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.
Good post
So...Miers AND Rehnquist were not judges prior to being appointed? True. However, to paraphrase a legendary slapdown: "Ms. Miers, I served with Justice Rehnquist. I knew Justice Rehnquist. Justice Rehnquist was a friend of mine. Ms. Miers, you're no Justice Rehnquist." Simply put, in terms of stature, in terms of gravitas, the comparison only serves to highlight the gross inadequacy of this nominee. But, maybe we could carry the analogy further. Who else in recent memory served on the Court without prior judicial experience? Hmmm...former Klansman Hugo Black! I'd say we drop that line of argument because it is an obvious loser. Bottom line: Originalist or not, this nominee is very definitely one thing -- a judicial lightweight if there ever existed such a thing!
Someone needs to ask him what he's done for conservatives lately?
Forming an opinion on a candidate based on who likes and dislikes her. That's intelligent. Harry Reid likes her though. What to think? Makes your head explode.
Attack the messanger when you can't attack the message.
Well put, sheana. Maybe, since we are busy destroying the demonkat party, once gone it will be replaced by a small minority far left socialist party with no real power, and a larger new party will rise up, to the right of the present Pubbie party, where conservatives could find a true home.
It's probably a pipe dream, but interesting scenario to contemplate ...
I care! Pat has strong beliefs and doesn't ever, IMO lie about the facts. His conclusions are sometimes contrary, but he's one of the few conservatives that has fought the liberals over the years and is still going strong.
He instinctively recoiled from it.
I still say, dump Karl Rove and the pussy footers responsible for this slap at the 'party'.
In 2008 the opportunity for change will be gone. Pat was close to right when he stated that there wasn't a nickels worth of difference between the two parties.
Interesting comment.....
Interesting screenname....
Methinks you protesteth too much.
At least HE didn't lie about raising taxes!
I wonder what that makes you?
Wasn't Thomas a stealth candidate too?
Yes, but he finished at the top of his class at Stanford Law School and was a distinguished lawyer and scholar, along the lines of Roberts. Nobody can argue that Myers is one of the country's most distinguished lawyers, and she graduated from a mid-tier law school, and I have heard no indication that she was at the top of her class or even on law review. Comparing her to Rehnquist is an insult to Rehnquist.
Buchanan's despicable... but he got this one right.
Well that does it. If Buchanan is against her, she must be OK. She's got my unqualified support, (for whatever it's worth).
LOL...well, this "judicial lightweight" is about to become a "judicial heavyweight". Can only judges interpret the constitution?
Hear, hear! (See post #42)
No one can possibly argue that Harriet Miers is nearly as qualified as the dozens of experienced, conservative judges Bush SUPPOSEDLY considered to nominate to the Supreme Court. Where is the evidence of her brilliant, conservative legal scholarship? Where is the evidence of her willingness to fight for a strict reading of the Constitution, or her willingness to roll back the liberal gains of recent decades?
Nor can anyone argue that Miers' conservative ideology, though not codified by legal decisions rendered in court, is clearly discernable. She has been connected to writings advocating the creation of an International Criminal Court, and allowing homosexuals to adopt children. Further, Miers, as the president's lawyer, is complicit in the attempt to expand the Patriot Act to allow what many conservatives believe to be unconstitutional searches and seizures.
This woman is being appointed for one reason: she is a Bush crony. As in cases involving Alberto Gonzales, Michael Brown and Julie Myers, Bush is not looking for the most qualified person he can find for a crucial job. He's rewarding flunkies within arm's reach.
Yes, there is a tendency for some to over-react, rush to judgement and get hysterical when things don't go our way, especially when we have worked so hard to elect Republican politicians.
But there is another mentality that is perhaps worse, and I see it in the Bush apologists here on this board: having someone take a bowel movement on your head, and then thanking them for keeping your head warm.
Summation: Miers is unqualified, a Rorshack test as far as her conservative credentials, tremendously divise to the base (what are we seeing here on FR?), too old at 60, and a pure display of arrogance and fecklessness by Bush.
Those of you who want to call me Chicken Little for this post should check the tops of your heads.
What's with the hero worship?
Why shouldn't we want a real conservative with a proven track record like Bork or Thomas? Why was it critical that it was a woman?
We need a photo thread full of pictures of John Kerry. It would alleviate a lot of pain here today.
And you know this through what personal or professional interaction with the nominee?
Don't get me wrong -- I TOTALLY AGREE with you on the premise that you shouldn't have to be a professional judge to be appointed to the Supreme Court and interpret the Constitution. However, there are plenty of non-judges with stellar academic credentials who are known commodities on the key issues (Senator David Vitter, for example). Like it or not, a big part of successfully advancing our movement is PERCEPTION. Even though they hate him, law school professors and deans have to acknowledge that Scalia is brilliant and lower court Judges have to take his opinions seriously. You also want someone who is capable of articulating and framing the issues in such a way as to sway the mushy moderates on the court -- no small matter. When you have someone who is brilliant and charming (like Roberts), you are more likely to win over the swing votes and influence opinion within the legal community. There are others out there in the mold of Roberts! THIS IS NOT THE BEST THAT WE CAN DO!!!
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.