Posted on 10/08/2005 8:52:39 AM PDT by JCEccles
The lovably irascible Beldar, the Texas trial lawyer who is one of the two people on earth hotly defending the Miers nomination (the other being our buddy Hugh Hewitt), has posted a convenient link to articles written by Harriet Miers during one of her stints as a bar association honcho. He did this in part to address a charge I made on Hugh's show that Miers shouldn't be taken seriously because over the past 30 years of hot dispute on matters of constitutional law she hadn't published so much as an op-ed on a single topic of moment. Thank you, Beldar. But you shouldn't have. I mean, for Miers's sake, you really shouldn't have.
Miers's articles here are like all "Letters from the President" in all official publications -- cheery and happy-talky and utterly inane. They offer no reassurance that there is anything other than a perfectly functional but utterly ordinary intellect at work here.
Let me offer you an analogy. I was a talented high-school and college actor. I even considered trying it as a career at one time. As an adult, I've been in community theater productions (favorably reviewed in the Virginia local weekly supplement of the Washington Post, yet!) and spent a year or so performing improv comedy in New York. I'm a more than decent semi-pro. But if you took me today and gave me a leading role in the Royal Shakespeare Company where I would have to stand toe to toe with, say, Kenneth Branagh, Kevin Spacey, Meryl Streep, Kevin Kline and others, I would be hopelessly out of my depth. I would be able to give some kind of performance. But it would be a lousy performance, a nearly unwatchable performance.
Would that be because I hadn't acted at their level for a few decades? Would it be because I don't really have commensurate talent? Who knows? Who cares? I would stink. And based on the words she herself has written -- the clearest independent evidence we have of her capacity to reason and think and argue -- as a Supreme Court justice, Harriet Miers would be about as good.
Do you know that most of our Founders were "elitist snobs'?
Thirty-five of the fifty-five were lawyers or had studied law. A good number had been to college, a very rare attainment in those days. Most of them were well read in philosophy, history and literature. They knew Latin and French, and sometimes Greek. They established a Republic because they feared direct democracy by an uneducated mob.
They helped make possible a world where those attainments were available to almost anyone with enough intelligence and stamina--BUT THEY NEVER SAID THEY WERE IRRELEVANT.
NO. Why would you leap to that assumption?
b'shem Y'shua
The Constitution was written by --lawyers. Thirty-five of the Founders (out of 55) were ---lawyers or had studied law.
The cronyism is a very valid point--maybe THE most valid point against Miers. Since when is the President supposed to put his surrogate on the Court, which is a separate and independent branch of government? I don't think there's anything corrupt about this appointment--but the appearance of corruption is undeniable.
What do we do when Hillary wants to put one of HER henchmen on the Court? Say that only Republicans are pure enough to do that?
Great, which Abstract Algebra book did you use?
Gee, like Nixon did with Rehnquist?
Cripes, associates of the president have been named to SCOTUS numerous times.
When will these intellectual idiots realize she doesn't have to write. She needs to be able to reason and decide (vote).
Excellent! So 20 were not! This is about 40%? We should strive for 4 non lawyers no the USSC then.
Like heck, we picked up on that sentiment by ourselves. Freepers often are quite out ahead of the curve when it comes to reaction to a given piece of punditry.
And even if we did, first of all, it IS a GOP White House, which some folks seem to have forgotten, and even if it WAS a talking point, if it is on-target, then what would be the problem in spreading it?
And they are very happy that you've decided to run with it. Yeah, down with the elites! We need normal, everyday people!
Yeah, like the mandarins have done such a great job with SCOTUS ever since it was decided we needed such there. The most simplistic member of the court - Thomas - is also the best justice. By far.
Oh, and they scoffed at Papa Bush when he said Thomas was the most qualified pick. Turns out Bush was right.
It's convenient, and appealing, but it's a straw argument.
That has already been shown to be false.
If Harriet's downhome-iness and regular person-ness makes her appealing as a SC judge, let's get a real salt-of-the-earth personage--what about the above-average intelligent guy who runs the Meineke near me? He's smart as a whip, in an unschooled way, and actually spouts real wisdom now and then. I recall him saying he went to community college for a semester--no way is HE an elitist! I can actually think of at least one way in which he is superior: He is avowedly pro-life, and will tell you that bluntly, without "parsing," in about a minute after having met you. But I guess Bush hasn't known him for decades.
