Posted on 10/05/2005 4:03:47 PM PDT by perfect stranger
I eagerly await the announcement of President Bush's real nominee to the Supreme Court. If the president meant Harriet Miers seriously, I have to assume Bush wants to go back to Crawford and let Dick Cheney run the country.
Unfortunately for Bush, he could nominate his Scottish terrier Barney, and some conservatives would rush to defend him, claiming to be in possession of secret information convincing them that the pooch is a true conservative and listing Barney's many virtues – loyalty, courage, never jumps on the furniture ...
Harriet Miers went to Southern Methodist University Law School, which is not ranked at all by the serious law school reports and ranked No. 52 by US News and World Report. Her greatest legal accomplishment is being the first woman commissioner of the Texas Lottery.
I know conservatives have been trained to hate people who went to elite universities, and generally that's a good rule of thumb. But not when it comes to the Supreme Court.
First, Bush has no right to say "Trust me." He was elected to represent the American people, not to be dictator for eight years. Among the coalitions that elected Bush are people who have been laboring in the trenches for a quarter-century to change the legal order in America. While Bush was still boozing it up in the early '80s, Ed Meese, Antonin Scalia, Robert Bork and all the founders of the Federalist Society began creating a farm team of massive legal talent on the right.
To casually spurn the people who have been taking slings and arrows all these years and instead reward the former commissioner of the Texas Lottery with a Supreme Court appointment is like pinning a medal of honor on some flunky paper-pusher with a desk job at the Pentagon – or on John Kerry – while ignoring your infantrymen doing the fighting and dying.
Second, even if you take seriously William F. Buckley's line about preferring to be governed by the first 200 names in the Boston telephone book than by the Harvard faculty, the Supreme Court is not supposed to govern us. Being a Supreme Court justice ought to be a mind-numbingly tedious job suitable only for super-nerds trained in legal reasoning like John Roberts. Being on the Supreme Court isn't like winning a "Best Employee of the Month" award. It's a real job.
One website defending Bush's choice of a graduate from an undistinguished law school complains that Miers' critics "are playing the Democrats' game," claiming that the "GOP is not the party which idolizes Ivy League acceptability as the criterion of intellectual and mental fitness." (In the sort of error that results from trying to sound "Ivy League" rather than being clear, that sentence uses the grammatically incorrect "which" instead of "that." Websites defending the academically mediocre would be a lot more convincing without all the grammatical errors.)
Actually, all the intellectual firepower in the law is coming from conservatives right now – and thanks for noticing! Liberals got stuck trying to explain Roe vs. Wade and are still at work 30 years later trying to come up with a good argument.
But the main point is: Au contraire! It is conservatives defending Miers' mediocre resume who are playing the Democrats' game. Contrary to recent practice, the job of being a Supreme Court justice is not to be a philosopher-king. Only someone who buys into the liberals' view of Supreme Court justices as philosopher-kings could hold legal training irrelevant to a job on the Supreme Court.
To be sure, if we were looking for philosopher-kings, an SMU law grad would probably be preferable to a graduate from an elite law school. But if we're looking for lawyers with giant brains to memorize obscure legal cases and to compose clearly reasoned opinions about ERISA pre-emption, the doctrine of equivalents in patent law, limitation of liability in admiralty, and supplemental jurisdiction under Section 1367 – I think we want the nerd from an elite law school. Bush may as well appoint his chauffeur head of NASA as put Miers on the Supreme Court.
Third and finally, some jobs are so dirty, you can only send in someone who has the finely honed hatred of liberals acquired at elite universities to do them. The devil is an abstraction for normal, decent Americans living in the red states. By contrast, at the top universities, you come face to face with the devil every day, and you learn all his little tropes and tricks.
Conservatives from elite schools have already been subjected to liberal blandishments and haven't blinked. These are right-wingers who have fought off the best and the brightest the blue states have to offer. The New York Times isn't going to mau-mau them – as it does intellectual lightweights like Jim Jeffords and Lincoln Chafee – by dangling fawning profiles before them. They aren't waiting for a pat on the head from Nina Totenberg or Linda Greenhouse. To paraphrase Archie Bunker, when you find a conservative from an elite law school, you've really got something.
However nice, helpful, prompt and tidy she is, Harriet Miers isn't qualified to play a Supreme Court justice on "The West Wing," let alone to be a real one. Both Republicans and Democrats should be alarmed that Bush seems to believe his power to appoint judges is absolute. This is what "advice and consent" means.
I really cannot wait for the NEXT one after Miers...
<:D
Ruth Ginsburg and Sandy Burglar both attended Cornell, so when Ann talks about knowing how libs think and act, she knows what she's talking about.
