Skip to comments.Dubya Closes a Door? What Harriet Miers may mean for constitutional law.
Posted on 10/17/2005 9:37:09 AM PDT by Crackingham
"The horror, the horror," seems to sum up the reaction of many conservatives to the nomination of Harriet Miers to serve on the Supreme Court. One can almost hear the ominous organ of Doors's keyboardist Ray Manzarek in the background, as Jim Morrison intones, "This is the end." And it is an end, of sorts the end of conservative hopes that a Republican president known for bold strokes would put forward a forceful intellect who would help shift the drifting Constitution back toward its moorings. Unlike Colonel Kurtz, conservatives have been traumatized not by an "Apocalypse Now," but by a slow destruction of constitutional law.
The "Constitution in exile" better be on a pleasant island paradise, because it will have a long stay. For many conservatives the Supreme Court was the issue, the reason for supporting Bush over the years despite misgivings on this issue or that. Decades ago Country Joe MacDonald wailed with absurdist resignation, And its one, two, three, what are we fighting for? a question many conservatives are asking themselves today.
The Miers nomination may prove to be a wake-up call so energizing the Republican base that they rise in revolt, scuttling the nomination and demanding that Bush fulfill his promise to name a Scalia or a Thomas. That seemed unlikely at first, but the uprising seems to be gaining surprising momentum. Despite the grumblings, however, the Republican inclination to support the president is strong, and Democrats would be foolish to look a gift horse in the mouth. President Bush has handed liberal democrats a present, although they don't seem effusive in their appreciation. Miers may deliver the conservative votes that Bush promises, but there is no sign that she has the intellectual depth or sophisticated understanding of the Constitution to seriously challenge the liberal legal mainstream. For that, liberals should be breathing an immense sigh of relief. And while conservatives are appalled, Miers apparently enjoys the support of none other than Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. Given Reid's sophisticated evaluations of judicial and presidential competence, what more recommendation could one need?
[/overwrought writing style]
Ihave said from the beginning that this is enough for me to oppose this nomination.
If you think that's bad, you should check out Miers' writing. *shudder* http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1503766/posts
"the uprising seems to be gaining surprising momentum"
I'm not entirely sure. I'd like to hear the author's evidence on that (or any other freepers).
I've said it before: one Scalia on the Court is a dream; nine would be a nightmare.
Maybe the opposition is running out of names to call us.
Yeah, consider this: the court tries to spread the task of writing opinions around. Senior-most justice on winning side assigns the task. Court will deliver written opinions in roughly 170 cases per year. So we'll get about 18 written opinions from her a year, for what, 10 years? Wonder how many of those will end up in law school texts?
Oh, you elitist sexist, you!
"Wonder how many of those will end up in law school texts?"
I'm thinking more like freshmen English composition classes, on how not to write stultifying prose that comes to no conclusion even after a thousand words.
>>>I have said from the beginning that this is enough for me to oppose this nomination.<<<
Same here. I naturally oppose any issue that Reid, Kennedy, Leahy, Kerry, Biden, Durbin, Pelosi, or other left-wing wackos support. I am rarely wrong.
I agree with you LS.
I do believe most people are concerned with Ms. Miers because she is unknown; and we are tired of people, no matter be it a SC nominee or plain vanilla politician, telling the public they are one way and turn out to be the other way. We don't want blood either in a big massive fight either. What we do want is someone who will hold to the principles of the Constitution and not vote or govern as the case may be their own personal agenda or some groups hatred for America.
This is silly. MOST Supreme Court justices never write memorable decisions, and MOST vote with a majority or minority in which ONE or TWO great legal minds direct the court. Always has been, always will be.
That's why we need a complete moron on the court, someone barely smart enough to breath but still able to sign her X on legal documents. After all, the clerks do all the work.
I've said it before: one Scalia on the Court is a dream; nine would be a nightmare, because then we'd be back to a original intrepretation of the Constitution, and who needs that?
"...but there is no sign that she has the intellectual depth or sophisticated understanding of the Constitution to seriously challenge the liberal legal mainstream."
What the hell does that mean? All she needs to do is get four votes to side with her and what she says will become law. If she writes enough birthday cards with hearts on them, that ought to be sufficient to sway those stodgy Justices to her side.
She doesn't have to challenge the liberal legal mainstream, all she has to do is be a cipher, a pimple on the butt of jurisprudence, and the left will have to challenge her. If you are a woman and a friend of GW, you don't need brains to be a Supreme Court Justice, no it's all about feeling good about someone. That's why I'm having my heart surgery done by my chiropractor, he's so much more friendly than those guys down at the hospital.
She won't write them, that's what interns are for.
Court will deliver written opinions in roughly 170 cases per year...
Not nearly that many--more like less than half of 170 according to the following:
The number of slip opinions published each Term has varied over the years from as few as 75 to as many as 150.
The number of cases handled by the Court -- with full opinions -- has been reduced substantially in recent decades, from some 140-150 to 70-90.
80 opinions this past term.