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.
That is fine, but in the atmosphere of the Senate today, a complete conservative paper trail would be the kiss of death. We can count on the Senate not being able to confirm a known strong conservative.
This is the elegance of GW's nomination.
That's a good question. I suspect that after Roberts, they really want to avoid a fight. If the President had nominated one of the justices they had already filibustered, they would have to do so again...prompting the Republicans to remove the filibuster option on judicial nominees.
Meanwhile, the President gets a nominee that he knows will be a Conservative voice on the SC. What are we complaining about???
Meaning she is an ex-lawyer.
The president proactively determines the qualifications of judicial nominees. The senate reactively votes to confirm or not to confirm.
Constitutionally speaking, a nominee for the Supreme Court doesn't even have to be a lawyer, or a citizen of the country, let alone be a graduate of any law school deemed by the Ann Coulters of the world to be acceptable.
The Constitution of the United States -- the articles, sections and clauses pertaining to the judiciary:Article. II.
Section. 2.
Clause 2: He [the president] shall ... shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law...Article. III.
Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.Section. 2.
Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Clause 3: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Isn't he the guy who wrote a book?
Meaning she is an ex-lawyer.
Was Scalia's reasoning sound?
Left or Right, I want a Justice who thinks. Thinking invites surprises.
-- "Coulter-vibrators"?--
And the personal attacks continue.
Dazzle me with your wisdom. Tell me what possible rationale there is to propose Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court compared to the other actually qualified people? I know....it requires you to actually think so I won't be holding my breath. Even the President couldn't come up with any actual reasons during his press conference the other day. The man has just peed on the conservative base that put him into office. We now will demonstrate to him the loyalty that he has shown to us.
The nominee has considerable legal experience. Perhaps it is not to the satisfaction of some who would prefer a kangaroo court to a Supreme Court, but it is to the satisfaction of a President who is truly concerned about the life and destiny of the people whom he serves.
There is no elegance at all to this nomination.
Yes, everyone that I've heard from Texas, who has worked with her, has said the same thing. Kay Baily Hutichson are John Cornyn are two.
It's those who don't know her who are making erroneous assumptions. Some of these pundits had better start backpedaling fast. Or I fear they will all look as foolish as Ann.
I don't think asking questions-especially when dealing with an issue of such great import-is necessarily a bad thing.
It's comforting that Ken Starr is disposed favorably towards her, but I don't see why that means we should foreclose debate on this subject.
See you partaketh in what you accuse me of, how quiant.
I defend the President in this only because I am forced to by the closed minded individuals who cannot wait for facts and wish to partake in Political S&M.
I usually like Ann a lot, but her sneer at SMU Law School is over the top. I, too, went to a lesser known law school. I have, however, worked with over 30 top tier graduates of the so-called elite law schools. My legal education has allowed me to hold my own with all of them. Ann can criticize President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers on a lot of grounds, but this isn't one of them, IMHO.
If you can not debate the issues. Please keep the personal attack to yourself.
Not that you see.
Care to explain that brainless little comment is just a bit more detail?
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.