A casual glance at admissions criteria - an objective measure of an institution's academic expectations - does not, on balance, weigh in SMU's favor, tho individual variance is great, as is post college accomplishment.
Miers' academic pedigree is not the greatest issue here, by far. But one cannot argue that it weighs in her favor.
I agree. Ann's comment "While Bush was still boozing it up in the early '80s..." was cheap. She's trying to stir the pot and sell a few books in the process.
"Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment. He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html#section2
Thanks, and thanks again for being so nice.
uh?
I don't really admire the 11th comandment because it's ultimately self destructive.
I don't admire the 86 nfa ban, either.
See, that's what is about: Being able to judge each actions on it's merits, unclouded by a cult of personality.
Coulter has fallen off the radar lately, so I guess she's trying to engage us in this debate for exposure.
I bought her book, 'How to talk to a liberal if you must', and gave up after 10 chapters or so.
I figure a book that promises to tell me something, should.
Anne had a boob job?
Show me.
That's debatable.
For the sake of argument even if he did actually say I promise my nominations will be in the mold of S/T He has not renegged for all you and I know and Thomas was certainly no more known than is Miers when he was nominated.
Sorry, it's right on target. Simply because Bush is taking flack over it. Coulters' hyperbole has you upset. Please stop taking this personally. Bush screwed up, not his defenders.
...where she was trained in law by Robert Bork.
The Supreme Court nominations have been a made a political hot potatoe by the Dems. That is a reality. I believe GW has nominated someone at least as conservative as Janice Rodgers Brown or any of the others. He knows what is at stake, and nominated someone that will be confirmed for many reasons.
In this case, you can be assured she is not a David Souter. I believe more than anything this is the main reason for this nomination. Bush has known her personally for 15 YEARS. He knows her, and I trust his judgement. That is why I voted twice for him and have been such a defender of his. I spent the last five years defending him against left wing nutcases, and am prepared to defend him against right wing ones.
SCOTUS has been run for a great number of years by people who have come from the elite IVY League (or Stanford) schools, the legal elites, in other words.And where has that gotten us?
It has gotten us to where we are today, a court that thinks it IS THE GOVERNMENT.Will these same people, who are so smart, be the ones to improve the situation?
Just because someone may be brilliant in one area, does not make them brilliant in all. In fact many very brilliant people are missing one virtue: good old common sense.
I do believe it may be time to take a breather and add some mix to the party, rather then having another elitist from one of the top, what 10 schools? If 52 is too far down the list where do we stop? 9, 14, 49?
I am on the fence regarding Meirs, because I do not know her or her opinions, Bush does. But Ann, your ego/elitism is showing when you drive the bus over someone because her school does not live up to your standards.
I still love AC, but on this one, I disagree.
Of course, every person ever put on the SCOTUS is untried, unless they were on the SCOTUS, resigned, and then were reappointed.
And now Ann is saying Roberts is the model for SC nominees.
That is baloney. Everyone knew Thomas was a conservative. Why in the hell do you think the democrats dredged Anita Hill up out of the sewer to attack him?
I think that, what you wrote, is precisely what the rub is: President Bush already told everyone he'd be spending some of his political capital. (post election, 2004).
A big HURRAH was heard.
So, now he's spending some political capital he's earned (and is rightfully his, the nominee choice, to make), and suddenly.. there's this wailful voice moaning up into the ether... "We didn't think you'd use THAT!!". "Don't we get to pick?" Where dya' get off picking a "nobody" and "asking us to trust you?"
I think Bush Team is activating the big base, and for them to speak up more often, and to stand their ground. If FR is any indication, and it is.. I think Team Bush **really** appreciated the SUPPORT THE TROOPS RALLYS, THE COUNTER-SHEEHAN PROTESTs.
I'm getting the very strong impression given the noise levels within conservative, Christian and Republican circles - that he indeed does know exactly what he is doing with this pick, Harriet Miers.
Frankly, since early 1990s, I don't know when I've ever heard, read, or witnessed the Silent Majority being so VOCAL, and CONTRARY, and so "free" with their thoughts and speech, across the board.
Wow. lol. Big Wow.
Oh yes! She was smart enough never to leave any incriminating DNA behind! But just reading that sentence makes my blood boil - the wife of the governor was allowed to continue to practice law in her private firm during his time in office. Of course all her work was vetted to ensure no conflict of interest. It's just like Daschle's wife being a big lobbyist, but only lobbying the House of course! Aaaagh!
Oh yes! She was smart enough never to leave any incriminating DNA behind! But just reading that sentence makes my blood boil - the wife of the governor was allowed to continue to practice law in her private firm during his time in office. Of course all her work was vetted to ensure no conflict of interest. It's just like Daschle's wife being a big lobbyist, but only lobbying the House of course! Aaaagh!
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.