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.
You're talking about Pat, right? Describes him perfectly.
PAt Pukechanan, about as relevant as bill clinton's curved prick.
Buchannan the guy who ran for president on a raise taxes platform.
You shouldn't...as Buchanan wrote...Bush blew an opportunity that may not present itself again...and in doing so, showed that his campaign statements that he was looking to nominate a Justice in the mold of Thomas or Scalia were nothing but empty campaign promises. Why, with a Republican President and Senate, are we reduced to just "hoping" that she'll be OK? This should have been a day when we were rejoicing and DUmmies were screaming
Ha Ha Ha! If Pat is against her, she must be alright.
Well it's been his Brigades and the McCainiacs who have been railing against her all day long. I'm getting sick of their unfounded negativity .
I seldom ever agree with Pat Buchanan anymore, but on this one, (I will give credit where credit is due) Pat is dead on right.
You need to go back and watch the tapes of Specter's chairmanship of the Roberts hearings.
He did surprisingly well. Bush has Specter by the shorties, not vice versa.
"Wait and See" mode on Roberts and now Miers.
The President NOW has his "Read My Lips, No New Taxes" moment.
He is done for the rest of his term.
Move on to 2008 folks.
Google his bio. (I did, but I didn't keep the links)
Hey Pat, why should I listen to a dude with a chick's name?
This from someone who fancies himself qualified to be POTUS despite his own rather limited resume.
Current politics is the Democrats pandering to the extreme left and the Republicans pandering to the Democrats. That leaves a whole lot of conservative Republicans across this country not represented by the party they helped put and keep in office. That is why so many people are angry over this. The really sad thing is that there is no viable alternative to the 2 parties.
George Bush...the President who's actually signed more spending into law than any President since the Great Society.
Maybe a President who loves to spend money like this doesn't really want a Justice like Rogers-Brown or Luttig...a Justice who actually believes there are Constitutional limits on the power of the federal government
I dislike Pat Buchanan.
But he is 100% correct on this latest Bush failure.
Oh piff. I'd rather have a truck driver that can interpret the Constitution than Lawrence Tribe, BS artists and Harvard law scholar extraordinaries, any day of the week.
If Buchanan is against her I tend for her...
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.