Tuesday, October 11, 2005
The Problem With Miers
The problem with President Bush's appointment of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court has nothing to do with the fact that she's a woman. If President Bush had selected Janice Rogers Brown, conservatives would be thrilled.
It has nothing to do with the fact that she's not a graduate of an Ivy League school. Priscilla Owen graduated from Baylor Law School and conservatives have defended her for years.
It has nothing to do with the fact that she's not a judge. William Rehnquist was not a judge when he was appointed. It really has nothing to do with Roe v. Wade. The 1973 decision by the court is merely a symptom. It isn't the problem. The problem with Harriet Miers is that she hasn't taken a solid well founded position on the Constitution that is able to withstand "growth" and "evolution". The Constitution is not a changing document. It isn't an evolving document. It says what it says and America needs judges who recognize that. It can only be changed by AMENDMENTS, not by judicial whims related to desired outcomes. Take Roe for instance. There is very little Constitutional law contained in Roe, but there is an abundance of achieving a desired outcome. As far as Constitutional law is concerned, THE OUTCOME AND EFFECT ON PEOPLE IS IRRELEVANT. The only thing that should matter is whether the Constitution was followed. For example, the First Amendment clearly states "Congress shall make NO LAW..." Campaign Finance Reform might be a desirable thing. Taking big money donors out of politics might be a desirable thing, but the Constitution says "NO LAW". Yet enlightened elites on the Supreme Court, including some EVOLVED "conservatives" upheld McCain Feingold even though the Constitution said otherwise. It is that philosophy that cannot be permitted to stand. By the same token, the Second Amendment prohibits Congress from interfering with the peoples' right to bear arms. Stopping me from owning a fully automatic AK-47 might be a desirable outcome, but it is not a correct one underthe Constitution. The reason conservatives like me are fans of Justices Thomas and Scalia have less to do with particular votes than it does their philosophy. They believe the Constitution is paramount. Outcomes and foreign laws should not outweigh the Constitution. These men have been attacked for those beliefs since even before they took the bench and have held firm. Harriet Miers has no such foundation. She has no such visible firmness. She has no such enunciated philosophy that says the Constitution must prevail regardless of who it helps or hurts. That is why we oppose her.
If you want desired outcomes, then "We The People" should AMEND the Constitution, not have nine pseudo-philospher kings do it for us. THAT is why we want strong Constitutionalists on the bench. We want the Constitution followed as written and changes only accomplished by "We The People".
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
So good to see you writing again. This is an excellent piece of work. You explain the issues many of us have with Miers.
It's good to find you in my mail box again. Keep up the good work.
Tate
If you want desired outcomes, then "We The People" should AMEND the Constitution, not have nine pseudo-philospher kings do it for us. THAT is why we want strong Constitutionalists on the bench. We want the Constitution followed as written and changes only accomplished by "We The People".
Exactly right, Steve. The Constitution is the FOUNDATION of our Nation. "Straying" from it only weakens us
Well I am willing to give Miers the benefit of the doubt. Just the mere fact that she is a professed born-again Christian works for me. I still need to look at her bio and stats before I begin to rip her to shreds. The libs will do that enough, let's stand behind her. --Fee
I was sent your article by someone who did not agree with you in that he thought Miers should have her day of questioning to determine what she really believes and how she stands up to pressure. In that I do agree with him.
However, I do very much agree with your interpretation of how the supreme court is run and how they make their decisions. I have said it many times that there is a legitimate way to make amendments to the counstitution, but they do not include justices writing law on the bench. The constitution calls for them to adjudicate and nothing else. And they are to adjudicate according to what the constitution says. The constitution is not to be interpreted by stretching it to unreasonable lengths to get it to say what the justices want it to say. It is not to be interpreted by the laws of another country, nor is it to be interpreted as a living document changing at the whim of "politically correctness."
I, too, would like to see someone who as the constitution says the justices must be, they can stay in office in GOOD BEHAVIOR. I take that to mean they do their job according to the procedures outlined in the constitution.
As far as Miers, let her be grilled and see what she is made of. She may surprise you! And if she does not, then there is time to appoint another. Sherry Heath
I am from Dallas where Harriet Miers practiced (good word for that) law, was on the City Council, and at one time was President of the Bar Association here, and also, on the Texas Lottery Board..I never knew her politics or anything else she did, except when it was not appreciated by those in charge in this city, but she always got fairly good press by the liberal leaning press here in Dallas..I would prefer any other nominee over Harriet, she is a crony of Bush's by kissing up to him, and as such, she is not a good nominee and will be proven so, when the Senate gets to her...But I hate what it will do to GW's already bashing group..She is bad for this court at this particular time in this country..and I hope she steps down..If she really loves this country, she will.
I say, give Harriet Miers a chance to explain herself at least...before conservatives attack her. Too much of that is going on, and the Republican party is split apart. Dems are loving this, don't give 'em the satisfaction of watching our party go at each other.
Just give Miers a chance.
Post a Comment