Not so fast. The long and the short of it is she didn't come to this dance with you, she came with "W". "W" picked her, "W" wants her and this IS his dance to arrange, not yours or mine. She is not done until "W" says so.
Did you read the Wall St. Journal piece on what Alexander Hamilton had to say about cronyism? It is amazing he was so prescient...but then, our Founding Fathers were. Give me a minute, and I will post the quotes to you.
I have no quarrel with whether Miers is qualified or not. Hamilton's words speak to why her situation should not be allowed. This is much like JFK appointing his unqualified brother (RFK) to be Attorney General. JFK said "trust me." That is not a good precedent.
As I said...I am looking up the WSJ piece now.
And "W" got to the dance in the car of his conservative base.
No base, no bush, no miers.
If you're going to use an analogy, make sure you're not just being selective with it.
"To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. . . . He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure."
Harriet Miers is not just the close confidante of the president in her capacity as his staff secretary and then as White House counsel. She also was George W. Bush's personal lawyer. Apart from nominating his brother or former business partner, it is hard to see how the president could have selected someone who fit Hamilton's description any more closely. Imagine the reaction of Republicans if President Clinton had nominated Deputy White House Counsel Cheryl Mills, who had ably represented him during his impeachment proceedings, to the Supreme Court. How about Bernie Nussbaum?
As the quote from Hamilton suggests, the core purpose of Senate confirmation of presidential nominees is to screen out the appointment of "cronies," which Merriam-Webster defines as "a close friend especially of long standing." Cronyism is bad not only because it leads to less qualified judges, but also because we want a judiciary with independence from the executive branch. A longtime friend of the president who has served as his close personal and political adviser and confidante, no matter how fine a lawyer, can hardly be expected to be sufficiently independent--especially during the remaining term of her former boss.
WSJ
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007354
Cronyism Alexander Hamilton wouldn't approve of Justice Harriet Miers
BY RANDY E. BARNETT
Tuesday, October 4, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT
I, like I presume you are, am reserving my final opinion until I have heard from this lady in front of the judiciary panel and as much information as possible is gathered. But that's all we can do is form an opinion. But "W" doesn't have the final say-so. The Senate will ultimately decide if she gets the gig or not. I think this is where the author is heading with her final comment.
The tide is starting to move against her and what I originally opined the day after she was nominated just might happen. If she doesn't get any Democrats, there might be more than enough Republicans who will vote to cut her loose. Information like what the author has presented just might be another straw added to the camel's back. FWIW.
>> Not so fast. The long and the short of it is she didn't come to this dance with you, she came with "W". "W" picked her, "W" wants her and this IS his dance to arrange, not yours or mine. She is not done until "W" says so. <<
Maybe we're done with W.
Spot ON!!!
I always said that I knew people like th eClintons in Law School and that secured me in my distaste for them and a fairly accurate gauge. I am beginning to think that of Miers as well. Miss Neat Hard Worker, puddle deep intellectually. I am afraid that W does not have the capacities to know what is required in a Judge other than a slogan about "not making the law." Things are a little more complex than that and we need someone who is intellectually agile enough not to get caught up by the "appealing" aspects of leftist judicial thought.
I am starting to think he uses the same "ME" protocol for our borders.
You know, I kind of find what you say offensive. You make President Bush soundf like he's worse than Clinton and he thinks his supporters are scum. I volunteered to support his campaign and spent 30 hrs/wk working for his election. I don't think I'm dirt and I hope President Bush doesn't either. Did you feel Clinton was entitless to do whatever he wanted too?
Screw that! He's not King, and he'd be well advised to reflect on what happened to the last King of the colonies.
The long and the short of it is she didn't come to this dance with you, she came with "W". "W" picked her, "W" wants her and this IS his dance to arrange, not yours or mine.