Quin Hillyer: Why this nominee is a supremely bad choice

[tuvor]

Quin Hillyer, Newhouse News Service

October 5, 2005

George W. Bush has just rung the death knell for his presidency.

For the Supreme Court of the United States, a president under fire for cronyism has chosen the ultimate crony.

For the highest court in the land, a president criticized for a lack of gravitas has chosen a woman whom the president's own former speechwriter describes as "a taut, nervous, anxious personality."

For one of the nine highest legal positions in the entire country, this president has ignored dozens of candidates with impeccable credentials -- top law school honors, judicial clerkships, distinguished careers in academia, lengthy experience arguing cases before the Supreme Court, superb records as federal judges -- and chosen somebody whose qualifications, on paper, are pretty good only for a lower judgeship, if she were 10 years younger.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/5651534.html

[dargondogon]

1. Bush is at the top of his game

Harry Reid is voting for Harriet Miers. She's already won it. And Roberts went in without breaking a sweat, thanks to the Democrats. Bush is rocking, rolling and kicking butt, despite the most miserable poll numbers.

[Extend a Hand]

2. isn't that just the most frustrating thing?!!!

Everybody thinks he sucks, yet he is still getting everything he wants.
:banghead:

welcome to du, dargondogon :hi:

[electron_blue]

3. So when do we start to seriously address whether the Dems

have been secretly taken over by the Rep party? I mean - suppose it happened. How would Democratic "leaders" behave any different than they are now?

[Dogmudgeon]

4. Shirley, you can't be serious

Everything Bush has put his hand to has turned to shit. Even the rats have packed their bags and requisitioned a life raft.

It's "rocking, rolling and kicking butt" like Ted Nugent does it -- with deer, rabbits, and 13-year-old groupies.

Once the Republicans have cut off at the knees next autumn, we can work on replacing the Joementum Democrats with some real reformers.

So what are you waiting for? Kwitcherbitchin' and run for some local or state offices!

--p!

[kitp]

5. there's a more important point

If/When Miers gets on the court, the repubs will now have a backup for any potential dem takeover of congress or the white house.
Any progressive/reformer legislation will almost immediately find itself facing a 'test case', probably springing from Texas, and it will wend it's way to the Bush court where it will be overturned.
We can look forward to at least 10 years of that, possibly 20.
This is why the dems failure to do ANYthing to impede this prez has been and continues to be disastrous.

[Dogmudgeon]

6. That's only part of the story, though

The power of the Court isn't absolute. The Congress can write laws that supercede SCOTUS decisions. It requires enough votes to pass and to survive a presidential veto, though, which has been why there have been so few recent laws overturning their decisions.

But, if we have a Democratic President and Legislature who, more importantly, share a common vision, overturning court decisions could become pro forma. Eventually, the justices would stop ruling on cases that would immediately go to the Legislature for nullification. The Republicans have tried to make that happen over the past decade, but have failed spectacularly.

And that could possibly be OUR fate, as well, especially since Democrats tend to be so much more independent than Republicans. But that is exactly what popular activism is about -- pushing our elected respresentatives to do our bidding. Right now, even (especially) among the more ideologically committed Democrats, the attitude prevails that once we vote for our reps, we should expect them to read our minds and act accordingly.

It's also why I've been promoting the need for Democratic ass-kickers to get involved in politics, if only to keep certain issues alive and active.

There are also more radical solutions. If the court isn't "voting correctly", some future President could remove offending justices, or appoint several more to his/her liking. FDR tried that and caught hell for it, but got the programs he proposed (the entire New Deal) put through.

On the side of passive wishes, I'd like to point out that a great many Supreme Court justices have made ideological shifts, sometimes dramatic. Earl Warren, perennial boogeyman for Republicans, was himself a conservative Republican jurist when President Eisenhower chose him for the court. Sandra Day O'Connor turned out to be much less rightist than she originally seemed, too. Ms. Miers has already shown a propensity to give money to Democrats, including Al Gore, as she did in 1988.

BUT ... we ought not become passive in promoting Democratic and Progressive agendas. Complaining that so-and-so is a traitor and a whore and pulls the wings off of butterflies and slaps his Mama is a pursuit in heartbreak and stupidity. Less pique and more action will result in better mental health as well as better government.

As for why I am not incensed at Bush's nominations, it may be because I have been incensed at Bush's slackjawed corruption for the past six years, and the nomination of a crony doesn't add all that much to the weight of his malfeasance. Since he is now batting zero-for-all, the damage he does will certainly prove to be limited. I am not unaware of the potential for damage that can and will cause, but I am also confident that without a patron and without their cozy gang of thugs, the lifetime appointees of the Bush junta will opt for survival over a dead and discredited crusade.

--p!

[cassiepriam]

7. He has control of all 3 branches of govt, the press and elections

If that isn't rocking and rolling I don't what is....
to hell with poll numbers, he controls the world.