This is my obligatory Harriet Miers post. I’m having trouble generating enough interest to write about the Supreme Court nominations. I honestly couldn’t care less that George Bush picked yet another crony for an important job, a lifetime appointment that could overhaul the foundation of our social policy for the better. Or the worst.
As significant as that is, I just don’t care. It doesn’t bother me at all that Bush has a pattern of hiring friends and friends of friends for important jobs. After all, Slick Willie did the same thing, and it didn’t kill us. Did it?
So, I’ll let those of you who care tell me all about her. I’ll fill up this post with your links and comments. I hear she’s an evangelical Christian. True? I hear she’s a friend of Bush with no judge experience. False? I may have been nodding off at the time, but I thought I heard she gave money to Al Gore’s campaign. Tell me it ain’t so. It’s your stage.
What other bloggers are saying:
Conservative Dialysis: “Harriet Miers may well turn out to be the next Scalia or Thomas, and then again she might turn about to be another Souter. We won’t know until she’s been on the bench for awhile and written a decision or two. That’s the problem.”
Harriet Miers has her own blog! Wait a second…it’s just a spoof. 
Biblical Christianity: “Once again messing with the heads of the nation, President Bush bypassed every hope (Owen, Brown, Luttig) and fear (Gonzalez) of his constituency, and named unknown lawyer/friend Harriet Miers. This unknown woman is about to become well-known.”
Evangelical Outpost: “The most shocking thing about Bush’s nomination is that so many people are shocked by Bush’s nomination. What exactly did they expect?…Bush is no conservative; he is a cronyist.” (Update)
Dean Peters: “Personally, I think we need to guard ourselves against statements like ’she’s unqualified because she’s never served on the bench …’ Neither did the Honorable Judge Rehnquist nor I believe some 40 other of his peers (I’d appreciate a comment regarding that number one way or the other). Moreover, what’s wrong with a little ‘career’ diversity on the bench? Remember, no one likes a stupid Christian.”
Paul Deignan: “Harriet Miers is many things, but she is not a Constitutional scholar, well-seasoned in elective office, or someone who has made many public speeches or presentations on the workings of government.”
Michelle Malkin:”We have a Republican House. A Republican Senate. And a Republican White House. Why is it, after working so hard to put a president in power who promised to appoint conservative judges, that we have to settle for crossing our fingers and accepting a blank-slate Supreme Court nominee with an ideological paper bag over her head?”
Captain Ed gives his grudging support. I can’t even muster that. Maybe I need a vacation. And $50 million in a bank account. And a beautiful mansion on the ocean.
Beldar: Says Miers is “well-qualifed” for the job.
Patrick Ruffini: “At the risk of drawing the undying enmity of The Herd, I’m going to state categorically that conservatism is sitting pretty at this hour.”
This is unrelated to the post, but The Political Teen has found great way to increase traffic and links. Smart kid.
The Therapist: “What I want to know is, does Harriet Miers dress like a republican because she’s been paid to do so?”
John Hawkins: “We also can’t forget the anti-First Amendment, McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill which Bush signed into law or Bush’s position on illegal immigration which has alienated a large chunk of the party.”
Right Wing Nut (House): “In short, if the President wanted to pi** off the most number of people in the shortest period of time, he should be congratulated.”
Lawrence Auster: “Miers advocated support of women in combat, homosexual adoptions, and the International Criminal Court. For conservatives, it should not be a choice between supporting this insulting nomination and remaining silent. They should actively seek to defeat it. Then Bush would have to go back and choose a decent nominee.”
Even the head-liberal-in-charge (profanity warning) says: “So Bush tosses the social conservatives overboard. He doesn’t need them anymore. He doesn’t need to be reelected.”
California Conservative: “The Democratic Party is openly celebrating the conservative infighting, and promptly using it to their advantage.”
News links:
- Bush: Miers ‘a pit bull in size 6 shoes’
- The Real Harriet Miers
- Parties Conflicted Over Miers Nomination - You don’t say?
- Cronyism
- Miers’ Qualifications Are ‘Non-Existent’
By the way, I oppose the Miers nomination.
“I’ve now read a couple of hundred blog posts about Miers, and the thing that stands out is this: Her critics on the Right are spoiling for a fight. They want to see somebody like Janice Rogers Brown jammed, really jammed, down the throat of the Senate.
