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.
They can't do anything else, it seems. I'm up to 98, and all I see are sophomoric bodily insults and people who apparently do not know the difference between "advise" (the verb) and "advice" (the noun).
Ping.
The problem is you posted all results - nonmembers included.
Members only is a little different:
Need more info 43.6% 692
Yes 29.8% 473
No 23.3% 370
Which means members more strongly wish to have either more informtaion or a candidate with more of a track record, and more lurkers/ trolls blindly voted yes.
Hey, you can spin it how you want...so can anyone else.
Next time, instead of begging, perhaps he should VETO something.
Hardly. I'm witholding judgement in the absence of evidence one way or the other. Blind emotionalism in the absence of evidence is the very essence of liberalism.
I don't see any debate or education here -- debate requires facts and substance. Making grand assertions on pure speculation of things you know nothing about is utter foolishness. And that is exactly where we are today. We know very little about this woman. Bush knows quite a bit. Until you and I know "quite a bit", we have no business making assertions until we know as much as Bush does.
It isn't that I agree with Bush, it is that I disagree with the admittedly ignorant making sweeping assertions about that which they know nothing about.
Bill: In the personal story tonight, a new poll saying just 58% support of the nomination of Harriet Mires to the supreme court. Compared to 77% who supported john Roberts. Joining us now Ann coulter, the author of a book how to talk to a flirble you must, now out in paper back. Did you change the color? I thought you were in black leather last time. Is that a different color?
>> Yeah, i like -- bill: You have leather in every shape and every color. Ok. Just finished reading your column on Miers, you don't like her. Why?
>> Because i don't think she is qualified tort job. I mean, we have had a 25-year legal movement spearheaded by people like Robert Bork and antoin scalia to create a farm team of incredibly talented conservative lawyers who did go to elite schools and i keep hearing people say well, we are not the party of elitistS. We are talking about the supreme court. This is not a reward for best attendance at office of legal council meetingS. This is the supreme court. We are not even choosing a governor or a president where you might want someone who has more of a feel for americans. Most what the supreme court of Americans is not governor us but be deciding, boring -- bill: But is it fair to drought conclusion he she is not qualified just because she gradual from S.M.U.?
>> Not by itself, nO. But loot her legal career since then or big legal accomplishments. Bill: Well, first female president of texas bar, all her friends say she is brilliant, she seems to have served bush well this the capacity of advising him the legalies of the administrations' moves. So I don't know, I mean, i tonight know, this woman quo could be betty cracker as far as But i hesitate to come criticize her because based based on nothing.
>> That's -- that's all she has going for her. I mean, you have just described and all of these descrips of her as very tidy, very neat, always on timE. First woman head of the dallas bar association? We are talking about the supreme court. Openings come up once a dakotA.
>> She might be the most -- decade. With she might bill: She might be the most brilliant woman of the world. It sounds like you want an activist conservative judge --
>> I do, but that's not my client per. Bill: Bush would get slaughtered if he did thaT.
>> But that's not my complaint here. This shows stunning arrogance by the president that he thinks he can nominate anyone he wants. This is where advise and consent comes in. The president is not supposed to be nominating his personal lawyer for a job on the -- bill: What if his personal lawyer is the best person he knows for the job? I wouldn't disqualify my personal lawyer for the supreme courT. You know, he is prettynisttY.
>> Well, you shoulD. What if his accountants, his brilliance, you don't have your personal accountant to replace alan greenspan. It is embarrassing to hear people describe as if this is the best women -- woman bush could get. Bill: I think she will be confirmed, I think it is a moot point.
>> Then I think the senators will be held responsible for not taking their job seriously as the president clearly does here. Bill: All right, bill bent, did you hear my talking point last night on bennett?
>> I did.
>> Bill: Go you agree with me that generalizing about any race in perk, you shouldn't do it? Would you agree with that?
>> I don't know in the abstract, but I think it sun fortune that he said this. He is clearly not a racist, i can see why it hurt people's feeling. I mean, the one sort of good thing about this is it finally brings life to something my newspaper human events and the national right to life society has been screaming from the roof tops since it came out, two economist came out with a study in 2001 furiously making this point not as a thought experiment to shoot down, defending roe V. Wade onet ground that it reduced crime with a wink and a nod about what that meant. And by the way, economist john lott then looked it over and said they were cooking the books. It wasn't even true, but yes, I think it is very dangerous to repeat the obscene things liberals say even just to sthoot down. Bill: Woe, how did the liberals get in there?
