CONTROVERSY!

From the conservative National Review last week:

ANOTHER REASON FOR BUSH NOT TO PICK... [John Podhoretz]
...Gonzales or Miers is this: One of the Democratic talking points that is getting some traction is the Crony Talking Point -- the idea that this presidency is made up of friends and friends of friends who all do business together and whose qualifications matter less than their connections to GWB. Since nobody on earth aside from Bush would actually consider Gonzales or Miers a suitable Supreme Court nominee, the appointment of either would smack precisely of the cronyism with which he is (in my view) being unfairly tarred. Bush would be giving his critics some very serious ammunition to use against him at a time when he can't afford to do such a thing.

Conservative commentator Bill Kristol said:

Bill Kristol: Conservatives ‘Demoralized’ over Miers

Conservatives are "pretty demoralized” over President Bush’s surprise nomination of Harriet Miers to the U.S. Supreme Court, says Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol.

Kristol noted, in an interview with Fox News, that with liberal Republican Sandra Day O’Connor leaving the court, Bush had a unique opportunity to put his conservative stamp on the Supreme Court.

Instead, Kristol suggests Bush "flinched.”

"It looks like he capitulated,” a pessimistic Kristol said. The conservative commentator noted she has absolutely no judicial record, and he fears she will be "another O’Connor, another Souter.”

While O’Connor and current Associate Court Justice David Souter had served as judges, their judicial records were obscure at the time they were nominated for the Supreme Court.

Kristol sees Bush’s pick of Miers as a slap in the face to conservative women jurists.

"He has passed over conservative judges, including female judges, who have long and distinguished records on the federal and state supreme courts," Kristol said.

"Maybe he is right. Maybe she will be a first-rate justice, but you don't know that.

"This is not a Scalia, a Rehnquist or, for that matter, a John Roberts in terms of quality of pick," he added. "It's hard to interpret this as anything but flinching from a fight."

Kristol suggested the Bush administration may have feared a nomination fight with Democrats on judicial philosophy, which he said is a fight that most conservative Republicans would have welcomed.

"It sends a bad signal," Kristol said. Conservative judges, particularly conservative women, that have been making the case for 5, 10 or 15 years, have been passed over in favor of someone with no record. That's hard to explain to conservatives."

Over at The American Prospect, Ezra Klein opines:

But maybe, for once, Bush was simply being honest, and he never meant to make such an appointment. Whether it's a sincere conviction or a Rove-led strategy, looking over John "Roe is settled law" Roberts and Harriet Miers, Bush seems more and more reluctant to actually appoint anyone who'll obviously overturn the ruling. If I were a social conservative, I'd be feeling very, very betrayed right now.

Comments

[mojo]

The knashings of the wacko wingnut righties has me hopeful.....

Maybe we should let them self-destruct over this nomination. I just hope that the Senate gets better answers out of her than they did John Roberts... We should replace Sandra Day O'Conner with another swing vote.. The only things that bother me about her SO FAR is that she's close to the Bush Regime, and she's totally corporate controlled... just like the rest of his CRONIES... there I said it... CRONYISM...

[ClosetDem]

This is part Rove strategy and part Bush cronyism. And all Americans lose because it installs on the Sct (assuming she's approved) a third rate legal talent who will likely serve for a couple of decades.

The continuing dumbing down of the Sct is a very serious threat to American democracy, especially as the courts become more politicized and the rule of law gets ignored. Who will keep Congress in check? Or keep the Sct from continuing to seem overly political a la Florida 2000. The public esteem of the Sct is lower than at any time.

The Sct was once a grand institution of the greatest legal minds our country had to offer, but over the past few decades (and, yes, it started with Dems overzealous attacks on Bork) we've gotten blander and blander legal minds. Hard to imagine Thomas, Souter, and Miers as the best jurists our country has to offer.

I give President Bush very high marks for Roberts, and regret he's back to his old self. Why not select Mike Brown, of FEMA fame, he's a lawyer. Sadly, Miers is not much higher quality).

Good grief. Wonder what W's nickname for Mier is? "Legal chick?"

[Steve M]

President Bush has made a very astute move by nominating Ms. Miers to the US Supreme Court. She has no prior judicial record to be scrutinized by her detractors and has an outstanding legal resume. Many of our greatest Justices have had no prior judicial experience,including the late Chief Justice Rehnquist. Hopefully the President knows her well enough to believe that she will interpret the law and not make law. All any of us can ask of her is that she not attempt to impose her personal opinions or beliefs on the nation. If the President had nominated one of the other conservative women jurists mentioned by the press the nomination would have been an unending nightmare of attacks from the left on every opinion she had ever written.

From her remarks at the announcement I think she will not disappoint conservatives as did Justice Souter:

"The wisdom of those who drafted our Constitution and conceived our nation as functioning with three strong and independent branches have proven truly remarkable. It is the responsibility of every generation to be true to the founders' vision of the proper role of the courts in our society.

