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.
"It doesnt mean, what you assert, that they are naturally AGAINST her,"
If you don't mind, please remind me where I said "they are naturally AGAINST her."
IMO, you are confused, and attribute positions to me I never took. If you're trying to confuse me, you certainly are making some headway.
Yes, they are. Black ink. White paper.
But folks like Scalia find grey where none exists. That's the whole friggin' problem with SCOTUS since 1939. And you belittle that just as you belittle Mier's accompishments.
I am hopeful
How would you think this discussion would be today if Kerry or Gore were our President?
Hell, I hope she and Roberts end up defining "originalist", but the fact is, Bush could have picked someone, in both cases, with a more conservative track record. By not doing so, he appears afraid of the left. I don't like that. Apparently, I am not alone either.
I don't want to slip a Meirs onto the Court. I want to grind the socialists bones into dust. I think we are shirking away from that fight, which we CAN WIN.
aft_lizard said: " 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."
Now I'm beginning to take your point.
"...About 30% (and that includes you I presume) accept Bush's word that Harriet is the best possible pick for SCOTUS in the whole USA. The other 70% either think she isn't the best (I'm in that category)..."
I don't have a problem with those of you in the 70 percent who think she isn't the best choice. It's when those inside the 70 percent get ugly from their disappointment and make silly statements designed to make our President look inept.
The telling line was the one about how we need folks from the elite schools who've developed a "finely tuned hatred of liberals." Did you see a finely tuned hatred of liberals in John Roberts' eyes during the hearings? I didn't. (Maybe that's why Ms. Coulter was so lukewarm in her support for Justice Roberts.) This may sound like a wussy attitude, and flame away if you will ... but I don't care if our SCOTUS justices have a finely tuned hatred of liberals. I just want 'em to enforce the U.S. Constitution using the original intent of the Founders. Period. Anything else is irrelevant, IMHO.
Thank you for being classy, as always.
I do not feel I insulted the President, or Ms. Miers, or even Freepers.
Again, safe travel.
No, bitching about his choice is ours.
I hate weasels.
Hell, I hope she and Roberts end up defining "originalist", but the fact is, Bush could have picked someone, in both cases, with a more conservative track record. By not doing so, he appears afraid of the left. I don't like that. Apparently, I am not alone either.
Once again, he is dealing with the realities of the Gang of 14. Everything need to be viewed in that context.
I want to grind the socialists bones into dust. I think we are shirking away from that fight, which we CAN WIN.
Ah, it now becomes clear. You want to fight the final battle.
With seven RINOs on your flank that undercut us when we went for the nuclear option.
Really friggin' brilliant.
Okay, now we have two requirements. The nomination of the President, and competent to practice law. And you submit that this is all we have any right to expect.
And bitching is fine. Its the insults to the President that are over the top.
You took that position when you lumped the definate no's with the waiting for infos that's how you asserted it.
LOL! Coulter hits another home run.
The joke's on you. She stole that idea from a crack Rod Dreher made yesterday at NRO's The Corner.
She's disgraced herself, including passing off the idiotic Barney slam as her own.
Roberts provided an education on constitutional law and exhibited profound brilliance, all without notes and with excellent temperment. He wowed not only the committee but also the country (apparently not you, I acknowledge).
I think anybody would have a hard time matching his performance, and I am particularly concerned about Miers' ability to demonstrate a command of constitutional law commensurate with the position. The rats will go after her hardest on her faith and her knowledge of the fine points of the law. They want to paint her as a know-nothing Bush crony, and they want to put her threat to abortion on demand before the people.
You may think she'll do just fine. I'm crossing my fingers, because this whole thing could blow up and make all Republicans look bad.
You can go further back then 1939.
Back to that damn decision in the Marbury's case.
Who needs Judicial Review when dirtboy is here.
"She obviously is the most qualified in his eyes. The nomination is his perogative, not yours."
True enough. Picking Supreme Court nominees is one of the perquisites of the Office of the President. But that doesn't mean I can't disagree with the President's judgment. I think he picked a FOB aka Bush crony who is not the most qualified candidate in the whole USA as Bush says. You may believe that but I do not. I wanted him to give us conservative judges with a proven record. I'm sure Harriet is a nice lady, smart to be sure, but she is not what Bush led me to believe he would nominate. Roberts too is unproven.
Those Senators would not be my first choice as foxhole buddies, but they all have one thing in common. They want to get re-elected.
I know. I understand that point of view.
However, my response here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1497187/posts?page=202#202
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.