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.
Managing partner of a 400-laywer firm.
First head of the Texas Bar association.
And White House legal counsel.
Accomplishments you and I will never achieve.
What is the relationship between rising to head a club, a local Bar Association and being qualified for the Supreme Court of the United States?
First of all, there are no "qualifications" to be on the Supreme Court in the Constitution. So you apparently don't even grasp the Constutional issues here (surprise).
Rehnquist would not have been qualfied, using your arguments.
Miers has been working closely with the president of the United States for five years. She has screened nominees to federal courts. Screened the materials the most important man in the world reads.
And you, weasel-girl, can only downplay that.
Meanwhile, I ripped your Scalia standard to shreds. You spun yourself into contradictions as a result. And the only pathetic argument you can offer is the following:
Her highest position is owed solely to her relationship with Bush.
Yeah, she's an important part of the president's circle. That's nothing to you.
Fooey yet again.
Please point to me where I made any comments about Roberts. Search and you will find none. Trust me /sarcasm ... this is a bad pick.
Ouch! LOL.
I forgot to add, which mneans you are not speaking from a naturally majority position when you look at it the way I point out. Until the poll questions are changed to Waiting For More Infor But Against, Waiting For More Info But For, as me and deadhead have proven the question also includes people leaning for her but want more info.
If Teddy agrees, it won't matter. The end of the world would be imminent.
Oh, for crying out loud.
You are contradicting yourself left and right.
Since WHEN IS SUPPORTING THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS PRE-ORDAINING DECISIONS, WHEN THE LANGUAGE OF THE AMENDMENT IN QUESTION CLEARLY STATES EXACTLY THAT?
Gawd, you are a weasel.
Step 1: Demand the head of any Senator who votes to confirm Miers. (unless she really surprises us somehow during the hearings)
What POSSIBLE reason do you have for thinking she would support Roe??
I'm always amazed how conservative so many newbies are.
You do, however, get to the gist of the argument in favor of Miers when you say "In the end, it all comes back to trusting the President."
Do you or do you not? I don't. I think he picked Miers because she is an old friend (FOB) and crony. He did not pick her because she is the most qualified candidate in the whole USA for the SCOTUS despite asking us to buy that line.
I agree. That's where the 60 years comes in. If the Constitution spells out the the President's judgement is prerequisite to selecting nominees, and we elected this President, then it stands to reason that, even if his nominee does not fit everyone's preconceived notion of an SC justice, the nominee deserves the benefit of the doubt at least.
As far as I'm concerned, this nomination is superb because it baffles so many people who are wise in their own eyes. I cannot imagine GWB to be ignorant of the ramifications here. We are mistaken if we think he is, like John Glenn, not aware of the gravity of the situation.
I think a majority vote by the SCOTUS would do the trick. It's really simple isn't it. Do you think Bush, Roberts, and Miers will see to it that they vote that way?
Whereas St. Bork has treated the 2nd Amendment with contempt.
as Bush has done, right after saying he'd sign an extension of the AWB.
She wrote that back in 1992. Long ago. In response to gun grabbers wanting to exploit a shooting to enact gun control.
And she wrote a gutsy response to them.
And all you can do is belittle that.
The burden is not on me to show that she wouldn't. It's enough that we'd be playing Russian Roulette by going with her, and that's unacceptable.
Stay focused:-) Engineering would be great, both of my brother's are in the field and love what they do. Why won't the VA let you go that route? If that is what you want to do, you should do it.
You're right. It's so obvious.
I wonder how all these issue ever make it to the Court?
Or all those other simple Constitution- and other- issues.
Just abolish the court. All the answers are obvious. They're in the Constitution in black and white. No court review necessary.
She obviously is the most qualified in his eyes. The nomination is his perogative, not yours.
I guess if you can't counter the truth, spread sh** instead like you did here.
Bork has belittled the 2nd Amendment. Miers spoke out forcefully in favor of it. Which one would YOU want judging a 2nd A case?
I didn't see it. She said she might resort to what?
The post was about more than Roberts. The point that applies to you is that you don't know enough about ANY of the potential candidates to know if this is a bad pick.
So this following statement only compounds the ignorance of your position:
Trust me /sarcasm ... this is a bad pick.
Everyone was saying there was no information, when here came Ken Starr, who has worked with her, telling us what a brilliant lawyer she is. I don't consider those talking points; it was his honest opinion.
Sorry I offended you; I really didn't mean to be antagonistic towards you at all.
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.