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.
keyword: midlifecrisis
Though to be fair, she makes some better arguments in this piece.
Yup--good thing that's not what AC said. Your argument that a justice doesn't need anything other than a bit of common sense is at least as silly, though. "Common sense" is a far cry from enough.
Superb point. The ability to write mash notes to your boss, and being "personally opposed to abortion," just like Mario Cuomo and Tom Daschle, do not qualify one to be a Supreme Court Justice.
just a question if you have time...
Did Griswold outlaw use of contraceptives in the home or the sale of contraceptives? Maybe that's still too much for some but didn't the duly elected representatives vote that law into place? If the people's representatives voted for a law banning sale of contraceptives in CT, why is that bad--remember, this is supposedly how republican government works.
OTOH a law prohibiting their use in private home is effectively unenforceable
Maybe this "Democracy" stuff isn't such a good idea huh Ann?
What "folks" ?
If you're referring to the FR poll, that's ludicrously worded:
"After a couple of weeks of research and intense debate, have any minds been changed? Do you approve of the president's nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court?"
Which is the question we're supposed respond to? The first or the second?
That poll needs re-wording and re-starting -- big time.
I have an awesome idea! Can we compile a ping-list of the folks who say this kind of crazy stuff, so that after Miers's confirmation we can ping the lot of them whenever she makes a liberal/stupid/activist decision?
From Griswald: "What provision of the Constitution, then, does make this state law invalid? The Court says it is the right of privacy "created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees." With all deference, I can find no such general right of privacy in the Bill of Rights, in any other part of the Constitution, or in any case ever before decided by this Court."
* * *
There is also nothing in the Constitution that excepts pornagraphy from the right to free speech and to a free press as guaranteed by the First Amendment, yet the Supreme Court has ruled that pornagraphy is not protected by the First Amendment if it violates community standards (which are not mentioned in the Constitution). Nor are there any restrictions in the First Amendment to the right to peacefully assemble, yet the Court has ruled that it has the right to prohibit citizens from peacefully assembling in front of the Supreme Court Building and has ruled that govenrment can generally regulate the time, place, and manner of speach and assembly even though the Constitution contains no such qualification upon First Amendment Rights. In view of your support of the dissent in "Griswald" do you agree with the Court's decisions restricting First Amendment rights with respect to pornagraphy and peaceful assembly even though the Constitution contains no such qualification?
Actually Specter's statement is a polite way of saying she's a liar without saying it. It doesn't retract what he said, it just says "we'll accept your new version about what you said". What almost certainly appears to have happened with Specter, and what seems to have happened with Schumer earlier regarding Griswold, is that she forgot what she was told to say during her cramming sessions. She's woefully unprepared (or just plain clueless) regarding even basic Constitutional questions. Also, after reading her responses to the Senate questionnaire, the White House needs to drop the "she's a detail-oriented person" talking point.
Define "privacy." When you finally give up, you'll understand why there is no right to "privacy".
Maybe this "1st Amendment" stuff isn't such a good idea huh MNJohnnie?
You would think by now that the "ditsy diva of divisive discourse" would have learned that the United States of America is a representative constitutional republic.
democracy as in mob rule, Ann?
Well, now I CAN agree with Specter afterall!
I know, I know, it probably smacks of "elitism" but your arguments would be much more persuasive if you paid attention to little things like spelling and grammar and, well, logic.
Obviously, you disagree with her, but where you go from there, I can't really comprehend.
Pride goeth before a fall. Not my wisdom. However, it does apply to those who think that their influence is increased by endlessly posting anti Miers tirades from an incestuous group of writers for a handful of publications whose subscriptions overlap and are used as a springboard to demand that the President of the United States forgo his constitutional right to choose a Supreme Court nominee. All the while trumpeting that their concern is for the preservation of that same constitution. No hearings or vote for Harriet Miers are approved of by this bunch of self appointed keepers of the constitutional flame. Only THEIR candidate is worthy of consideration and Georg Bush should have known that he needed to have deferred to them. Somehow, he seems to have gotten the idea that he is President of the United States of America.
You'd think the President might have figured that out as well. Oh wait....given recent events, I take that back!
Yeah! His civil rights is bein' violated! That's what! This's... this's like SELMA, THIS's!
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.