As we wait for "Fitzmas" to come with gifts of indictments for those who've exposed, lied, and conspired, the rumor mill churns out of control. Rumors of cheney, rove and the unrelated rummy leaving Our White House certainly are fun to think about, but perhaps they are a little premature. Prosecutor/"pit bull" Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation has been amazingly tight lipped, which helps speculators run wild with ideas of the fall of the White House Iraq Group (WHIG), the expulsion of "the brain", and dare I say it, little bush being forced to say something along the lines of "I do not recall", "it depends on what the definition of is is." or better yet "I shall resign the Presidency effective at noon tomorrow."
You can get an idea of what this administration would look like without "Turd Blossom" (the president's term not mine) from the blunder known as the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court of the United States of America. A nomination that should be withdrawn. But don't take my word for it. Check out david brooks's (red) column on miers's published, cliche-ridden, article in the Texas Bar Journal. Or how about bork's (red) words of anger towards the nomination. David frum (red) is out raising money for ads against miers. Wacko name callers like coulter (red) and krauthammer (red) are voicing their disbelief at the nomination of a woman, who answered a question on her recent Senate questionnaire concerning her experience with the law with an anecdote about rushing to a man's death bed to make sure his will was in order. The Senate's questionnaire was actually returned to Ms. miers as "insufficient", "inadequate" and in the words of one senator "insulting".
It is not that she has never been a judge. Justice Rehnquist wasn't a judge, but he was considered by many a brilliant legal thinker and an able scholar. His opinions were concisely argued. His bachelor's and three master's degrees from Standford and Harvard clearly show that he was on a path acceptable for the Supreme Court. I say all of this while biting my tongue about my opinion of most of his.
It is not because she is an evangelical christian. Anyone can observe any religion they choose or none at all. There's is a problem, however, with a person's religion being a qualifier for being a Supreme Court justice or any other governmental position for that matter. It establishes one religion as preferred by the United States of America. Some may say that's down right unconstitutional. Not to mention the back door conference calls with conservative groups ensuring them that she will not change back to the way she was before she saw the light.
The Supreme Court of the United States of America is the highest court in the land. It is the pinnacle of achievement for those in the legal profession. It is the crown jewel of one of Our three branches of Government, though it has become far too political in recent history. It is a place where the best legal and constitutional scholars and experts should sit in judgement on the important cases deserving of its chambers.
Nominating a personal friend and lawyer, based at least partially on her religion, is an insult to all those who study, research and opine on subjects facing Our Constitution and Our Nation. Being the president of the Texas Bar does not demonstrate a lawyer's legal expertise, knowledge, or philosophy as much as it does his/her political ambition. There is a litmus test for this nomination. It is one part she's my friend and one part she'll overturn Roe v. Wade.
This nomintaion is another disgrace perpetrated by this administration, and perhaps bush's lack of "brain" is to blame.
"He [the President] would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure."
From Federalist #76: Alexander Hamilton in the New York Packet April 1, 1788
(other excerpts of the Federalist papers concerning the nominating and appointing of Supreme Court Justices)
No comments:
Post a Comment