Wallowing in the Miers
Someone had to throw in a Doors allusion. Cut me some slack.
It is truly thrilling to see so many conservative pundits and the like balking over the nomination of Harriet Miers. The Democrats are probably wise to be holding back with their criticism and allowing the President to stew in his own mediocrity. The likelihood of this nomination being successful is extremely slim and that is quite a good thing.
A couple of things are a bit off about Bush’s choice for an unheard of second Supreme Court nomination in the span of one term. People are batting about the whole crony-ism thing and right they should. However, this has been a standard method of operation for this administration from day one. There is nothing new about this so lets move on and look beyond the obvious.
Harriet Miers is well suited to the process she is about to enter. She was one of those chiefly responsible for preparing Chief Justice Roberts for his confirmation hearings. So, this could be a selection, for Bush’s part, of convenience and ease. From this we can interpret two possible motivations. Firstly, the administration is limping right now. Some would say they are on the ropes. Don't we wish. It is enough to say that they have a lot on their plates and this seemed to them, in a pinch, to be a good choice. She is, after all, an evangelical Christian, pleaseth the base. It is well known that the President would much rather go with a person he trusts than a person who is actually qualified for the job (remember “Brownie”). Seeing as how Miers prepped Roberts for his hearings, this seemed (inside the bubble, mind you) like a good choice.
To me, this does not seem like a good choice. It is more likely a lazy and duplicitous choice. There is a strong pull to install a woman on the court given the O’Conner legacy. Bush’s base is largely Christian and he, himself, comes from an evangelical background. So Miers should make the base happy. Right? With people obsessing over Roe v. Wade, it would seem clear which side of the isle Ms. Miers is on. However, when we look past the surface, we see that there is not much depth. I hate to admit it, but Pat Buchanan is right when he cites that this woman has never gone on record as taking a position on any of the major cases of our time.
So we have a nominee with no discernible record of opinion. And she has been nominated to a job where opinion is the paramount and sole product. The President says he knows this woman. Fine. He also says he “knows” that she will not change over then next 20 years. This latter statement is as false as it is frightening. Philosophically this is a gross misstatement. Everyone changes. Be it physically or whatever. So, yet another obtuse statement misapplied by the leader of the free world. Also, the demands of Supreme Court Justice would force change in an individual. To give an opinion for the highest court in the land is quite different than to give one on the part of one’s self. To say that she is not going to change over the next twenty years should be a tremendous red flag that suggests the potential for stagnancy and lethargy. I would think the most arch conservative would want a Supreme Court Justice to be pragmatic, weigh all the facts and be willing to make the best decisions for the greater good of the nation. If seeing a case through to the greater good requires some change, so be it and all the better for the country.
One could say that this choice of nominee is so bad that it could be a screen for something else. With the President’s approval rating in the 30’s, perhaps the administration is looking to get some of the focus taken off its more damning blunders and smudges. It would be a hell of a thing for the office of the President to deliberately lose a poker hand to distract the dealer from the stench in the room.
We all know how short the attention span of the American public is. Lets just keep our fingers crossed.
It is truly thrilling to see so many conservative pundits and the like balking over the nomination of Harriet Miers. The Democrats are probably wise to be holding back with their criticism and allowing the President to stew in his own mediocrity. The likelihood of this nomination being successful is extremely slim and that is quite a good thing.
A couple of things are a bit off about Bush’s choice for an unheard of second Supreme Court nomination in the span of one term. People are batting about the whole crony-ism thing and right they should. However, this has been a standard method of operation for this administration from day one. There is nothing new about this so lets move on and look beyond the obvious.
Harriet Miers is well suited to the process she is about to enter. She was one of those chiefly responsible for preparing Chief Justice Roberts for his confirmation hearings. So, this could be a selection, for Bush’s part, of convenience and ease. From this we can interpret two possible motivations. Firstly, the administration is limping right now. Some would say they are on the ropes. Don't we wish. It is enough to say that they have a lot on their plates and this seemed to them, in a pinch, to be a good choice. She is, after all, an evangelical Christian, pleaseth the base. It is well known that the President would much rather go with a person he trusts than a person who is actually qualified for the job (remember “Brownie”). Seeing as how Miers prepped Roberts for his hearings, this seemed (inside the bubble, mind you) like a good choice.
To me, this does not seem like a good choice. It is more likely a lazy and duplicitous choice. There is a strong pull to install a woman on the court given the O’Conner legacy. Bush’s base is largely Christian and he, himself, comes from an evangelical background. So Miers should make the base happy. Right? With people obsessing over Roe v. Wade, it would seem clear which side of the isle Ms. Miers is on. However, when we look past the surface, we see that there is not much depth. I hate to admit it, but Pat Buchanan is right when he cites that this woman has never gone on record as taking a position on any of the major cases of our time.
So we have a nominee with no discernible record of opinion. And she has been nominated to a job where opinion is the paramount and sole product. The President says he knows this woman. Fine. He also says he “knows” that she will not change over then next 20 years. This latter statement is as false as it is frightening. Philosophically this is a gross misstatement. Everyone changes. Be it physically or whatever. So, yet another obtuse statement misapplied by the leader of the free world. Also, the demands of Supreme Court Justice would force change in an individual. To give an opinion for the highest court in the land is quite different than to give one on the part of one’s self. To say that she is not going to change over the next twenty years should be a tremendous red flag that suggests the potential for stagnancy and lethargy. I would think the most arch conservative would want a Supreme Court Justice to be pragmatic, weigh all the facts and be willing to make the best decisions for the greater good of the nation. If seeing a case through to the greater good requires some change, so be it and all the better for the country.
One could say that this choice of nominee is so bad that it could be a screen for something else. With the President’s approval rating in the 30’s, perhaps the administration is looking to get some of the focus taken off its more damning blunders and smudges. It would be a hell of a thing for the office of the President to deliberately lose a poker hand to distract the dealer from the stench in the room.
We all know how short the attention span of the American public is. Lets just keep our fingers crossed.
Labels: Christians, crony-ism, Harriet Miers, Justice O'Conner, Justice Roberts, mediocrity, Pat Buchanan, POTUS, Supreme Court, The Doors
posted by Bourgeois Deviant at
9:51 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home