Why Miers Must Be Defeated (Founding Fathers Didn't Envisage Cronyism For High Offices Alert)

Worldnetdaily.com ^ | 10/10/05 | Joseph Farah

[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.

[eleni121]

I won't be surprised if Miers withdraws herself

ttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttough

She is tough cookie from Texas...not going to happen no matter what the elitist establishment wimps want.

[RobbyS]

Roger Brooke Taney was born and raised in Calvert County, Maryland. He was educated privately and attended Dickinson College where he graduated first in his class. He apprenticed with an Annapolis lawyer for three years and was admitted to the bar.

Taney was a representative in the Maryland House of Delegates for one term; he served as a Federalist. He backed the War of 1812 and split with his party over the issue. Taney returned to private law practice in 1821, after serving a term in the Maryland Senate. He remained active in politics, but joined with the Jacksonian Democrats when the Federalist Party expired. He led Jackon's presidential campaign in Maryland. Jackson later selected Taney as his attorney general.

In 1835, Jackson nominated Taney to replace Gabriel Duvall as associate justice. The Senate postponed the confirmation vote indefinitely. Less than a year later, Jackson sent up Taney's name to replace John Marshall as chief justice.

Taney sat on the Court until his death in 1864

[flashbunny]

is jerome corsi a liberal writer now as well?

[eleni121]

Bill Clinton could appoint a dogcatcher and I'd root for the dogs.

Dubya has my confidence and I have admired most if not all his appointments.

[goldstategop]

That has never happened. And in my view a judge must be seen to be above favor or influence and must not have anything that taints the presumption of his or her impartialty. That is precisely why the appointment is for life and why we must insist on the highest caliber obtainable in a jurist - qualities simply lacking in Ms. Miers.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[Betaille]

"not going to happen no matter what the elitist establishment wimps want."

It's not the "elitist establishment". The Party establishment are the only ones supporting Miers. The grassroots activists are all against her nomination.

[A CA Guy]

So is this historically the first time a President put up someone he personally knew or worked with?

If not, how many in the past who Presidents knew were offered as Judges?

[Southack]

"I have not seen a single reason in favor of Miers... only attacks on those that oppose her. I think she's near finished."

I think that the SCOTUS is well-served to have a "common man" in their ranks. It's the common man who has to live by all of Washington's laws, so the common man should be the one doing some of the judging.

Miers is that common man. She ran two law firms in the private sector, including one major merger...so she hasn't just been isolated, especially isolated by government all of her life (contrast Miers to Alan Greenspan who doesn't know how to drive).

She packs heat. For 2nd Amendment supporters, having a SCOTUS Justice who packs heat carries some meaning.

She's pro-life (several pro-life groups have already endorsed her). She's a mission-sponsoring, evangelical fundamentalist Christian.

She led the committees that selected Judges Pryor and Janice Rogers Brown for the federal bench.

What's she's not is an elite judge from an elite University. She's not red meat for a showdown with Senate Democrats.

For myself, my biggest complaint is that she is too old...but that being said, we conservatives will win either way, whether she is confirmed or not.

Life is good.

[Map Kernow]

There ya go, man---Federalist No. 76! Like the year of our Independence! God Almighty, send the spirit and wisdom of our blessed Founding Fathers back to guide our nation! We need their sagacity now more than ever!

[goldstategop]

You make my point. Can any one tell me if Miers would have been chosen if she were not a personal friend and counsel to the President? Of course not! It is exactly this kind of favoritism that we do not want to see manifested in an appointment to our Supreme Court. President Bush's pick of Roberts was excellent for all the reasons that his pick of Miers is not.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[jess35]

Have you looked for a reason or are you just searching out negative articles?

[eleni121]

C'mon now. LBJ called Ramsey Clark and tells him that mebbe just mebbe he can be AG if his daddy retire from the supreme court so he can appoint Thurgood to the S C.

Yeah...the SP is above reporach.

This nomination is honorable and above reproach. I voted for this President because I trust his judgment.
Let the games begin and we shall see.

[goldstategop]

There was Abe Fortas - LBJ's nomination that was rejected by the Senate. Senate Republicans should make it clear to the President Miers is not acceptable to them and urge the Administration to withdraw her nomination. Its time to start over and do it right.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[Racehorse]

The Party establishment are the only ones supporting Miers. The grassroots activists are all against her nomination.

Activists for what?

[eleni121]

Grassroots activists? You mean all the evangelical Christians who are behind her who constantly get beat up by the MSM?

What grassroots are you talking about? Kristol and the perpetually angry wannabe Buchanan?

[phelanw]

Baloney. Hamilton owed his own elevation to his connection with Washington.

I hear Washington wrote those Federalist papers for him.

[flashbunny]

" She packs heat"

So did diane feinstein.

[The Worthless Miracle]

On Drudge's radio show, he mentioned that 50 republican senator were against miers. Sweet