If confirmed, I recognize that I will have a tremendous responsibility to keep our judicial system strong and help ensure that the courts meet their obligation to strictly apply the law and the Constitution"

[Steve M]

Rush Limbaugh is not real happy either about the nomination. On today's show during an interview with VP Cheney he said:

"After working for 20 years to get to this point, to elect a president and a Republican Senate, Republican House to change the direction of this court, to avoid the liberals being able to institutionalize their beliefs in the court, taking it out of the arena of ideas and away from the opportunity to defeat it in Congress, has disappointed some of them, that they feel we could win the fight, and that we could win the fight handily and it would be a nail in the coffin of the left, and we're still now having to wait, as you say, ten years to find out -- or a number of years -- that this was a good choice. Everybody's prayers are with the president on this, but there has to be some knowledge on your part that there's some disappointment out there that there's not somebody that could be immediately rallied around, and we've got people saying that they're depressed, and they're thinking that this is a decision that has let them down and they're, frankly, a little worn out having to appease the left on all of these choices".

[E-mart]

Ezra writes at the Prospect, not the Spectator. Of course, the Spectator's disappointed in Miers too...

All of the comments from conservatives critical of the President's choice are nothing but crocodile tears. Surely no one seriously doubts that Bush/Rove have woodshedded Ms. Miers and confirmed that she will toe a very conservative line. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that Limbaugh, Kristol and Klein have been asked to float these critical statements just so Bush can say "Well, she must be ok because I'm getting criticized by both the left and right, which means she must be somewhere in the middle." Knowing full well, however, that she's not. Sadly, our brave Senate Minority Leader has already swallowed the bait whole and accepted Miers as a great nominee. She's "only" 60, which means she'll have the opportunity to show her much-discussed loyalty to Bush for at least 20 years.

[Eric]

Sorry, but whoever said the Supreme Court is getting dumbed down has shown there true ignorance.

Almost everyone who watches the court closely feels that in the past few years we have had some of the smartest jurist to ever sit on the bench.

If you want cronies and hacks (truth be told, I DO think Miers fits into this category and I don't support her nomination) the FDR court was chock full of them. But not now.

?

The biggest revelation of the day is that Mark once worked for Castro apologist Barbara Lee!

[Frankfort Political news junkie]

I don't think Bush and Rove truly want a conservative Supreme Court majority that will actually overturn Roe v. Wade and other controversial decisions. If the administration didn't have abortion, the pledge of allegiance referring to "one nation under God,"gay rights, 10 Commandments, etc. and other religious rights issues to throw out every election to energize the religious conservatives they would have to run on their so called "conservative" record -- reducing the deficit--hmm, that is out; reducing the size government (didn't do that); keeping us out of foreign entanglements (enough said). No, this Supreme Court appointment issue is like a carrot to hang on a stick in front of the rank and file during every election. With these phantom issues to run on they can hide from their real record which is hard to defend from any angle.

Eric,

I'm an attorney and Supreme Court watcher for well over 30 years now. The Supreme Court has been profoundly dumbed down over the past 20 years. Ask any attorney (or paralegal, for that matter) to explain it to you.

Someone needs a spelling lesson:

There, used in a sentance..."please put that book over there."

Their, used in a sentance..."please tell them to put their shoes on the mat."

Learn to spell before you tell someone else they are (they're!) stupid. Thanks!

Eric, That last post was for you.

[EK Indy]

Hopefully the grammar teacher was only joking by spelling "sentence" as SENTANCE during the previous lesson.

[Eric]

Indy, I caught that too. I make one mistake and the guy goes nuts. Then, while criticizing my spelling he can't even do it correctly himself. Funny stuff.

[Eric]

I've talked to 3 constitutional law experts in the past 2 days and all of them disagree that the court is getting dumbed down. Sorry, but we'll just have to disagree.

You may not like Scalia and company, but they are brilliant as the court as a whole is.

If you disagree, then please give me some examples of how we have been dumbed down from the great courts of the past.

[ClosetDem]

Eric,

Read National Review online. They are going nuts over the Miers nomination, and after that go to the Weekly Standard (especially Bill Kristol--probably the most influential Republican strategist in the nation). These are the two standard bearer journals for modern American conservatism. All are up in arms over the stunning mediocrity, and yes, dumbing down of the Supreme Court this nominee represents.

Though I don't agree with much of his judicial philosophy, Roberts was an excellent nominee--I'd grade him a solid A to A+. Miers, on the other hand, is at best a C to a C+, and we need and deserve much better for the Sct.

This smacks of the crass and brazen cronyism we've seen by Republicans here in KY. As one conservative commmentator put it, "her only qualification was she was, in Bush's opinion, the best attorney within 100 feet of the Oval Office." There are at least 1,000 conservative female who are far better qualified and deserving.