I would venture that the guy who runs the Meineke would be able to look at the First Amendment, see "Congress shall pass no law", and then see the dependent clause that comes after it, "or abridging the freedom of speech,"
And toss McCain-Feingold into the dumpster behind his shop.
But SCOTUS upheld it.
So the Meineke guy should have applied for the job.
#2: So many here are hammering Krauthammer, Podhoretz and so many others on this...and yet most of us seemed to agree with most of what most of them said most of the time in the past, didn't we? Hmmmm....
We've disagreed those columnists when they were wrong. Take Kristol - who wanted Bush to dump Cheney and put McCain on the ticket in 2004. Or Will - who wrote a fire-breathing column ripping in Miers and demanding a showdown ... but who earlier ripped into the GOP wanted to invoke the nuclear option.
So especially with Will and Kristol, are these guys really the friends of limited-government conservatives?
Nixon isn't exactly a great role model where ethics are concerned. Anyway, Rehnquist wasn't nearly as close to Nixon as Miers is to GWB.
Frankly, one of the things that troubles me is that at the press conference, Dubya explictly said that Miers would "vote the way I would." In the current political climate, to essentially say that you're going to put your puppet on the court is a fatal error. The fact that she has NONE of the qualifications that normally make up a SCOTUS resume (regardless of her actual ability) only compounds the problem. He might get away with either a "crony" or an apparently lackluster nominee, but to combine them in one person is disastrous.
A little sidebar: Bush's stance on illegal immigration makes sense if you buy into the argument that in time, a wealthy country in this hemisphere surrounded by angry, jealous, poor countries might become the target of Hispanic terrorist attacks. What to do? Raise the standard of living in those poorer countries. And God knows, we've been there, done that several times. (NAFTA, CAFTA). We don't want to invade Mexico...again, but that country needs to get its act together, as do other countries in the hemisphere. This scenario is similar to our problem with Muslim nations, but without the Islamofascist icing.
As for Harriet, well, we'll see how she does in the hearings. Smart money says she'll be easily confirmed, and hopefully, another elderly justice (the one who's 85), will retire and give Bush another shot at the court.
Now you're just being silly. You will not find even an emanation from a penumbra of the Constitution that supports any kind of proportional representation.
Herstein.
So, which do you think is harder, a course out of I.N.Herstein's book or Constitutional Law?
There were many other nominees of close associates of the President.
Anyway, Rehnquist wasn't nearly as close to Nixon as Miers is to GWB.
Ya can't concede a point, can you?
Frankly, one of the things that troubles me is that at the press conference, Dubya explictly said that Miers would "vote the way I would." In the current political climate, to essentially say that you're going to put your puppet on the court is a fatal error.
Why the HELL not? Maybe Bush should just nominate another Ruth Bader Ginsburg, just to make you happy that the nominee will not vote the way Bush would.
I mean, seriously, why the heck WOULDN'T a president nominate someone for SCOTUS that he thought would significantly vary from his vision for government? Sheez...
And beyond that, everyone is wailing that she could be another Souter. Why did Souter turn out so badly? Because Papa Bush took the advice of his advisors and nominated someone he knew nothing about.
So, when Bush now nominates someone he knows well to try and avoid another Souter, folks wail about cronyism.
The fact that she has NONE of the qualifications that normally make up a SCOTUS resume (regardless of her actual ability)
And SCOTUS has done such a great job in recent years. Some of think that could actually be a plus, depending upon her views.
only compounds the problem. He might get away with either a "crony" or an apparently lackluster nominee, but to combine them in one person is disastrous.
Only if you buy into both a left-wing position and an establishment activist government conserative position simulatenously.
Well true. But why have lawyers 100% represented? They weren't 100% represented in drafting the document itself, so why 100% representation interpreting it?
While the above may be true, Justice Thomas also has many people who deeply admire him. That knowlege helps give him the courage to deal with those who don't.
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.