Posted on 10/07/2005 3:50:01 PM PDT by Sam Hill
In addition to Constitutional law, one of Bork's specializations was antitrust. His book The Antitrust Paradox is the standard reference for the Chicago School of Law and Economics as apllied to that area. I've taught from that book. Take 100 people like me and ask how many of us would have predicted that a few years later Bork would be on the side of the Government against Microsoft, the most important antitrust case in two generations. I'm sure not a lot. I'm not saying he is being insincere, I'm just questioning all of these implicit assumptions that putting a Federalist Society heavyweight on the court means that we "know" how they are going to judge.
Take Michael McConnell, one of the NRO's rock-star heavyweights for this slot. I dare anybody to read through the paper trail on him provided on by several sites and tell me how you think he would rule on any of the important issues of the next few years. Compare his early public writings to his statements at his confirmation hearings. The following is from a Byron York article on NRO (September 18, 2002) about McConnell's hearings.
"The argument [McConnell's argument] left McConnell is the odd position of saying, in effect, You know all those things I wrote? Well, never mind."
Huh? You asserted that those of us opposed to Meirs are opposed because we are snobs about law school. I pointed out that we all would have been fine with Priscilla Owen, even though she went to Baylor. We didn't support Owen because Bush vouched for her. She was well known previously as a conservative constitutional scholar. Unlike Meirs, who if it wasn't for being Bush's friend wouldn't be considered by anybody for the position.
If you care about the Constitution, why do you want to remain ignorant about it? The Founders were all very learned men, well grounded in philosophy, history and law.
If interpreting the Constitution were simply a matter of "yes" and "no", there would be no need to set up a Court in the first place.
I think his pick makes perfect political sense. Mr. Bush is edging toward the ropes. This has been a bad year for him. His social security reform has fallen on deaf ears, the opposition to his war is gaining momentum, the hurricane situation, rightly or wrongly, gave him a black eye, and he's got his highest level advisers under the gun in the Plame matter. He just didn't need to subject the country or his administration and party to another Thomas-like confirmation hearing when he could achieve his goals with a low-profile nominee. I think everything will be just fine and I admire his wisdom in sparing us the acrimony that would certainly have resulted from an overt conservative nominee.
In addition, with the balance of the Senate so close, I imagine they looked at the polls and determined that even if Toomey won the primary, he couldn't win the general election. Rick Santorum's dificulties right now pretty much support that theory.
With the Senate hanging in the balance, the President couldn't sabotage Specter's re-election. Specter was one of a number of RINO's (Collins, Snowe, Chaffee, etc.) that were needed so that we could hold the majority and keep control of the committees.
You have been here long enough to know the problems the President would have had with a democrat majority in the Senate; heck, we had almost two years of it with Daschle before we took it back in 2002.
Despite our own personal beliefs, the fact is that the make-up of the Senate is not determined only by ideology; political expedience and practicality also come into play.
You can choose to blame the Presient for Specter's election. That is a debatable point. But once Specter was in office, Bush has to deal with him. Specter is a powerful Senator and runs the Judiciary Committee. He can't be ignored.
bork is right!
Chatting about SMU is a mistake and BS. Some folks who are as smart as whips don't get plugged into the credentialist game early in life. Maybe their parents didn't have the money, and maybe this, and maybe that. Her life experience is relevant. Her legal accomplishments or lack thereof are relevant. Her mental ability and knowledge of the Constitution is relevant. She will have a month to cram. We will find out whether she is a quick study or not. We will find out how her minds works. There is no need to rush to judgment.
Finally, the issue as to whether Meirs is judicially conservative enough or not won't matter a hoot. Bush has rather wide discretion on that one, as he should. If she loses a Sessions or Brownbach, she might pick up elsewhere. She will only be in real trouble if she just doesn't seem to have the right stuff as perceived by the Senate as a whole, and the public more generally.
If she seems unfamiliar with the key cases, and the competing arguments that animinate Constitutional debate these days, she will be in real trouble, and should.
By the way the biggest traitor at that time was Judge ROBERTS.
BS. No one has argued that that fact alone disqualifies her. NO ONE.
None of our found fathers went to an elite law school.
"Found fathers"? How many "elite law schools" were there in the 13 colonies? Go ahead---tell us.
BTW, not knowing a lot about Miers I've yet to endorse her.
Right. You just want to jump in and disparage people who are upset about this "out-of-the-blue" nomination as "elitists."
Your remark about being me being a "hack" makes you a idiot.
Thanks, you're not so bad yourself.
You're defense of elitism makes you a dunce.
I defend a decent regard for qualifications of nominees, and I despise people who pretend that the quest for excellence in nominees for our nation's highest court is some invidious quality of "elitism." I repeat, it is absolutely DISGRACEFUL that Bush hacks have resorted to this disgusting "elitism" charge in order to defend Bush's cronyism.
"Please let me know when you have a clue about what elitism is."
I think it's pretty obvious that I do. But, I'll play, please let me know when you know what a conservative is.
They would have been far better off with one less nominally GOP senator, and with someone reasonable as chairman of the Judiciary committee (I think Kyl was next in line).
He could have been defeated. Santorum was pushed by Bush to campaign for Specter now Rick is going to lose, and I am one vote he will not get.
So we've come full circle---when Bush picks a nominee from an "elite" law school, it's not "elitism." When he picks one from a "non-elite" law school, it's "elitism" to criticize the choice.
It all comes down to trusting Bush. It has not a damn thing to do with qualifications or "elitism." Not a damn thing.
This is what conservatives worked for over thirty years to achieve: a nice lady with no record that we have no assurance will support a constitutional republic. Karl and Rove might as well call it in for the next three years cause the dems know they have lost the will to fight.
Katrina relief will put the end to the tax cuts. SocSec reform is dead. Energy legislation is moribund. We know where he's at with immigration.
Unless something new hits, he's going to serve out the rest of his term overseeing the WOT and planning his library
at SMU.
How fitting.
I'm not ignorant of it. I've read the Constitution multiple times. The words are very self-explanatory to me.
If interpreting the Constitution were simply a matter of "yes" and "no", there would be no need to set up a Court in the first place. Nah. You still need nine people to say "yes" or "no."
Time will tell.
I think everything will be just fine ....
I tend to be Pollyanish myself. No matter the pain of the moment, some good will come and the good will outweigh the pain.
... and I admire his wisdom in sparing us the acrimony
We part company here.
From David Kopel:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_10_02-2005_10_08.shtml#231128378033
"How does a free society prevent" such crimes, she asked. She then explained:
"The same liberties that ensure a free society make the innocent vulnerable to those who prevent rights and privileges and commit senseless and cruel acts. Those precious liberties include free speech, freedom to assemble, freedom of liberties, access to public places, the right to bear arms and freedom from constant surveillance. We are not willing to sacrifice these rights because of the acts of maniacs."
Miers, however, rejected the notion that "precious liberties", including "the right to bear arms," should be sacrificed in the name of crime prevention. Quite obviously, she was referring to the "right to bear arms" as an individual right.
She IS a crony. She's his personal lawyer and personal friend. That's the basis for his nomination---no other.
2. You and Bork apparently believe that someone like Ginsburg is more "excellent" than Miers because of her experience in constitutional law. I'd much rather rely on the President's subjective knowledge of Miers conservative principles or philosophy than on a standard solely related to experience or knowledge.
Yeah, I get it already. "Trust Bush." "Believe Bush." "Obey Bush." Well, you guys can keep trying that and see if it works.
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.