[ClosetDem]

Eric, go to this link for a round-up of leading national conservatives' complaints:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/10/04/BL200

[Steve M]

Here is why conservatives are upset and concerned:

Please Not Another Souter!!

Remarks of President George H.W. Bush on announcing nomination of Justice David Souter in 1990:

Judge Souter, I believe with all my heart, will prove a most worthy member of the Court. His tenure as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of New Hampshire, as Attorney General of that State, and more recently as a Federal appeals judge unquestionably demonstrates his ability, his integrity, and his dedication to public service. And he has a keen appreciation of the proper judicial role rooted in fundamental belief in separation of powers and the democratic principles underlying our great system of government.

....I have selected a person who will interpret the Constitution and,in my view, not legislate from the Federal bench.

WRONG!

[Eric]

ClosetDem,

I know that they are upset and why. I'm upset myself.

My point is that the court as a whole has gotten more and more qualified over the years than it used to be.

However, and you should really re-read my earlier post cause I already said this once, Miers is not up to snuff. I don't think she is necessarily qualified, and that is largely why I don't like the selection. I have not, and will not, defend this pick.

But, this still doesn't change the fact that on the whole the court has gotten much smarter and more intellectual than it was in the days of FDR and some other dim bulbs that we have had.

"...please give me some examples of how we have been dumbed down from the great courts of the past."

Clarence Thomas

...you know, the "justice" who opposes affirmative action - but only AFTER be personally benefitted from it...

Dumb.

Eric is confusing Scaliaphilia with legal scholarship. Just because you agree with a judge's judicial philosophy and like his pugnaciousness demeanor and pungent writing style doesn't mean he is a great jurist or even legal mind. Scalia, in fact, is the most political member of the court, and will be remembered far more for his cutsy and self-indulgent remarks during Bush v Gore, than any clever dissent he's written. Great justices don't leave an endless trail of dissents; they win other justices over with the power of their arguments and constitutional scholarship, a test Scalia has failed worse than perhaps any justice ever. It says a lot when your intellectual soulmate on the court is Clarence Thomas, who if he'd been white would likely have been at SMU with Ms Miers, trying and failing along with her to make law review.

The comment about Roosevelt's court being mediocre is utterly breathtaking. You obviously are not very well acquainted with Sct jurisprudence.
U.S. Supreme Court Justices
A listing of all Supreme Court justices. I've listed just some of the justices who served during FDR's years, many of them giants who would not recognize today's court which has not published a overpowering, compelling opinion in years. The great legal and philosophical erudition that once was a staple of the court has been replaced by circumscribed hedging.

See below:
Robert H. Jackson
(Associate: July 11, 1941)

Harlan Fiske Stone
(Associate: March 2, 1925 and Chief: July 3, 1941)

William O. Douglas
(Associate: April 17, 1939)

Felix Frankfurter
(Associate: January 30, 1939)

Stanley Reed
(Associate: January 31, 1938)

Hugo L. Black
(Associate: August 19, 1937)

Benjamin N. Cardozo
(Associate: March 14, 1932)


Charles E. Hughes
(Associate: October 10, 1910 and Chief: February 24, 1930)

And now, let's add to that list Clarence Thomas (body-builder, hypocrite, porn fetishist) and Harriet Miers (who once said "George Bush is the most brilliant man I've ever met). Dumber? Scarily so.

[Eric]

I'm sorry, but I just can't take anyone seriously that doesn't think Scalia (whether you like him or not) is a brilliant legal mind. You are on another planet my anonymous friend.

Hugo Black? And you trashed Scalia? Please.

[C'mon]

Hugo Black is a more relevant legal mind than Scalia. He wrote far more precedent creating law than Scalia has or will. Scalia is brilliant perhaps, but not very relevant. He's the R. Emmett Tyrell of the Sct. He has a lively, albeit imitative, writing style, and is fun to read as he skewers his opponents, but in the end neither Tyrell nor Scalia have had much of an impact with their ideas. They are both more entertainer than scholar. Though I'll grant Scalia is a very high brow entertainer, and could have held his own with the Sct crew I listed. The thing Scalia seems to lack to complement a high IQ is wisdom. That is what separates a highly entertaining, acerbic jurist from a profound and significant one.

[Eric]

C'mon,

"He wrote far more precedent creating law than Scalia has or will."

Since when did creating the law as a Supreme Court judge make one smarter or wiser than another judge? If the laws created are bad and against the Constitution, then does that not make it a bad and unwise thing to do.

See, the difference between you and me is that you obviously only see things in a poltical light, thus the anti-Scalia comments regarding his brilliance. I, on the other hand, while not agreeing with almost anything Justice Breyer has done will admit that he is a brilliant jurist. I'm honest.

Maybe some of you folks should try that out sometime.