenberg or Linda Greenhouse. To paraphrase Archie Bunker, when you find a conservative from an elite law school, you've really got something.
However nice, helpful, prompt and tidy she is, Harriet Miers isn't qualified to play a Supreme Court justice on "The West Wing," let alone to be a real one. Both Republicans and Democrats should be alarmed that Bush seems to believe his power to appoint judges is absolute. This is what "advice and consent" means.
Not at all - I think the President has been honest about his drinking but why throw it in his face? Bush has many flaws - but his drinking is one of his triumphs - he gave it up - didn't he?
Meese and Bork are both 15-20 years older than Bush (don't know about Scalia), and that much wiser and I don't think anyone disagrees. My comment had more to do with Ann Coulter's style. I like her honesty but I find her abbrasive.
How many conservative commentators have gone to bat for Bush on this pick anyway? I don't think very many.
Who are you?! "15 minutes of fame" is a figure of speech for someone who has "worn out their welcome." And for your information, I'm a regular contributor of opinion on this website. Do me a favor and don't send me any more of your condescending correspondence!
I share your hope, but am also disappointed that once more all we have is hope, rather than a nominee whose qualifications and judicial philosophy are clear.
And Sandra Day O'Connor most certainly was a trail blazer in her profession
I thought this was about Miers, whom I contrasted with O'Connor (though maybe my phrasing was not clear.) I hardly think it is a trail-blazing achievement to be elected president of your local bar association four years after another woman has made it to the Supreme Court. And I don't think it's relevant as a qualification to serve on the court, either.
There are 9 Judges, having one of those Judges that's not from an elite school or insular back halls of the legal system, might bring a very needed practical viewpoint to their debates & eventual rulings.
I don't disagree with that sentiment, but there are other potential nominees who would have fit that descirption. Priscilla Owen (Baylor Law), who worked as an attorney for 17 years before first serving as a judge. Or Janice Rogers Brown, daughter of a sharecropper, who worked her way through UCLA Law as a widowed single mother.
Each of them meets the "outside the insular back halls" criteria, yet each has a solid judicial record, as well. I'm sure there are many, many more examples whose names I do not know, but who certainly were known to President Bush.
Yes, I'm praying and my fingers are also crossed...
Me, too...but also profoundly disappointed that prayers and crossed fingers are the best we could get...
sorry. I deserve that. but I do agree with him.
The fact is that Bush ticked off a huge part of his base and there are a lot of liberals who understand why and are laughing up their sleves.
As many comments here have shown, she's still quite welcome among a lot of freepers.
Do me a favor and don't send me any more of your condescending correspondence!
Don't post condescending comments and you won't receive them.
Mike Savage just happens to be the smartest, most entertaining manic-depressive alcoholic on the radio! He is also right more than half the time. And when he is not right, he is just too right.
You don't know my opinion on Ann's previous columns so you can't really make that judgement - see post 1041.
I have always found her abrasive and have argued over her "style" with many people. Do I agree with her most of the time? Yes. Do I like her style? Sometimes it is a bit much. Again - it is an opinion.
BTW, I am not too exicted about this nomination. I don't base my opinion on conservative columnists - although I do weigh their opinions.
My respect for her is now an all time low.....yes Ann....Bush was elected to represent the American People.....but he isn't holding his finger up in the air to see which way the wind blows....we trust him for who is he...not who we want him to be......and your comment "when Bush was still boozing it up" is an attack that was immature and unwarranted. I suppose your perfect? Let's talk about your past....oopps ...we don't know anything....let me see...ever try drugs? Pre-marital sex? Use the Lords name in vain? Drive drunk? Puke up your food?
Either that's exactly what he's doing, or he's a lib himself, because it's rather clear that he picked her because he didn't want to fight with the libs.
Attention: Idiot
See my previous response to your jibberish. I said, "Don't send me any more of your ignorant correspondence...Understand?"
It took me a couple of days to decide my take on the Miers nomination. My first instinct was simply to sigh. I have never been a Bush enthusiast, but I withheld condemnation of Bush on the basis of SCOTUS and SCOTUS only, (and of course the Dems insistance on finding the most replusive candidate possible).