“Bush has a full plate: High gasoline prices and a slowing housing market point toward an economic slowdown, and we are at war against a resourceful, persistent enemy.
“Politics, remember, is the art of the possible. Does the country need a bloodletting over the court, or does the country need another conservative justice? I think the president has made the best, lowest-aggravation deal he thinks he can make.”
http://www.civilcommotion.com/index.php?p=829
Comment by Bob Felton — 10.04.05 @ 10:05 am
Memo To Conservatives: We Are Helping The Other Side. Pass It On.
“[A] politically weak Bush was unable to pick a nominee that would appeal to his extreme right-wing base. Already this morning conservatives are up in arms over the nomination.” — DNC.org
Since news of the Miers nomination broke thi…
Trackback by California Conservative — 10.04.05 @ 10:08 am
Discontent with Harriet Miers, Transportation bill, Disaster payout plan, Educaiton bill, Social security reform? Look to your Senators and Congressmen
Conservatives are dismayed. President Bush is the embodiment of their hopes for the fulfillment of conservative dreams built over the past 40 years. The balance of the scales has tipped with the Harriet Miers nomination and conservatives activists are …
Trackback by PEER Review — 10.04.05 @ 10:19 am
I have to agree with Bob there. People who are against Miers seem to want an all out fight. They also seem to have trust issues with the prez. (which is acceptable now, i guess, since he’s already won re-election. I expected this some what- doesn’t make me any less disapointed though)
honestly, I can see why Bush would put up someone with no reputation to her name. The Dems in the Senate have been salivating for a filibuster of a SCOTUS nominee since Bush was elected. The first time. They’ve already proven that they mean to use that option. The only thing that keeps them from using it is if it would look bad publicly for them to do so. Filibustering Miers makes them look partisan and paranoid.
Unfortunately, among conservatives- particularly fiscal conservatives, it is all the rage to be pissed at the prez right now. (never mind that the prez has actually very little to do with the economy and the budget- only a limitted veto power)
I don’t know the woman, so I’m not really sure if she was a good pick or not. I’m not even sure I wouldn’t have picked her myself if I weren’t in the same position. I do know that the hysterics on the right are wearing thin. And get us no where.
You’d think by all the hand-wringing that’s going on that the Republicans trusted her even less than the Democrats do. Hmmmm….
Comment by Jewels — 10.04.05 @ 10:44 am
La Shawn,
First thanks for the quote-n-link. Second, I also sighed with thoughs of cronyism. Third, I’d give just about anything to see someone like the Honorable Charles B. Day on the court … too bad the Bush White House hasn’t the guts to nominate such a man of honor, intelligence, integrity and independence.
http://www.mddailyrecord.com/leadership/2001day.html
Comment by Mean Dean — 10.04.05 @ 10:50 am
Miers’ Criers: Who Is She?
Most Conservatives are less than thrilled by the Presidents nomination of Harriet Miers for Sandra Day Connor’s Seat on The Supreme Court. Especially Michelle Malkin and some of her readers. The Captain in his Quarters has a similar opinion. I
Trackback by Stuck On Stupid — 10.04.05 @ 11:02 am
Yesterday, Rush said something in passing that I believe is extremely important. Rush mused that the White House has to depend on the Senate Republicans to win the day if a full-fledged fight were to erupt over a SCOTUS nominee. He wondered if maybe the White House lacks confidence in the team that is in place in the Senate.
Well, I sure do! Collins, Chaffee, McCain, Graham, Warner, Voinivich, Spector and even Frist. They are cut and run artists all.
How can Bush possibly trust the Senate Republicans to get the job done? They won’t even show up to filibuster.
Comment by Heliotrope — 10.04.05 @ 11:04 am
Bush Picks Stealth Candidate for the Supreme Court
Pro-abortion liberals will have successfully bullied a Republican President, backed by a Republican Senate majority, to compromise the principles they claimed to uphold when elected to office.
Trackback by ProLifeBlogs — 10.04.05 @ 11:07 am
Harriet Miers: The Day After
Well, now that everyone’s had a good night’s sleep, (I trust), some opinions have softened (upon new information on the nominee) and others haven’t. Lifelike Pundits has a dream of Miers ripping into Senate libs Patrick Ruffini creates a “Coalition…
Trackback by Conservative Outpost — 10.04.05 @ 11:24 am
First, full disclosure: I am a liberal Democrat.
