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?
"Who cares if the decisions are memorable? They don't have to be. It doesn't matter how they are written. People don't go on the Supreme Court to write brilliantly worded decisions, they go on it to assert power. A decision can be one page long and the effect would be the same. "You win and you lose. Why? Because we say so."
Thanks for the short/clear dose of reality versus the endless pompous hyperbole from the elites of the beltway.
I've always been the quiet kind of "advance-the-agenda" guy, and leave the bluster to the Carville types.
I've always been the quiet kind of "advance-the-agenda" guy, and leave the bluster to the Carville-Coulter types.
" Funny thing, most of our Founders didn't have legal training---and certainly not of they type expected today. And gee, they only managed to write the Constitution. Yeah, we need some real eggheads up there. You've convinced me."
Oh yeah, Harriet Miers is the caliber of Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Hamilton, et. al. They'd laugh their asses off if they read Harriet's few ramblings. I'd be happy with a Thomas Sowell, or Victor Davis Hanson, or others out of the usual mold.
But please, don't insult us by claiming dumb is genius, and genius is dumb. Harriet Miers is a pedestrian choice, a disappointment. Like pinch hitting the bat boy for Barry Bonds. And please, I would no more trust 9 random citizens with my life than I'd play Russian Roulette with three in the chambers.
GW is a liberal on most issues that matter. And you want us to trust him with Miers?
Just keep repeating to yourself, dumb is smart, dumb is smart, and maybe even you will really believe that.
Interesting you chose the steroid-laden Bonds as an example, but I repeat: I'm more comfortable with a couple of average people on the Court. Yes, AVERAGE, in all levels.
He has no evidence for any of the assertions in his article.
"Interesting you chose the steroid-laden Bonds "
Deceitful little innuendo there. Typical act of someone who wallows in mediocrity.
GIBSON: Mr. President, the next question is for you, and it comes from Jonathan Michaelson, over here.
MICHAELSON: Mr. President, if there were a vacancy in the Supreme Court and you had the opportunity to fill that position today, who would you choose and why?
BUSH: I'm not telling.
I really don't have -- haven't picked anybody yet. Plus, I want them all voting for me.
|Need more info|
|I'm voting Hillary!|
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.