Posted on 10/03/2005 1:30:05 PM PDT by Irontank
Miers' Qualifications Are 'Non-Existent'
by Patrick J. Buchanan Posted Oct 3, 2005
Handed a once-in-a-generation opportunity to return the Supreme Court to constitutionalism, George W. Bush passed over a dozen of the finest jurists of his day -- to name his personal lawyer.
In a decision deeply disheartening to those who invested such hopes in him, Bush may have tossed away his and our last chance to roll back the social revolution imposed upon us by our judicial dictatorship since the days of Earl Warren.
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.
What commended her to the White House, in the phrase of the hour, is that she “has no paper trail.” So far as one can see, this is Harriet Miers’ principal qualification for the U.S. Supreme Court.
What is depressing here is not what the nomination tells us of her, but what it tells us of the president who appointed her. For in selecting her, Bush capitulated to the diversity-mongers, used a critical Supreme Court seat to reward a crony, and revealed that he lacks the desire to engage the Senate in fierce combat to carry out his now-suspect commitment to remake the court in the image of Scalia and Thomas. In picking her, Bush ran from a fight. The conservative movement has been had -- and not for the first time by a president by the name of Bush.
Choosing Miers, the president passed over outstanding judges and proven constitutionalists like Michael Luttig of the 4th Circuit and Sam Alito of the 3rd. And if he could not take the heat from the First Lady, and had to name a woman, what was wrong with U.S. appellate court judges Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owens and Edith Jones?
What must these jurists think today about their president today? How does Bush explain to his people why Brown, Owens and Jones were passed over for Miers?
Where was Karl Rove in all of this? Is he so distracted by the Valerie Plame investigation he could not warn the president against what he would be doing to his reputation and coalition?
Reshaping the Supreme Court is an issue that unites Republicans and conservatives And with his White House and party on the defensive for months over Cindy Sheehan and Katrina, Iraq and New Orleans, Delay and Frist, gas prices and immigration, here was the great opportunity to draw all together for a battle of philosophies, by throwing the gauntlet down to the Left, sending up the name of a Luttig, and declaring, “Go ahead and do your worst. We shall do our best.”
Do the Bushites not understand that “conservative judges” is one of those issues where the national majority is still with them?
What does it tell us that White House, in selling her to the party and press, is pointing out that Miers “has no paper trial.” What does that mean, other than that she is not a Rehnquist, a Bork, a Scalia or a Thomas?
Conservative cherish justices and judges who have paper trails. For that means these men and women have articulated and defended their convictions. They have written in magazines and law journals about what is wrong with the courts and how to make it right. They had stood up to the prevailing winds. They have argued for the Constitution as the firm and fixed document the Founding Fathers wrote, not some thing of wax.
A paper trail is the mark of a lawyer, a scholar or a judge who has shared the action and passion of his or her time, taken a stand on the great questions, accepted public abuse for articulating convictions.
Why is a judicial cipher like Harriet Miers to be preferred to a judicial conservative like Edith Jones?
One reason: Because the White House fears nominees “with a paper trail” will be rejected by the Senate, and this White House fears, above all else, losing. So, it has chosen not to fight.
Bush had a chance for greatness in remaking the Supreme Court, a chance to succeed where his Republican precedessors from Nixon to his father all failed. He instinctively recoiled from it. He blew it. His only hope now is that Harriet Miers, if confirmed, will not vote like the lady she replaced, or, worse, like his father’s choice who also had “no paper trail,” David Souter.
Indeed...a once in a lifetime opportunity to really restore the "Constitution-in-Exile" to steal the phrase of the great Judge Douglas Ginsburg...who also would have been an excellent choice
She can be all bad if Buchannan is against her. That gives this conservative hope if a high tax, big government lib like Buchannan is so unhappy.
Who gives a rat's patootie what this old washed-up windbag thinks about anything anymore. He's yesterday's news, along with a whole host of others who keep popping up regularly on Fox and on other networks.
Who are we talking about here...Buchanan or the President?
--- Choosing Miers, the president passed over outstanding judges and proven constitutionalists... ---
I don't know...
I kinda liked his SNL performances...
Austin Powers was OK, at least the first one...
And then there was Wayne's World. We ALL liked that one didn't we??
Oh.. M-I-E-R-S... that is much different.
Never mind.
How many elections has Pat won?
Oh that's right -- none.
He sets. He shoots. Airball.
Buchanan is a loser and as close to an anti-Semite as the public is willing to tolerate. In light of all the serious discussion going on here, why in the world would I give a d*** about his opinion?
Funny, but wasn't Rehnquist another SCOTUS nominee that wasn't a judge prior to nomination?
I feel better knowing Pat doesn't like her.
Buchanan is just not a conservative, period. However I agree with him somewhat in terms of Meiers.
Pat nailed it.
We are AGAIN paying the price of continuing to let Sen. Specter thwart us at every turn. This is a deal he cooked up.
the latest of 35 total. This doesn't concern me, her old Dem roots do.
Ooo...links to supporting evidence of this? That could be a real diffuser of FR angst right about now.
I heard that on the radio this morning. It MUST be true. /sarcasm
But seriously, I think you're correct.
I'm not convinced of that...listening to Specter this morning with Frist and the Judiciary Committee..he didn't seemed thrilled- which was good news to me.
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.