Loading ...
No matter where I turned today, everyone was talking about the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court Of The United States. No matter where I turned, that’s all I heard about. Mainstream and cable news stations were squawking about it. Talk radio was squawking about it, and, of course, the blogosphere was squawking about it.
It seems most people are having trouble digesting the fact that President Bush chose Harriet Miers over any number of seemingly qualified appelate court judges. They have their panties in a wad because Harriet Miers isn’t even a judge, she’s just a close friend of the President. They also seem to have a problem with the fact that, since she is not a judge, there is no “paper trail” for people on either side to form an opinion of how she might decide cases, so that makes her an unsuitable candidate. Paper trails mean nothing. There are several justices currently serving on the court who have decided cases totally against what they had decided in their “paper trail” before being appointed to the court.
Am I upset about, or worried, that President Bush nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court?
No. Not in the slightest bit.
President Bush is a man of consistency, and he is doing nothing different today than he was doing two, three or four years ago. He makes decisions based on gut instinct, not “popular consensus” or polls. He is a man of integrity and strong convictions. While he has upset many people in his “disillusioned conservative base”, he has remained consistent through the five years of his Presidency, and I do not see why the next three years should be, or will be, any different.
I agree with The Anchoress, who says,
The right used to love Bush because he was surprising and undaunted, because he made choices from his gut and not from polls or consensus or advice-giving. I wonder if the conservatives right now are truly falling out of love with those qualities, or if they themselves are running a bit scared and tired, believing that Bush is all of the things the press says he is, becasue it’s just easier to do that?
Who has actually changed, here? Bush, or us? Goodness, a year ago some on the right were trying to figure out how to amend the constitution to allow Arnold to run for President. Now many of the same folks can’t stand him. Things change. Things turn on a dime.
Three more years. A lot can happen. But very little that is pleasing to the right will happen if Bush is completely crippled by the press and deserted by his suddenly-distrustful base.
A choice must be made, here. Do you stand by the president, trusting that he knows this woman and is not abandoning his values in nominating her? Or do you go running off, screaming, into the night because you don’t quite get this nomination?
She is right. A choice must be made here. And I choose to stand by the President, not just trusting, but knowing that he does not abandon his values when making these decisions. It’s too bad, not everyone sees it this way.
Patrick j. Buchanan had this to say:
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.
Well, guess what Mr. Buchanan?
Harriet Miers has a very distiguished legal career, which I feel more than qualifies her to serve on the Supreme Court of The United States.
In 1970, she clerked for U.S. District Judge Joe E. Estes.
In 1985, she was elected as the first woman President of the Dallas Bar Association.
In 1992, she became the first woman elected President of the State Bar of Texas.
In 1996, she was elected as the first female President of Locke, Purnell, Rain & Harrell, at that time a firm of about 200 lawyers. She became the first female to lead a Texas firm of that size. Locke, Purnell eventually merged with a Houston firm and became Locke Liddell & Sapp, LLP, where Ms. Miers became Co-Managing Partner and helped manage an over-400-lawyer firm.
In 2001, she was appointed Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary.
In 2003, Ms. Miers was promoted to be Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff.
Since February 2005, she has served as Counsel to the President.
According to Wikipedia, the Constitution does not explicitly establish any qualifications for Justices of the Supreme Court. However, Presidents normally nominate individuals who have prior legal experience. Typically, most nominees have previous judicial experience, either at the federal or state level. But there is no requirement that nominees have any judicial experience whatsoever
In fact, there was another prominent member of the Supreme Court whose resume’, while not exactly the same, does not exemplify “Supreme Court material”.
In 1952, he clerked for Justice Robert H. Jackson.
In 1953, he became a private practice attorney.
in 1964, he served as a legal advisor for Barry Goldwater’s Presidential campaign.
In 1969, he served as Assistant Attorney General of the Office of Legal Counsel.
In 1971, he was nominated to the Supreme Court and confirmed by a 68-26 vote.
