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.
Frum said something absolutely dumb, which is that in conference she would be overwhelmed by the charm and intellect of someone like Breyer. Why not by the charm and intellect of a Scalia? Frum has met her, but cultural differences matter. He doesn't understand what makes a southern woman tick.
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.
I don't buy into the liberals' view. I just think that having at least one perspective that hasn't been indoctrinated by law schools, is literate enough to read and understand the text of the Constitution, intelligent enough to apply that to a specific case, and eloquent enough to explain it in plain English, would be a great improvement over having a lawyers-only clique in this immensely powerful role.
Ann, Ann, this is not, generally speaking, what happens. Quel snobbery on the part of the attractive Ms. Coulter. And that bit about the use of "which" instead of "that" (I go which hunting all the time, and I went to a land grant college. They do teach that stuff there.)being extrapolated into grammatical mistakes (plural)is just reaching.
From Wikipedia:
Throughout her time as first lady, Clinton continued to practice law with the Rose Law Firm. In 1988 and 1991 National Law Journal named Clinton one of the 100 most influential lawyers in America. . .
Thoughts?
I used to respect Ann Coulter. Now I believe she is too full of herself - has acquired the self-importance that people acquire from being in the limelight. She can think what she likes and say what she feels, but in this case she has been far too mean/hateful for my tastes.
BWAAAHAHAA! You mean like when he "looked into Putin's soul" and liked what he saw?
I agree that that was a lame shot over the bow.
"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."
I was under the impression that Ann does not like John Roberts, and was against his nomination. This actually sounds like a complement.
About that "boozing" comment Ann made, did she out herself? Is this that masterful Rove at work again? Cozying up to the left using their lib-speak to lure them in only to hamstring them when the time is right?
The problem with "waiting to the hearings" is that the hearings are little more than a dog and pony show.
I could accept an unproven candidate if we could find out the truth in a hearing. I could accept a qualified, proven candidate who goes through a show hearing. But I can't accept both things together.
Volunteering for what?
Being Wrong LOUDLY does not make your right, Ann.
Run for President and win Ann...then you can pick and
others can diss you.
Enough already...she is his pick. Now do the requisite research to prove him wrong, don't just piss and moan.
I know the President KNOWS how important this selection is to us. He wants what we want...only he may know more than we do...a lot more. Don't believe for a second he would back done on this. Think you may have blinked instead.
However, I will wager he will have at least one more pick before his term ends. Don'tcha think?
Man, you are totally missing the point. David Brock went from faking being a conservative to faking being a liberal.
Ann is a conservative and she wants to see conservatism advanced. Bush is the one who is failing as conservative. His nomination of Miers is just the most recent example.
It is not that Miers might not ultimately be a reliable conservative vote, but being a Supreme Court justice is more complicated than just voting yea or nay the way Senators do. The fact that she was a good lawyer, a trial lawyer by the way, is not a qualification for a judge. It is like sending your star highschool line backer to coach the NFL team for the first time.
That's where I stopped, too. If I want to read crap like that, I'll go to DU.
Yes, "still boozing it up" was a VERY cheap shot and one Ann should apologize for immediately.
Perhaps she could claim her judgment was clouded by a nice bottle of merlot?
Seriously, she opens herself up to this stuff by making such ill-advised and patently ridiculous remarks. But then again she does believing it will improve her stock to be the subject of outrage.
No, she got the spelling right - it's "advice". Look over a copy of the Constitution next time you get a chance.
I have, or AC has?
No she's not. She's a fool and a loose cannon. The only reason we haven't seen it by now is that she's been going after those we're opposed to. It's over. I'm done with Ann.
Snob.
You are saying that Coulter more competent in the law? I would like for you to share your evidence?
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.