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.
SINKSPUR: "You and EJ Dionne think so. Nobody else does."
CAUTOR: There YOU go again. Just me and EJ, yea, that's the ticket. And at a later date, I'm sure you will provide the details as to why it's just me and EJ that think Bush has lost it.
SINKSPUR: "There you go again. The country is not looking for the President of the United States to treat those of the other party (or malcontents in his own party) as "enemies." You are so frickin' absorbed with this juvenile political combat mentality you don't even realize what you're saying."
CAUTOR: As Clarity used to advise on this very forum, you need rest. You're starting to rant again. I know you think anyone who is not a Bushophile like yourself is a Republican malcontent, but that's life. I say that when you're reduced to such taunts and have no facts do defend Bush's "TRUST ME" position, you really become desperate don't you? Surely, you can do better than screeching that I'm 'SO FRICKIN' ABSORBED WITH JUVENILE POLITICAL COMBAT" THAT I DON'T EVEN REALIZE WHAT I'M SAYING. In fact, I totally understand when I say Bush has lost it. After all, he has given us Harriet Miers, a Bush crony with nothing to commend her to be a justice of the SCOTUS other than being a FOB (Friend of Brush).
SINKSPUR: "You might relish a long and protracted SC nominee fight. Nobody, and I mean nobody else in the country is even thinking in those terms."
CAUTOR: My, what a mind reader. Unless she flubs even the most elementary questions of CONLAW, or she has a skeleton in her closet (which I very much doubt) I think she will be confirmed in short order. Then we can all sit back and see whether she is the reliable vote Dubya promised when he told us to read his lips.
SINKSPUR: "She's an acceptable pick. I don't really want another egghead on the Supreme Court."
CAUTOR: I'm happy your standard is just "acceptable." By the way, please share with us your personal views as to which members of the SCOTUS today are eggheads and which members are not eggheads. Is Roberts an egghead?
SINKSPUR: You're in a fightin' mood. You better get it out of your system on FR, 'cause Miers is going to be approved, without any blood on the floor."
CAUTOR: Yea, I'm really going round kicking ass and tasking names. And I place you in the 30% that takes this "acceptable" nominee as the best we could hope for from Bush. On that score, I think you're right.
Funny how you think Ann has earned this, yet Bush hasn't earned his? He made a bad pick.
"What about debating thesubstance of the article?"
Why didn't Ann do that?
My model on the current court is Scalia. A heavyweight who may sometimes render decisions with which I would argue.
Not a lightweight who may vote the "right" way- as she sees- it by rote.
She has said she will literally interpret the Constitution, you weasel.
And where has she manifested any ability to interpret the Constitution?
Got more names to call me?
No, he's not. He acknowledges, unlike the foolish and hysterical Coulter, that Miers is qualified.
Okay, so those people are wrong too. Hopefully you're not implying since "they did it first" it's okay to joke about Ann's menstruation and splatter this thread with the f-word.
I am pissed.
I'm no friggin' Bushbot. I rip into his policies all the time.
But I see people ripping into Miers left and right on incomplete information and snarky bullcrap like what Coulter has written. I can only conclude that such people are not serious about seeking an informed position, when the likes of Coulter descends to DU-Land with her idiotic incorpation of Bush's past drinking to make her point. If that's the best folks can bring, that's pretty pathetic.
Actually, I graduated "cum laude" in physics. But the diploma really doesn't use Latin. It just says "with honors," the good old American translation.
You really need to review your 6th grade math.
Actually I have just returned to college after 14 years in the Army, wow I was amazed at how much math I forgot since last being in school. But luckily I didnt have a T1 calculator so I had to do the first couple of chapters by hand, that will get you back in line quick.
Secondly, Since Ann Coulter isn't here on this thread, it's hardly personal.... SO...... Go play "Thread Policeman" someplace else!
bttt
Some people seem to feel that her church membership tells us something about how she will read the Constitution. All that tells me is that people (including the President) are hoping she'll legislate from the bench based on her personal views, which is just as obnoxious for a conservative to do as it is for a liberal. Her personal beliefs are irrelevant. Her view on how to interpret the Constitution is the only thing that should matter, and no one can offer valid testimony to that since she's never been called on to do it. So the White House needs to decide which tack it's going to try to sell.....either she won't legislate from the bench by inserting her personal opinions into the interpretation of the law....or she will because she's an evangelical Christian.
If the President had seen fit to actually nominate one of the myriad of available known originalists, his base wouldn't be so upset....and he would have actually finally fulfilled a campaign promise to the group that gave him two terms as President, with a majority in the Senate and the House. No reasonable person puts the name of Harriet Miers into a group including Judges Alito, Edith Jones, Emilio Garza et al. and conceivably views Harriet Miers as the best of the bunch. Harriet Miers was nominated because the President likes her and trusts her. That is not what he promised to do when he campaigned. For a man who supposedly values loyalty, he has shown precious little to the people who have supported him and worked for him.
About the only bright spot at this point is that Ted Kennedy doesn't exercise. If he did, there might be a better than average chance that he'd be nominated to replace Justice Stevens or Ginsburg when they retire. After all, he fits the other two qualifications for the Supreme Court in the President's mind. He has no written record in support of actual conservative positions, and he's watched a movie with the President.
"If you think that you are right then thats your loss."
I wilt in the face of your compelling logic.
All I am saying is there are loads of better choices who are as if not more conservative. Yes she is qualified to be a judge, but not IMHO in th SC. There is now an opening in a lower court in the Washigton area, on vacated by CJ Roberts. Let her have that and then she how she rules and maybe later when Stevens or otherleave she can go up. She will be seasoned and we willhave an idea of how she rules on the court.
Are you a Christian?
If so, you should be especially ashamed.
LOL, Perfect response :-)
"Angry spinster in heat."
LOL!!!
Like hell you did. You contradicted yourself. And can't understand your own contradictions, apparently.
And where has she manifested any ability to interpret the Constitution?
Interpreting the Constitution is fairly simple. Warping it like Scalia did in Gonzales takes years of training.
Got more names to call me?
No need, your posts define you far better than anything I could say.
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.