Posted on 10/09/2005 10:25:38 PM PDT by goldstategop
Imagine if Bill Clinton had nominated his personal attorney and White House counsel to a post on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Somehow, I can't imagine my conservative friends supporting the nominee – particularly if there were questions about controversial documents being destroyed that might actually shed light on scandals of the past.
The stunning series of articles by WND columnist Jerome Corsi, raising serious and nagging questions about Harriet Miers' role as chairman of the Texas Lottery Commission and the cover-up of the way that story intersects with George W. Bush's National Guard service, points up why this kind of cronyism was frowned upon by the Founding Fathers.
In fact, this is the very reason the framers of our Constitution called for the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate in all Supreme Court nominations.
If we are all honest with ourselves, it is clear Miers' name was put forward for one major reason – she is a friend and confidante of the president. Her selection is clearly a reward for services rendered and for her loyalty to the president.
Those do not make for qualifications for the Supreme Court, but, according to the men who debated and authored the Constitution, they should disqualify her.
For instance, in Federalist Paper 76, Alexander Hamilton explains why his colleagues gave the Senate power to confirm or reject Supreme Court nominees:
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 ...
The idea clearly was to shame a president from promoting cronies to the high court.
[The President] 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.
Can anyone argue, on the basis of these clear statements, that the Founders steadfastly opposed the idea of Supreme Court appointments such as Harriet Miers or Abe Fortas during the Lyndon Johnson era?
The idea was to create an independent judiciary, not one beholden to the executive branch of the federal government.
But George W. Bush does not shame so easily.
Now it's up to the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate to decide if it, too, is little more than a rubber stamp for the president.
There have been many perfectly rotten Supreme Court nominations in the past. Harriet Miers is certainly not the worst. But with the American people clamoring as never before for real judicial reform – starting in the Supreme Court – and with an abundance of qualified potential nominees from which to draw, this nomination should be withdrawn or defeated by the U.S. Senate.
I know few in Congress care about the original intent of the Founders. I know few in Congress understand the original intent of the Founders. I know most members of the House and Senate violate the spirit and the letter of the Constitution on a daily basis. But senators who claim to be voting for Harriet Miers because she is an "originalist" should indeed be ashamed.
Her very nomination is in direct contradiction to the vision of the heroic and inspired men who shaped and framed all that made America great and unique in the history of the world.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Reminds me of how Dick Cheney was selected. (If you recall -- he choose himself!)
PING!
Man, I cant keep up with all these threads
Just have some koolaid and your desire to question anything will disappear.
You know, after WND predicted that Zarqawi and Bin Laden would nuke the U.S. by Ramadan 2005 (started Oct 4), I wondered what they would do when the date came and went without a big nuclear attack.
After reading their recent bottom-scaping articles on Miers, now I know.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
"Man, I cant keep up with all these threads"
This is the monday morning rush. I think we're reaching critical mass. I won't be surprised if Miers withdraws herself from the confirmation process this week.
Baloney. Hamilton owed his own elevation to his connection with Washington.
Give the woman a chance to speak! This is not cronyism... far from it!
She is going through hell to get confirmed!
Actually, it might make things a bit easier-- pour me a glass.
"After reading their recent bottom-scaping articles on Miers, now I know"
I have not seen a single reason in favor of Miers... only attacks on those that oppose her. I think she's near finished.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
What is the difference between a crony and a friend? a crony and an associate? a crony and a colleague? a crony and a preferred expert?
she brought cookies to sunday school...isn't that enough for you?
Joseph Farah is, like his buddies M.Savage and P.Buchanan, wrong.
There is no reason to hold a nominee to the Supreme Court to a higher standard than we do our Senators or Presidents.
And though it is "life-time", they can always be impeached for usurping authority.
World Net Daily is the online edition of Newsweek now.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
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.