The Miers nomination
This has got to be a spoof. Whoever is writing for "Harriet Miers's Blog" would get a C in college English. Talk about weak! My daughter can write better, and she's in grade school. If Miers is confirmed, she will be writing opinions that will shape law and be taught in law schools across the country for decades to come.
Ann Coulter, in a particularly good piece, explains why the Miers nomination is bad for our respresentative democracy and makes lawmaking by our "judicial theocracy" more likely rather than less. As far as I can tell though, nobody is thinking in a "Rovian" way - could there actually be a method to this madness? Assuming Bush is a smart guy and a crafty executive, why would he have nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court?
Could it be that Bush's intent with Miers' nomination is to "be a uniter not a divider" - to get republicans and democrats to finally set aside their partisanship and all vote the same way (which they haven't done on anything of consequence since they authorized the Iraq War)? The entire Senate should vote NO on Miers. I suppose the Democrats might support her in the belief that a weak conservative would be preferable to a strong constitutionalist on the Supreme Court. Don't forget also that Harry Reid actually praised the Miers pick right after it was announced. Reid is the leader of the demonrat senators, and Bush did vet his candidates for the position with senators. Presumable, Miers was either approved by Reid or was on a list of potential nominees that was approved by Reid as acting as the Senate Minority Leader.
"But she'd vote to overturn Roe" you say? So what? Granted, the confirmation hearings for Roberts were mostly about "upholding a woman's right to choose" for the democrats, making them look like a single issue party, but they knew he would be confirmed and were just putting on a show for their base. I'm surrounded by lefties at work and I'm telling you that all they really care about is getting back in power - they believe that if Roe were overturned there would be a popular backlash that would sweep them back into power. So I guess at least the Miers nomination might force the dems to take off the mask for a minute. Oh, and their strategy has shifted recently -- instead of blaming everything bad in the world on Bush, they are now blaming everything on "those *insert derogatory adjective here* republicans." See if you can notice it in the MSM, their propaganda arm.
But still, even if the Miers nomination is a set-up, why duck a fight? Why the deception? Why look stupid? Why couldn't Bush just nominate a Janice Rogers Brown or Priscilla Owen or Miguel Estrada or J. Michael Luttig or Edith Jones or Karen Williams or Michael McConnell? There are so many great picks to choose from. If not a judge but just a really good female lawyer who can write well, then why not Ann Coulter - like Harriet she is a good lawyer, but a much better writer than Miers, and we KNOW how Ann would vote on key issues. Instead we get an unknown commodity and we're just supposed to trust Bush because she's his friend and he's known her for a long time? Yeah right, like we were supposed to believe that he had looked deep into Putin's soul and found a good man and strong ally. Russia has been stabbing us in the back at almost every turn since Putin became its president.
To those who say, "To hell with the Supreme Court," I say this is really, really important! From Roe to Kelo, our Constitution and Bill of Rights have been getting shedded. If we continue to allow our courts to usurp legislative powers, we will soon lose the liberties and rights we take for granted. As a Justice of the Supreme Court, Miers' lack of expertise in Constitutional law and general mediocrity in expressing her opinion will hurt us for decades or centuries. Her opinions, as recorded opinions of the court, will serve as the basis for future rulings; sloppy writing or unsound reasoning, anything not firmly grounded in the US Constitution (not Belgium's) will cause more Roes and more Kelos - more "let's make it up as we go along" style judicial meddling. I don't want our country to become another haven for socialism. Tolerating more socialism would be almost as bad as accepting Sharia law, so yeah - I'd put this right up there with the GWOT.
And those people who say that criticizing Miers' qualifications is "sexist" are just patronizing women. If it has to be a woman, why such a mediocre nominee? Couldn't find anyone better? With a proven track record? She has no background in constitutional law whatsoever, and she's never been a county, state or federal judge. Picking Miers is like the Washington Redskins picking Tiger Woods with their first round draft pick - he's very talented and might even turn out to be a decent football player if he works hard, but he hasn't played football previously and it is unlikely he would be a great player. Could you imagine the outrage from Redskins fans if the team's owners selected Tiger with their first round pick and justified it by saying he was the best black athlete they could find? DC would look like Toledo only worse.
