Posted on 10/19/2005 2:09:36 PM PDT by bigsky
I have finally hit upon a misdeed by the Bush Administration so outrageous, so appalling, so egregious, I am calling for a bipartisan commission with subpoena power to investigate: Who told the President to nominate Harriet Miers? The commission should also be charged with getting an answer to this question: Who was his second choice?
Things are so bad, the best option for Karl Rove now would be to get himself indicted. Then at least he'd have a colorable claim to having no involvement in the Miers nomination.
This week's Miers update is:
(1) Miers is a good bowler (New York Times, Oct. 16, 2005, front page–Joshua B. Bolten, director of the Office of Management and Budget: "'She is a very good bowler"), which, in all honesty, is the most impressive thing I've heard about Miers so far.
(2) In 1989, she supported a ban on abortion except to save the life of the mother.
From the beginning of this nightmare, I have taken it as a given that Miers will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. I assume that's why Bush nominated her. (It certainly wasn't her resume.) Pity no one told him there are scads of highly qualified judicial nominees who would also have voted against Roe. Wasn't it Harriet Miers' job to tell him that? Hey, wait a minute . . .
But without a conservative theory of constitutional interpretation, Miers will lay the groundwork for a million more Roes. We're told she has terrific "common sense." Common sense is the last thing you want in a judge! The maxim "Hard cases make bad law" could be expanded to "Hard cases being decided by judges with 'common sense' make unfathomably bad law."
It was "common sense" to allow married couples to buy contraception in Connecticut. That was a decision any randomly selected group of nine good bowlers might well have concurred with on the grounds that, "Well, it's just common sense, isn't it?"
But when the Supreme Court used common sense–rather than the text of the Constitution–to strike down Connecticut's law banning contraception, it opened the door to the Supreme Court’s rewriting all manner of state laws By creating a nonspecific "right to privacy," Griswold v. Connecticut led like night into day to the famed "constitutional right" to stick a fork in a baby's head.
This isn't rank speculation about where "common sense" devoid of constitutional theory gets you: Miers told Sen. Arlen Specter (R.-Pa.) she would have voted with the majority in Griswold.
(Miers also told Sen. Patrick Leahy (D.-Vt.)–in front of witnesses–that her favorite justice was "Warren," leaving people wondering whether she meant former Chief Justice Earl Warren, memorialized in "Impeach Warren" billboards across America, or former Chief Justice Warren Burger, another mediocrity praised for his "common sense" who voted for Roe v. Wade and was laughed at by Rehnquist clerks like John Roberts for his lack of ability.)
The sickness of what liberals have done to America is that so many citizens – even conservative citizens – seem to believe the job of a Supreme Court justice entails nothing more than "voting" on public policy issues. The White House considers it relevant to tell us Miers' religious beliefs, her hobbies, her hopes and dreams. She's a good bowler! A stickler for detail! Great dancer! Makes her own clothes!
That's nice for her, but what we're really in the market for is a constitutional scholar who can forcefully say, "No -- that's not my job."
We've been waiting 30 years to end the lunacy of nine demigods on the Supreme Court deciding every burning social issue of the day for us, loyal subjects in a judicial theocracy. We don't want someone who will decide those issues for us – but decide them "our" way. If we did, a White House bureaucrat with good horse sense might be just the ticket.
Admittedly, there isn't much that's more important than ending the abortion holocaust in America. (Abortionist casualties: 7. Unborn casualties 30 million.) But there is one thing. That is democracy.
Democracy sometimes leads to silly laws such as the one that prohibited married couples from buying contraception in Connecticut. But allowing Americans to vote has never led to crèches being torn down across America. It's never led to prayer being purged from every public school in the nation. It's never led to gay marriage. It's never led to returning slaves who had escaped to free states to their slave masters. And it's never led to 30 million dead babies.
We've gone from a representative democracy to a monarchy, and the most appalling thing is–even conservatives just hope like the dickens the next king is a good one.
It's an patently unconstitutional law.
There's a world of difference.
I'm not sure a bowling analogy during the confirmation hearings is going to play as well as Roberts' baseball analogy.
Oh, so we're supposed to believe the word(s) of ol' Magic Bullet Arlen now? Over the word of Dan Coats?
I suppose you believed Dick Durbin's tale of what John Roberts said to him in his private meeting, too?
I have been gone all day. Could you point me to Ann's denial or the Post's retraction? Thanks!
Not only do you have good taste in the those of the fairer sex, DTogo,
but you also make sense a prerequisite for these types of threads.
Isn't it ironic that those same Republicans or Conservatives who will condemn the Left for their lack of tolerance will jump at Ann Coulter like wolverines on a hapless doe for merely expressing her opinion!
I myself am all for Harriet, but I sure won't deny, nor will I begrudge, any Conservative who might think otherwise.
I'd buy "pay-for-view" to see Ann Coulter confirmation hearings.
All this hubbub about finding someone to vote against Roe. Since when is a decision law? Granted, subsequent cases need to respect the precedent of Roe, but if those cases never come up, why does it matter? Same thing with Kelo. I've been hearing that here in DC a move is being made to displace homeowners for a new ball park. They spent their lives paying off a home now they have to get out by December, why? because of Kelo? What nonsense! Kelo applied to that case only. New cases would have to consider the precedent of Kelo, but if those cases never come up, why does it matter? The law still is what it is, and should protect the property owner. Am I totally wrong about all this? Maybe a freeper lawyer can explain why I have this backwards. Until then, I think I'm right about this. One more thing, did Kelo OVERTURN past cases to the contrary, i.e. precedent favoring property rights?
