Krauthammer: Retreat (on Miers' nomination to SCOTUS)

Townhall.com ^ | 10-7-05 | Charles Krauthammer

[cgk]

WASHINGTON -- When in 1962 Edward Moore Kennedy ran for his brother's seat in the Senate, his opponent famously said that if Kennedy's name had been Edward Moore, his candidacy would have been a joke. If Harriet Miers were not a crony of the president of the United States, her nomination to the Supreme Court would be a joke, as it would have occurred to no one else to nominate her.

[stop_fascism]

On that, we can agree!

[guinnessman]

Interpreting the law is a very simple matter, until you have to appear in court.

I love that line! Yes, when you're a judge or a law professor, you have nothing to lose. Being a litigant is another thing.

[TUAN_JIM]

Someone made a good point about a possible effect of this nomination. What kind of message does this pick send to young lawyers and judges: don't leave a paper trail, don't be openly conservative, etc. What affect might this have on the rulings of judges who aspire to higher courts?

[Texas Federalist]

If that was the case, she wouldn't support Janice Rogers Brown for the job, or Michael Luttig. Her point is, with her lack of judicial experience or indicia of a Constitutional philosophy, at the very least she should come from a top law school. She doesn't even have that!

[Howlin]

Let's be honest here: most of the people doing the carping around here ONLY supported Bush because the vast majority of conservatives and/or Republicans wouldn't support THEIR candidates.

It makes you wonder who the REAL Republicans In Name Only are, doesn't it?

[kevao]

One thing nobody has been able to explain to me -- part of the "trust me" message to unhappy conservatives is, "Miers really is a conservative, she's pro-life, and a born-again Christian, to boot! But since she's a stealth candidate, we can get her through without a confrontation."

Now, when it comes to SCOTUS nominees, the Libs care about one thing, and one thing only: abortion. So, what makes people think the Senate Dems and RINOs will let an "uncredentialed" conservative pro-lifer slip by any easier than a "credentialed" one? It's all about Roe v Wade.

If Miers truly is an adamant pro-lifer, then Bush is liable to get the very fight this stealth nomination was supposed to avoid, only he'll be going into that fight without much of the conservative base he's just alienated.

Can someone explain the rationale to me (without flaming me as a "knee-jerk Bush-hater" please)?

[nikos1121]

You make a good point. Ann C was really giving it to Harriet because of her law degree.

If you look at some of the other SC nominees they were not all judges or from great law schools.

I was hoping for the debate too, but as I recall with Clarence Thomas that debate lasted 6 months or so, and nothing got done during the time except political maneuvering.

Bush wanted a SC justice that reflects HIS philosophy not whom someone else thinks should reflect his philosophy. Had Reagan known the outcome, would he have re appointed O' Conner?

[Graymatter]

I don't care if she is "accomplished". I want her to be a good judge.

Has she ever been a good judge? She's never been a judge at all, but let's start her off on the Supreme Court and see how she does.
I do care if she is "accomplished," and according to some around here that makes me an elitist. Show me her merits as a judge? They can't. As a Constitutional scholar? They can't. Even as a conservative, which I consider a clear sign of high intelligence---they can't demonstrate her merit in that either. What's left? She knows how to latch on to George W. Bush, the most brilliant man she ever met.

[Taliesan]

If we desire to repair the damage, we need our best and brightest.

Here is the precisely the difference between the liberal and the conservative view of the document.

No, the truth is we don't need our best and brightest to interpret for us a simple document. We need our best and brightest to crack the atom and cure cancer and write an epic poem for this half-millineum. For our judges we need people with a sense of fairness, including fairness to the men who wrote the words defining fairness.

This is PRECISELY THE PROBLEM. We don't BELIEVE it takes a brilliant mind to be a justice. We've been told that, over and over, and we don't BELIEVE it because all the EVIDENCE argues the opposite -- not that you should not be brilliant, but that some quality other than the ones usually associated with "accomplishmnt" is the key quality for a judge, and that ignored quality x needs to be resurrected.

x is character, which in conservative jurisprudence equates to a holy regard for the literal text.