Up to now I've been a pretty strong supporter of Bush, but this Miers nomination just makes Bush look like what the DU asshats and Kos kids have been saying about him for years: that he likes his cronies and rewards his friends with positions in high places, that he surrounds himself with people who agree with everything he says, that he is dumb, and (this is the big one) that he is dishonest. Granted, Bush won't be running for reelection again, and republicans voting against his nominee would show voters that they have principles and standards, and that they are not a rubber stamp for the President, but the cost just seems too high. Up to now I had thought that Bush was one of the smartest and most honest politicians we've ever had, but now I am forced to choose between dumb and honest, or very smart but dishonest. For now I'm thinking smart but dishonest in a poker player's sort of way.
So, to sum up, I guess I'm putting forward a conspiracy theory that if reduced to bare bones would be: What if Bush actually wants the Miers nomination to be rejected by the Senate? For that to happen the conservative base would have to tell their Senators to vote "no." It could happen. If Miers were defeated by the "right," or a coalition from both the left and the right, that would make it much easier to nominate someone like Janice Rogers Brown for the Supreme Court, and if the democrats filibuster, no one could blame the republicans for using the nuclear option. It's a theory, and it has flaws, but Bush had to know that this nomination would split the conservative base.
I just can't help wondering whether we've become so used to liberals constantly blaming Bush for everything, so used to lefties claiming failure no matter what the outcome of any decision made by "this administration," that we defend Bush no matter what. Why aren't the lefties attacking Miers like they did Roberts? If they are happy with the pick, I'm not happy. LiberalLooneyLefties have been constantly denouncing George W. for not having godlike powers to stop hurricanes or land Air Force One on the Superdome and part the waters of Lake New Orleans like Moses, for not preventing 9/11, for not making gas prices lower, for not having better information than all of the intelligence agencies of the Western European countries as well as our own CIA, etc, etc. Well, guess what? He's human. George W. does what he thinks is the right thing to do, and I like that about him, it's why he is trusted, but he can be wrong and saying so is not disloyalty. Saying Bush was wrong about everything is just deranged, BDS is a suicide cult, but I'm at least willing to consider the possibility that Bush could be wrong about this.
P.S.: Sorry I've been gone so long. My job has kept me extra busy lately.
Ann Coulter, in a particularly good piece, explains why the Miers nomination is bad for our respresentative democracy and makes lawmaking by our "judicial theocracy" more likely rather than less. As far as I can tell though, nobody is thinking in a "Rovian" way - could there actually be a method to this madness? Assuming Bush is a smart guy and a crafty executive, why would he have nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court?
Could it be that Bush's intent with Miers' nomination is to "be a uniter not a divider" - to get republicans and democrats to finally set aside their partisanship and all vote the same way (which they haven't done on anything of consequence since they authorized the Iraq War)? The entire Senate should vote NO on Miers. I suppose the Democrats might support her in the belief that a weak conservative would be preferable to a strong constitutionalist on the Supreme Court. Don't forget also that Harry Reid actually praised the Miers pick right after it was announced. Reid is the leader of the demonrat senators, and Bush did vet his candidates for the position with senators. Presumable, Miers was either approved by Reid or was on a list of potential nominees that was approved by Reid as acting as the Senate Minority Leader.
"But she'd vote to overturn Roe" you say? So what? Granted, the confirmation hearings for Roberts were mostly about "upholding a woman's right to choose" for the democrats, making them look like a single issue party, but they knew he would be confirmed and were just putting on a show for their base. I'm surrounded by lefties at work and I'm telling you that all they really care about is getting back in power - they believe that if Roe were overturned there would be a popular backlash that would sweep them back into power. So I guess at least the Miers nomination might force the dems to take off the mask for a minute. Oh, and their strategy has shifted recently -- instead of blaming everything bad in the world on Bush, they are now blaming everything on "those *insert derogatory adjective here* republicans." See if you can notice it in the MSM, their propaganda arm.