But this is beyond politics. The position of Associate Justice of the highest court in the land is waaaay too important.
That is why I supported John Roberts — I may have had doubts about his (conservative?) views, but he clearly had the qualifications to sit on the bench.
And that’s what this is about — qualifications. It makes no difference if Miers is an evangelical or not. It makes no difference if she is a Bush crony or not (that reflects badly on Bush, but that’s a separate issue). In fact, it makes no difference if she is a conservative or not. It makes no difference if she is/isn’t a nice lady, a “glass-ceiling-breaking” woman, or a compassionate person.
And I assume she has integrity, but that alone isn’t enough.
The beginning and end of the analysis is this: Harriet Miers is simply not qualified. I’m a lawyer, and I personally know about twenty lawyers with comparable legal experience… in my community alone. This does not mean they are Supreme Court material.
Seriously, from the entire pool of people in the nation, is Miers the BEST that Bush could come up with? And shouldn’t we all, regardless of our political stripe, want the best???
I firmly believe in the importance of the Supreme Court. It requires gravitas and a working knowledge of many facets of the law. I will stomach a qualified and experienced fire-breathing openly-conservative Scalia-type before I accept someone like Miers.
Comment by Kman — 10.04.05 @ 11:29 am
I won’t lie…
I’d would have loved to see Rogers Brown shoved down their throat for two reason:
1. We know where she stands and
2. The hypocrisy of the so called “women lovin’ and minority loving’ left would be to much to miss
Comment by Renee — 10.04.05 @ 11:38 am
A long time ago my manager at work asked me if I had any friends who would like to work there. I asked him why he was asking me. He said, “Good workers usually know good workers.” Birds of a feather and all that… John F. Kennedy’s administration was often called, “government by college roommate [and I might add, family members].” He appointed crony Byron White who had no judicial experience but who had been a professional football player and had chaired Kennedy’s presidential campaign in Colorado to the Supreme Court and White did a good job. Cronies aren’t always all bad. Neither are relatives.
A lot of opprobrium has been heaped on FEMA director Mike Brown. Yet, I notice Governor Blanco of Arkansas hired Clinton’s much praised former FEMA director, James Lee Witt. I can’t think of a state in the union that has handled a disaster more poorly. Is he still on the payroll? It looks as though Arkansas’ disaster plan was to first, cross their fingers, then blame George Bush for everything that went wrong and finally try to get as much Federal money as possible to steer to their corrupt Arkansas friends.
It looks as though Miers will get through without much of a fight. Considering all the hate that is coming Bush’s way right now, I can understand him not wanting a fight. Although I never went to law school, a lot of Miers’ background sounds like mine. She might make a great justice. But then, I was really impressed with Sandra Day O’Connor, originally…
Comment by Evon — 10.04.05 @ 11:40 am
Piranhas in a Teapot
I find it dismally intriguing how the right is cannibalizing itself over the nomination of Harriet Miers. At this point in time, whether she is an originalist, textualist, activists or any other assorted ‘-ists,’ everyone should just take a moment to…
Trackback by Publius Rendezvous — 10.04.05 @ 11:45 am
I’ll admit that some of us were spoiling for a fight. We wanted a fight, not for the sake fighting, but because a truly good nominee would have almost certainly provoked a fight. It is unfair to accuse us of helping the other side as a way of getting us to fall back in line. This isn’t about the Party. This is about the next 20 years of judicial decision-making. No matter the political implications for the Republican party, this is not–as far as anyone can tell at the moment–an acceptable candidate, period. It’s pointless to try to make us feel guilty for not falling in lock-step with whatever Bush wants. This time, he’s made a mistake.
Comment by Cyndee — 10.04.05 @ 12:06 pm
20051004l
Try one of these specials with your lunch: The Blog Interviews: Taking questions for Jay from Stop the ACLU! and Denise from Grandma’s House. ScrappleFace reports Dubya says Maybe next time. La Shawn Barber asks about Harriet. Beth (MY
Trackback by Basil's Blog — 10.04.05 @ 12:29 pm
I don’t think it’s a fight I’m looking for, but some signs of a pulse. The Dems have been roundly rejected in all national elections of this century. So why should Bush appeal to the lowest common denominator by nominating the person that creates the smallest uproar?
