By Michael J. Gaynor
Stop George Will! Support Harriet Miers!
October 25, 2005 12:01 PM EST
What are the greatest differences between the leftists undermining America's War on Terror and the rightists railing against President Bush's nomination of White House Counsel Harriet Miers to be an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court?
Answer: The leftists adore the anathema, Cindy Sheehan, and curse a lot in the vilest language; the rightIsts know the good Harriet Miers is no Cindy Sheehan, but treat her as though she is, yet without resorting to such language.
George Will's latest article deploring the Miers nomination is titled "Defending the Indefensible." No, he's not referring to the elitist attacks on Ms. Miers. He's referring to the defenses of Ms. Miers.
Previously I urged Mr. Will to chill: GEORGE WILL, PLEASE CHILL! <http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_9776.shtml> I thought his tantruming against the Miers nomination suggested that he was overheated.
Having had the benefit of reading "Defending the Indefensible," I believe I was mistaken. He is stone cold when it comes to Ms. Miers, and needs to warm to her.
Mr. Will on the Miers nomination:
"Such is the perfect perversity of the nomination of Harriet Miers that it discredits, and even degrades, all who toil at justifying it. Many of their justifications cannot be dignified as arguments. Of those that can be, some reveal a deficit of constitutional understanding commensurate with that which it is, unfortunately, reasonable to impute to Miers. Other arguments betray a gross misunderstanding of conservatism on the part of persons masquerading as its defenders."
"Perfect perversity" and the combination of "discredits" and "degrades" are delightful examples of alliteration, but hopelessly misattributed. It is Mr. Will who is guilty, of overgeneralization in the first degree and premeditated unrigorous thinking! Mr. Will, in his certain and snide way, has not only defamed President Bush and Ms. Miers as the perpetrators of a perverse plot, but also dismissed as ignoramuses (or worse) millions of patriotic Americans who appreciate that (1)Ms. Miers is one of many people qualified for the job, (2) the Constitution has entrusted the President alone with the power to nominate and (3) the Founders expected that nominees would receive a fair hearing and reasonable deference from the United States Senate. See LET'S RELY ON ALEXANDER HAMILTON, NOT GEORGE WILL <http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_9781.shtml> .
Fixated on the letter P and stunned by what he characterizes as the sexist snob charge, Mr. Will continued:
"Miers's advocates, sensing the poverty of other possibilities, began by cynically calling her critics sexist snobs who disdain women with less than Ivy League degrees. Her advocates certainly know that her critics revere Margaret Thatcher almost as much as they revere the memory of the president who was educated at Eureka College."
Did you miss Ann Coulter's nauseating, elitist message, Mr. Will? If you're pressed for time, here's the summary:
Ann wrote that "Harriet Miers went to Southern Methodist University Law School, which is not ranked at all by the serious law school reports and ranked No. 52 by US News and World Report" and described the job of Supreme Court justice as "a mind-numbingly tedious job suitable only for super-nerds trained in legal reasoning like John Roberts" (whose nomination Ann also opposed).
For elaboration, see ANN COULTER: MEOW! <http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_9793.shtml> and HARRIET MIERS TO THE SUPREME COURT, ANN COULTER TO JAPAN <http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_9875.shtml> .
As for the sexism purportedly beyond you powers of perception, check out The Brightest Republican Babe Backs Harriet Miers <http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_9931.shtml> .
Careful, Mr. Will. Your own elitism is showing in your denigration of the support of the Miers nomination by Chief Judges and other Judges of the Texas Supreme Court, whether independent or party affiliated, and Democrat as well as Republican:
"Next, Miers's advocates managed, remarkably, to organize injurious testimonials. Sensible people cringed when one of the former Texas Supreme Court justices summoned to the White House offered this reason for putting her on the nation's highest tribunal: 'I can vouch for her ability to analyze and to strategize.' Another said: 'When we were on the lottery commission together, a lot of the problems that we had there were legal in nature. And she was just very, very insistent that we always get all the facts together.'"
Sensible people might prefer not to be on a jury with you, Mr. Will, as least unless the unanimity requirement is waived. American jurors are not limited to Ivy League graduates, nor should they be. And Supreme Court Justices are not required to have a law degree, much less one for what is classified as a "top tier" law school, nor should they be. If you don't realize that strategizing is an important quality in a Supreme Court justice, check out the Supreme Court careers of the late Chief Justice Earl Warren and the late Justice William Brennan, neither a favorite of mine, but each a superb strategist. As for insistence on getting all the facts together before applying the law, why that is reminiscent of now Chief Justice John Roberts' from the bottom up approach to cases, bless his strict constructionist heart and ardently pro-life wife.
But Mr. Will, having tried alliteration to create an illusion of impressivenes for his anti-Miers attitude, was not through. He moved on to internal rhyme and attacked what he called "the incense defense" (which conceding, tersely, that "Miers is pious")"
"Miers's advocates tried the incense defense: Miers is pious. But that is irrelevant to her aptitude for constitutional reasoning. The crude people who crudely invoked it probably were sending a crude signal to conservatives who, the invokers evidently believe, are so crudely obsessed with abortion that they have an anti-constitutional willingness to overturn Roe v. Wade with an unreasoned act of judicial willfulness as raw as the 1973 decision itself."
Wrong, Mr. Will, Not about Roe v. Wade being an "unreasoned act of judicial willfulness." That it surely was. It was that, and the poisonous fruit of the secular extremism that captured the Supreme Court and induced it to declare in 1947 that government could not support all religions and needed to be neutral between religion and irreligion. The late Chief Justice William Rehnquist was right about both secular extremism and abortion not being a constitutional right. And the sooner a Supreme Court majority returns to the constitutional path from which secular extremism caused it to stray, the better!
