Harriet Miers
I’m arriving late to this party.
As someone else wrote once (and forgive me for forgetting where I got this), it is a darn good thing Bush is so good at killing Islamic fascists, because I’ve got very little else to support him for.
Really, the man makes it hard to support him anymore. He only retains support through the pathetic alternatives offered by the other side.
The war was the primary reason to re-elect the man in 2004. The secondary reason was the Supreme Court nominations sure to come during the second term. I’ve long given up on any sensible fiscal restraint out of the Republicans (the subject of another rant for later), and after Bush squandered any real opportunity to alter the abomination that is Social Security…well, I kept thinking that at least we’d get that Supreme Court thing straightened out.
There’s a paradox here. Strict Constructionalists like me are longing for a day when the Supreme Court isn’t all that important. We long for a day when the President and Congress isn’t that important either. Unfortunately, the only way to get there is to elevate these concerns to the highest of levels.
It is vitally important to get constructionalists on the court, and that is what we wanted out of Bush. John Roberts seems to be a good choice so far.
But Harriet Miers?
I’m sure she is a fine human being. I’m sure she is a great woman. I had never heard of her until her name was announced. I was inclined to give her a chance to prove herself. Certainly it was a bit of a shock given the long list of wonderfully qualified candidates with proven records of interpreting laws within the bounds of the Constitution. Why Miers?
Now that she has withdrawn her name, I’m still asking…why Miers? What indispensable qualities did she bring to the bench? It doesn’t bother me that she lacks experience as a Judge (experts have given us the mess we have now), but when I read past statements that seem to embrace rights that simply aren’t in the Constitution, I have to stop and wonder.
Because Conservatives have been burned many, many times. Justice Souter was installed by Bush the Elder, after many assurances that he was ‘one of us’. Souter is now a solid vote for those who wish to use the power of the state to seize private lands under the Kelo decision. If memory serves, John Paul Stevens was nominated by President Ford, and is now another solid vote for the leftist agenda. Sandra Day O’Connor, nominated by Reagan is a less then ideal Justice, although not quite of the Souter magnitude.
So Conservatives are a little gun shy on nominees without ironclad credentials in reading the Constitution as written and not finding all sorts of new rights and obligations to expand Federal power. Therefore, Miers comes along like a tepid cup of coffee.
So why did Bush nominate her?
Because Bush is not a Conservative. I had hoped that he was, and previous actions had suggested it. But the lack of fiscal restraint, the inability to articulate the cause on Social Security, and general mixed messages on the proper role of government leads me to believe I’ve been duped.
Now I can only hope that he pays attention to the base and nominates a proper candidate, like Janice Rogers Brown or Michael Luttig.
It is a good thing he is adept at killing Islamic Fascists….
Filed under: Politics