And could he at least humor us by vetoing ONE spending bill?
And could he at least order the millitary to resume the “shock and awe” attack until all the terrorists have been vaporized, and stop worrying about who will be offended?
And would it be too much to hire people for jobs that have at least worked that job before?
What do we conservatives like to accuse the left of being? “Big-spending, big-government idealogues who don’t stand for anything.”
Try to convince me that doesn’t describe the Republicans right now. Good luck.
Comment by James E — 10.04.05 @ 1:26 pm
“….is Miers the BEST that Bush could come up with?”
Where is all this “best available” standard coming from? “Best” what? Best looking in a Speedo? Best tasting at a cannibal cookout? Best abortion proponent? Best friend of George Soros?
The libs would like to drown half of the SCOTUS and the conservatives would like to drown the other half. So apparently, the current crop of justices is not the “best.”
Who is left on the “best available” list when all of the politics and special interests have been wrung out of the equation? I guess it would just be Bill and Hillary since they are as pure as the driven snow! (Hah!)
Comment by Heliotrope — 10.04.05 @ 2:11 pm
La Shawn:
1 I am sick and tired with the word WOMAN repeated endlessly with every sentence about Miers. “The first WOMAN this, the first WOMAN that.
If she was picked BECAUSE SHE IS A WOMAN that is shameful.
2 The choice of a non-judge is a good one. The Supremes need someone to challenge their “judicial arrogance”. Too bad she is also not an attorney. We need some “diversity” on the bench.
Comment by Frank Zavisca — 10.04.05 @ 2:27 pm
Heliotrope asks:
Where is all this “best available†standard coming from? “Best†what? Best looking in a Speedo? Best tasting at a cannibal cookout? Best abortion proponent? Best friend of George Soros?
Well, what criteria would you use if you were to select someone for the Supreme Court?
Let’s remove politics and pet issues from the debate, since (we’ll assume) we don’t want anybody to “legislate from the bench” and/or interject their personal beliefs into the law.
What’s left? At a minimum, you want someone knowledgeable and experienced in many facets of the law. While judicial experience is helpful, I agree that it is not necessary. But if a candidate lacks judicial experience (as Mier’s does), then he/she better have at least have wide experience in appellate court as an attorney. Or have clerked for the Supreme Court or an appellate court.
But she lacks all that, too.
When lawyers get up in front of the court and talk about, say, “the delegation doctrine”, or “the Lemon test” or “the difference between de jure and de facto discrimination”, I don’t want a justice to be flipping through Cliff Notes under the table in order to keep up with the conversation in front of her.
Look. I have a really good dentist. He’s been practicing for, like, forty years. He’s well-respected and well-liked by everybody he meets. He’s plays a role in a few dental associations (I don’t know their names). He’s compassionate, he cares about patients, etc.
Should he be the next Surgeon General? Of course not.
Thought experiment: Suppose Mier’s path had never crossed Bush’s path 15 years ago (or whenever). Are you telling me that Bush would have still picked her after conducting a search for O’Connor’s replacement? On what basis?
Comment by Kman — 10.04.05 @ 3:16 pm
Small correction:
I may have given the impression that Miers had no experience has an appellate attorney in federal court. Not entirely true. In her 30 year tenure as a litigator (before she became a policy administrator), she argued 3 cases in the Fifth Circuit — a mundane commercial real estate matter, a social security disability matter (pro bono), and an appeal on behalf of a federal prisoner.
That’s a very light resume (even lighter than mine).
Oh, yeah. She lost them all.
Comment by Kman — 10.04.05 @ 3:33 pm
There are no guarantees. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor had all kinds of experience, and turned out to be a nightmare. She was pro-choice, and pro-gay rights.
I do like Sandra Day O’Connor as a person. I think she was intelligent. But she was in no way a Conservative. And, she was not the strict Constitutionalist we need on that Court.
I don’t want someone who goes by the “spirit” of the Constitution. —An Idealist…the way things ought to be…a fantasy Constitution. —That was Justice O’Connor.
That’s what all her experience brought to the table.
I don’t want to see that again.
Maybe experience isn’t so important after all. I’m not sure there is a way to perfectly reduce the risk.
Comment by glamchild2004 — 10.04.05 @ 4:09 pm
I think I’ll put my worries about the new candidate on hold, until I get some kind of a clue of what I’m objecting to.
