Posted on 10/19/2005 2:09:36 PM PDT by bigsky
I have finally hit upon a misdeed by the Bush Administration so outrageous, so appalling, so egregious, I am calling for a bipartisan commission with subpoena power to investigate: Who told the President to nominate Harriet Miers? The commission should also be charged with getting an answer to this question: Who was his second choice?
Things are so bad, the best option for Karl Rove now would be to get himself indicted. Then at least he'd have a colorable claim to having no involvement in the Miers nomination.
This week's Miers update is:
(1) Miers is a good bowler (New York Times, Oct. 16, 2005, front page–Joshua B. Bolten, director of the Office of Management and Budget: "'She is a very good bowler"), which, in all honesty, is the most impressive thing I've heard about Miers so far.
(2) In 1989, she supported a ban on abortion except to save the life of the mother.
From the beginning of this nightmare, I have taken it as a given that Miers will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. I assume that's why Bush nominated her. (It certainly wasn't her resume.) Pity no one told him there are scads of highly qualified judicial nominees who would also have voted against Roe. Wasn't it Harriet Miers' job to tell him that? Hey, wait a minute . . .
But without a conservative theory of constitutional interpretation, Miers will lay the groundwork for a million more Roes. We're told she has terrific "common sense." Common sense is the last thing you want in a judge! The maxim "Hard cases make bad law" could be expanded to "Hard cases being decided by judges with 'common sense' make unfathomably bad law."
It was "common sense" to allow married couples to buy contraception in Connecticut. That was a decision any randomly selected group of nine good bowlers might well have concurred with on the grounds that, "Well, it's just common sense, isn't it?"
But when the Supreme Court used common sense–rather than the text of the Constitution–to strike down Connecticut's law banning contraception, it opened the door to the Supreme Court’s rewriting all manner of state laws By creating a nonspecific "right to privacy," Griswold v. Connecticut led like night into day to the famed "constitutional right" to stick a fork in a baby's head.
This isn't rank speculation about where "common sense" devoid of constitutional theory gets you: Miers told Sen. Arlen Specter (R.-Pa.) she would have voted with the majority in Griswold.
(Miers also told Sen. Patrick Leahy (D.-Vt.)–in front of witnesses–that her favorite justice was "Warren," leaving people wondering whether she meant former Chief Justice Earl Warren, memorialized in "Impeach Warren" billboards across America, or former Chief Justice Warren Burger, another mediocrity praised for his "common sense" who voted for Roe v. Wade and was laughed at by Rehnquist clerks like John Roberts for his lack of ability.)
The sickness of what liberals have done to America is that so many citizens – even conservative citizens – seem to believe the job of a Supreme Court justice entails nothing more than "voting" on public policy issues. The White House considers it relevant to tell us Miers' religious beliefs, her hobbies, her hopes and dreams. She's a good bowler! A stickler for detail! Great dancer! Makes her own clothes!
That's nice for her, but what we're really in the market for is a constitutional scholar who can forcefully say, "No -- that's not my job."
We've been waiting 30 years to end the lunacy of nine demigods on the Supreme Court deciding every burning social issue of the day for us, loyal subjects in a judicial theocracy. We don't want someone who will decide those issues for us – but decide them "our" way. If we did, a White House bureaucrat with good horse sense might be just the ticket.
Admittedly, there isn't much that's more important than ending the abortion holocaust in America. (Abortionist casualties: 7. Unborn casualties 30 million.) But there is one thing. That is democracy.
Democracy sometimes leads to silly laws such as the one that prohibited married couples from buying contraception in Connecticut. But allowing Americans to vote has never led to crèches being torn down across America. It's never led to prayer being purged from every public school in the nation. It's never led to gay marriage. It's never led to returning slaves who had escaped to free states to their slave masters. And it's never led to 30 million dead babies.
We've gone from a representative democracy to a monarchy, and the most appalling thing is–even conservatives just hope like the dickens the next king is a good one.
"WAAAAAAA! Moveon.org Conservatives can't dictate to the President who THEY want to BE on the Supreme Court!"
post to start the thread! Quick!
LOL!
Democracy sometimes leads to silly laws like banning independent campaign expenditures close to an election.
