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 share your sentiments :-)
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/content.cgi?name=bio
Coulter clerked for the Honorable Pasco Bowman II of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and was an attorney in the Department of Justice Honors Program for outstanding law school graduates.
After practicing law in private practice in New York City, Coulter worked for the Senate Judiciary Committee, where she handled crime and immigration issues for Senator Spencer Abraham of Michigan. From there, she became a litigator with the Center For Individual Rights in Washington, DC, a public interest law firm dedicated to the defense of individual rights with particular emphasis on freedom of speech, civil rights, and the free exercise of religion.
A Connecticut native, Coulter graduated with honors from Cornell University School of Arts & Sciences, and received her J.D. from University of Michigan Law School, where she was an editor of The Michigan Law Review.
Bill Gates was a college dropout, but I would not put him under the column of dumbass. Some of the smartest people I have ever know never went to college. They were busy running buisnesses and raising families, but they were very , very smart.
I think Bush knows this woman and feels he can predictably rely on her conservatism and being an originalist. Smart, core belief, and strict constructionist view of the constitution is what is desired, and she has all three. She is not the best he could find. That person does not exist except as an ideal. This woman has qualities which will do exactly what the conservatives have been hoping for a justice to do, and that is, make rulings faithful to the original meaning of the constitution.
In the end, I suspect Bush put forth 2 stealth candidates to flummox the democrats and to avoid a fight. I suspect the man is exhausted. Who would want to put up with all of the sh*t he has put up with, and for eight years. When Stevens dies, I suspect he will put up Luddig and the guns will blaze. Perhaps we should cut him some slack.
This is what happens when folks engage Punditry Adulation.
All one has to do is throw a claim out there and it's the Gospel According to __________(fill in the pundit/activist/radio-talkshow host name).
All we are sayyyying,
Is give Harriet a chance....
All this talk about qualifications. I just scanned through the Constitution of the United States.
There does not seem to be a minimum age requirement for a nominee. There does not seem to be a requirement that the individual be a lawyer. There does not seem to be a requirement that the individual be a US citizen.
Weird.
But . . . let me toss this out. I'd rather he nominated a non lawyer. Toss the law clerks. There are too many lawyers in the US and lawyers have too much influence on American society. Making 5 Justices of the USSC non lawyers could have merit.
I don't have the exact figures at my fingertips, but many, many of the members of the Constitutional Convention were lawyers. Madison, Hamilton and Jay (the authors of the Federalist Papers) were all lawyers.
Actually I think some of the good little moveon.org "conservatives" are hoping she will go medieval on them. They all have visions of Ann, the stern Governess, bearing whips and chains dancing in their little heads.
"This lady isn't qualified to serve coffee and donuts to Scalia."
Just how in hell do you know? Are you privy to information that no one else in the free world has, did the voices tell you? Pomposity combined with ignorance is an extremely dangerous combination
"I see, so even in the subgroup, you Moonbats garner only 23.3%."
Don't be so cocky, if a small percentage of that number decides to stay home in the midterms,,,,out go the lights.
"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...."
Does this statement make sense...? To me, no.
The smartest people I have known were not lawyers.
Funny, I was just thinking that a lot of the criticisms of Ann on this thread bear more than a passing resemblance to the, uh, eloquent dissertations coming from those types.
Of 55 writers of the Consitution, only 35 of them were lawyers, and even a lesser amount of them became Judges. 13 were Businessmen.9 were also Civil Servants.
So I guess the 13 who were businessmen, and those lawyers who werent educated at a tier 1 school, were not qualified in creating the Consitution according to Coulter and her Coulter-bots.
Dean usually does the following:
Uses insults and mockery toward the President
Hints at his prior drinking in a derogatory way
Insinuates that he is stupid and lazy
Talks about his "cronies" (such as Cheney) in an insulting manner
Makes fun of his Texas upbringing
All of these elements are here in Ann's column. Sounds pretty Deanish to me.
"And the 30% act like they're in the majority and anyone who doesn't automatically approve of miers is some fringe wacko. "
That is what I find so interesting. The vocal MINORITY here is trying to assign labels to the MAJORITY (those who are not prepared to accept Bush's unverified pronouncement that Miers is what Bush proclaims her to be: the best choice in the U.S.).
The real issue that's being missed here (and I blame this in part on the pieces by Coulter and Will because they allow the Miers' supporters to shift the debate to the spurious issue about Ivy League schools) is not whether only judges from elitist law schools should serve on the SCOTUS, but whether conservatives who voted Bush into office are entitled to nominees with proven records and intellectual acumen--nominees that take precedence over Bush cronies with no such record.
When Bush needed his base, he promised them judges in the mold of Scalia and Thomas--the judges he told us he most admired SCOTUS judges. Instead, he gave us two unknowns--Roberts and Miers.
Personally, I really Bush to confront the Dems and to confront the gangsta of 14 including the RINOs. I wanted him to fight the fight even if that meant a loss. It seems he preferred to tuck tail and run. I guess facing off such foes as McCain (RINO-AZ), Dewine (RINO-OH), Graham (RINO-SC), Specter (RINO-PA) and so on was too much for this Texan.
In Washington, power goes to those who take it. The Dems and the RINOs have taken it away from Bush. He's now perceived as weak, wounded, and a lame duck. Personally, I can't imagine how he will ever regain power.
I disagree vehemently. No attacks by nutcase Muslims since 9/11 seems valuable to me.
That and a few other minor things he has accomplished like democracy in the Middle East.
But did they attend tier 1 law schools?
How the heck do you know? She has said she will literally interpret the Constitution. That's what Thomas does. And intellect has little to do with it. Instead, it takes a core commitment to the words of the Constitution, instead of being like Scalia and succumbing to activism when it suits his intellect.
and no one can expect to agree with every decision made by any judge or even President BUSH..I don't, but come on, miers is the best he got??
Once again - do you think JRB could survive the Gang of 14? I don't. Miers, however, shows a practical legal skill set and a tremendous personal determination - coupled with Christian values and a commitment to the law as written.
So she damn well could be another Thomas (who has been decried as an idiot his entire career).
if you believe that then you are not aware of the other jurists available (which i doubt). Running for 5 YEARS the texas lotto speaks volumes to me about her christian conversion (FAKE IMO)..she is a classic ride the coat tails pol. and you see her on SCOTUS please.
You can barely present a coherent argument yourself, yet you are casting judgement on a very bright woman on the scantest of information.
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.