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.
I think she went to the University of Michigan law school, which is top ten at least and has been top five in the not to distant past.
*************
Nothing to be embarrassed about. It's a highly regarded university.
I mention law; you talk politics. Coulter cannot even claim to be a publicist, like Mark Levin.
"Look at what the statement of the site says. It is about advancing the ideals of conservatism, not supporting the GOP no matter what."
Latest results from FR's own informal poll shows 30% of members of FR approve Miers (knowing little more about her than the fact that Bush says she's OK--they trust Bush's judgment implicitly).
OTOH, the other 70% of FR members either don't approve of her (they want someone with a proven record of being a conservative judge) or they don't have enough information to know whether they approve of her or not (she's a blank slate to them).
At the moments, it looks like we have about 30% Bushbots or Bushophiles who are FR members. I find this all very interesting.
What did SHE personally do to get Clinton impeached?
You people are amazing.
Point taken. I remember conservatives going to the mat for him, but i am not sure of his judicial record.
But I still firmly believe in GW's core beliefs and the fact he has known this woman personally for 15 years. He doesn't have to take a d*mn thing on faith, or rely on others for an opinion of her.
Absolutely. Bork is admired by the "true conservatives", in fact I admire him, but even Bork reads the second amendment and sees no individual RTKABA's. And he was vetted by the Reagan administraion, served as an appellate judge and went to all the right schools.
God save us from the "true conservatives".
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Exactly. I will put it simply thus: "I feel betrayed."
And yes, I know the Dims love it when the Right gets split into factions and slobber greedily over statements like mine, but this is a 'last straw' issue for me. If only the President, the GOP Congress and Senate were half as courageous as say, the Swift Boat Vets. I'm still a Republican because they do best represent my political beliefs, but I'm disheartened by the increasing number of gutless wonders who do way too much reaching across the aisle and fattening up every Bill with plenty of pork.
P.S. The University of Michigan Law School is/was highly-rated. Not a podunk place to obtain one's law degree from what I've heard.
Miers may or may not be a good pick for the Supreme Court, but this statement by Coulter is complete, unmitigated bullsh!t.
The U.S. Constitution is a very short document, and is written in a language that most sixth graders can understand. I contend that a Supreme Court comprised of nine truck drivers would have done far less to f#ck this country up over the last 40 years than the miserable excuses for "legal minds" that have dominated the court.
I'm not totally thrilled with the selection of Miers -- because I'm still holding out hope for a truck driver. But the fact that she is not a "super-nerd trained in legal reasoning" is really a point in her favor.
Ann may have a bit too much attitude (first time for everything) but she is basically correct.
Airlines should hire the most qualified pilots, because not doing so would put passengers at unnecessary risk. An excellent pilot can save lives that would be lost to a mediocre pilot. Presidents should hire the most qualified Supreme Court justices, because not doing so puts the American legal system at unnecessary risk. The job of Supreme Court Justice is extremely important and intellectually demanding. It requires much more than an ability to chant "I will not legislate from the bench!" and "Repeal Roe!" This is Bush's "read my lips" moment.
"Now if the President had nominated Ann Coulter"
Now that sounds like something Bill Clinton would have done. I'll bet he likes her jurisprudence.
Actually, I recall a column in which she said when she went to college, having sex with a professor was considered "life experience" (working purely from memory here). How do you know she didn't bed her professors for better grades? You have as much to go on as Ann does regarding Miers's qualifications to sit on the bench.
Now she thinks Roberts is the mold from which SC justices should be cast? I thought she didn't like Roberts because he wasn't a dependable conservative vote? Now the President is offering one (having worked at his side to winnow for him all the justices Ann liked in the last 5 years), and she starts caterwalling.
I LIKE Ann's columns. I THOUGHT she was at least sincere when she trashed the Roberts nomination. Now I just don't know what her game is.
PS Her comment about Bush's "drinking days" as well as the "dictator" attack could have been lifted whole from democraticunderground.org. No originality there.
marginal credentials to be on SCOTUS
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
The threads about Roberts and this one about Meirs show not many pics.
My conclusion: Post more pics.
LOL
"Whatever the case, it seems to me that she is more into self-promotion than she is into advancing a conservative agenda."
Don't worry, you still have Fred Barnes and Morton Kondracke on Miers' side.
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.