Buchanan has so many good points in his latest column, “Why did Bush do it?“, that I can’t post them all. Just read it.
This might be one of the best conservative pieces on why Meirs is the wrong pick.
From Federalist No. 76:
“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. . . . 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.”
Randy Barnett writes:
As the quote from Hamilton suggests, the core purpose of Senate confirmation of presidential nominees is to screen out the appointment of “cronies,” which Merriam-Webster defines as “a close friend especially of long standing.” Cronyism is bad not only because it leads to less qualified judges, but also because we want a judiciary with independence from the executive branch. A longtime friend of the president who has served as his close personal and political adviser and confidante, no matter how fine a lawyer, can hardly be expected to be sufficiently independent–especially during the remaining term of her former boss.
Picking a justice isn’t about rewarding individuals or satisfying gender, race or diversity concerns. It’s about protecting our sacred liberties. Since the best way to do that is to find the brightest constitutional scholars with the requisite character and sound judgment, then that is precisely what the president should do. That’s not elitism; it’s essential constitutional stewardship.
~ David Limbaugh
Not the endorsement the Bush administration was looking for, I would guess.
Dallas gay leaders OK Miers pick
Only known record of her stances on gay rights
surfaces in lesbian’s garage
“At least nine of the last twelve Republican appointees to the Supreme Court have been pro- abortion. Five of the seven Justices who voted for Roe v. Wade were Republican appointees. Based on that track record, it is insulting, and frankly, irrational for President Bush to ask the pro-life community to simply trust him that Miers will be the kind of judge that will help end the national disgrace of abortion on demand,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. “There is too much at stake. We will not gamble the lives of innocent children on a ‘hope so’ nominee.”
Once again, Ann Coulter is on the money.
I eagerly await the announcement of President Bush’s real nominee to the Supreme Court. If the president meant Harriet Miers seriously, I have to assume Bush wants to go back to Crawford and let Dick Cheney run the country.
Unfortunately for Bush, he could nominate his Scottish terrier Barney, and some conservatives would rush to defend him, claiming to be in possession of secret information convincing them that the pooch is a true conservative and listing Barney’s many virtues — loyalty, courage, never jumps on the furniture …