.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
Visit Freedom's Zone Donate To Project Valour

Monday, October 03, 2005

Miers For The Supreme Court

My guess is that Bush did this because he believes he knows Miers well and believes she will be reliably conservative. SCOTUSblog has all the reasons why Miers is a poor pick, but look at it from a conservative perspective. Several of the more liberal members of the current SC have been Republican appointees. If Bush attempts to nominate anyone identifiable as right of Ginsberg he will face a rabidly determined Democratic opposition - so why should Republicans fight that hard unless the nominee will actually hold the line on some constitutional issues?

Although I am hardly a traditional conservative in every way, reading about Justice Breyer's ideas makes me nauseous. If the Constitution is redefinable then it does not really exist, and Kelo is a perfect example of what that doctrine produces. Free speech? Justice Breyer is prepared to dump it in favor of "the people's will". Blah. Pfuey. A pox upon this idiocy, which sounds suspiciously Marxist to me. Dumping the right of a minority to their free (and political) speech because a majority of Congress thinks it would improve political life is outrageous and a denial of the basic conceptual underpinning of this country. Justice Breyer really favors making Congress's will the totalitarian owner of this country. This is the liberal dogma I so fear.

The First Amendment says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
From that Justice Breyer derives the idea that it is "active liberty" to rule that it is constitutional to allow Congress to make a law that both abridges the freedom of speech and the right of the people to assemble (unify) for political purposes too close to an election. In other words, Justice Breyer believes that the document that says "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech" can be trumped by Congress making a law that abridges the freedom of speech.

Justice Breyer believes in a government of men, not laws. I believe in a government of laws. The sentiment in Georgia is running the same way, even among diehard Democrats. For all these people here in south Georgia to be following Supreme Court nominations so closely, this must be a huge social issue. I think Kelo has changed the political map of the country.

If Harriet Miers is prepared to adhere to the idea that the text of the Constitution does have meaning and is the highest law of the land, I believe her nomination will be one of the greatest things that Bush could have done for the country.

As for what we can expect, I believe Carl of No Oil For Pacifists has predicted the future by reviewing the recent past. On this issue, if Miers proves to adhere to the doctrine that the words of the Constitution at least mean what they say, I would absolutely support breaking a filibuster by changing the rules of the Senate. On this issue, I am absolutely hard right. If the Breyer doctrine wins out, democracy is dead unless there is another revolution.

Update: Howard of Oraculations says that Miers has "zero conservative credentials". We will see. Volokh has some interesting posts up about Miers here and here. The second claims that Bush may have chosen her because she is willing to support his GWOT positions. If so, Bush just shot himself in the foot, but there is active debate in the comments. Hilariously, the claim that Miers is a lesbian has already surfaced.

Hah! The Anchoress writes that Miers took her undergraduate degree in mathematics. This is a good sign. Very few people who passed calculus could really believe that "A must not abridge on B" equates to "A may abridge B". I don't take seriously the dire news that Schumer likes her, because I doubt Schumer passed calculus.

What questions can Dianne Feinstein ask Miers? "Who are you as a non-wife and non-mother?" Also, I have been reading ABC News' immediate "crony" slam, and wondered how that complaint squared with Schumer saying that Miers was on the acceptable list from the Senate? Surely it's either/or?

Not much to add- you are right on your take of the Breyer Doctrine.

The tree can grow- but not if the anchoring roots are severed.
The tree can grow- but not if the anchoring roots are severed.

She is a mystery nominee, but my innitial reaction of hearing her speak is that she is not as impressive as Roberts was. It's not a judgement, just first impression.
" reading about Justice Breyer's ideas makes me nauseous."

I as well. But, the President's pick isn't making me feel much better. Judges were a major reason I supported this President and I feel ripped off. It feels like just another crony pick.
Minh-Duc, she definitely isn't the type of legal mind that Roberts was. She did head the committee that picked him, though.

Gindy, I just can't tell. I am reading all sorts of different things about her.
The math degree is the best thing I've heard all day.

She's served W well.
I do not feel good about this nomination. But the fact that Roberts went before her is not advantagous to her. Roberts' performance is hard to beat.
"I am reading all sorts of different things about her."

Me too. But, that is the problem. It is just too hard too tell. I heard Cheney on Rush Limbaugh. He seems to be going with a trust them theory.
people with an undergraduate degree in mathematics are exceptional. Sometimes even more so.
It might be my own prejudices, but I think from what I have been reading that she will not be the type to be sloppy with the Constitution. Along with Tommy, I think the mathematics degree is significant.

If you put her and Roberts together they would be a perfect SC justice. She has the world experience he does not.

Minh-Duc, I don't think many people would look that good in comparison to Roberts.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?