Miers' Qualifications Are 'Non-Existent'

Human Events ^ | October 3, 2005 | Patrick J. Buchanan

[pointsal]

Sorry....I still have heartburn...

[Texas Federalist]

You are right of course and I was somewhat kidding.

Sorry, it's hard to tell. I'm not a Bushanan fan either. But it kills me when Buchanan, WorldNetDaily, or any other wackjob journalist makes a point and people dismiss it by attacking them personally.

[SirJohnBarleycorn]

I don't like Buchanan either. But the point he made was dead on- he had the opportunity to name a real solid established constitutionalist like Luttig or Edith Jones- and instead he names his own lawyer to the Supreme Court. Conservative who wanted to change the court fought hard to see him re-elected and to see a Republican Senate re-elected. We deserve better.

Actually I don't dislike Pat at all. I always pay attention to what Pat has to say and there are issues, like the borders, which I agree with him on.

But after watching Pat for many years, since his days in the Nixon administration, I have come to the conclusion that all that Pat ever manages to accomplish is to lead his followers off a cliff. And the reason for that is because Pat has poor political judgment - he has a tin ear for the art of successful politics, which is the art of what can actually be achieved.

All Bush manages to do is win elections. Bush wins elections against stars of the national Dim party (Ann Richards), he wins elections against a defacto presidential incumbent who tries to rob him of victory through cheating (Gore), he wins elections when the MSM stops at nothing, even fabricating lies, to defeat him (Kerry).

Bush simply has proved, time and again, that his political judgment is far superior to Pat's.

I doubt there is any FReeper who would like to see another Scalia on the court more than I would. And the fact of the matter is, I have no doubt that both Bush and Pat feel the same way about that.

I am giving Bush the benefit of the doubt on this -- in the area of judicial appointments, in my view he has more than earned it.

"Perfect" is the enemy of "good." Bush understands this; Pat does not. The truth of the matter is that while there may be 55 Republicans in the Senate, but there are not 55 conservatives. There are not even 50 conservatives. If Scalia, with his full, established record that exists today, were nominated today to the Supreme Court, WE DONT HAVE THE VOTES to confirm him. That's reality, folks.

Some people say, well, if only we had a more effective Majority Leader. Perhaps. But I'm not convinced about that.

The fundamental reality is, there is a shortage of conservatives in the Senate. So don't blame Bush that we can't simply place an open, established, definitive Scalia clone on the court. Blame the voters in those states that send RINOs and Dims to the Senate.

[NatsFan]

There are 55 GOP Senators and 7 Democrats in the Gang of 14 who would be obligated to oppose a filibuster unless there are extraordinary circumstance. The Republicans at the Gang of 14 have said ideology is not an extraordinary circumstance, and might well have supported the nuclear option to get a conservative through. It would have been a tough fight, but not impossible.

As far as Bush- keep in mind the man has Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General, and was speculated to have wanted him on the bench. I don't have absolute faith in his picking of people for top legal positions.

This is a historic opportunity to appoint a constitutionalist to the supreme court, we can't waste it on Bush doing a favor for his friend. We need to let our Senators know they need to oppose this nominee.

[SirJohnBarleycorn]

I respect your reasoning except for this part: Bush doing a favor for his friend I think that bit is unfair.

I think the Gang of 14 agreement is useful at the appellate or district level, but with the stakes so high in a Supreme Court appointment, I don't think any Dim or RINO would vote differently solely because of that agreement, if tbeir own political calculation dictated a vote the other way.

[jess35]

I read a post on DU shortly after the nomination was announced. They wanted to spread the word that the "meme" cronyism should be used in regard to Miers.

And by the way, the comments about what Myers supposedly supports were first posted by Andrew Sullivan and later picked up by WND. They are of course, false.

[zook]

"Pat is smeared because he put American interests before all others."

Yeah. That's why he's such a big Palistinian supporter. That's why he only wants to fight terrorism at the border. He thinks America can stand safely and stand alone surrounded by a fascist world.

[zook]

Don't be too hard on Pat. He lost a family member in a German concentration camp (his uncle got blown out of a guard tower).

[Labyrinthos]

What were Rehnquest's qualifications?

[BillM]

Don't you people ever read. More than a third of justices were never on the bench. More than half were not sitting judges.

[Irontank]

So your view is that we should not be fighting the war on terror? That is one view

Even aside from defense, federal spending during the Bush Presidency is out of control. As a matter of comparison, Ronald Reagan reduced non-defense discretionary spending by 14%...Bush will have overseen a rise of 18% -- a whopping 32% difference between the two Presidents...and, considering Bush has enjoyed having a Republican Congress whose leadership basically follows the Administration's agenda...that's an absolute disgrace.

[Fishrrman]

This is not to disparage Harriet Myers. From all accounts, she is a gracious lady who has spent decades in the law and served ably as Bush’s lawyer in Texas and, for a year, as White House counsel.
But her qualifications for the Supreme Court are non-existent. She is not a brilliant jurist, indeed, has never been a judge. She is not a scholar of the law. Researchers are hard-pressed to dig up an opinion. She has not had a brilliant career in politics, the academy, the corporate world or public forum. Were she not a friend of Bush, and female, she would never have even been considered.

Dang, that pesky Pat gets it right again.

Don't you just hate it when that happens?

Cheers!
- John

[Prime Choice]

Don't you people ever read. More than a third of justices were never on the bench. More than half were not sitting judges.

Sure, we read. And that's interesting trivia. Where'd you read it? Link, please...

[Prime Choice]

She is not a scholar of the law.

I'll take that as a good sign...especially when I consider the "scholars of law" that are currently on the Supreme Court have sure as hell made a lot of idiotic decisions based on their "scholarly" background lately.

[rcocean]

Great Logic. Funny how all the lefties at DU think the same thing.