Slouching Towards Miers [Robert Bork]

Wall Street Journal ^ | 10-19-2005 | Robert Bork

[Stellar Dendrite]

Bush shows himself to be indifferent, if not hostile, to conservative values.

With a single stroke--the nomination of Harriet Miers--the president has damaged the prospects for reform of a left-leaning and imperialistic Supreme Court, taken the heart out of a rising generation of constitutional scholars, and widened the fissures within the conservative movement. That's not a bad day's work--for liberals.

There is, to say the least, a heavy presumption that Ms. Miers, though undoubtedly possessed of many sterling qualities, is not qualified to be on the Supreme Court. It is not just that she has no known experience with constitutional law and no known opinions on judicial philosophy. It is worse than that. As president of the Texas Bar Association, she wrote columns for the association's journal. David Brooks of the New York Times examined those columns. He reports, with supporting examples, that the quality of her thought and writing demonstrates absolutely no "ability to write clearly and argue incisively."

The administration's defense of the nomination is pathetic: Ms. Miers was a bar association president (a nonqualification for anyone familiar with the bureaucratic service that leads to such presidencies); she shares Mr. Bush's judicial philosophy (which seems to consist of bromides about "strict construction" and the like); and she is, as an evangelical Christian, deeply religious. That last, along with her contributions to pro-life causes, is designed to suggest that she does not like Roe v. Wade, though it certainly does not necessarily mean that she would vote to overturn that constitutional travesty.

[Digger]

How on God's good earth did George Bush think he could get away with putting such an unqualified, mediocre crony on the court? She is going to get sliced and diced before the committee.

I for one can not believe this to be happening. Did he ever think about his base? I doubt it because I believe that he feels -like most all in this corrupted "Two-Party Cartel" - that there is no other place for us to go. We will see who is out supporting this group next election.

[Lost Highway]

(And why the hell shouldn't he be bitter.)

Shorten ones lifespan.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

Contrary to popular mythology, Judge Bork is not embittered, or resentful, nor is he stewing over a rejection that took place nearly two decades ago.

In fact, if the people who are lashing out at him would ever listen to one of his interviews they would notice that, when asked this very question, he says that in many respects he's grateful.

If he had been confirmed to the Supreme Court he would not be able to enjoy time with his family, as well as being denied the opportunity to speak his mind-as freely as he desires-on a variety of subjects near and dear to his heart.

[Aetius]

But in the definition of 'originalism' that Bork provides in this article, he does not say that all can be broken down to the bare words of the original text. He offers a bit more depth than that with a method of discerning the original intent and then applying the principles of it to new cases.

[Aetius]

But in the end, you can have every appellate court seat held by a true conservative/originalist, and it won't mean a thing as long as 5 SCOTUS members see themselves as philosopher kings. What will it matter if every appellate court says marriage is a matter for the people/states to decide when the Sup Court steps in, overrules them, and imposes gay marriage/civil unions on the entire nation? What will it matter if the appellate courts scoff at the idea of looking to foreign law when the Sup Court liberals use it to bolster their absurd rulings?

Reagan and Bush the Elder had the opportunity to give us a conservative court, but failed miserably when they got just 2 out of 5 right (we can credit Reagan for trying with Bork, but there isn't much excuse for O'Connor and Souter). Now Bush the Younger may get the chance, but there is no room for error. If he doesn't get it right, then the opportunity may be lost permanently, especially if Hillary (or any other Dem) wins in 08.

If Bush is right, and Miers would (despite all the indications to the contrary) turn out to be in the mold of Scalia and Thomas, then I'll be the first to applaud him. But is there really any reason to expect this to happen?