Posted on 10/09/2005 9:24:32 AM PDT by 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.
.....
You make some excellent, cogent and well-reasoned arguments. What I know of Harriet Miers would fit on the head of a pin and leav a lot of room left over for the Lord;s Prayer and the Gettysburga Address. What President Bush Knows of Harriet Miers would, likely, fill volumes.
But, I am not suggesting that we go with the President's nomination solely because she is the President's nominee. I think that, rather than oppose her because little is known of her, let's gover her the opportunity to speak for herself and see what she says. See how she handles the hardballs being lined up by Senators on either side of the aisle opposed to her nomination.
The present courst has deteriorated into a miserable one whose intellectuals have allowed themselves to engage in puffery by expanding the circle of existing case law and Constitution to consider foreign law in their decisions. This, perhaps, is a failing of having a court that is loaded with "superior intellcts".
Like you, I believe that most Americans want a Supreme Court that is fair, reasoned and follows the requirements of the Constitution in reaching their decisions.
To be sure, the decisions of this court on Kelo and CFR have left many of us astonished at the arrogance and disdain the justices have for the law, the Constitution and individual rights.
I agree. She is not a 'giant' in her own mind and so is willing to learn from people like Scalia.
Thank you so much for sharing your insights!
(shining fingernails)(with patronizing glare).. Well Duuuuh...
A Court that can do what the lawis, not what it ought to be. That is Intellectual Integrity at its best...not like Ruth B. Ginsberg who looks around the world for comparable law in other lands rather than stay with American Constitutional Law. Perhaps if confirmed, Miers will keep that liberal odious chance to legislate from the bench in check!
And you know this how?
. . . nor as many, including Rush Limbaugh, have pointed
I didn't hear him "point" that. He would have preferred someone else, but doesn't think the "Republican" Senate would give Bush anyone Rush would prefer.
. . . couldn't articulate from the bench in written opinions
BTW, what's your first language? ;-)
"All we have is what little we know. What know isn't comforting. She's supports affirmative action and Title IX. She's organized conferences at SMU featuring radical feminists like Gloria Steinem.
Why in the world would she be a better pick than the many articulate conservative originalist judges that have openly spoken out and articulated the benefits of originalism and who have proven track records?"
Not to mention she was a democrat and contributed to the Gore campaign. Illegal immigration, out of control government spending, increasing social programs for those that don't deserve it, and now Miers. When will you blind Bush supporters wake up?
Great post.
I find the clarity of vision refreshing.
"I join the opinion of the Court, but I add these comments to emphasize the narrow scope of today's decision."
The guy who wrote that was Blackman, one of the first mentally challenged Justices to appear on the Supreme Court. He would have made a better gas station attendant.
Your post will probably dampen the fires a bit, and that's a good thing. Thank you.
For those who want to dig instead of feeling helpless you don't know enough...
Mier's documents for your perusal (Act as if you don't see the NYT section and go in neutral):
http://www.law.umich.edu/library/news/topics/miers/miersindex.htm#article
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.
This isn't rocket science. It is a political strategy that has worked before and is very effective.
Thank you for this post. I have not made up my mind yet. I want to see the hearings first before I decide if she is right or wrong for the court. I don't trust the press to tell me anything, or for that fact the pundits. I want to see for myself before I can make a just decision.
Anti-guv
In football terms, when you go to the draft you try to fill the weaknesses in your team. If you have a strong ground game, maybe you need someone who can present a credible pass threat. If your offense has trouble on third downs, maybe you had better look for a great punter. There are lots of good players. The idea is to make the team better.
The present court has some weaknesses. Miers might be the right fit to fill some of those.
Besides which, any lady that small who plinked cans with a .45 revolver can't be all bad :)
Agree. And here's a concrete example for you: 5th Amend. "Private property shall not be taken for public purpose without just compensation."
J. Souter, George HW's appointment, thought it OK to rule in favor of private developers facing the problem that several homeowners stood in their way. I'm sure he found some way to justify it, ideologically.
Another: in Roe v. Wade the court found a `penumbral' right to privacy--no where mentioned in the Constitution--legally allowing a doctor to cause the `crowning' of viable infant's head, then destruction of that life. That perfectly suited the special pleaders at NOW.
Where we disagree, is saying there should be no ideological agenda behind Supreme Court appointments. Saying that is something like complaining about high school student elections: "Why, they're just a popularity contests . . .".
There's something `Pollyannish' about that position, concluding that the SCOTUS is apolitical and `above it all'.
That's exactly what they are, like it or not: popularity contests. We have the votes, but they're about to crown the principal's niece. Something to chew on.
another view for consideration
Freepers seem to be of three competing opinions on that question:
1. Bush turned yellow and ran scared from the Democrats
2. Bush turned yellow and ran scared from the RINOs, and
3. Bush turned yellow and ran scared from the Democrats AND the RINOs.
I have a feeling that the argument will never be settled to anybody's satisfaction.
Good for you! I agree. Lack of fame, judicial experience or a paper trail are supercilious. It's not what she has that counts, but what she is.
> Miers' background suggests to me that she will also recognize that certainty, by itself, has a value to law that may be greater than ideological victory. The present court lacks this appreciation.
I'm not sure I understand. What kind of certainty? The certainty of religious faith? in the underlying basis of the Constitution? How have other justices demonstrated this certainty?
> ...the four judges who concurred ideologically opposed the result.
What leads you to believe Miss Miers has this kind of intellectual integrity? There is only her track record (none) and the President's word.
> I think Miers will make this court better.
I hope you are right. In spite of all the hoopla, she likely will be confirmed.
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.