The Aghastly Ms. Miers

"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority."

LORD ACTON, letter to Mandell Creighton, April 5, 1887.— Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotations. 1989

I too, believe that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, and because Ms. Harriet Miers is a professional politician and is untested as a non partisan Judge, and has been tested by politicians of both parties, she could become absolutely corruptible. Her only qualification as a Justice on the Supreme Court is her relationship with President Bush who asks us to “trust” his judgement. I would expect such a “you fill in the blanks” endorsement to come from a used car salesmen.

As a Supreme court Justice Ms. Miers will have the power and authority to alter the lives every inhabitant of every State in the United States. She will, for the first time, not have to compromise her political principles to fit those of the politicians that hired her. Without such a track record, I doubt if she knows what her principles will be as a Judge, for she was never in a position of absolute power and as we know “absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Judges of Inferior Tribunals have been road-tested for "character." We know this because they have an established a record of judicially applying of law. Hundreds of Judges do not have Miers' question mark, and deserve consideration. They paid their dues. The dues Ms. Miers paid are wholly political and because politics, by definition, is the art of compromise, we should judge Ms. Miers as a professional barterer of principles for political and personal advantage.

Ideally, nominees should be considered because they have proved to have sufficient character to subdue their personal ambitions. That they act in deference to the Constitution, legal precedent and the Supreme Court's decisions. No such history supports such histories in Ms. Miers' career.

In spite of her successful career as a lawyer, political advocate and bureaucrat, Ms. Miers has not established herself as an impartial, sincere and knowledgeable Constitutional Scholar and Jurist. Nor has she shown herself to have the judicial temperament or character to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution as a Judge on the Supreme Court. The President’s found less nomination, presents the People and the Senate with nothing more than a "crap shoot."

In consideration of the President's spineless non-enforcment of the Constitution and the Law* Ms. Miers, as the President's legal advisor, was not equal to her job. Therefore, I conclude she cannot be equal to the job of Supreme Court Justice.

Without judicial foundations Ms. Miers, as a Supreme Court Justice can exercise unrestrained judicial power. She will, for the first time, be in a place where her "personal passions and partisan politics" could override the Constitution, judicial "precedent[s]," reinterpret the meanings of its words, and discard the thousand-year wisdom of the Common Law. Without a history to measure her by, I have no way to know or even to guess on the depth of her commitment to the People, the Common Law and the Constitution. Neither does she.

Because of these unknowns, neither she nor I have any established fact or plausible reason to argue in favor of her affirmation. My only other option is to argue against her confirmation. Without facts, I will not honor the opinion of a politician about another politician for it is under the particular circumstance of secrecy [executive privilege] and normal collusion of politicians [political compromise] that corruption becomes more a certainty than a probability.

If not for the President's glowing observations attesting to her "character," there is no way to guess, let alone know, how Ms. Miers would react in a position of unrestrained judicial power. I even doubt if the President knows to what corruptions she is prone and capable. Having said that, I am also of the opinion that President Bush is no authority, nor is he a role model for the standards inferred by his use of the word "character."

In fact, based on recent history I am not sure President Bush remembers the meaning of the word. I question his current understanding of the word "character" because he has shown a profound lack of it. Of course, if his lack of character is not for his ignorance, and not for his political and financial ambitions then he is, and those he praises should be painted in that color and with the same brush.

It is true. President Bush has sufficient character to honor his secretive, and probably illegal commitments to Mexico's President Fox. However, he does not have enough character to honor his Constitutional duties and commitments to the American People and the Rule of Law. As examples, consider the hundreds of illegal migrants who every day, walk, run, swim, ride and fly over our unprotected borders. Then, those same “hundreds,” now numbering in the tens of millions, secured homes and jobs, obtain illegally prepared documents to apply for and receive the benefits due to legal American Citizens and taxpayers. They flood our Schools, Welfare Roles, Hospitals and Prisons and in so doing steal from all Americans. By allowing these outrages to continue, the illegals, supported by a scofflaw President, mock our Laws, the Rule of Law, the Constitution and the People. It seems to me that anyone who intentionally encourages others to commit a felony, is as guilty as the felon. If this example of law enforcement is the standard by which the President defines “character,” I will have no part of it.

President Bush proved just enough character to "declare war" on terrorism but not enough to name "Islam" as its instigator, source and root cause. So whatever praise he heaps on Ms. Harriet Miers, it should not be the one that he lacks the most.

