Google

Sunday, October 09, 2005

Me, Myself, and Miers

George Bush raised many Americans' eyebrows last week.

Not due to his failure to comment on the Katie Holmes pregnancy announcement. Nor because of his silence about the purported Nick-Jessica split. Nor by reason of his blind disregard to every citizen’s concern over Lindsey Lohan’s well-being after her oddly paparazzi-free car crash.

Instead, his largest surprise was his nomination of Harriet Miers to be the newest Supreme Court justice.

The left was shocked—perhaps disappointed—that he did not put forward a known conservative that they could bruise. And the right was disappointed—perhaps shocked—that he did not put forward a conservative that they could praise.

Some might say that our chief executive is an idiot for nominating somebody who has no judicial experience. But these voices would be sadly mistaken.

Experience shows that those who have not served on a bench still be effective and well-regarded high court members. Take Lewis Powell, the highly respected lawyer who served on the Supreme Court from 1972 to 1987.

Even many of the judiciary’s leaders have lacked judgeships. Remember William Rehnquist—you know, that guy before John Roberts? Never a judge before that.

How about John Marshall? Nope. Earl Warren? Same thing.

These facts, of course, have not silenced the president’s critics. They have other reasons to smolder.

You see, the left is angry because Miers has worked closely with the president for years but has no judicial record they can skewer. And the right is upset because she has no proven conservative credentials and Bush says that he did not ask her about Roe v. Wade.

Perhaps the president is a smarter man than any of us believed.

Does anybody really think that he would not be damn sure about her jurisprudential beliefs after working with her for so many years? Is it reasonable to assume that the nomination process did not prompt Bush to ask Miers about at least her general philosophy and views on major issues of the day?

It strains credibility to think that this was a thoughtless, knee-jerk action.

Bush has disarmed the liberals by nominating a successful career woman who garners nothing but respect from those she has worked with.

Like John Roberts, only in heels.

And with some conservatives fuming, it is hard for liberals to oppose her too stridently. Sure, conservatives will stomp and steam … but most republicans will get on board with the president. Many (if not most) democrats, although pissed off, will give Miers the thumbs-up either because of her conservative critics, her respectable resume, or her ostensible ovaries.

That makes the selection of Harriet Miers a very judicious political move.

4 Comments:

At October 11, 2005 8:59 PM, Blogger The Phoenix replied to my musings ...

I agree, I think selecting Miers was a smart move. I've read several things about this woman, and I really do think she will be an effective Supreme Court Justice.

I bet she will look just smashing in those stupid scarf Pilgrim-looking thingys they make women Justices wear.

 
At October 11, 2005 9:18 PM, Blogger David Amulet replied to my musings ...

Great point! You know it's time for the court to enter the 21st century and move toward some gender equality: make the men wear the puffy doilies, too!

-- d.a.

 
At October 20, 2005 12:41 PM, Blogger The Pagan Temple replied to my musings ...

Miers was just suppossed to be a sequel to the success of John Roberts, about who little was known as well. But like most sequels, this one didn't play as well. The conservatives are mad in my opinion because she's not the kindof nominee the conservative activist groups can "rally the troops" behind-i.e., rake in the donations to fight the evil liberals with.

 
At October 24, 2005 6:15 PM, Blogger ArchPundit replied to my musings ...

I have this saved so when you delete it later, I can still taunt you.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home