But still, even if the Miers nomination is a set-up, why duck a fight? Why the deception? Why look stupid? Why couldn't Bush just nominate a Janice Rogers Brown or Priscilla Owen or Miguel Estrada or J. Michael Luttig or Edith Jones or Karen Williams or Michael McConnell? There are so many great picks to choose from. If not a judge but just a really good female lawyer who can write well, then why not Ann Coulter - like Harriet she is a good lawyer, but a much better writer than Miers, and we KNOW how Ann would vote on key issues. Instead we get an unknown commodity and we're just supposed to trust Bush because she's his friend and he's known her for a long time? Yeah right, like we were supposed to believe that he had looked deep into Putin's soul and found a good man and strong ally. Russia has been stabbing us in the back at almost every turn since Putin became its president.
To those who say, "To hell with the Supreme Court," I say this is really, really important! From Roe to Kelo, our Constitution and Bill of Rights have been getting shedded. If we continue to allow our courts to usurp legislative powers, we will soon lose the liberties and rights we take for granted. As a Justice of the Supreme Court, Miers' lack of expertise in Constitutional law and general mediocrity in expressing her opinion will hurt us for decades or centuries. Her opinions, as recorded opinions of the court, will serve as the basis for future rulings; sloppy writing or unsound reasoning, anything not firmly grounded in the US Constitution (not Belgium's) will cause more Roes and more Kelos - more "let's make it up as we go along" style judicial meddling. I don't want our country to become another haven for socialism. Tolerating more socialism would be almost as bad as accepting Sharia law, so yeah - I'd put this right up there with the GWOT.
And those people who say that criticizing Miers' qualifications is "sexist" are just patronizing women. If it has to be a woman, why such a mediocre nominee? Couldn't find anyone better? With a proven track record? She has no background in constitutional law whatsoever, and she's never been a county, state or federal judge. Picking Miers is like the Washington Redskins picking Tiger Woods with their first round draft pick - he's very talented and might even turn out to be a decent football player if he works hard, but he hasn't played football previously and it is unlikely he would be a great player. Could you imagine the outrage from Redskins fans if the team's owners selected Tiger with their first round pick and justified it by saying he was the best black athlete they could find? DC would look like Toledo only worse.
Up to now I've been a pretty strong supporter of Bush, but this Miers nomination just makes Bush look like what the DU asshats and Kos kids have been saying about him for years: that he likes his cronies and rewards his friends with positions in high places, that he surrounds himself with people who agree with everything he says, that he is dumb, and (this is the big one) that he is dishonest. Granted, Bush won't be running for reelection again, and republicans voting against his nominee would show voters that they have principles and standards, and that they are not a rubber stamp for the President, but the cost just seems too high. Up to now I had thought that Bush was one of the smartest and most honest politicians we've ever had, but now I am forced to choose between dumb and honest, or very smart but dishonest. For now I'm thinking smart but dishonest in a poker player's sort of way.
So, to sum up, I guess I'm putting forward a conspiracy theory that if reduced to bare bones would be: What if Bush actually wants the Miers nomination to be rejected by the Senate? For that to happen the conservative base would have to tell their Senators to vote "no." It could happen. If Miers were defeated by the "right," or a coalition from both the left and the right, that would make it much easier to nominate someone like Janice Rogers Brown for the Supreme Court, and if the democrats filibuster, no one could blame the republicans for using the nuclear option. It's a theory, and it has flaws, but Bush had to know that this nomination would split the conservative base.
I just can't help wondering whether we've become so used to liberals constantly blaming Bush for everything, so used to lefties claiming failure no matter what the outcome of any decision made by "this administration," that we defend Bush no matter what. Why aren't the lefties attacking Miers like they did Roberts? If they are happy with the pick, I'm not happy. LiberalLooneyLefties have been constantly denouncing George W. for not having godlike powers to stop hurricanes or land Air Force One on the Superdome and part the waters of Lake New Orleans like Moses, for not preventing 9/11, for not making gas prices lower, for not having better information than all of the intelligence agencies of the Western European countries as well as our own CIA, etc, etc. Well, guess what? He's human. George W. does what he thinks is the right thing to do, and I like that about him, it's why he is trusted, but he can be wrong and saying so is not disloyalty. Saying Bush was wrong about everything is just deranged, BDS is a suicide cult, but I'm at least willing to consider the possibility that Bush could be wrong about this.
P.S.: Sorry I've been gone so long. My job has kept me extra busy lately.
posted by dw at 12:01 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home