[Speed Gibson,
Wednesday October 5, 2005 at 12:00am]
Harriet Miers
My first reaction was "Who?" My second reaction was "Why?" My third reaction was "Wrong!"
Hugh Hewitt is again the GOP waterboy, ostensibly happy with the choice. Laura Ingraham and others clearly are not. Rush Limbaugh took a call from Vice President Cheney. The call was cordial but a bit chilly as Rush thinks this is a weak move.
Doug as Bogus Gold is more direct. As Doug says to the President in a follow-up post, "You owed me more than that." I agree.
Much of the criticism revolves around her experience, even her education. But I think that misses the mark. We have had other "lightweights" successfully serve on this court, and serve it well. The Constitution is plainly written in plain Engish, not legalese. A working knowledge of American history, a competent clerk, and a little common sense will more than suffice. As such, it may well work out that Miers will perform as advertised.
But the truly successful justice must have the consent of the governed, expressed through elections, the Senate confirmation process, and public opinion. The process must provide for that by, yes, selecting people with a substantive, verifiable resume. The President may think the world of her, as may her friends and colleagues, but without independent evidence as to her fitness for duty, the charge of cronyism has merit.
To be fair, Miers resume is impressive, but how that translates to the job of Supreme Court Justice is another matter. "Trust me" is not sufficient. To say that Miers was the clearly outstanding candidate is clearly less than honest amidst a strong field including Luttig, Brown, and McConnell.
Again to be fair, Luttig, Brown, and McConnell may not have been confirmable, given the Democratic Party's current embrace of the hard left, and the gang of 14 in the Senate. But if turning the Supreme Court back toward the Constitution isn't worth the fight, what is?
Hugh Hewitt is again the GOP waterboy, ostensibly happy with the choice. Laura Ingraham and others clearly are not. Rush Limbaugh took a call from Vice President Cheney. The call was cordial but a bit chilly as Rush thinks this is a weak move.
Doug as Bogus Gold is more direct. As Doug says to the President in a follow-up post, "You owed me more than that." I agree.
Much of the criticism revolves around her experience, even her education. But I think that misses the mark. We have had other "lightweights" successfully serve on this court, and serve it well. The Constitution is plainly written in plain Engish, not legalese. A working knowledge of American history, a competent clerk, and a little common sense will more than suffice. As such, it may well work out that Miers will perform as advertised.
But the truly successful justice must have the consent of the governed, expressed through elections, the Senate confirmation process, and public opinion. The process must provide for that by, yes, selecting people with a substantive, verifiable resume. The President may think the world of her, as may her friends and colleagues, but without independent evidence as to her fitness for duty, the charge of cronyism has merit.
To be fair, Miers resume is impressive, but how that translates to the job of Supreme Court Justice is another matter. "Trust me" is not sufficient. To say that Miers was the clearly outstanding candidate is clearly less than honest amidst a strong field including Luttig, Brown, and McConnell.
Again to be fair, Luttig, Brown, and McConnell may not have been confirmable, given the Democratic Party's current embrace of the hard left, and the gang of 14 in the Senate. But if turning the Supreme Court back toward the Constitution isn't worth the fight, what is?