Presumably just about everyone at fr is on the same page on that one....
There is no right to privacy. There is a right to "be secure in our persons, papers, houses and effects against illegal search and seizure," which is roughly what we mean by the vague word "privacy". That right is nice and clear (though often violated); there is no need to drag vague, practically meaningless, words into the discussion.
For example, there is no right to commit murder in one's bedroom; just as there is no right to consort with a prostitute in one's bedroom; nor to bugger a fella in one's bedroom; if those things are illegal. The constitution protects you from surveillance or other invasions into your bedroom to enforce such laws, but does not protect you from a search authorized "upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The federal government has no power to regulate (most) behaviors in one's bedroom, but the amendment guaranteeing that is the tenth, not the fourth, and not a "penumbra" or "emanation".
I just posted to somebody else on a different thread, I am concerned about her dignity and well being as a human. I don't envy either her or GWB at this point, on this issue. It's going to be impossible to get out without some loss of face; and the harder the selling job at this point, the more damage in the long run.
She's already got herself tied in a knot over the abortion issue. That shows a lack of clarity on her part, or a combination of "superficially aware of Con Law" plus confusing issue advocacy with Con Law philosophy.
We'll get to see how tolerant the Senate is of providing advise and consent for a cipher. We might be pleasantly surprized that they too are unwilling to go that far out on a limb.
Ann sounds more like a carping fishwife! Her snobbish attitude has turned me off completely.
(Plan 7, "Miers is an Evangelical Christian." Plan 8, "Miers was chair of the Texas Lottery Commission."
You are, of course, free to ignore any and all testimony that you don't want to hear. It used to work well for me....but then I turned 9.
"There is no right to privacy."
Yes there is. It's right there in the ninth amendment. (And I had finally found something to with which to agree with you in post 70).
[Jonathan Adler 10/19 05:52 PM]
A D.C. attorney finds Miers’ questionnaire quite dispiriting:
The questionnaire suggests a broader problem and a breakdown in the controls that make the White House an amazing place to work and a typically zero-defect environment. There are at least four issues w/the response. First, it was late. Miers promised it to Specter in three days. They missed the deadline and had to get more time. Then it contains a glaring misstatement of facts that is easily checkable — the incorrect dates for when her bar membership was suspended and the mischaracterization of how promptly the non-payment was remedied (WPost story). Next it contains another possible misstatement — the characterization of Miers as a Board member of Girls, Inc., in Dallas when the National Girls, Inc., folks have no recollection of her service (LATimes story).
In addition, the questionnaire contains multiple gaps — "dates not available" — for Board service, including Boards where a contact person is identified. Every corporation I know of keeps meticulous records about Board members and meetings. And every vetter asks for this kind of information to facilitate background checks. All of this makes me ask the next question — what else did they miss?
More questions should follow. For instance: What explains the breakdown within the White House on this nomination? One real possibility is that attorneys in the White House Counsel’s office and the Office of Legal Policy at Justice are too dispirited to execute as they should. And what does it say if not even the administration’s own attorneys are excited about this pick.
http://bench.nationalreview.com/
The PEOPLE of Connecticut "prevent the State of CT from outlawing the sale of birth control methods."
How do the people do that? By electing state representatives who do not enact idiotic laws.
And if idiotic (or outdated) laws already exist, then the PEOPLE can either
(a) persuade their elected representatives to abolish those laws or
(b) vote out representatives who refuse to abolish those laws.
You seem not to understand that under our Constitution, it is supposed to be the PEOPLE through their elected representatives --NOT the courts-- who have the power to make these decisions.
Wresting power away from the people to determine their own laws --and handing it over to a few unelected judges-- is a leftist ploy. See post 93.
I doubt it. And I think it's a bad sign for her that so many Republican Senators have been so very unsubtle about their lack of support this early in the process. I doubt very much that, even given the uninformative nature of Senate Judiciary hearings, she'll be so inspiring at to instill a lot of confidence. If anything, I think the tepid support she's been given to this point has been out of respect but that, based on her lack of knowledge, it will likely harden into outright opposition.
I ask, if there is a fundamental right to privacy, why haven't the American people voted it as such? They wouldn't now because of the perversion the court has taken with that "right". Legislators won't because if we have a right to privacy, what then right does the government have to charge people with crimes such as prostitution or drug use? If you're in your own home...
The fabric of this country did start to deteriorate with birth control. Think about it. When we started using birth control - we started playing God. By saying "I decide when I will have children (not God)" we decided we no longer had a need to wait til marriage and Griswold gave us Roe. Do you ever wonder what God thinks of our "blessed" nation today?
What testimony?
I can't tell you what "testimony" I'm "free to ignore" if you don't say what you're talking about.
Broadly speaking, that's a fair reply, but it's not so easy to identify "rights... not enumerated in the Constitution [but] not disparaged or denied to the people." The fourth amendment gives a reasonable definition of "privacy". If you claim there is an additional right not enumerated, you should at least be able to define it. What is "privacy"? Any definition you attempt to give will turn out to be circular, or else will imply that killing someone in your bedroom is a right.
(And I had finally found something to with which to agree with you in post 70). Cool.
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.