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.
Sorry, it's hard to tell. I'm not a Bushanan fan either. But it kills me when Buchanan, WorldNetDaily, or any other wackjob journalist makes a point and people dismiss it by attacking them personally.
Actually I don't dislike Pat at all. I always pay attention to what Pat has to say and there are issues, like the borders, which I agree with him on.
But after watching Pat for many years, since his days in the Nixon administration, I have come to the conclusion that all that Pat ever manages to accomplish is to lead his followers off a cliff. And the reason for that is because Pat has poor political judgment - he has a tin ear for the art of successful politics, which is the art of what can actually be achieved.
All Bush manages to do is win elections. Bush wins elections against stars of the national Dim party (Ann Richards), he wins elections against a defacto presidential incumbent who tries to rob him of victory through cheating (Gore), he wins elections when the MSM stops at nothing, even fabricating lies, to defeat him (Kerry).
Bush simply has proved, time and again, that his political judgment is far superior to Pat's.
I doubt there is any FReeper who would like to see another Scalia on the court more than I would. And the fact of the matter is, I have no doubt that both Bush and Pat feel the same way about that.
I am giving Bush the benefit of the doubt on this -- in the area of judicial appointments, in my view he has more than earned it.
"Perfect" is the enemy of "good." Bush understands this; Pat does not. The truth of the matter is that while there may be 55 Republicans in the Senate, but there are not 55 conservatives. There are not even 50 conservatives. If Scalia, with his full, established record that exists today, were nominated today to the Supreme Court, WE DONT HAVE THE VOTES to confirm him. That's reality, folks.
Some people say, well, if only we had a more effective Majority Leader. Perhaps. But I'm not convinced about that.
The fundamental reality is, there is a shortage of conservatives in the Senate. So don't blame Bush that we can't simply place an open, established, definitive Scalia clone on the court. Blame the voters in those states that send RINOs and Dims to the Senate.
There are 55 GOP Senators and 7 Democrats in the Gang of 14 who would be obligated to oppose a filibuster unless there are extraordinary circumstance. The Republicans at the Gang of 14 have said ideology is not an extraordinary circumstance, and might well have supported the nuclear option to get a conservative through. It would have been a tough fight, but not impossible.
As far as Bush- keep in mind the man has Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General, and was speculated to have wanted him on the bench. I don't have absolute faith in his picking of people for top legal positions.
This is a historic opportunity to appoint a constitutionalist to the supreme court, we can't waste it on Bush doing a favor for his friend. We need to let our Senators know they need to oppose this nominee.
I think the Gang of 14 agreement is useful at the appellate or district level, but with the stakes so high in a Supreme Court appointment, I don't think any Dim or RINO would vote differently solely because of that agreement, if tbeir own political calculation dictated a vote the other way.
And by the way, the comments about what Myers supposedly supports were first posted by Andrew Sullivan and later picked up by WND. They are of course, false.
"Pat is smeared because he put American interests before all others."
Yeah. That's why he's such a big Palistinian supporter. That's why he only wants to fight terrorism at the border. He thinks America can stand safely and stand alone surrounded by a fascist world.
Don't be too hard on Pat. He lost a family member in a German concentration camp (his uncle got blown out of a guard tower).
What were Rehnquest's qualifications?
Don't you people ever read. More than a third of justices were never on the bench. More than half were not sitting judges.
Even aside from defense, federal spending during the Bush Presidency is out of control. As a matter of comparison, Ronald Reagan reduced non-defense discretionary spending by 14%...Bush will have overseen a rise of 18% -- a whopping 32% difference between the two Presidents...and, considering Bush has enjoyed having a Republican Congress whose leadership basically follows the Administration's agenda...that's an absolute disgrace.
Dang, that pesky Pat gets it right again.
Don't you just hate it when that happens?
Cheers!
- John
Sure, we read. And that's interesting trivia. Where'd you read it? Link, please...
I'll take that as a good sign...especially when I consider the "scholars of law" that are currently on the Supreme Court have sure as hell made a lot of idiotic decisions based on their "scholarly" background lately.
Great Logic. Funny how all the lefties at DU think the same thing.
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.