After a couple of days, I conclude that Miers is Pro-Life (good), but doesn't have an underlying motivation (set of core principles) that motivate her. I disagree with Coulter's take that the SCOTUS appointees have to be the best legal minds out there. If that were the case, we should disregard Bork's age, and put him on. Too old? Where is age listed as a disqualifier. It isn't. And neither is being an Ivy leaguer. If you think that political considerations are not part of the equation, you are on a different planet, or possibly in a different dimension.
I suspect Miss Coulter in this case is blinded by her own background as a Cornell educated constitutional law attorney. This sort of reminds me of Socrates' quest to find wisdom, and every expert he went to seemed to find THE Truth in his profession (to the poet, it was poetry). Miss Coulter is upset because so many more "educated" people are being bypassed.
Well, in real life, the greatest singers don't sell the most CDs. Many talented actresses can only mutter under their breath as the see Reese Witherspoon and her chin starring in another top money-maker.
Coulter also maintains that those who survive the Ivy Leragues are battle tested and ready. Many more are compromised somewhere along the way, including W himself.
I am not inspired by Meiers, but if W doesn't have the will to fight for this, it is too late to pick another president.
I fear the political fallout of forcing another nomination may have unintended consequences.
After the Bork debacle, his replacement was not Kennedy, it was Douglas Ginsburg. Well, it turns out that Doug took some tokes of Mary Jane in his ill-spent time in college, and some conservatives and a number of temporarily temperance-minded Dems piled on for fun. Ginsburg got pulled and Anthony Kennedy (one of those smart guys who was supposed to be reliably conservative after his time in Hah-vuhd Law, doncha know?) was the replacement. Do any of us conservatives regret pushing to drop Ginsburg? I think I do, and I never touched the wacky weed.
I believe that Bush made a mistake in choosing Meiers, because it is splitting the conservative base deeply, and that he should have foreseen that. I also believe that more damage would be done if we pull Meiers and put up another. If Bush doesn't have the will to fight for Janice Rogers Brown, we can't stop him again if he puts up Edith Clement for SCOTUS.
I still sigh when I think of what might have been. But I also believe that Bush has minimally met my personal requirements. That gets him a C. It is time for us to work on getting someone in who will be an A (e.g. Brownback)
One last word on the Coulter column. I went to schools that were selective and full of bright people. I have also attended schools that were completely non-selective.I was in the Chicago Debating Society with a fellow who went to the same law school as Ann, and worked with her at the Center for Individual Rights. The Chancellor of the Chicago Debating Society was a bright (though liberal) U of Chicago Law Student. These guys are human beings, not geeks or nerds, and I can tell you that a student from SMU, or the University of Wyoming (Cheney) or Eureka College (Ronaldus Maximus) can demonstrate a better understanding of the Constitution than Harvard educated traitor Anthony Kennedy. (Ann, I imagine that even Ivy educated lawyers who don't specialize in the field have to do additional research if an obscure Admiralty law issue comes up, just like SMU grads do! If you don't watch it, somebody will try to make a distinction between first tier law schools Harvard, Yale, U of Chicago and second tier ones like, ummmmmm Cornell)
Attention: Idiot, Part 2
"Stop all of your ignorant correspondence that is aimed at me!"
The scoreboard so far for anyone keeping track of notable conservative intellectuals opposed to (or dismayed at the news of) Harriet Miers' nomination include:
* Laura Ingraham
* George Will
* Ann Coulter
* William Kristol - Weekly Standard
* David Frum - National Review
* Mark Levin
* Terrence Jeffery - Human Events
Those who have been defending the Miers nomination here and at Lucianne.com are good dependable right-of-center people. But you all are glomming on to a faith that Bush picked someone who will be a "good vote."
But really, no one has been able to argue she'd be a "good justice" - there is no evidence, experience, track record, first hand account from anyone who is considered a conservative legal scholar or someone knowledgeable about the Supreme Court who looks at Harriet Miers and sees an Antonin Scalia, William Rehnquist or Clarence Thomas.
Some of the most unchristian behavior I've seen on this board has come from people who put themselves off as being 'Christians'.
I guess their particular view of Christianity doesn't include avoiding personal attacks. Or detecting irony."
Thank you for posting that. I've thought that rather bizarre myself the past few days reading posts here at FR and Lucianne.
Right, Ann's 15 minutes of fame she has enjoyed for the last 5 years has "expired." The depth of your intellect rivals that of a can of tuna. BTW, when you have to use STFU, you automatically lose the arguement.
No---that's not clear. He picked her because he has trust in her and has said that she was the most qualified in his eyes.
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.