The Case for Democratic Support of Miers
To take a break from the more serious debacle that occurred Tuesday morning, I'd like to turn to politics if I may.
I've been pondering this question for a while now, well really since she was nominated. On the one hand, in these weeks of anti-Bushism it seems like a good strategy to oppose anything he does. On the other hand, maybe she’s the best the dems can hope for. With such strong opposition from hardcore conservatives, if she fails, Bush will no doubt nominate someone more to the right’s liking – and this, to me, spells disaster for democrats, as they'll surely acquiesce to the new nominee much like they did to Roberts.
Personally, I don’t think Miers is at all qualified. SMU? Come on. First woman to run her law firm or to be president of the state bar? Please. Slate has an excellent article debunking both these as accomplishments worthy of the Supreme Court (though they are no doubt accomplishments). My take – I can point to 49 other women who were the first women in their state to be president of the state bar. Does that make them qualified to sit on the High Court? No.
I think the bottom line is that I'd rather have her on the court writing nonsensical logic 1Ls can poke holes through than another Scalia. I disagree with Scalia most of the time, but it’s generally hard to fault his logic - and he is a good read. Maybe Bush’s legacy won’t be that he shifted the Court to the right for the next 30 years. Maybe it will be that he put on a woman whose best qualification was that she was his friend, and when she can’t keep pace with the rest of the Justices, we'll find out what kind of company the President keeps.
I've been pondering this question for a while now, well really since she was nominated. On the one hand, in these weeks of anti-Bushism it seems like a good strategy to oppose anything he does. On the other hand, maybe she’s the best the dems can hope for. With such strong opposition from hardcore conservatives, if she fails, Bush will no doubt nominate someone more to the right’s liking – and this, to me, spells disaster for democrats, as they'll surely acquiesce to the new nominee much like they did to Roberts.
Personally, I don’t think Miers is at all qualified. SMU? Come on. First woman to run her law firm or to be president of the state bar? Please. Slate has an excellent article debunking both these as accomplishments worthy of the Supreme Court (though they are no doubt accomplishments). My take – I can point to 49 other women who were the first women in their state to be president of the state bar. Does that make them qualified to sit on the High Court? No.
I think the bottom line is that I'd rather have her on the court writing nonsensical logic 1Ls can poke holes through than another Scalia. I disagree with Scalia most of the time, but it’s generally hard to fault his logic - and he is a good read. Maybe Bush’s legacy won’t be that he shifted the Court to the right for the next 30 years. Maybe it will be that he put on a woman whose best qualification was that she was his friend, and when she can’t keep pace with the rest of the Justices, we'll find out what kind of company the President keeps.
Labels: Rabid Conservatives
posted by Disco Stu at 2:51 PM
9 Comments:
I'm going to have to part ways with you on this one Armen, for the reason you give to support her toward the end. I'd rather have a Scalia writing decent opinions than a Miers churning out a muddle of crap passing as "the law of the land."
Think about the implications of your statement. You're saying you'd rather have authoritative decisions of the court be so wrong 1Ls could drive a truck through them.
"I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here!"
Tom, I didn't write the piece, it is a Disco Stud original.
Tom,
I stand by my post.
I'd rather have a Thomas (or Miers) than a Scalia. Scalia scares me, Thomas doesn't. If Miers writes easily identifiable crap it will cement Bush's judgment for what it is - piss poor.
If she's so terrible even 1Ls think it's crap she can't last that long on the court. Not to get to ahead of myself, but how great would it be if one of Bush's appointments to the Court had to resign because she couldn't cut it?
The tough part of my logic is just how to go about accomplishing this. It's not feasible to say "I support Miers because she isn't qualified and I think it will reflect poorly on the President." I think the best strategy may be to not have an opinion. Simply say you need more information, you need to wait for the hearings, you need to wait for papers the Bush administration won't release. Then vote for her because she seemed like a nice person in the hearings, or you are convinced she has a good judicial philosophy. Some bs like that.
DS, my apologies. You took my faux pas like a scholar and a gentleman.
While I agree that I'd love nothing better than for Bush to be (further) exposed as a hack, I don't think it's worth mucking up constitutional law to do it. For example, after Miers is off the Court, we'll still have her poorly reasoned opinions, and we'll have to lvie with them. We can't reverse them just b ecause "stupid justice" wrote them. See where you're at when you read something Douglas wrote in a hurry? We don't need more of that.
I'd rather Bush put upa big fight to confirm her, and everyone solidly oppose her, keep her off the Court, and reveal just how impotent, yes, impotent the White House is these days.
Disco Stu, you should be thankful for your semi-anonymity right now. If you are going to admit you have no integrity, it's better if no one knows it's you. This is much worse than Armen's take that it's no big deal for justices to bow to political pressure in deciding cases. (Or is this only as long as his side is the one doing the pressuring?) He wants to have the Court decide cases based on political ideals instead of stable legal principles. You sound like it doesn't make any difference to you how the Court decides cases, so long as the outcome is closer to what you had in mind. Process matters.
Listen moron, if you want to debate what I say in class, raise your fucking hand and say so. Anonymously crying foul while criticizing a co-bloggers anonymoity takes some hubris. If you want to debate what I say in class here, at least portray my views accurately.
It's all for naught now anyway. We'll see how accurate my prediction of democratic acquiesence to the new nominee is though.
People,
We don't need reasons to find fault with Bush or his administration. Bush will go down as one of the worst presidents in our history regardless of what happens to his nominees. Supporting someone who does not belong on the court in order to make Bush look worse is both unnecessary and unwise. As Democrats, progressives, or just people who can speak and think in complete sentences, our first and foremost priority should be that the nominee is smart and capable. If we get someone like Roberts (conservative but competent) the Democrats in the Senate should vote to confirm because (1) as we are all aware, justices are capable of intellectual growth while on the bench and no one - not even Bush - can predict what certain nominees will do and (2) Bush did win this last election and gets to nominate this justice. When/if the Democrats win the presidency in the future it would be nice to afforded the courtesy of nominating competent justices without them being shot down for sharing OUR ideological views. If the nominee happens to be a troglodyte fascist pig that eats babies, well then yes, we should filibuster the hell out of that nominee. As for the question of whether or not Dems will have the political cajones to do this, Disco Stu raises an interesting question. Certainly they should not shy awaif from this fight if it is necessary. The best time to fight a battle is when your enemy is weak and divided. Bush and the Republicans are as weak as they have ever been and they will be more and more divided as 2008 approaches and certain senators fight over who will be heir apparent. If the next nominee fails to live up to our standards then we go to battle.
PS: We have to stop thinking of Scalia as brilliant just because he looks brilliant next to Thomas!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Post a Comment
<< Home