Supreme Idiocy?

Buckethead Buckethead

When I first heard rumors that Miers was on the list of potential Supreme Court nominees, I thought to myself, "Myself, given Bush's propensity to promote loyalists - a propensity that verges on, nay tapdances on the line of cronyism - she's going to be the one. You just watch."

Myself had no real arguments against this kind of solid reasoning. And lo and behold, there it is. A person with no notable qualifications for the position save a near fanatical devotion to the President is nominated. A person who, it seems, used to be a Democrat and once donated money to Al Gore's presidential campaign. To be sure, that was the earlier, saner Gore. Not the more recent android replicant Gore of 2000. As a conservative I have nothing but Bush's assurance that this is the real deal, a full octane strict constructionist. Someone who, once on the court, will not do a Souter and list dangerously to port. The list of conservative commentators irritated by this nomination is longer than you can shake a stick at, plus the stick. People are righteously pissed that qualified, solid conservatives were passed over for Miers.

Maybe it will all work out. Maybe there is some dastardly Roveian scheme at work. But Sen. Reid is already saying she's cool even before the oppo-research lads have gotten a crack at her. That, to me, is a very bad sign, seeing as he voted against Roberts.

This is the Bad Bush at work. We've been seeing a lot more of him lately. And I'm frustrated.

Clinton pursued what was in effect a scorched-earth strategy so far as the rest of his party was concerned. Whatever success he achieved was not transferrable to the party at large, and yet they were saddled with all of his negatives whether they deserved them or not. This was largely a function of his narcisism and ego.

The flap over DeLay, and lingering questions about Rove and Plamegate will not bother the electorate a year from now. But if Bush continues on this track, he will be doing to his party through stupidity and blind reward of loyalty what Clinton did to his through priapism and perjury. The Republicans are not doing anything right now to make their base happy. And unhappy bases do not go out and vote in mid term elections.

Posted by Buckethead Buckethead on   |   § 15

§ 15 Comments

1

Hey, is a C- zero can be President, why can't a glass-eyed sycophant be a Supreme Court justice? This whole _qualifications_ thing is just the purest of bullshittery. Faith and loyalty are the qualifications. Find a game where they aren't? _Break it_ so it won't distress you again.

The existing justices won't even have the option of resigning in disgust, as El Busho will probably appoint his massage therapist next, after carefully examining the options in his entourage. Hey, she's a good woman too.

Horse Boy at FEMA, and Lottery Girl for the Supreme Court. Ye Gods.

Is any of this sinking in with the GOP rank and file? Bueller?

Your party has been hijacked. This message is set to autorepeat.

Ross Ross

2

What are the chances that the Republicans in the Senate will balk? Slim to none. Bush essentially nominated a completely random, if loyal person to the court. Any other lawyer would likely be as "qualified" as this chick. I've been looking around, and saw a couple interesting things.

Ed Kilgore:

You have to remember that THIS IS THE MOMENT social conservatives have anticipated for decades: a pro-choice Justice steps down, and a conservative president gets the chance to send a name up to a Republican-controlled Senate. This is total cookies-on-the-line-time, and Bush offers up a personal retainer whose views are far more of a mystery than those of John Roberts."

There is a bit of that disappointment in me.

Then there's this bit from the Federalist Papers:

"To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. In addition to this, it would be an efficacious source of stability in the administration.

It will readily be comprehended, that a man who had himself the sole disposition of offices, would be governed much more by his private inclinations and interests, than when he was bound to submit the propriety of his choice to the discussion and determination of a different and independent body, and that body an entier branch of the legislature. The possibility of rejection would be a strong motive to care in proposing. The danger to his own reputation, and, in the case of an elective magistrate, to his political existence, from betraying a spirit of favoritism, or an unbecoming pursuit of popularity, to the observation of a body whose opinion would have great weight in forming that of the public, could not fail to operate as a barrier to the one and to the other. He 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."

I didn't have any real problems with Roberts. He looked to be sufficiently conservative - at the very least, as conservative as Rehnquist.

Though, if he had replaced O'Connor, it would have been a move to the right. Then we could have replaced Rehnquist with another conservative. Nobody knows what Miers thinks.

Aargh.

I have often been irritated with Bush. But this is up there. Of course, whe could turn out alright. But I can't count on that.

Buckethead Buckethead

4

The biggest problem is that nobody really knows what she's going to do. Qualified? She's as qualified as many other sitting Justices were. Anyone griping about her qualifications is blowing smoke, you don't get to her level and stay there successfully without having something on the ball.

Yep, I think he screwed up. But, he did so in a perfectly logical way if you've paid attention to the way he works.

But besides the "rewarding the loyal" bit, his loyalists usually happen to be reasonably competent. FEMA's Brown was the scapegoat, he did an acceptable job right up until the big K hit. I believe more and more that Noah himself would've been overwhelmed by the circumstances.

Bush isn't stupid, and his biggest advantage is that people routinely underestimate him because he often comes across as dumb. That's his biggest disadvantage too.

Ted Ted

5

Ross:

I am forced to correct you, or to at least ask for your source. I have seen nothing, anywhere, that indicates Bush even has a massage therapist.

It's this sort of thing that further denigrates political discourse in the polity.

All seriousness, however, Mier's history indicates enough competence to place her above Horse Boy. Sadly, though she might be quite competent, her history doesn't indicate any judicial competence, and while the two are not mutually exclusive, not all good advocates make good judges.

Roberts appears to be both. Mier, at least so far, doesn't unambiguously merit a seat at the table with the existing justices, as did Roberts.

It'll be interesting, either way, and if Bush screwed the pooch, the Republicans will pay. In 2006? In 2008? All depends on if and when it becomes obvious this was a broke-dick selection.

Patton Patton

6

Buckethead, Randy Barnett (who, again, is the guy *I* would have appointed) said the same thing in his OpinionJournal piece this morning. Federalist 76 being outside my area of expertise, I hadn't considered that. Will it matter? No. It will not.

Ken Hall Ken Hall

8

One more add: The Democratic nominee against DeWine looks to be Paul Hackett. Hackett is to the right of DeWine on the gun issue, and has room to run to his right on other things while shoring up his base by bashing the President. If he does that, he could be formidable.

Ken Hall Ken Hall

9

I have nothing against having a Democratic senator from my home state of Ohio, just so long as it doesn't look or act like Howard Metzenbaum. DeWine is a nice enough guy in person, but his record leaves something to be desired.

Based on the argument in Federalist 76 quoted above, I could support a Democratic or conservative opposition in the Senate to Miers. Of course, given the support of the Federalist, the Democrats will just let her roll right on by.

Buckethead Buckethead

[ You're too late, comments are closed ]