ConfirmThem

By Quin Posted in Uncategorized — Comments () / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Okay, what do John Dean, Chuck Colson, Bernard Nussbaum, Jack Quinn and Lanny Davis have in common with Harriet Miers? They were all White House counsels, of course. Does ANYBODY here think that any of these people, by virtue of being White House counsel, were qualified for the Supreme Court?!? Or isn't it more likely that if Clinton had tried to appoint Lanny Davis to the high court, EVERY SINGLE person on this web site would have been yelling at the top of their lungs that Davis wasn't anywhere NEAR qualified for the job? Well, the same goes for Harrier Miers. It has NOTHING to do with elitism -- look at the list of other acceptable judges, and you'll see a wide variety of schools they went to. It has EVERYTHING to do with proven experience dealing with issues of the Constitution. I would even argue that a supremely respected History or Gov't/PoliSci professor, one who specialized in constitutional studies and had written extensively on the Constitution and on Madison, etc., to great acclaim, would be more qualified for the high court than Harriet Miers is. Can Harriet Miers knowledgeably discuss the important issues raised by Saenz v Roe? What does she think of Clarence THomas' separate opinion in it concerning the applicability of privileges/immunities? Does she even have a clue? Maybe so -- but we should know she has a clue already. She shouldn't be a cipher. And if we are supposed to trust her "heart" rather than her brain, as the president suggested, we already are in Feinstein territory, as in "Tell me what you feel about things as a husband and a father." That's why the president's press conference made things worse, not better. Trusting somebody's heart is pure, unadulterated cr@p. And it is an insult to all those who supported John Roberts on the explicit grounds that the president is deserved deference IF his pick is brilliant, super-qualified, and eminent in the field of constitutional law. Indeed, it's an insult to all conservative who care about the courts for the sake of law based on right reason. Reasoning is crucial. If Miers votes "right," but she can't explain her vote on paper with any more persuasiveness than is evident in the logical mush offered consistently by A. Kennedy and S.D. O'Connor, then she will be a disaster. Meanwhile, she remains a crony, in the very sense warned against by Hamilton. Senators should have no compunction about opposing her.