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.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
"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've long thought that Hillary had a higher IQ than Bill.
I'm certainly not saying that being bright is sufficient but I think it is necessary and Meirs appears on the surface to be bright enough. Obviously question are character and judicial philosophy are important too.
I hear this all the time, usually from people who pick fights with Christians expecting them not to fight back.
And antibushbots drink the antibush KoolAid.
However, I find this article silly. Just plain silly to suggest that only an Ivy Leaguer is capable of being on the Supreme Court IMO.
"While Ann, and many of the conservative elite, have engaged in personal attacks against Miers and President Bush, there is no need to respond in kind. Ann is just wrong on this issue, and her weak arguments are not persuasive"
All true, but brother has she got a body.
I love Ann but let me get this right. Miers didn't go to the right school? Is that it, Ann? Sorry - no sale.
Like I said, I like Ann. I, personally, thought the boozing sentence was a low blow. It was a personal attack, and I don't see how it gave her column any credibility.
Ack! The Plagiarist? And the Senate Republicans would roll over and certify the nomination.
What was your point in that post? Was it humor?
Lotsa pubbies breaking Reagans 11th commandment unfortunately.
Exactly right. Michael Ledeen had a comment about "instant experts on all things." I will reserve judgement on Harriet Miers until I hear her testimony in front of the Judicial Committee. If that makes me a Bushbot, so be it.
I'm not buying it. I haven't decided on Miers and won't until I watch the hearings, but I don't believe we need an egghead from a 1st tier law school to understand the constitution. If I need a doctor or a scientists to design a computer or get me to the moon, I want an egghead. If I need someone to sit on the court, I think I'd rather have a regular type with demonstrated intelligence and good sense.
I was won over by the superior logic of the Midol comment (post #2). I see you stuck it out until the teeth comment. I guess I realized early on that I could never defeat such brilliant minds.
There is nothing to debate, so I just laugh at the fool that keeps pinging me and looking for a fight. I'm not interested, so there is no need to respond
The site is about conservatism
Not the GOP.
Look at what the statement of the site says. It is about advancing the ideals of conservatism, not supporting the GOP no matter what.
I swear, there is a giant disconnect here where people see criticism based on a certain aspect as being "irrational bush bashing".
That is the dangerous thing, and it's even more disconcerting than the original issue.
That trust has been earned.
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.