>> It was the liberal economist defending roe V. Wading this is a 201 report -- at chicago -- bill: All right, bennett's ke you know the tragedy of it --
>> Was quoting liberalS. Bill: No, it was generizing about a race. You can't do it in this country and survive, particlely if you are on the right. Now, jessee jackson can say I'mee town and survive but bennett can't make that kind of generallyizing and survive -- well, he is, the triangle is of it is the man and his wife does a lot of good to help francE. But I got a letter today from a blark american who said in this case what bennett said negate all of his good works of the and I just think that is so sad.
>> Yes, i don't think that is true. I think it is unfortune, but bennett is a great man, he is certainly not a racist and like I say, this is an argument that was made serious by liberals in 2001. Why didn't it -- bill: It was a poverty argument, not a race argument.
>> Everybody knew what it was about. Bill: I didn'T.
>> Saying the founder of planned parenthood promoted abortion because she was in favor of
[Inaudible] Specifically for the brown and the black people. There are quotes all over the place, human events does an issue on it once in a year, likes could know with the jellssy issue. This is the argument for abortion and it doesn't get the argument -- bill: I don't think liberals would embrace that argument at all. I don't think they would do iT. I think is a fringe argument perks nazi argument and argument that nobody should even havE. Now, anybody else or anything else on your mind. Anything theals you want to talk about?
>> No, I have to say i can't understand why a nomination of supreme court isn't being covered like the moob landing. Bill: Because merges don't care theyre watching the playoffs and the new shows and the survivor.
>> Well, they ought to care, at the can right their senators, they can threaten to vote against them. Bill: You know, ann, sometimes, yeah, I guess they could and the senator is going to vote party lines. They are --
>> Ok, but look, don't complain to me when you can't have the pledge of allegiance in schools when abortion continues and partial abortion continues for another 30 years when gay mirgeemaurnl becomes a constitutional right. Bill: I think miers is going to fool you, a be and be a fairly traditional interpreter of the constitution.
>> She might well be, that's not my complaiN. If qualifications mean anything, run rung the texas lottery is not the reason to be nominated for the supreme court. Bill: We appreciate you coming on as always.
It looks like supreme arrogance to me.
Maybe our attitude has changed because she is starting to sound quite a bit like Howard Dean.
She has put before Dubya everyone of his judicial nominations that you like so much.
I like Ann, but Miers has done more.
Talk about a MSNBCesque misreading of a poll, where did you learn how to do a poll CBS?
Need more info 38.4% 1,270
Yes 32.2% 1,066
No 25.1% 832
Pass 2.2% 73
I'm voting Hillary! 2.1%
Seems to me the NOs are out numbered by 7%, and 38% are witholding judgement, not 70% against 30% as you so inaccurately claimed.
Veto your own party? A waste of time.
This lady isn't qualified to serve coffee and donuts to Scalia.
You can tell Ann is Freeper and been lurking here.
And the Constitution is still pretty simple.
why ask for less than the best conservative minds we have to sit on SCOTUS..the list of brilliant conservative jurists is long and any one of them could provide the brain power to combat liberal leftist on the courts, this lady is no Scalia.
I would hope she's no Scalia.
Scalia sided with the liberal majority in Gonzales. He found new and novel interpretations of the Necessary and Proper Clause that made him pass on a chance to under Wickard. He succumbed to temptation. He inserted a few non-legal arguments to justify his position, instead of sticking to the the Constitution. Thomas stayed true to the Constitution and his dissent was a thing of beauty compared to Scalia's convoluted concurrence.
But, hey, Thomas is the lightweight and Scalia is the brilliant scolar.
Looks like he turned out to be just that.
Here's a Midol and a quarter, call someone who cares.
LOL, been there done that in my much younger days and you know of what you speak!
I could not get through this article it was so far out. It is hard to believe what has been going on the last few days.
The divide and conquer strategy by the commies is working like a well oiled machine. Frankly, I think I interpret the Constitution more accurately than most of these Ivy league snobs.
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.