This is what 'advice and consent' means (Ann Coulter)

wnd.com ^ | October 5, 2005 | Ann Coulter

[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.

[Windsong]

Good god that post was pathetic. And from someone who has been here since '99.

[SuziQ]

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.

I'd think practicing law in Texas would give Ms. Miers plenty of experience in 'dealing with the devil'.

[Sabramerican]

Interpreting the Constitution is fairly simple

Pity people like Bork who dedicated their life. All those books, decisions, law review comments, etc.

Anyone can do it.

Any hysterical poster, between insults.

[festus]

Ann Coulter accused the President of trying hand us a Souter during the Roberts nomination. BACK THEN she wanted a sure Conservative Vote on the courts. Now it seems Roberts is the MODEL for ALL justices.

Chief Justic Roberts has yet to make enough rulings to determine if he's Souter or not. Though I don't think he'll be getting mugged while joggin in boystown.

[inquest]

This, apparently, is not satisfactory for some people who prefer to see a Supreme Court characterized by political maneuvering as opposed to a genuine concern for originalist interpretation and application of the Constitution.

You didn't even come close to explaining your comment. You're saying that those opposed to her nomination are opposed to an originalist application of the Constitution. That makes you the utterly clueless one.

[John Robertson]

"What makes you think Miers has not practiced "real law?"

Let's be fair. You are misconstruing my meaning. I said: "It is not always true, but great law firm managers have very often been lawyers who were not 'allowed to practice real law by the partners." That doesn't mean they didn't practice law at all; it does mean: they weren't the first ones you go to.

In context, it was not a putdown at all--or I should say, it was not intended as such.

I felt my post was reasoned.

I feel you may be overreacting.

I'm only asking questions.

Safe travel.

[k2blader]

No, I was serious.

And *I'm* not the one giving you guilt. Know that for sure. :o)

[John Robertson]

"What makes you think Miers has not practiced "real law?"

Let's be fair. You are misconstruing my meaning. I said: "It is not always true, but great law firm managers have very often been lawyers who were not 'allowed to practice real law by the partners." That doesn't mean they didn't practice law at all; it does mean: they weren't the first ones you go to.

In context, it was not a putdown at all--or I should say, it was not intended as such.

I felt my post was reasoned.

I feel you may be overreacting.

I'm only asking questions.

Safe travel.

[Cecily]

Wasn't she one of the "elves" in the background who was helping Paula Jones to make Bubba's life a living hell? Maybe I am thinking of Barbara Olson.

[MarcusTulliusCicero]

Well, of course. I can't count the number of times people have copied and pasted the "What we believe" page from her Church, as if that is proof that she understands how to interpret the Constitution. Based on that evidence, we can be quite confident that Teddy Kennedy and John Curry are stauch pro-lifers since they are Catholic, don't you know. It should be interesting to see who is appointed to replace Greenspan. People should be reading up on the President's accountant!

[dirtboy]

Not that you see.

I see that elegance is a requirement now as well.

Maybe if we all pitched in and got Miers an extreme makeover, shallow folks like SabraAmerican will love her.

[Miss Marple]

Well, I didn't call you disloyal. I simply think you are not informed. Ken Starr was on television (Fox) telling Hannity this was a wonderful choice, that Miers is brilliant and that people who are opposing her do not know her. He has worked with her and was quite impressed with her abilities.

Is that good enough? How about Senator Cornyn of Texas? He wrote an endorsement for the Wall Street Journal.

What it boils down to is that people who have worked with her know what a good pick this is. People who haven't worked with her are assuming she is a lightweight, because (as the President said) she isn't a publicity hound.

Since it is obvious that the President isn't going to withdraw her name, don't you think it would make more sense to try to find out more about her, listen to the people who are coming forward, and hear what she has to say in the hearings?

Why the sudden rush by so many to not merely question the nomination, but attack the President and the nominee with the most over-the-top rhetoric I have read on this forum since the 2000 primaries? Why the nasty name-calling of the Presidient by some pundits that we all used to respect?

No one supporting the President is objecting to people being doubtful and disappointed, as far as I can see. What I, at least, am objecting to is the tone of the criticism. I have read posts where Freepers say they will vote for Hillary, that the conservative movement is dead, that Bush is capitulating to the democrats because he wants to be liked, etc. etc.

That is garbage and I object to it. Period.

[Lando Lincoln]

I agree....even Ann's opinions are becoming bulimic. I really suspect that those who gush over her would be shocked if they got to really know her. Self-centered moody spinster, I suspect.....even insecure. My speculation, which is mean-spirited.....but where's the charm, where's the grace, where's the attraction??

Lando

[Fester Chugabrew]

She will be seasoned and we willhave an idea of how she rules on the court.

At the age of 60 years one would think she is already "seasoned." That is to say, she's had her fill of the "living breathing document" BS, knows what the Constitution is about, and knows how to take care of business. In this case I happen to relish a slap in the face of conventional wisdom across the board when it is initiated by a man who doesn't pussyfoot around with the Sadam Husseins of the world.

[MJY1288]

For the first time in a week, I'm finally starting to laugh again... Don't ruin it OK :-)

[Kryptonite]

I also think that people like Ann Coulter are going to look really foolish if Harriet Miers does as well in front of the Judiciary Committee as John Roberts did.

Wishful thinking.

Roberts is a very tough act to follow.

Are you ready to admit that people like Coulter are going to look really smart if Miers does not do as well as Roberts in front of the committee?

[JohnD9207]

Meanwhile, the President gets a nominee that he knows will be a Conservative voice on the SC. What are we complaining about???


Thanks. I also believe George didn't want a tough Senate confirmation hearing. But there were several recently nominated judges who the Senate have investigated for years, e.g. Owens, Brown, who would pass muster after the Nuclear option was used. Proven, solid, Conservatives. I prey Miers has really had that conversion everyone talks about. Her donations to Gore, Clinton-Gore are strange. This pick is so vital to my children's future, as Roberts will out live me, and I hate to see it become another wiff.
Not wishing him ill will, Justice Stevens is 86, and there might be another opening before Mr. Bush's term is up. Forget Democrats/Republicans, this Country cannot afford much more of this crap coming from the bench. I allready have to worry about my 40 acres being taken to put in a private business, but I'll be dammed if they are gonna eat my mule.

[John Robertson]

"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."

Well, yeah, but I didn't say or endorse any of that.

So where's the:

Hey, sorry. Or,

Sorry, I was steamed. Or,

Apologies, man.

Any of those will do.

Safe travel.

[birbear]

Somebody on this thread asked why some Democrats were behind this nomination.

After reading 600+ posts it's obvious why the dems love this choice.

It's fracturing the hell out of us. We're only a year away from midterms -- if this bickering keeps up and increases, we're gonna lose and lose big.

I'm not thrilled about this nomination, but if it'll keep the conservative movement together I'm willing to get on board with the President's choice. For him to withdraw the nomination at this time would just look too bizzare and would fracture the movement even more.

No more anti-Miers postings from me.

[groanup]

Well, Bush has been fooling liberals for so long that he overstepped and fooled Ann Coulter. Such is life.