A university is just a group of buildings gathered around a library. ~Shelby Foote

Monday, October 03, 2005

Who?

An appointment to the Supreme Court is one of the most important duties a President will ever have. Supreme Court Justices, after all, serve at nobody's discretion but their own, the appointment is for life, and the 9-members of SCOTUS are the pre-eminent body for the third branch of our government. To say that being a justice is a big responsibility is to belittle the office substantially.

And, as with the war on terror, the budget, social security reform, and virtually every other issue out there, President Bush has completely failed at meeting his actions to his rhetoric. Good grief. I sorely wish that Bush had the capacity to do what he says he wants to do-- his words I nearly almost agree with. His policies and personnel decisions nearly always make me groan.

I was pleasantly surprised when he appointed Roberts to the bench, though elevating him to Chief Justice was stupid, served no purpose, and merely gave Scalia a metaphorical slap in the face. But okay. Not a home run, maybe, but at least a double.

Comes now... wait a minute... who again? Just a sec, gotta look it up. Oh yeah, Harriet Miers. She has, umm, no judicial experience. Good, that 's always a plus for a judge on the highest court in the land. She is a confidant of President Bush, and has followed in the wake of his ascent from state to national politics. Excellent-- nothing like another underqualified Bush crony in a position of authority. We definitely need more of those. Because that Michael Brown thing worked out soooo well. This is reassuring, as well.

I didn't think it was possible, but I am starting to think that the country would've been better off with Kerry. Seriously. Bush seems to care a whole lot more about loyalty and rewarding those close to him then he does about actually appointing qualified people. He talks the talk but does not come even close to walking the walk. Or, to put it more formally:
Again and again, George Bush has announced bold visionary policies--and again and again he has entrusted the execution of those policies to people who do not believe in them or even understand them. This is most conspicuously true in foreign policy, but it has been true in domestic policy as well. The result: the voice is the voice of Reagan, but too often the hands are the hands of George HW Bush.

Or worse. George H. W. Bush made his bad appointments in the name of replacing Reaganite "ideology" with moderate Republican "competence." He didn't live up to his own billing, but you can understand his intentions. But the younger Bush has based his personnel decisions upon a network of personal connections in which competence does not always play the largest part.
Indeed. And that assessment is from... a liberal pundit? A past Clintonite appointee? Nope. David Frum in the National Review Online (About half-way down the column).

The voice of Ronald Reagan in the hands of George H.W. Bush. Yeah. Exactly.

Unfortunately.
Comments:
This decision is puzzling, even disconcerting. I'm a Bush fan, but he's lost me on this Supreme Court appointment.

It's almost like Bush is surrounded by a loyal Palace Guard who keeps out any dissenters or questioners. Does have a devil's advocate on staff? Someone who'll raise the uncomfortable facts, such as: "er, sir, she's never served as a judge".

I hope I'm wrong. I hope the court tilts strictly constructionist. My rights aren't safe with moonbats declaring the constitution a "living document". They've already taken away the right to private property. We need someone on the court who will make decisions based on what's in the constitution, not what they think should be done.

Is Mrs. Meirs that sort of decision maker? Sadly, we're going to find out. (Assuming she is approved to the position.)
 
A Reason to be Leery of Miers:

http://opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110007353

And Harry's wild about her! "Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid was complimentary, issuing a statement that said he likes [White House counsel and Justice-designate Harriet] Miers and adding 'the Supreme Court would benefit from the addition of a justice who has real experience as a practicing lawyer,' " the Associated Press reports. "Reid had personally recommended that Bush consider Miers for nomination, according to several sources familiar with the president's consultations with individual senators."

A Reason to Welcome Miers:

http://opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110007353

The one encouraging sign in all this is that Andrew Sullivan is apoplectic:

EXODUS??? Here's an excerpt from the president's announcement on Harriet Miers. Among the charities that Harriet Miers has worked for are the following:

[T]he Young Women's Christian Association, Childcare Dallas, Goodwill Industries, Exodus Ministries, Meals on Wheels and the Legal Aid Society.
 
Your first complaint about Miers is that she has no judicial experience, Nick? Chief Justices W. Rehnquist and E. Warren had no prior judicial experience when they were first nominated to the SCOTUS, not to mention Associate Justices H. Black, F. Frankfurter, W.O. Douglas, R. Jackson, B. White, and L. Powell. There have actually been forty justices who have not had judicial experience prior to nomination and confirmation, but I decided not to go back any further than FDR's administration.

Your next complaint is one of presumed cronyism, followed by another dig on Michael Brown. So, Bush should go with someone who he doesn't know well? That's what G.H.W. Bush did with Justice Souter, and that "worked out soooo well" for Bush 41. If GW shouldn't be making the mistakes of his father, as suggested by the David Frum quote, then maybe he should know the person who he is nominating and pull someone outside of the D.C. Circuit mold.

It's been less than twelve hours since the appointment was announced. Right now I'm going with the 72-hour rule and letting the initial dust settle before I start making any hard-and-fast decisions either way on Miers.

And, you know, maybe you're right about Michael Brown. It's too bad that we didn't have someone in charge of FEMA like we did when hurricanes Charley (Category 4), Frances (Category 4), Ivan (Category 5), and Jeanne (Category 3) hit Florida in 2004. That was a FEMA that received high praise during and after the hurricanes in a year in which the agency responded to more major incidents (68 major disasters and seven emergencies) than they had in any previous single year in nearly a decade. Yes, that kind of experience at the helm would have been beneficial. Too bad we didn't have that guy instead of some Bush crony.
 
Of course W is more concerned with rewarding those loyal to him, then he is to appointing talented, qualified people. Where have you been? Lost in some sort of dream world where if we hope for things to turn out correctly, they do? The whole Bush clan has always been about rewarding the loyal. Go right down the friggin list of cronies, starting at the Veep, and that is all you see. Come on! Wake up and smell the growing stink of the gangrene spreading on all the limbs of America.

Bush doesn't care about America. He never has, and he never will. He is incapable of caring in general, and it's far past time to rip his smirky face from that of America's. He has screwed up everything that he has touched or tried. Enough is enough. Impeach the bastard now for crimes against humanity, and send him into obilvion where he belongs.

The people are starting to rise up. Doesn't it feel more and more like the days of Vietnam to you? It does to me. This administration is creating great tears in the fabric of our nation, and I'm sick of it. They would sell their grandmothers to slave labor if they thought they could get more political power by doing it.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?