Jeff the Baptist is concerned about recent Republican moves, particularly the Meirs nomination:
She seems woefully underqualified to be on the highest ranking court in the land. Her main recommendation is that she is Bush's attorney. I don't want to be mean, but I hope the Senate bitch slaps both her and the President down for this.
Bush has worn out the "trust me" line. I'm genuinely tired of seeing him nominate good ole boys and gals. It's time for the Republicans to get a serious setback. Maybe shattering their aura of electoral invincibility will get them to act like conservatives again.
In the comments, he adds:
Now is a great time for the Republicans to get their asses handed to them.
I agree. Dishing out Supreme Court positions as patronage fodder demonstrates a great disrespect for the office of President. He is the President, not a king, and cannot dole out appointments as personal gifts as though the government and its resources are his personal property. I hope that Meirs gets to the Senate floor and is then voted down.
Couldn't he have just appointed her Ambassador to Micronesia or Liechtenstein or France? Sheesh. What was he thinking?
Friday, October 07, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
John,
As I conservative myself, I am very disappointed in the reaction of conservatives on this nomination. Why do y'all think Miss Meirs should be voted down by the Senate. I think she is a good nomination. As head of the Texas Bar Association, in her career as a lawyer, I think she is more than qualified to be on the Supreme Court. A fellow conservative friend of mine was bemoaning this nomination. I made the following points with him. (1) Miss Meirs is an evangelical Christian, I think this will lead her to make decisions that will lean in direction we would like to see the court. (2) The President is well aware of what happened with his father's pick, Justice Souter, I am pretty sure he will make sure that Meirs in no Souter. (3) The Court primarily decides Constitutional issues. I'm sorry, but the US Constitution is not that complicated of a document. It is pretty easy to make good decisions at the US Supreme court level if persons with the right ideology are on the bench. (4) I personally believe the President to be a good Christian man who takes his job seriously. I don't believe he would dole out political favors to a Supreme Court nomination. Have faith that he has made a wise decision as he did with Chief Justice Roberts. Have faith that he prayed about his nomination and was moved by the Lord make a wise decision.
We need qualified Justices on the court from the Real World. I think that we have enough "Ivory Tower" judges from US Appellate Courts. Just like folks want diverse justices with respect to sex and race, we need diverse Justices with respect to background.
I have faith that Miss Meirs will be a good Justice and that the President did a good job in choosing her.
John
I was hoping for Janice Rogers Brown (the liberals would have hated that), but I think you will be surprised. Bush knows how critical the court is and will not take a chance on allowing liberals to legislate from the bench, so I am sure he picked a solid conservative.
I wasn't surprised by the nomination. After all the committee to select the Vice-Presidential nominee back in 2000 was headed by Dick Cheney. The difficulty that I have with the nomination is two-fold.
First, it fits within the pattern of personal loyalty that dominates the present administration.
Second,whether or not Ms. Meirs has any judicial experience is not critical (in my judgement). There have been several others (including most, if not all, of the original Supreme Court nominated by George Washington) who did not have judicial experience. But her experience is mostly, it seems to me, as a political appointee. Even the late Judge Rehnquist was coming out of a legal environment when he was appointed to the Supreme Court. That is not the case here.
Some will say that being head of the Texas Bar Association was a legal environment but that can only make sense that everyone in the room at the time was a lawyer. The position was a political one and, like other organizations, had more to do with management than the practice of the organization's skill.
Finally, it seems to me that President Bush nominated Ms. Meirs because she has no record that can be scrutinized. No one, on either side of the aisle, will be able to question her. His nomination was a political move, designed to prevent opposition from forming. At the present time, the present administration cannot afford another political disaster but the inepitude that has been seen in prior cases will again come forth in this one as well.
I am encouraging my Senators to vote "no" on her nomination and I would encourage you to encourage your Senators to do likewise.
I still think that the Supreme Court cannot be considered a training ground. Though I am not an attorney, it seems to me that serving as a lawyer and serving as a judge might require different skill sets. Ms. Meirs, perhaps through no fault of her own, has not served as a judge in any capacity. It was also reported by writer George Wills that she has never practiced constitutional law. Does this make a difference? I think it might.
Keith, I don't think that a mere head of a state bar commission cuts the mustard at the Supreme Court level. That might be fine for a nomination to the Texas Supreme Court, or even a low-level federal court, but there have got to be scores of attorneys -- including textual originalists -- who are more qualified than her.
Yes, she's an evangelical Christian. I couldn't care less. Bush could nominate a Buddhist or a Hindu or anything else. It doesn't matter any more than her hair color. What is important is that a Supreme Court justice rules according to the original intent of the Constitution and federal law. It would, in fact, be improper for her opinions to be 'informed' by Christ unless Christ was a signatory member of the Constitutional Convention. Which He wasn't.
You are incorrect that the Court primarily decides Constitutional matters. Most cases are minor judgments on points of federal law, such as arcane references to securities regulations. Do you want some (comparative) amateur doing that?
Bush may be a good Christian man, but that does not necessarily connote sound Constitutional or legal judgment anymore than a strong Christian faith makes a person a better auto mechanic.
I like the idea of appointing a non-judge. Theoretically, it is a good move.
But beware anyone who has ever run the Texas lotto- I'm telling you! That place reeks of incompetence and no one who has ever run the joint should be able to wash the stink of failure off themselves.
Eight iron- I just don't think this administration is that crafty. I've lost faith.
I think we're looking at rewarding the most loyal dogs in the pack with the juiciest hunks of meat.
Will this lead to the GOP getting rolled in '06 and '08?
I doubt it because the Dems are just as able to go into self-destruct mode. Heck, they been stuck in that mode since '94. The only thing that saved Clinton is that before Viagra, Dole seemed angry all the time- and public anger loses elections. (Old men referring to themselves in the 3rd person doesn't help much either.)
Gang, if y'all cannot see that the two party system, after years of solid performance, has finally broken down and is going to ruin this nation, I don't know what to tell you. Both sides are pretty much whoring themselves out to the biggest campaign contributer at this point.
I think the school mascot election episode of South Park nailed where we're at on all this. We're always picking between Senator Summers-Eve on the one hand and Governor Bag-o-poo on the other.
I doubt it because the Dems are just as able to go into self-destruct mode. Heck, they been stuck in that mode since '94. The only thing that saved Clinton is that before Viagra, Dole seemed angry all the time- and public anger loses elections. (Old men referring to themselves in the 3rd person doesn't help much either.)
Before Viagra Bob Dole had a problem with his elections?
something about not enought support in the polls...
Post a Comment