What other part of our society inculcates a similar regard for founding text? Answer: Protestant fundamentalism.

I then give you Harriet Miers. Presumably not brilliant, but presumably understands how to handle holy writ.

She may turn out to be a dud. But one thing Bush is NOT doing here is cronysim, or just avoiding a fight. I think he cut through a lot of bull to put a strict constructionist on the court, and did it with his characteristic disregard for propriety.

[Howlin]

Since Patti doesn't seem to have a coherent reply -- and for those who are curious -- when Bush 41 nominated Clarence Thomas, the Democrats had presented him with a list of their "acceptable" nominees.

At the head of the list was -- tada -- Ken Starr.

But I suppose these people would have been against Starr, too, since he was on "their list."

[savedbygrace]

We need a constitutional amendment that only someone from an Ivy league (well maybe Stanford is ok) law school is illegible for the Supreme Court.

Perhaps my beeber is stuned, but I find that hard to read.

I'm laughing so hard, tears are coming out of my eyes and rolling down my cheeks.

[SalukiLawyer]

If you're trying to say that lawyers have fornicated up the constitution, I won't disagree.

No, I was trying to say exactly what I did say. I give you credit for understanding that the Constitution is a short document intended to lay out some basic principles to be applied to an infinite number of different situations as they come up through history, which duty falls to our courts. As decisions are made, they become the basis for later decisions. Otherwise our law would have no continuity and people could not know from week to week how to conform to it.

Your postings seem to suggest that you believe just about anyone, given the ability to read and write the English language is qualified to engage in forging Constitutional law for our Republic. Specialists such as "lawyers" only obscure the clear language of a short document. Is this what you mean to say?

[dirtboy]

Interpreting the law is a very simple matter, until you have to appear in court.

And Miers has been in court quite a bit. A lot more than most of the judges currently on the federal bench, I would venture.

Thanks for bringing up another qualification for Miers - I hadn't thought of that one.

[Nonstatist]

Is she more of a lightweight than Ginsberg and Bryer and Souter ?
Or just more unknown?

[Graymatter]

>>BS

Great argument. Classic Howlin.

Here's Peggy Noonan's take on the Miers nomination. Enjoy.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110007363

[Taliesan]

Interpreting the law is a very simple matter, until you have to appear in court.

Nonesense. Show me a lawsuit, and I'll show you one party who argues the law is complex and the opposing party who argues the law is plain and simple.

And then, the next week in a different case, the two lawyers will swap arguments about the law. The law is often badly written and TACTICALLY COMPLEX, but justice is almost always straightforward once you find out the facts.

And we ask 12 people, in both cases, WHO HAVE NO SPECIAL TRAINING IN THE LAW, to decide justice.

[teawithmisswilliams]

With so many good judges out there who are certifiable warriors of the right, who are fighting the good fight every day on the front lines, paying their dues and then some, and leaving a "paper trail" a mile long, why did Bush have to come up with two stealths in a row??

I agree--those real conservative judicial warriors should not be shunted aside for an estalishment lawyer (Texas ABA president)like Miers.

[dirtboy]

If Miers truly is an adamant pro-lifer, then Bush is liable to get the very fight this stealth nomination was supposed to avoid, only he'll be going into that fight without much of the conservative base he's just alienated.

First of all, if Miers is truly a adamant pro-lifer, I would hope much of the conservative base comes back into his camp.

And second, she is acceptable to the members of the Gang of 14. If they hold that view, there will be no filibuster. If the Dem contingent bolts, the GOP members will vote with the rest of the party to invoke the nuclear option, and there goes the filibuster.

[martin_fierro]

< |;)~

[Howlin]

Your specious remark got the reply it deserved.

And I notice I wasn't the only one who had that opinion of your remark.

Why are you linking Noonan here: do you need her to tell you what to think?