Monday, October 03, 2005
Ah, Politics
Politics! Harriet Miers is the Senate's choice -- and she happens to be Bush's lawyer to boot. How bad can that be?
One other thing -- as a non-lawyer -- it is a little tiresome to hear that every SCOTUS justice has to be a freaking constitutional scholar genius to thrive. Way back when, they just named talented smart people - even occasionally a non-lawyer, heaven forbid.
Let's hope she's good. It sounds like she will sail through her confirmation from the first readings...
8 Comments:
By 
cakreiz, at
Mon Oct 03, 05:47:00 PM:
The possibilities are endless. Will Dems will unite with the NE GOP contingent against a conservative counterrevolt? Presumably the Prez would withdraw the nomination if this happens- but it's interesting speculation. Historically, one wonders what the Religious Right expects out of its venture into politics. In the past, they had nothing to do with the mammon of politics. Will they retreat again now that they've been 'betrayed'. Or will they continue to trust pols?
By cakreiz, at
Mon Oct 03, 09:01:00 PM:
That was my initial hysterical reaction (2 hours ago). I suspect she'll be as conservative as the President thinks she is. The Right needs to settle down and take a deep breath. Politics isn't Eden.
By Catchy Pseudonym, at
Mon Oct 03, 09:49:00 PM:
I don't know. A lot of Democrats like her too. I have to admit I enjoyed listening to Limbaugh today. As far as the super right-wing part of the Republican party, my opinion is that the extreme right can only push so far until they start freaking the moderates and even not so moderates out. They'll evenutally push themselves away from the rest of the party. As much as they delude themselves into thinking they do, the die-hard conservatives don't speak for the majority of Americans and the Republicans know that.
By 
, at
Tue Oct 04, 07:11:00 AM:
We elect the President. He appoints whomever he wants to the Supreme Court.
It's in the Constitution, doo-doo heads.
By Cardinalpark, at
Tue Oct 04, 08:04:00 AM:
C ouple of reactions to thoughts above, which generally seem sympathetic rather than apoplectic:
1) Extremists always want a fight. If GWB likes her and trusts her, and she happens to be acceptable to Specter and Schumer, what's wrong with that? It makes it far easier for her to sail through the Senate. She is certainly accomplished, both as lawyer and executive. Frankly, in many ways more accomplished that an "academic" lawyer who never lived in the real world.
As for the investment manager comment, I would only point out that there are many virtuoso investment managers who've never had a thing to do with equities, the finest probably being Bill Gross at Pacific Investment Management, the world's best fixed income manager. Don't be myopic...
By Gordon Smith, at
Tue Oct 04, 09:04:00 AM:
Here's my latest take on the Harriet.
By cakreiz, at
Tue Oct 04, 02:28:00 PM:
From the Founding Fathers-- in WSJ's op-ed page, Randy Barnett quotes Hamilton, from Federalist No. 76:
"To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity... He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure."
By Cassandra, at
Tue Oct 04, 09:29:00 PM:
Yeah. Also from the Federalist No 76:
In the act of nomination, [the president’s] judgment alone would be exercised; and as it would be his sole duty to point out the man who, with the approbation of the Senate, should fill an office, his responsibility would be as complete as if he were to make the final appointment. There can, in this view, be no difference between nominating and appointing. The same motives which would influence a proper discharge of his duty in one case, would exist in the other. And as no man could be appointed but on his previous nomination, every man who might be appointed would be, in fact, his choice.
She has many recommendations other than "family connection, ...personal attachment, or a view to popularity..." and many have so opined. If the Constitution required a Constitutional scholar or a judge, we should have been deprived of many of the most famous names in Supreme Court history.
She's only going to be on the Court 3 years while he's in office - hardly long enough to be an "obsequious object of his pleasure" even if she had, as the most junior member of the bench, any real influence over the Court. To think she will so soon is nothing short of ludicrous.
