This is what 'advice and consent' means (Ann Coulter)

wnd.com ^ | October 5, 2005 | Ann Coulter

[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.

[A.Hun]

If the Republican Senators find fault with this nominee, it is their duty to make that known to the President. I am sure he would follow their advice.

He won the nomination and the election with a broad base of moderates and conservatives. He owes no more to the far right than he does to the moderates, and Christians that put him in office.

[Rummyfan]

I'm upset that Bush has ducked a fight that would have educated the country, killed off the liberals, and put a KNOWN, Persuasive conservative on the court.

Greatness was within his grasp, but rather than reaching for it he is withdrawing and playing it safe. THIS will be his legacy.

[ConsentofGoverned]

." Using the booze comment was deliberate, malicious, and unnecessary."

nominating a party pol with marginal credentials to be on SCOTUS was deliberate, malicious and totally UNNECESSARY.
when we have so many conservative judges who have taken stands..this is a slap at any judge who stands for support of the constitution and separation of powers in gov..you should hang your heads who just lap up any action Bush commits or does not act such as millions of illegals violating our country..he does nothing. WHY

[rbmillerjr]

"Its fun watching the Republicans debate the true conservatives. You can see the difference between devotion to the leader and devotion to the philosophy."

Worth repeating...because it is evident.

[ThisLittleLightofMine]

I agree with you on this....this is totally unbecoming and shameful language. She is no better than a liberal when she attacks her own with such hateful language. Whether you agree or disagree with Bush, he still deserves respect.

[VRWC For Truth]

I like Bush overall ... but in this case he made a serious error in judgement. This is a nomination to appease the left and some are upset about it. They should be.

[A.Hun]

True for all novice SC justices.

[dirtboy]

Ok, so we now toss Thomas out too because we knew nothing about him and National Review thought he was a Soutereque appt?

And we disown Reagan because he used to be a Democrat.

And we rethink the entire modern conservative movement because its founder, Barry Goldwater, was a college dropout from a state school.

This is like Back to the Future when McFly is disappearing from the photo.

[trisham]

While I supported Roberts going on the court, I would have preferred that Bush not move him into Rehnquist's position as CJ, and promoted Scalia instead to CJ.

***************

I agree with you there. Scalia was my first choice for Chief Justice as well. I must say that I was quite impressed with Roberts during his confirmation process. He's a brilliant man. Yet I felt that Scalia had earned the CJ position.

[jla]

Taking that high-road, I could mention that Miers was a respected attorney when Ann was bedding her professors for improved grades.

You're hardly one to be criticizing Ann Coulter. Her remark about GWB's drinking days was accurate, while yours was just plain ignorant.

[JCEccles]

His dumb decisions do not deserve respect.

[duckln]

Ann has opinions, three books full, hundreds of appearances on TV and talk radio. she's a Swift Boat veteran all wrapped into one.

On the other hand, what has Mier contributed in the battle of ideas?

[surely_you_jest]

I am a partner in a large law firm. A former president of my state bar association is my friend and neighbor. I am not convinced that service as either a manager of a large firm or president of a large state bar association is either indicative of, or likely to impart, the qualities needed in an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

I concur.

[sinkspur]

What she was saying with that "boozing it up" comment is that long before Bush straightened out and saw the light, long before he became president, there were people fighting hard to straighten out our courts. They (and we) have been fighting for 25 years. Now finally Bush comes along, has a chance to put a nail in the coffin of the judicial tyrants, and he blows it with a lightweight nomination.

You may not agree with this judgment, but I don't see why it's so far out of line.

You are actually defending this insult?

You're naive if you don't think she intended this to be a slam on Bush for his drinking.

This, from a wench who cannot get a man on a bet, and who chain smokes like a dockworker.

[bray]

Its fun watching the Republicans debate the true conservatives. You can see the difference between devotion to the leader and devotion to the philosophy.

Don't trip over your Halo or break your arm patting yourself on your back!

Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters

[AZ_Cowboy]

The keyword kooks are already at it, it would appear.

[jwalsh07]

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.

Ah for cripes sakes, whatever happened to the gal in jean shorts on the deck taking aim with her rifle?

This is garbage. Where does the constitution say that I must be lorded over by men and women who attended elitist law schools? And who the hell came up with the idea that lawyers from elitist law schools are the oligarchy of nine that rules this damn country?

After reading this bs and the crap I've read the past three days, I wish Bush would have appointed an engineer and a hardhat.

[Mr. Mojo]

Lotsa pubbies breaking Reagans 11th commandment unfortunately.

Loved the Gipper, but his "commandment" is just plain ridiculous. Do you honestly believe that Republicans should never criticize one another in public?

[goldstategop]

I think its the opposite: Souter was nominated after the Thomas fight because he didn't have a paper trail. And look where that got us. That's why so many of us are leery. I reiterate I oppose stealth candidates on principle because I think we can win by presenting conservative views openly and honestly. We have nothing to hide. Where we get in trouble is by reassuring liberals we're ashamed to be conservatives and that heaven forbid, we mustn't be on record as having a philosophy at all. That's the trouble with Miers: she doesn't appear to have a philosophy conservatives can defend. A lot of us are not happy with the way this is playing out.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[perfect stranger]

I didn't like that Dowd comment so we should argue back and forth alot about it, but I agree with your second point.