Wrong about reversing Roe v. Wade being a similar act of judicial willfulness!
United States Supreme Court justices swear to support the Constitution, not stare decisis, a legal doctrine with some utility but not a straightjacket binding the United States Supreme Court to forever embrace the constitutional amendments not duly adopted in according with the Constitution, but under the guise of judicial intepretation by judicial activists abusing their positions. Putting things right according to the Constitution is what the Supremes are supposed to do
Religion IS relevant to constitutional reasoning. The Founders were religious, not atheists. They banned a religious test for federal office, but never wrote into the Constitution that religious values could not inform public policy. It is the secular extremists who have achieved a judicial coup that needs to be reversed. And the notion that it is Christians, particularly evangelical Christians like Ms. Miers who have not had one of their fellow believers appointed or even nominated to the United States Supreme Court since 1931 is not crude; it is noxious.
Predictably, Mr. Will proceeded to praise himself implicitly and bash Ms. Miers and her supporters explicitly:
"In their unseemly eagerness to assure Miers's conservative detractors that she will reach the 'right' results, her advocates betray complete incomprehension of this: Thoughtful conservatives' highest aim is not to achieve this or that particular outcome concerning this or that controversy. Rather, their aim for the Supreme Court is to replace semi-legislative reasoning with genuine constitutional reasoning about the Constitution's meaning as derived from close consideration of its text and structure. Such conservatives understand that how you get to a result is as important as the result. Indeed, in an important sense, the path that the Supreme Court takes to the result often is the result."
Mr. Will, you talk the conservative talk. But stand aside for a lady and let Ms. Miers walk the conservative walk. Your words are remiiscnet of the remark that an intelligent woman is like a dog that walks on its hind legs; what is important is not how ell the dog walks, but that the dog can walk on its hind legs at all. I doubt that either President Reagan or Prime Minister Thatcher would approve your opposition to the confirmation of Ms. Miers.
More of the willful Mr. Will:
"As Miers's confirmation hearings draw near, her advocates will make an argument that is always false but that they, especially, must make, considering the unusual nature of their nominee. The argument is that it is somehow inappropriate for senators to ask a nominee -- a nominee for a lifetime position making unappealable decisions of enormous social impact -- searching questions about specific Supreme Court decisions and the principles of constitutional law that these decisions have propelled into America's present and future.
"To that argument, the obvious and sufficient refutation is: Why, then, have hearings? What, then, remains of the Senate's constitutional role in consenting to nominees?
"It is not merely permissible, it is imperative that senators give Miers ample opportunity to refute skeptics by demonstrating her analytic powers and jurisprudential inclinations by discussing recent cases concerning, for example, the scope of federal power under the commerce clause, the compatibility of the First Amendment with campaign regulations and privacy -- including Roe v. Wade."
Let the hearing begin! And let Ms. Miers answer in accordance with the rules of judicial ethics, just like everyone else (including that brilliant man who just was confirmed as Chief Justice of the United States and the two Jewish secular extremists nominated by President Clinton and confirmed overwhelmingly by the United States Senate--see SAVING HARRIET MIERS <http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_9998.shtml> ). No special rule for an evangelical Christian lady, please.
Mr. Will fears Ms. Miers might be confirmed:
"Can Miers's confirmation be blocked? It is easy to get a senatorial majority to take a stand in defense of this or that concrete interest, but it is surpassingly difficult to get a majority anywhere to rise in defense of mere excellence.
"Still, Miers must begin with 22 Democratic votes against her. Surely no Democrat can retain a shred of self-respect if, having voted against John Roberts, he or she then declares Miers fit for the court. All Democrats who so declare will forfeit a right and an issue -- their right to criticize the administration's cronyism.
"And Democrats, with their zest for gender politics, need this reminder: To give a woman a seat on a crowded bus because she is a woman is gallantry. To give a woman a seat on the Supreme Court because she is a woman is a dereliction of senatorial duty. It also is an affront to mature feminism, which may bridle at gallantry but should recoil from condescension.
"As for Republicans, any who vote for Miers will thereafter be ineligible to argue that it is important to elect Republicans because they are conscientious conservers of the judicial branch's invaluable dignity. Finally, any Republican senator who supinely acquiesces in President Bush's reckless abuse of presidential discretion -- or who does not recognize the Miers nomination as such -- can never be considered presidential material."
Actually, Mr. Will, those who oppose Ms. Miers will be the pro-abortion Senators who have sold their souls to Planned Parenthood and NARAL and those who are, or pander to, the elitists on the right instead of faithful servants of the Constitution and the American people.
Hopefully, there will not be enough of them to block her nomination! See BE HAPPY WITH HARRIET! OR READY FOR HILLARY! <http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_9955.shtml>
Finally, Slate complains that Ms. Miers is not rich enough:
"What does Harriet Miers' money tell us about her? The Supreme Court nominee has filed financial disclosure forms for the last five years as a requirement for her White House job. The most remarkable fact that emerges from her filings is this: She managed to work for nearly 30 years as an attorney in private practice without getting rich. Chief Justice John Roberts—whose psycho-financial biography you can read here—amassed a fortune worth at least $3 million and probably much more; Miers finds herself at age 60 with a net worth of about $675,000, which unfortunately does not make her wealthy." slate.com
That's an argument against! Let's have at least one Justice who did not make making money a big priority (and who reportedly tithes to her church).
theconservativevoice.com |