As one of the above posters pointed out, the Pres does not really have a bunch of Senate “cronies” to watch his back. Not a very good “army” to lead into a fight, not unless you want to lose.
He knows this candidate, he trusts her. He has told us in clear, consistent terms what kind of judges he wants to appoint: Ones in sync with Scalia and Thomas. And, love him or hate him, Bush says what he means, and does what he says.
I’m hopeful that, once again, most of us are “misunderestimating” this President.
Merry Whitney
Comment by Merry Whitney — 10.04.05 @ 4:32 pm
When lawyers get up in front of the court and talk about, say, “the delegation doctrineâ€, or “the Lemon test†or “the difference between de jure and de facto discriminationâ€, I don’t want a justice to be flipping through Cliff Notes under the table in order to keep up with the conversation in front of her.
That’s pretty harsh. Most attorneys have at least some experience with these situtations, and it underestimates the preparedness and the seriousnes with which a nominee would take her job. If she proves, in committee, that she would treat the Supreme Court as merely a playact, then she doesn’t deserve it, but you’d be hard-pressed to find someone who would treat the job so badly.
That is no light resume. Top lawyer in a firm, years of experience in litigation, president of a bar association, counselor to a President–these are top jobs, and hard to get. Only the best will attain them. And prior experience as a judge has never been a qualification for the Supreme Court.
Certainly there were better candidates, and smarter, but maybe they weren’t right for the job. Remember that you are replacing O’Connor and not Scalia. Luttig and McConnell are too controversial. They’d never have made it out of committee. Brown had no more stellar resume than Miers, and she was more vocal about her beliefs which would have gotten her barbecued, maybe even rejected by the American people. And yes, some seats are meant for certain ethnic groups. As a woman, I’m excited that the pick is a woman, admittedly. Perhaps Miers will prove in the long run that she is not a good choice. At that point, we veto her and get another nominee. Its why we have a selection process.
One does not have to be a clerk for the Supreme Court to be on the Supreme Court. And frankly, I know some people who have clerked who should ABSOLUTELY not be on the Supreme Court. This is not a job with set qualifications.
Most lawyers go their whole lives without setting foot in a courtroom more than once a year, if that at all. To be charged with arguing an appellate case is a big deal, no matter if you win or lose. In law it isn’t whether you win in appellate litigation, its how you play the game. Miers is an excellent attorney.
And to suggest that this is mere cronyism downplays the seriousness with which the selection process is approached. Someone does not go out one morning and say, hey, I think I’ll nominate her today! Its an intense investigation, not only into the background, but into the mind of the candidates. Their history, their legal theory and their demeanor are examined. If you don’t believe me on that, do you think Karl Rove would let some schmuck into the chair? I highly doubt it.
For lawyers, the Supreme Court is the highest position one can attain, and frankly, none of us ever like to believe that we are beyond hope of it. Simply because I graduated from a public school, was not first in my law school class, and didn’t get the nearly impossible Supreme Court clerkship, should not mean that I am not fit to stand in judgment. It merely means I’m smart. And frankly, I don’t know how much I want Philosopher Kings in charge. Ginsberg was an ACLU attorney, O’Connor a legislator. Rehnquist had no judicial experience prior to ascending to the bench. Scalia and Thomas were limited. Souter a legislator. Most of them have limited experince. In history, some have not even been lawyers.
Harriet Miers is a suprise pick, but she’s not a bad pick. I think she’s a decent choice and I look forward to hearing from her in committee. All of us deserve a shot, and I’m not going to revoke that from Harriet Miers simply because I have a beef with Bush over another Myers.
Even Clarence Thomas was touted as a Souter upon his nomination. Always remember that.
And a “Constitutionalist” isn’t a form of legal theory. Do you mean Contructionalist? That’s what Scalia is.
Comment by E.M. — 10.04.05 @ 4:38 pm
Plus, I believe the old saying is, the more people you anger, the better a job you are doing. Or, making everyone unhappy is a sign you are doing something right.
I choose to wait and see.
Comment by E.M. — 10.04.05 @ 4:39 pm
The next justice
Instead of giving us hope, Bush has ensured that hope is all conservatives can do.
