On Miers
Some folks on the right support the Miers’ nomination. Some don’t. In the some don’t camp, there are basically three reasons that right-leaning people don’t support her:
1 – Her qualifications are questionable.
2- Her positions on various issues are unknown.
3 – Both
My position, honestly, is that 1 and 3 don’t matter one bit. At all. Focusing on number 2 is what scares the Hell out of me. We don’t know how she feels about the commerce clause, second amendment, eminent domain, ad infinitum. The Bush administration says trust us. After record spending, the biggest federal bureaucracy ever, lax immigration and border controls, and the whole list of grievances that conservatives have against this big-spending administration, trust us doesn’t cut it. And it never will again. You’ve ruined that and it cost you my vote in 2004.
In terms of her qualifications (or lack of), I could really care less. Bush could nominate a monkey and if the monkey came down on the right side of the issues, fine with me. It does help credibility if Bush nominates someone who is qualified because this nomination stinks of cronyism. But it’s not necessary. There, I said it. Happy now?
We haven’t even seen how Roberts (who is highly qualified) is going to go. And if you expect me to trust a person with minimal qualifications, no record to speak of, and whose only reason for consideration is that she’s the president’s pal on the high court, forget it. I ain’t buying.
October 10th, 2005 at 12:33 pm
Wasn’t the same essentially true of Roberts?
October 10th, 2005 at 12:34 pm
Seems a bit late for that, no?
October 10th, 2005 at 12:39 pm
Nah. I have a feeling that the Rs are going get a wake up call in either the 2006 or 2008 elections.
Regarding Roberts, I never supported his nom but I wasn’t opposed to it either since he did display an understanding of the case law regarding the second amendment.
October 10th, 2005 at 3:09 pm
Oh, I misread. I read that as “it will cost you my vote in 2004.” My bad. 🙂
October 10th, 2005 at 3:43 pm
I think the opposite. I think qualifications matter more that positions. In fact, I think a Supreme Court justice should not have any ideological positions on any issues. They should consider one thing – the Constitution. Not personal morals, religious beliefs, ideology, party politics, feelings, or anything else. Even the most rabid, right wing nut will make the “right” ruling given facts, objectivity, and the law, and mainly objectivity. But that’s a pretty naive way to look at things these days, I guess.
Anyway, I hope some Senator has the guts to ask her during the hearings (and without telling her ahead of time) to recite or at least accurately summarize the first Seven Amendments of the Constitution. I bet she can’t do it. Because she’s not qualified. (Don’t spread this around, though — she’l bone up ahead of time.) If Bush thinks we need people from other backgrounds and little or no experience, then George Carlin or Maya Angelou might have been better picks.
October 10th, 2005 at 3:51 pm
Heh. Recite the amendments. Nice one.
I tend to disagree regarding objectivity. Miers has been introduced as willing to work with the legislature (i.e., let it do what it wants) and that kinda scares me too.
October 10th, 2005 at 6:28 pm
Bush says he has PLENTY of political capital and they say Karl Rove is a genius. We’ll see. I’ve been fed up with both of them and the Republicans for a while now.
Republicans are NOT conservatives, and haven’t been for a long time.