Miers -- One View

Myself | 10/09/2005 | Wisconsin

[Wisconsin]

I am a retired lawyer. I have argued three cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, two of which are usually at least footnotes in most Constitutional Law texts.

I do not want a "great" Supreme Court Justice. I want a "great" Supreme Court. No single justice decides a case before the Court, the Court as a whole does.

.....

[joesnuffy]

I think they're in cahoots with the prescription med people and are trying to induce early-onset dementia for those of us helping out our grand/parents with this! ;)

I've got news for them.....it's working....

[IncPen]

How do waste political capital by pointing to something that everyone believes is wrong, and promising to appoint justices to the Supreme court who will endevour to reverse and prevent such a miscarriage of justice?

It's a waste of political capital to even enter the fray. The President, by his position, is above it.

Presumably he has in Miers someone he trusts to execute his view of the court.

I'm inclined to believe him.

[gusopol3]

amen

[SteveH]

That issue has been addressed repeatedly. She is a better pick because she lacks a paper trail. Without a paper trail, the left has nothing to use to attack the nominee.

Aha. Here it is in a nutshell, the essence of genius, of "strategery": since the liberal minority doesn't like nominees with strict constructionist paper trails, therefore, nominate a nominee with no track record at all, and ask the conservative majority constituency to take as an article of faith that the nominee is a strict constructionist! I think I saw a want ad in the newspapers a few weeks ago:

Wanted: a strict constructionist litigator for exciting opportunity of a lifetime appointment to change the course of history in the Supreme Court! Important: must have absolutely no paper trail record of strict constructionist opinions, articles, or any other writings-- no exceptions!!! An equal opportunity employer (PS: women only!) Send resumes to: 1600 Penn. Ave., Wash., D.C., attn. "Laura"

;-)

[SteveH]

The logical consequence of rewarding those who "lack a paper trail" is that the most deserving people may seek ways to avoid being on the record rather than exposing themselves to criticism from those who oppose their thinking. Appointments to Circuit Courts could become a dead end which no deserving candidate will want to accept if, as a consequence, they are eliminated from the pool of potential Supreme Court nominees.

Dead kittens. I see dead kittens... dead kittens everywhere...