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.
Miers received both her undergraduate and law degrees from SMU. She graduated with a bachelor’s in mathematics in 1967 and a juris doctor in 1970 from the Dedman School of Law. Miers was one of eight women out of 100 students in her 1970 graduating class.
~snip~
During Miers’ time at SMU she was elected to the honorary society and Mortar Board, in addition to serving on law review. Miers also received the prestigious ‘M’ Award given to students who are especially dedicated to the university.
First time poster diving head first into the shark tank here, but I truly believe this statement is correct. I am disheartened at the vicious attacks Freepers have thrown at each other because of this nomination. Debate and dissent is good, and may it never be stifled, but the vitriol has got to stop.
My position on Miers is currently "need more info." I was disappointed President Bush didn't select someone like Brown or Owens. From what I've read on Miers so far though, it seems she may turn out ok.
I keep hearing the objection of "'May turn out ok' isn't good enough! Where's the paper trail?!" I understand because we have been burnt before, but how dependable is a paper trail, truly? O'Connor had a paper trail. Kennedy had a paper trail. Souter had a paper trail. What good did it do in the end?
A nominee can write the most sensible opinions around before getting to the SCOTUS, but does that guarantee anything? Sad to say, but even spelling out their thoughts in a Senate hearing has absolutely no bearing at all on what a person does once they're seated. The most anyone, other than the nominee himself, can do is infer how that person will rule.
I would've liked a paper trail. I would feel so much better about this nominee if there were one, but that's really all it can do. In the end, it all comes back to trusting the President we elected to do his best to fulfill his duty and nominate justices that will uphold the Constitution as the law of this land. I think he's done a good job of that up to this point. For now, I will keep digging, and I will learn all I can about Harriet Miers, our possible future justice of the Supreme Court.
Which gun-control laws has she condemned?
Ken Starr, Senator Cornyn? Come on, you're smarter than that! Because I don't swallow their first-draft talking points whole, that means I'm "not informed"? That's unbelievably insulting. What if those two had come out saying she'd be a disaster--would you be heeding their judgements? Would you turn on Miers, and say, Now I'm informed?
MM, I say this with no disrespect: You are among a handful of people on this thread who have, IN MY OPINION, overreacted to much of what has been advanced here tonight, and they were often just honest questions, as in my case. Also, some people have said some outrageous, uncivil things, and you, I feel, and several others, have responded to all of us who have misgivings as if we were in that camp, when we weren't. I feel you're lumping us all together.
I never said you said I was disloyal. I said that those of us who have asked forthright questions have virtually been accused of that.
Let's call it a night. The dust needs to settle.
I wish you safe travel.
No, he didn't. He upheld the power of the federal government to prohibit an activity that involved neither interstate movement or commerce. That is not passive. It is upholding usurpation.
It's that simple. He rationalized. And rationalization about good causes has been the bane of the Constitution since the days of FDR.
FYI, I would love to see Roe v. Wade overturned, how do the two of you think we can do this?
Anne Coulter always looks really smart. She also looks good! Don't slight her in the least for writing this column, and hope to see her on the SC when she's 60. To see Anne oppose this nominee does the heart good (for reasons I'll explain later). To see Anne in person would probably give me a heart attack.
She supported the right to bear arms in an article.
Something that Bork has never done.
One would realize the significance of that in the context of stated views about interpreting the Constitution literally.
The smarmy remake about "Bush boozing" when supposedly netter and brighter ( implied ) men were amassing genius conservative lawyers ( and how, pray tell, did they do that? )for a farm team, to be nominated for the SCOTUS, is pathetic and libelous.
Putting down Miers,because she went to SMU, when Ann has done less with her life, even though she graduate from Cornell and Michigan, is elitist and nonsensical, in the extreme.
There is no there there and there hasn't been any "substance" in at least that last 4 or 5 columns she's written. And being the GRAMMAR POLICE, for FR, when she hasn't posted here in a very long time ( Hi Ann/ aka Freedom Rocks, I hope you're reading this ! ) is ridiculous.
I haven't seen over dramatizing like that since William Shatner in "Star Trek III: The Search for Spock"
Welcome, and very well stated. Almost exactly my position. I just trust the President far more than many here. I believe he earned my trust. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt
Since nominations are a crap shoot anyway, why not?
I see no reason to think she won't do well in front of the committee, however.
If she comes out as a penumbra type, then I will withdraw my support; I would bet cash money hat isn't going to happen.
Step 1: Demand the head of any Senator who votes to confirm Miers.
(unless she really surprises us somehow during the hearings)
don't think she's the best pick because they don't know a--to use a phrase from SINKSPUR--frickin' thing about how she would vote. That's what I've said.>>
A) I am waiting for more info on her btw.
B) Thats the point I have been making, if the waiting for info crowd is to be interpreted literally it means ,like me, they will with hold judgement until they have enough info to form a clear and concise opinion about her, which means they can end up being for or against the lady. It doesnt mean, what you assert, that they are naturally AGAINST her, which is what you are saying when you lump them with the No's.In otherwords my assertion, which many here also grasp, you cannot lump them either in the for crowd or the against crowd.
All the information WE have is third-hand at best. What do you want???
There was more evidence that Judge Souter was a conservative than Harriet Miers.
HA! I love that one. Ann said that about Roberts. Now Roberts is the standard by which justices should be selected. The President has the evidence. YOU don't have any. He all all the dirt and glory of the justices you THINK you like. He chose this one. The question is why do you and Ann think you know so much???
We have absolutely no evidence that the woman can interpret the Constitution.
Umm...the only people we have evidence on that one way or another are those who are or have been seated on the court. I'm not happy with the way most of THEM have done. Not even Scalia all the time. Fortunately, I know the Constitution is not that hard to interpret. It is written in plain language, and from what I've heard from people who know Miers well, that is the way she will read it. That makes me happy with this nomination.
As for Judge Roberts, he had less than a stellar start. Seems the man doesn't have as high an opinion of federalism as the judge he clerked for. We might have known that if the President, again, had not submitted a stealth candidate instead of someone with an actual record.
Who? Someone like Souter? Or Kennedy? Or Warren?
Based on the little record available, Judge Roberts is not an originalist, but rather a minimalist.
Based on what we know, Roberts is pretty hard to label. But, okay, a minimalist. That's so terrible? You'd be splitting hairs to separate that stance from Bork's when he testified before the Senate.
So again, it might have been nice if the President had actually been a bit loyal to the base that put him and the Republican party in the position it is in today.
I'm part of that base, and while I was nervous about Roberts at first, I decided he was a really good choice the more I found out about him. Some people talk as though Bush owes each person who voted for him a unique debt of loyalty. Obviously that's not true.
Bush knows more about the potential candidates than you. You and Ann are just looking for the way you've been screwed. It's paranoia. Speed kills, MTC.
I hear she's kind to puppies and kittens, too.
So you're looking for someone whose judgement/decision on such issue is preordained?
I'm looking for a brillant fair open minded judge who has a record to show how they come to such decisions.
We see the purpose of the Court differently.
Dude, here's an independent thought for you:
Bush interviewed and reviewed all the Judges on your list of personal favorites. He didn't get that warm and fuzzy feeling that only he is entitled to seek, from any of your picks. So, he found someone that he's the most certain will make you happy over the long run.
Are you suggesting that you know better from reading on the Internet than George W Bush does from personal contact and detailed review?
So PETA is on board.
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.