The most shocking thing about Bush’s nomination is that so many people are shocked by Bush’s nomination. What exactly did they expect? I realize that some people still have a strange form of cognitive dissonance in which every time they look at GWB they see the face of Ronald Reagan. But most everyone else should have seen this coming. Bush is no conservative; he is a cronyist – a believer in the divine right to give all your friends cool jobs. GWB is like the frat guy you knew in college who’d get drunk and say, “Dude, when I’m president, I’m gonna make Bubba the attorney general…and since Skeeter handles the beer funds I’ll make him the Secretary of the Treasury…and I’ll make the hot chick in my Chem lab the…”
I will admit, though, that when it comes to judicial nominations, GWB is following in Regan’s footsteps. Like the Gipper, Bush prefers to appoint women who have no apparent qualifications and are a complete cipher as to how they will serve once they become a justice.
A request for all the die-hard Bush loyalists: can you please, please stop praising the President for his loyalty. Loyalty is not an unqualified virtue. While it can be a valuable character trait it is not always a noble one. Young gangsters and old coon dogs, for example, are also loyal but we don’t want them picking our Supreme Court justices.
Why are the people who say they want an “originalist” and a “strict constructionist” on the bench whining about Miers qualifications? If you plan to legislate from the bench then it certainly helps to have a brilliant legal scholar. If you want someone who can interpret the Constitution properly you just need someone who’s literate.
I’m also tired of the underlying snobbery that implies that since Ms. Miers went to SMU rather than an Ivy League school that she is unqualified to serve on the Supreme Court. I realize that after you pay $125,000 for an education that, as Will Hunting says, you could get for $1.25 in late fees at the public library, you might feel entitled to prestigious government posts. But we shouldn’t hold it against Miers that she had to wait until late in life to take advantage of cronyism rather than being able to profit from it in time to fill out a Harvard application.
Too many people are making a big fuss over the fact that Miers donated $1000 to the Al Gore campaign in 1988. So she was a democrat in the late ‘80s; so was most every other Texan. Remember the phrase “Reagan Democrats”? That was us, democrats who actually voted for Reagan. Know why you don’t hear about “Bush Democrats?” Because we all became Republicans.
Some perspective: I too supported Al Gore in the ’88 primary. If I can transform into a Republican-voting religious-right wing-nut in seventeen year, I’m sure Ms. Miers could too.
2
Who knows who Miers' is as a judge? That's what has people on the right upset. It's another stealth candidate who doesn't have a clear record on anything. We are told "trust us." Well, I think that trust is gone. You can only say "The check is in the mail" so many times.
posted on 10.04.2005 5:29 AM3
"Miers is no Bork. that's for sure."
Who knows? I certainly hope she is no Bork. I'm not optimistic about the results of any decision made by our chief executive, though.
posted on 10.04.2005 7:08 AM4
Joe,
If I may, I want to zero in on your words about loyalty, but do so in the abstract. I.e., I'm not weighing in on the President, Miers, or anything political.
It is a great irony to me to observe evangelicals who rail against postmodern relativism, in turn spin, excuse, and defend inappropriate words and/or actions by a spouse, children, pastor, movement, party, country. One can be loyal to a person or group but still speak a specific negative truth about a particular action or about particular words. There is no virtue in being loyal to a falsehood or wrong-headed actions.
If we're followers of the Lord who is Truth, why do we mutiliate the Truth out of loyalty to fallen humans or groups of humans? While we should be full of grace while we're devoted to the Truth, and while we should speak lovingly while we speak the Truth, the Truth should should qualify our loyalty.
posted on 10.04.2005 8:16 AM5
The most shocking thing about Bush’s nomination is that so many people are shocked by Bush’s nomination. What exactly did they expect? I realize that some people still have a strange form of cognitive dissonance in which every time they look at GWB they see the face of Ronald Reagan. But most everyone else should have seen this coming. Bush is no conservative; he is a cronyism – a believer in the divine right to give all your friends cool jobs. GWB is like the frat guy you knew in college who’d get drunk and say, “Dude, when I’m president, I’m gonna make Bubba the attorney general…and since Skeeter handles the beer funds I’ll make him the Secretary of the Treasury…and I’ll make the hot chick in my Chem lab the…”
Now many Evangelical Christians are getting a taste of the way many moderate Democrats or Independents like myself felt when we found out that Bush was not a "compassionate Conservative" or a "uniter not a divider", or for "small government" and "fiscal conservatism".
And at the beginning of his Presidency, there was even an organization of Republican gays and lesbians and fair minded straight individuals in the GOP formed to try and integrate gays and lesbians more into the GOP. It had White House support and contacts, including Mary Cheney. But when Rove decided to pursue well, voters like you Joe, they got frozen out and/or were given the boot, and the organization disbanded. Its impossible to imagine a group like that being formed today.
When Bush turned his back on any pretense of moderation in order to pursue re-election that should have been your first clue that he has the morals of an opportunist, not a Christian. Yet most Evangelical Christians blindly and reverently followed and danced to the beat of Rove's drum. So much for St. George and the power-hungry fever dreams of Dominionists.
And, oh yeah,....I told you so you suckers!
posted on 10.04.2005 1:10 PM6
Guys, go check out Beldarblog. This Texas trial lawyer is a breath of fresh air for those worried about Miers.
posted on 10.04.2005 10:35 PM7
I'm convinced that Miers is a solid conservative and a committed evangelical to boot. I'm not worried about her positions. She just isn't the best person for the job. Here's what I wrote in my blog (Runalong with Pastor Mark):
Harry Reid is a Genius!
He read the writing on the wall and figured out what all the conservatives already knew and most Democrats were in denial about: namely, whoever Bush nominated to the Supreme Court was going to pass the Senate. And it (probably she) was going to be a conservative. Reid could have done all the counter-productive speechifying politicians do at times like this, but he got smart. He decided, "if we have to have a conservative, let's make sure it is the weakest possible conservative."
He didn't want the prospect of white male Democrat Judiciary Committee members "grilling" Janice Rogers Brown on race, or Mitch McConnell on separation of church and state. Well aware of the principle of stare decisis he didn't want a Luttig or even an Owens writing opinions and dissents that would be studied by law students for generations. He didn't want Jones interrogating ACLU lawyers before considering a case.
He wanted someone who wouldn't be likely to influence other judges like Kennedy, who wouldn't be terribly impressive in confirmation hearings, who wouldn't write brilliant opinions and dissents that would stir up budding legal minds for years to come. He wanted someone with less heft, less persuasiveness, less lasting impact. He decided Miers was his best bet.
So he began talking up the importance of judges who don't have bench experience. He let Bush know that Miers was acceptable. He figured Bush would avoid a fight if possible and he knew Bush liked to promote people he knew well.
And it worked. Bush fell for it. Reid put Miers on the court. This is the one moment everyone will always remember him for. Sheer political brilliance. He had a lousy hand, Bush had a strong hand. Reid bluffed, Bush blinked, and the rest is history.
mark swanson
posted on 10.05.2005 1:04 AM8
Isn't Reagan the president who gave us O'Connor and Kennedy? Reagan's success rate of getting solid conservatives onto the court was worse than Bush I's. Bush II seems to be better than both of them so far, though only time will tell for sure.
posted on 10.07.2005 4:42 PM