Monday, October 03, 2005

Qualifications For The Supreme Court Opening

by Tom Bozzo

So Bush, no kidding, cites Harriet Miers's learning right from wrong from her mom among her qualifications for SCOTUS. Hey, me too! All I need to do is run for Alderperson (I think Ken Golden might be weak, though I understand the hours can be terrible) and make president of the Cheddarnomics Society, and I guess I'm in.

Granted, I may not actually have a law degree, or any legal training whatsoever, but I did attend public universities en route to that Ph.D. in economics, and thus it's probably fair to say that I'm even better at math than (clenching gut) Chief Justice Roberts. I'll leave to the comments section the debate over whether the economics or law profession arrogates greater expertise hegemony over all other areas of human knowledge. But we do it without, by and large, actually becoming a**hole lawyers! (*)

Helpful note to the Senate Democrats: nominating a stealth candidate is a sign of political weakness. Please notice it.

Addendum: Madison West High alumnus and very smart guy Ben Wikler catches David Frum saying all you need to know about Miers (via Atrios):
Ben Wikler's Blog: Just Deleted From David Frum's Blog: Some time between 9:52 AM and 10:18 AM this morning, he removed a paragraph from between the two paragraphs posted above. Here it is, recovered from the cache in my Google Desktop search:
She rose to her present position by her absolute devotion to George Bush. I mentioned last week that she told me that the president was the most brilliant man she had ever met. To flatter on such a scale a person must either be an unscrupulous dissembler, which Miers most certainly is not, or a natural follower. And natural followers do not belong on the Supreme Court of the United States.
The "most brilliant man" line was previously known to me, but it bears mentioning again. And again. Regarding that, Frum is wrong to suggest that "unscrupulous dissembler" and "natural follower" fully partition the space here. "Shameless suck-up" and "starry-eyed doormat" come immediately to mind, though they don't exactly jibe with "pit bull in size 6 shoes." [Link added. Note the date on the Conglomerate post!] But the conclusion holds: those are not desirable characteristics for a Supreme Court justice.

Even More: Among other actual cogent analysis, Jack Balkin observes that in contrast to Souter, Miers's views are likely to be very well known to the president; she's only 'stealthy' with respect to everyone else.

(*) Joke, people. The reference, for the uninitiated, is to a deleted scene on the Best In Show DVD.
After having heard Andrea Mitchell last night (who knows the truth about the criminal incompetency of this administration - as in, what have they gotten right yet?), I shouldn't be surprised at anything. But the announcement that his co-brush-clearer was to be the next Supreme is sending me hurdling over the edge. If the Democrats don't clear her brush over this, I may have to become an independent (except that I always want my two cents worth of a voice counted in all forums).

By the way, I would be more confident with you in the Supreme Court than with any of the Bush/Regan nominees. I know where your heart and mind is.
The Dems seem pretty happy so far. I'm not. I was hoping for Clarence Thomas Jr. or something to that effect. Bush replaced a solid conservative on the court with a likely less conservative judge Roberts and now is replacing O'Connor with a Democratic donor! Maybe making the court more liberal is part of his master plan to keep repubs in political office - after all, it's worked for the last 30 years.

By the way, I want to run one of Bush's search committees for some major political office. I could be put in charge of NASA pretty easily I presume.

Word verification! Are you trying to make my Tom Bozzo blog experience less fulfilling?
Mom: thanks (note to others: that's really my mom).

Bryan: Wait, I thought you were libertarian? Seems to me that with Clarence Thomas Jr., only Clarence Thomases can watch Long Dong Silver in chambers while you get extraordinarily rendered to Syria for failing to find evidence of ID in your dissertation.

In ranking the importance of contributions of Miers to Democrats and her role as White House Flunky, I'll put the latter higher.

P.S., if it makes you feel any better, I have to do the word verification trick too, and it will hopefully save you from exposure to all of the great auto insurance blogs that the only unwelcome visitors to this site mistakenly suggest we'd be interested in.
I am libertarianish - and I want judges who actually interpret the Constitution. Not too much to ask.

I got the Long Dong Silver reference, but you'll have to enlighten me about the Syria and ID comments. I was only 12 when his nomination battle was occurring.
Bryan: The Syria and ID thing was a roundabout reference to Thomas's dissent in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, in which he was just about totally deferential to Bush's prerogative to lock anyone away in the GWoT. To give the devil his due, I thought Scalia's Hamdi dissent actually did the best job there of interpreting the actual Constitution.

The rest was a massive exaggeration for comic purposes.
Hey, who needs qualifications when you can have cronyism?

I just wish the Democrats could get their thumbs out of their asses.
At least at one point in time she could probably prove that, say, a continuous function on a compact set is uniformly continuous. This knowledge seems to me to be edifying in the theological sense of the word (morally uplifting), and more indicative of good political views than any knowledge of specific views could possibly confer. Hence, I celebrate.

Would she be the first such wise soul (a math major) to sit on the Supreme Court?
Maybe Bush has effectively appointed himself to the Court with this nomination. Since Miers' most famous judgment appears to be that she thinks Bush is brilliant, I think it's pretty clear who will be steering the ship in this duet.
Post a Comment

<< Home

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