EATING THEIR YOUNG
The nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court by President Bush has drawn the ire of many senators and congressional leaders in Washington. The critics have called into question Ms. Miers' qualifications for such a high post as the Supreme Court and have wondered outloud whether this nomination is an example of a President surrounding himself with people who are loyal to him, and yet overmatched for the duties to which they have been appointed or assigned to.
The irony of this criticism is that it is coming not from the Democratic party but from the Republican party, more to the point the right flank of the Republican party - if there is such a thing as a right flank for this party these days.
The radical Right has blasted the nomination as being a betrayal of the conservative values for which they purport to stand for and for which they have assumed this President agrees with.
Now what is so hysterical about this attack is that it has nothing to do with whether Miers is actually qualified to assume the responsibilities of associate judge to the Supreme Court. She clearly is NOT! In deed this is yet another example of this President appointing an underqualified individual for a post out of loyalty. The victims of Hurricane Katrina had to endure the ineptitude of FEMA head Michael Brown as he bungled the relief effort and made an ass of himself on national TV. If Michael Brown deserved to be the head of FEMA, I'm the Pope!
No, what is so hysterical here is watching the radical Right devour each other. It's like feeding time at the cannibal zoo. I couldn't be more delighted. Senator Chuck Schumer was beside himself with glee, stating, "We haven't had the time to criticize this nomination, the Republicans are doing such a good job of it for us!"
But at some point, when clearer heads prevail, a critique of this nomination must go forward. The senate must question her qualifications, as well as her ideology. It will not be enough for the President to say that because she has never been a judge, she has no track record to critique, only her character. BULL! I've never been a judge either, yet I can tell you exactly where I stand on any issue you ask me about. It is high time this administration and this Congress presented the people of the United States - ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES - with a Supreme Court nomination worthy of the post being vacated.
Harriet Miers must state unequivocally where she stands on issues that the Court will most assuredly have a say in in the months, years, and, yes, decades to come. To do anything else would be cowardly. It has been suggested that no citizen should have to explain their beliefs to others. Quite so, except when those beliefs would affect how the rest of us would live out our lives.
We are talking about the balance of the Supreme Court for the next twenty or so years. This is a time for true Christians to pray for boldness from our leaders. We need leadership, not partisan politics and cronyism.
1 comment:
It is ironic that this President has caused more infighting within his own camp than any I can remember. Among other things, I think that shows how militant and fixated the far right is becoming. Abortion has become such a devisive issue, I shouldn't be surprised if both sides start taking up arms en masse. But to be fair to Meirs, she would probably be a very competent justice, but we really have no idea how good. Every appointee does grow and learn on the job. Of 109 justices in our history, 41 have been appointed without prior judicial experience-- that includes John Marshall and Earl Warren. The difference is that most have distinguished themselves in other fields, such as law schools or politics. There is also a snobbery in the legal profession in regard to which law school you went to--and Meiers did not go to Yale or Harvard. But bottom line, it might be not so much cronyism, but the fact that she is such an unknown quantity that makes her a good candidate in Bush's eyes. With no judicial record, she might just get in under the radar-- and obviously, Bush knows how she might vote on certain issues.
Post a Comment