Trackback by Peace Like A River — 10.04.05 @ 5:18 pm
The Perot Gene
Once again, Pat Buchanan undercuts the Republicans with his rantings against a Bush administration. This time, it is about the nomination of Harriet Miers for justice of the United States Supreme Court.
Trackback by Impacted Wisdom Truth — 10.04.05 @ 5:58 pm
For other views, see La Shawn Barber’s post – she’s got ‘em all!
Pingback by VirtueBlog — 10.04.05 @ 6:06 pm
In passing….
I honestly haven’t mustered up as much interest in the nominee as I have in the ruckus from the folks who are up in arms about it. I think I’m on the same page as you, LaShawn.
Eh.
Ultimately, EVERY political candidate will fall short of the biblical standard for righteous ruler until Christ comes and rules. Putting all (or even most) of your trust in them to establish your agenda is akin to trying to build the kingdom of God on earth. It’s a fool’s errand, destined to fail as much as trying to worship a Jesus Christ who isn’t God or believing in a God who isn’t Triune.
Comment by BlackCalvinist — 10.04.05 @ 7:33 pm
La Shawn Barber’s got the right idea in her preliminary critique of George Bush’s recent Supreme Court pick Harriet Miers. She says: I honestly couldn’t care less that George Bush picked yet another crony for an important job, a lifetime appointment that could overhaul the foundation of our social policy for the better. Or the worst.
Pingback by Down with Absolutes! — 10.04.05 @ 9:23 pm
Oh, so now we have all these questions and arguments concerning the issue of this woman’s “qualifications” to sit in the high court.
Look what the so-called “qualified” have done; genocide committed against millions of the unborn innocent!!
Comment by Dave in AZ — 10.04.05 @ 10:54 pm
Who wants a fight? I want something less abstract than a Rorscach blot for a court pick.
Unfortunately, a good candidate augurs a fight with the left, becaue the court is their only portal with which to satiate their bloodlust for abortion and for exiling the Boy Scouts. So what? We went to Afghanistan. We went to Iraq. Why can’t we just go ahead and go to the mat on the Senate floor?
And I don’t buy the argumant that Bush is too “weighted down by events” to do this. THIS is his job, and he chooses to germinate a mysterious judicial bean, than to transplant the fully-grown plant.
-T
Comment by The Therapist — 10.05.05 @ 12:40 am
She looks like the woman who works in the foodmart we go to. I also saw a few runors on the blogosphere relating to her um … orientation … not that it really matters a whole heck of a lot … if it’s even true that is.
I saw her with Harry Reid on a walkabout on CNN. At one point Harry leans into the camera and said - “she gave money to Al Gore you know, and that makes me feel better.”
I wasn’t sure if he was kidding or not.
Comment by Aidan Maconachy — 10.05.05 @ 2:09 am
I’m with Merry. Wait until the dust settles a bit so we can see this person more clearly.
THEN panic.
Comment by RedBeard — 10.05.05 @ 9:13 am
When the dust settles, Bush isn’t going to pull his nominee anyway. That’s the problem. For once, his iron-clad resolve could have sunk the court.
Janice Rogers Brown. Three little words that would have avoided this whole “Cheney goes to Limbaugh” fiasco.
-T
Comment by The Therapist — 10.05.05 @ 10:17 am
I’m surprised to read that you don’t care, yes clinton did the same thing, no it didn’t kill us, YET. but a few more ginsburgs, or switch hitters like souter can kill our way of life. This is not something that should be taken lightly like the U.N representative, or the fema director, this is a lifetime appointment.
Comment by Chris — 10.05.05 @ 11:11 am
Miers was on the short list of nominees acceptable to Senate Democrats given to President Bush. Bush is giving them what they said they wanted–a non-judge from someplace else than the Ivy League. I can’t believe that bunch of elitists (and this includes a lot of Republicans} in the Senate meant what they said. They’ll find an excuse to sink this candidate. I’ll be listening to the hearings and then I’ll make up my mind. When I was active in NOW feminists used to brag about “borking” a nominee. My guess is that President Bush doesn’t want to be “Souterized.”
Comment by Evon — 10.05.05 @ 11:41 am
“Souterized” and “Cauterized” have a two-letter difference. And a lifetime of similarity.