Under these circumstances, Ms. Miers is more a "minus" than a "plus," and because I would rather be safe than sorry, I urge the Senate to deny Ms. Miers the powers of a Supreme Court Justice and not curse us with a continuing corruption of the Constitution.

ps: Finally, consider Ms Miers in the light of the following “Peter Principle” quotations:

“In every hierarchy, whether it be government or business, each employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence; every post tends to be filled by an employee incompetent to execute its duties.”

“Work is accomplished by those employees who have not yet reached their level of incompetence.”

Whatever level of participation Ms Miers had in the war on "Terrorism" [not mentioning Islam] and her continuing support of the President's ignoring the millions Illegal Migrants residing in the United States, proves she has not the constitutional character, competency and conviction to preserve, protects and defend the Constitution. As an unwilling constitutional advocate in the White House how sincere could she be as a Supreme Court Justice?

Without such a track record, I doubt if she knows what her principles will be as a Judge, for she was never in a position of absolute power and as we know “absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Cripes, she hasn't been nominated for a week and you have her scoped for a usurping tyrant. Plenty of folks with track records went on and were major usurpers at SCOTUS, so this argument is absurd.

Finally, consider Ms Miers in the light of the following “Peter Principle” quotations:

Miers rose to be managing partner. She couldn't rise any higher in her law firm. So you have no way of knowing if she reached a Peter Principle point. Instead, she went from managing partner to attorney for a governor and then to the White House. That sure doesn't look like the Peter Principle at work to me.

There are rational arguments to be made against Miers. This wasn't one of them.

That's about where my eyes started to cross. Someone let me know if there's anything in here worth reading.

You wrote, "Because of these unknowns, neither she nor I have any established fact or plausible reason to argue in favor of her affirmation."

And you are? Why not a vanity warning next time? Tossing in a hackneyed quote from Lord Acton and select passages from 'The Peter Principle' to buttress a rambling, disjointed argument against the President's latest SCOTUS nomination doesn't exactly establish your bona fides as an authority on the subject. There are plenty of threads on this forum dealing with this topic. Join one.

Acton actually said power *tends* to corrupt. Leaving out 'tends' is like saying it makes no difference whether a `lightning bug' (firefly) or lightning lands on your head. (Twain)

Or like the dums reciting the story of the prostitute saved from stoning--usually to justify some abhorrent behavior--without including that He also admonished her to "go and sin no more".

Sincerely,
Mr. Language Person

Medved summed it up rather nicely yesterday. I'll try to summarize what he said.

He pointed to the fact that Souter, Kennedy, and O'Conner all had excellent records as conservative judges before getting on the Supreme Court. They moved to the left AFTER getting on the SC.

Moving to the left is a power grab. Bush chose Miers because he knew her not to be a power-hungry individual, and he knows her as a conservative. He picked her because he cannot see her moving to the left once she is on the court.

The problem with Souter, Kennedy, and O'Conner is that the President appointed them WITHOUT knowing them personally. For this reason, their jump to the left came unexpectedly.

such is the reason why it's more important what's truly in her heart and her conviction as born-again says more to me than any diatribe her critics can assemble & will probably prove Thomas like in her opinions which are likewise written from the gut.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1335238/posts
Posting refresher course - Please read
Admin Lecture Series ^ | February 3, 2005 | Olive
General/Chat

All non-sourced non-news threads are posted here. This doesn’t mean your one thought is a thread by itself. Lately, we have been seeing articles posted that should be comments made on the main article. Your comment/vanity article will be pulled or moved to General/Chat. Vanities should be limited to the mission of Free Republic

Bloggers & Personal

For all of you who have blogs or personal web sites or personal news or opinion or forum sites that you would like to discuss or promote on Free Republic, here's the place to do it.

Our new Bloggers & Personal forum is for:

Posting from your blog.

Posting from other peoples blogs.

Posting your from your personal web site.

Posting from other peoples personal web sites.

Promoting your blog.

Promoting other peoples blogs.

Promoting your personal web site.

Promoting your favorite web sites.

Posting from your favorite outside forums.

Posting from your favorite lefty forums or sites (DUh and the like).

Click on the "Bloggers & Personal" forum link on the Forums sidebar of the latest posts pages.

Hopefully, this will become a very popular forum for promoting and or discussing blogs and personal opinion/news/forum pages.

“Work is accomplished by those employees who have not yet reached their level of incompetence.”

Yet many FReepers credit Michael Brown personally with past FEMA successes. But when things went pear-shaped in Nawlins "What could he do? He wasn't told. If only people had followed His Plan"

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.