Further Reflections on Mier’s Nomination

Crossposted over at Left of Center.

On any other normal day, I would at least give a little bit of leeway to a judicial nominee if Trent Lott was tossing the Shennanigans flag. What? You mean Strom’s ol’ buddy doesn’t like the judge? Man, that’s a winner in my book.

But not this day. I’m just too damn paranoid any more. Now, despite what the President has said about having Miers in mind for a while now, I like to think that my little piece of analysis on the affect of his low approval numbers is just about dead on. This one is a sleeper with no record that Bush had to put out because anyone that was blatantly conservative would catch hell in the current political atmosphere. In other words, I think he’s lying his ass off.

No big stretch there. Agreed? Good, let’s keep going.

So I’m waiting for “the catch.” For as up in arms the far right seems to be getting regarding the latest nominee, I just don’t feel it. In fact, I have this sneaking suspicion that this woman is a Arch Conservative in Moderate’s clothing. I mean, she can’t have been Bush’s bestest buddy if she was cheering along during Gay Pride parades, or defending Affirmative Action, or whatever. I just don’t see them meshing that well if she did. Unfortunately, I have no proof that she is an ultra conservative, so if she is confirmed (which, I think in the end, she will be. Barring of course some horrid skeleton that just kind of pops out of the closet and says, “WHEEE!”) time will tell. If she isn’t, who cares?

Now, as MacSwain (great blogger, go check him out) mentioned in comments to an earlier post, there is some spin that has legs. I would like to fully agree with him that yes the spin has legs, partly because it’s what some of the sane of us like to call “the truth.”

Hang with me here, particularly you righties, I know how hard “the truth” is for ya. That’s why I put it in quotation marks, so that you can get some sleep at night based on the hope that maybe I’m just being sarcastic. That’s okay, just relax. Breathe. Breathe.

“The truth” of the matter is that maybe Bush needs leave off of the cronyism. Seriously. There should be a rule around here that says that if you are not going to be a competent president, you must at least be forced to hire competent people to compensate for your incompetence. It’s just a thought.

To dumb down the language a little bit: if you’re an idiot, don’t make things worse by hiring your best buddies, but instead hire those “eggheads” you made fun of in school because they were capable of doing nerdy things like reading.

If ever there was a lesson out there to teach you this, his name would be Michael Brown. If when you ask someone to do their job, they give you that blank “I’m a moron” stare, that’s probably a good sign not to hire them, but go ahead an invite them over for a beer if you wish. As a sidenote, never ever hire Donald Rumsfield to do a job, unless you are willing to hire someone else to finish it for him.

So the cronyism thing is a little annoying, and particularly when you are about to appoint someone to a LIFETIME POST doing something they’ve NEVER DONE! I’m sure those folks over at the Texas Lottery had a squabble here and there that Miers had to smooth out as its head, but does that really prepare one for a lifetime on the Supreme Court? I’m just saying.

On a completely different note, something that all this judge talk is bringing up that is starting to irk me is this whole, “let’s put the Courts in their place” business. That and the whole, “strict constructionist” interpretation of the law crap.

What it looks like to me is that you have two branches of government trying to make the third branch of government it’s little bitch. If you really think about it, before the GOP ran legislative and executive branches will even think of hiring a judge, they have to make that judge say, “I bow to your supreme prowess in governance, and will only act to uphold, not destroy that which you do.

“That’s not how the balance of power is supposed to work. It’s called checks and balances, and it’s supposed to be that all three branches have equal power. In fact, the single biggest reason why justices get appointed for life is so that they are not dependent upon the political process for a job, freeing them up to judge as they see fit.

“Legislate from the bench.” Sheesh. You know something, Bush? Last I checked you were in the executive branch of our government, so how about you not “legislate from the Oval Office” huh? You and your stupid gay marriage ammendment and …

Calm blue ocean. Calm blue ocean. calm blue ocean. calm blue ocean. calm blue ocean.


Of course, as this is the court system, it should for the most part remain in the courts and in law books, but I’m not so sure I’m a fan of this strict constitutionalist idea either. Think about it, the most open minded of scholars is not going to be able to write a constitution that wouldn’t be at least a little obsolete two hundred years down the road.

And some of it is just written weird. Take that pesky second ammendment. If you get really strict, you can interpret it to mean that you’re really only allowed to have arms (which is not just guns, but swords and knives, and bow and arrows) if you are going to use it in a militia to protect the nation.

How many deer hunters would have to listen to a liberal judge say, “I’m pretty sure that deer you shot didn’t pose a threat to National Security”? At least, how many will have to hear that before we all realize that there will always be someone whose strict interpretation will disagree with ours?

But don’t delude yourselves. Strict interpretation has nothing to do with anything. It’s just a codeword for the right to give their activist judges some credibilit. Just as Miers is just another crony that will, if confirmed, most likely live on like a lasting scar reminding us all the quagmire of the current administration.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Connect with Facebook