.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
Heavy-Handed Politics

"€œGod willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world
without the United States and Zionism."€ -- Iran President Ahmadi-Nejad

Monday, October 10, 2005

ON MIERS

This fairly sums up my thoughts on the Meirs selection:

"The very fact that Harriet Miers is a member of an evangelical church suggests that she is not dying to be accepted by the beautiful people, and is unlikely to sell out the Constitution of the United States in order to be the toast of Georgetown cocktail parties or praised in The New York Times. Considering some of the turkeys that Republicans have put on the Supreme Court in the past, she could be a big improvement. We don't know. But President Bush says he has known Harriet Miers long enough that he feels sure. For the rest of us, she is a stealth nominee. Not since The Invisible Man has there been so much stealth. That's not ideal by a long shot. But ideal was probably never in the cards, given the weak sisters among the Republicans' Senate 'majority.'... The bottom line with any Supreme Court justice is how they vote on the issues before the High Court. It would be nice to have someone with ringing rhetoric and dazzling intellectual firepower. But the bottom line is how they vote. If the President is right about Harriet Miers, she may be the best choice he could make under the circumstances."

--—Thomas Sowell

3 Comments:

  • Sums up my thoughts nicely as well H-H, but then Thomas Sowell does that so often that I have come to expect it of him.

    I was watching the reactions of various others last night, including Republicans/conservatives. It struck me that once again we have allowed the left to dictate the terms of the debate at it infuriates me. ‘Our’ guys are all talking about conservative justices and the left talks about liberal justices. That argument can not be won and it misses the real argument, which we can win, of judicial activists vs. constitutional constructionists.

    The very fact that we are engaged in the process of appointing a Supreme Court justice rather than electing one makes our point! It is not a political position and politics ought not to have anything to do with it. We should rise above the political argument, declare ourselves neutral on and disinterested in a justices political views and take the high road regarding the proper non-political objective interpretive role of the courts in our system of government.

    To be sure, the left will whine that we are being disingenuous and really have a hidden political agenda but accusing us of doing surreptitiously what they are doing openly is a weak argument that I will happily grant them while we shift the debate from subjective politics to supportable principle.

    By Anonymous Anotmo, at 8:38 AM  

  • Well said.

    I heard Laura Ingraham say today (she is not thrilled with Miers being selected by Bush)as she was talking to John Fund from WSJ's Opinion Journal (who has changed his mind and now thinks Miers was a bad choice)that Miers may be 100% loyal to Bush and rule that way in cases for now, but that loyalty will run out in 3 years when Bush is gone from the White House.

    At that point, she may go the way that others before her have gone, (like Justice Kennedy) and fall victim to the daily pressure and bombardment of the left in Washington. And of course, that's possible.

    I too wish we were in a position that we could nominate a more "sure thing" (whatever that is) candidate and strict constructionist, but we have too many RINOS and other moderate senators, not to mention some linguini-spined Republican senators to get what we prefer.

    The nomination is not a one issue appointment (abortion) as some seem to think.

    One of the raps on Miers that I have been hearing lately (and brought up by John Fund, today) is that Miers does not seem to have strong personal views or positions on matters and those who have worked with her don't know where she stands on issues.

    That, too me, seems like it should be a positive, not a negative quality too have as a Judge (or as in this case - a Justice). I know it is hard for conservatives to swallow - we would prefer a bedrock conservative on all issues - and one who would ALWAYS VOTE the way WE would vote.

    But let's have a little dose of reality. Case in point: Note my post where Scalia and Thomas agreed 68% of the time on cases brought before them.

    As we both have said before, being a constructionist will cure many of our ills.

    By Blogger HeavyHanded, at 9:44 AM  

  • You both have stated the point quite well. I can only lament the fact that we must settle for a maybe. The American people as a whole deserve clarity and once again we get none. She may well be the best candidate we can get through the muck of the senate. Pity that a Republican majority can't come together and give their constituents what they have asked for. Politics have become a game where the American people always lose, the question is, how much?

    By Blogger ablur, at 11:06 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home