Of course, this nominee was none other than William Rehnquist, the recently departed, and highly revered Chief Justice Of The Supreme Court of the United States of America. I don’t remember anyone bringing up his “lack of judicial experience” prior to serving on the court, while they were eulogizing this great man.
The fact of the matter is, 10 out of 34 justices nominated since 1933 have been from the administration. Maybe Pat Buchanan shouldn’t run at the mouth so much in the future.
Bill Kristol is disappointed, depressed, and demoralized.
I’m disappointed because I expected President Bush to nominate someone with a visible and distinguished constitutionalist track record…
…
I’m depressed. Roberts for O’Connor was an unambiguous improvement. Roberts for Rehnquist was an appropriate replacement. But moving Roberts over to the Rehnquist seat meant everything rode on this nomination–and that the president had to be ready to fight on constitutional grounds for a strong nominee. Apparently, he wasn’t.
…
I’m demoralized. What does this say about the next three years of the Bush administration–leaving aside for a moment the future of the Court? Surely this is a pick from weakness.
Aside from being the editor of The Weekly Standard, Bill Kristol’s greatest claim to fame was being Dan Quayle’s Chief of Staff. Yeah, now there’s an amazing source of intellectual power and know-how. If he is so disappointed, depressed and demoralized, does this mean he will enter into some treatment program so we wont have to listen to him and his “boo-hoo’ing” for the next three years? Now that would be a wonderful benefit of this nomination, wouldn’t it?
I think President Bush’s selection of Harriet Miers is brilliant, and definitely not a “pick from weakness”. It’s not everyday that a President gets the opportunity to nominate two Constitutional Constructionists to the court. Nominating Ms. Miers was not a sign of weakness, but rather a sign of prowess, and he will go down in history as the Republican President who duped the Democrats into thinking he made “their” choice, when in fact, he was simply chosing one of the two most qualified people to help guide the court, and our country into a new era of Conservatism.
Hugh Hewitt says,
… Yes, I wanted Judge Luttig or Judge McConnell, but the president wanted Miers, and I don’t for a minute believe it is because of friendship, but because of W’s understanding of the importance of the Court.
President Bush has beaten the Dems like bongo drums for five plus years, and yet some conservatives are spooked by the fact that Harry Reid and Charles Schumer haven’t taken to the Senate floor to announce a attempt at a filibuster. Shouldn’t the presumption be –given the record of the past few election cycles– that the president knows what he is doing?
The hearings will be very, very interesting, and Democrats have put themselves in a very small box. It will be unfortunate if conservative loyalists help them out of it by legitimizing attacks on a dedicated and very qualified public servant.
My suspicion is that as Democrats review Miers personal story, and especially her obvious and deep personal faith, that “the groups” on the left will realize to their horror that, once again, the president has outflanked them. They may try to marshall their forces and launch an assault on Miers. The trouble with some conservatives declaring the end of the world as we know it is that they are effectively taking themselves out of this battle on the first day.
President Bush knows exactly what he is doing, and he knows what he is doing is shaping the Court for many, many, years to come. The Democrats are going to be hard-pressed to fight this nominee, and will realize, only after it’s too late, that they too, helped shape the conservative Court for future generations.
I applaud President Bush for having the insight to make such a knowledgeable choice, and for sticking to his principles.
When we stand on principles, sometimes the only way to make things change is to change things up. Great job Mr. President.
Sphere: Related Content
OK so she just withdrew her n OK so she just withdrew her nomination, there’s a shock. I’m thinking that that was the plan all along. Now we get someone from haliburton, Cheney? perhaps not tough to get someone threatened with indictment through the process, or some such place on the Court with the note from Bush, “Hey I offered up a woman for you and she didn’t get approved. Now try this.”
Comment by Schuyler Meyers on Dec 3rd, 2006 @ 02:06
He’s not worriednn I wa He’s not worried
I was eating my cereal (Life) and skimming various blogs, mostly related to the big news of the week–Harriet Miers. And I came across this little nugget that almost caused me to spew milk all over my monitor. I’ll post it in its original…
Comment by blueaura.net on Dec 3rd, 2006 @ 02:06