-T
Comment by The Therapist — 10.05.05 @ 11:46 am
Just Itchin’ For A Fight
Here we go again! Lot’s happening and I’m buried up past my eyeballs in stuff to do, and also with helping the wife at her office, but I can’t just let the Harriet Miers nomination pass without some comment on all the hullabaloo that is swirling eve…
Trackback by OKIE on the LAM - In LA — 10.05.05 @ 4:39 pm
I have an idea as to how to handle the Miers nomination. Click on my name if the hyperlink doesn’t work.
BTW, Bush has many battles right now, but none more important than appointing a conservative Supreme Court. He can lose the other battles as long he gets a conservative Court.
Comment by salt1907 — 10.05.05 @ 5:54 pm
After listening to the criticism, both left and right, of Pres Bush’s selection of Harriett Mieres, I deduce that the substance of the complaints is that she not a “scintillating intellect.” Both sides appear to believe that since she’s not a legendary lawyer who’s argued cases before the Supreme Court, or clerked for one of the Justices, then she’s somehow unqualified for the job. Apparently, qualifications in this instance are defined as being an insider with respect to American jurisprudence.
The bottomline appears to be that, since she only brings experience in the trenches, she’s not good enough. Apparently, practicing law on the receiving end of the legal decisions rendered by the Supreme Court over the past generation isn’t good enough.
Friends, we’ve endured the ivory tower precedents handed down by Justices who never got their hands dirty, and haven’t had to live with the consequences of their decisions, for nearly 40 years. The chaos in our judicial system today is the product of “scintillating intellects.” Enough is enough.
In the absence of a “sufficient” legal record, I suggest we instead form our judgments on the basis of the character of the person nominating her…Pres Bush. You may disagree with some of his actions (I do) but I’ve yet to hear anyone whose opinion is worth listening to ever accuse him of being a dishonorable person. I’ll trust his opinion of her, since I don’t know her myself.
Hektor
Comment by Hektor — 10.05.05 @ 9:58 pm
Hektor
Well said. The elitism of justices and judges first occurred to me after Ruth Bader Gisnberg complained about people not respecting judges during the 2000 election events. These are the people who say that burning flags is OK and all manner of vile speech is protected but she wants to be sure that we respect judges and the court.
After taking an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, some of the justices supported their decisions by quoting the laws and judicial decisions of other countries. So if some cartoonist wants to draw Justices O’Connor and Souter and Ginsberg in black stockings and garters locked arm in arm with European judges similarly dressed doing the Cosmopolitan Can-Can, why not?
The exclusionary rule turning criminals free to harm the rest of us may be necessary to keep the police from running roughshod over people’s rights. But then, judges should not squeal like stuck pigs when violence touches them or their families. They have simply joined the rest of us vulnerable citizens.
I’m waiting for the hearings to determine what I think of Miers. That she was co-manager of a large law firm in “fly-over land” and didn’t go to an Ivy League school speaks well for her, in my estimation. So far, I haven’t heard anything that disqualifies her. On with the hearings.
Comment by Evon — 10.05.05 @ 11:48 pm
The nomination of Judith Miers over a better known conservative candidate only exposes the cracks of the Republican coalition in the Senate. There might be a Republican majority in Congress but that doesn’t mean is a Conservative majority. The fact is that there are too many RINOS like Olympia Snow, Lincoln Chafee or John McCain that will vote against a true conservative judge in the Scalia or Thomas mold. The best the President can muster are stealth candidates like Roberts and Miers.
Comment by Dee — 10.06.05 @ 12:02 am
Hektor, Evon, et al, DITTO!!! If we’re really going to get anywhere, the RINOs need to be turned out.
But again, this is where Bush blinked by supporting Specter and a few other RINOs over the past two elections and leaving better candidates to fend for themselves. Now given the high stakes, where he could use 61 solid supporters to push SS-PIA, SCTUS and other key initiatives thru, forget about filibusters — we’re lucky if we can even get 52 votes.
Ciao
Comment by Andy — 10.08.05 @ 2:48 pm
Tired…Very, Very Tired
Birthday party today. Much work, much celebration. House looks…well, like a party took place here. Photoblogging to follow in the near future.
Mea…
Trackback by Susie-Q&A — 10.08.05 @ 11:27 pm
Pardon Me, If I choose not to ditto the conservative “thinkers†on the nomination of Harriet Meirs to the Supreme Court.
Comment by JD Pendry — 10.09.05 @ 6:16 pm