That is why we need a court, to impose constitutional control over an out-of-control government legislating things they have no business legislating. Like campaign contributiones. Like a person's personal contraceptive choice.
I should go easy on Ann, because in her desire to trash Miers she actually BELIEVED (trusted) Arlen Specter to give an accurate account of a conversation. Normally Ann would know better.
Constitutional law CAN use common sense. Common sense says that when the constitution says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" that it means that people have a right to keep and bear arms.
Complex nuances of 30-year theoretical introspection over the constitution leads to the nuance which allows a judge to say that flag-burning is speech, but money isn't speech. Or that "for public use" can actually mean "for government benefit".
We need a common-sense reading of the constitution.
I have no idea if Miers will do that, which is the real problem. But to argue that the problem is that we want a justice that has no common sense is simply silly. I bet Souter had no common sense at all. He doesn't seem like a guy that has any sense, common or otherwise.
ping
Don't forget the token "ANN REALLY NEEDS TO EAT SOMETHING" or "ANN IS NOW A LOONEY LIKE PAT BUCHANAN" posts
BTW, have we all missed the part that the 1st few weeks of a nominee for the court is when we paint a picture of them as a human being, not some robot? I don't know why, but somehow it has become important to show that a justice is a living, breathing person with thoughts and feelings.
I used to think it was to try to stop democrats from saying hateful things about them that you would never say to a fellow human being, but since the dems now trash nominees while their families are sitting there, that can't be it.
The liberals like to see humanity because they think that their beliefs are human-loving while republicans are human-hating. They are wrong, republicans are much more human than democrats.
I thought the comment about her bowling was hilarious. Anybody who couldn't see the frustration of this white house played out in that statement has lost their sense of humor.
From the beginning of this nightmare, I have taken it as a given that Miers will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. I assume that's why Bush nominated her. (It certainly wasn't her resume.) Pity no one told him there are scads of highly qualified judicial nominees who would also have voted against Roe. Wasn't it Harriet Miers' job to tell him that? Hey, wait a minute . . .
Conservatives trying to work within the republican party is and has been a waste of time and votes.
"Miers told Sen. Arlen Specter (R.-Pa.) she would have voted with the majority in Griswold"
Presumably she said this because, after all, how can a reasonable person be against not outlawing birth control, right?
Which is a legitimate position - for a legislator. They can campaign on that. That is what elections are all about.
The question for judges is altogether different. It is this. Does the Constitution allow the states to regulate health, safety and morals? Is there anything in the text of the Constitution which says otherwise (no)? Have the states historically had this type of power (yes - that is until this case)?
The only way to get around this, is for the judge to substititue his views for the legislature's views.
Which is precisely what the Corut did in Griswold...not to mention Roe, Lawrence, and so on.
If Miers supports Griswold, then she accepts the role of judge as super-legislator.
That, or else she didn't know what Griswold is about.
I'd like to give her the benefit of the doubt, but I'm not sure which interpretation of her comment is more accurate: is she an idiot? Or a judicial activist? I don't know. But it's one or the other.
LOL!!!
Well said.
I get it now. Ann is auditioning for Chrissy Matthews co-host.
LOL!
Gee I am sorry you all have such a hard time grasping the concept of a Constitutional Republic that has worked fine for 230 or so years. What Ann WANTS is a monarchy where SHE gets to be queen. Sorry, NOT interested even though she would make a FABULOUS queen.
After a couple of weeks of research and intense debate, have any minds been changed? Do you approve of the president's nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court?
Composite Opinion
pct votes
No 39.1% 938
Yes 36.3% 869
Need more info 19.8% 474
Pass 2.5% 61
I'm voting Hillary! 2.3% 55
Total 100.0% 2,397
Member Opinion
No 37.9% 486
Yes 36.0% 462
Need more info 22.3% 286
Pass 3.0% 38
I'm voting Hillary! 0.9% 11
Total 100.1% 1,283
Non-Member Opinion
No 40.6% 452
Yes 36.5% 407
Need more info 16.9% 188
I'm voting Hillary! 3.9% 44
Pass 2.1% 23
Total 100.0% 1,114
Fighting hyperbole with hyperbole, huh?
Coulter is back on her game though the hyperbole is toned down.
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.