"Ouch!" [link]
Ok, I am being lazy again...but it is only 6:47 am and I have not had any stimulants yet.
I missed the Sunday talk shows. Apparently Harriett Miers did not fare too well. Even her defenders are having a rough time of it. This little blurb from THE BEST OF THE WEB at OPINION JOURNAL ONLINE deserves your attention (even though I know that my loyal reader checks OJO every day):
But one sign the nomination may be in trouble is that its defenders seem to be conceding that Miers is not a brilliant jurist. Saturday's New York Times quotes former senator Dan Coats, "who has been asked by the White House to shepherd Ms. Miers through the Senate confirmation process": "If great intellectual powerhouse is a qualification to be a member of the court and represent the American people and the wishes of the American people and to interpret the Constitution, then I think we have a court so skewed on the intellectual side that we may not be getting representation of America as a whole," Mr. Coats said in a CNN interview. [Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen] Specter, asked about that remark, laughed and wondered if it was "another Hruska quote"--a reference to an oft-quoted comment by the late Roman Hruska, a Republican senator from Nebraska, who defended G. Harrold Carswell, a Supreme Court nominee who was rejected by the Senate. "Even if he is mediocre," Mr. Hruska said, "there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance?"
Mediocre people are, of course, entitled to representation. That's what Congress is for. But the federal courts are not a representative institution, and the charge of elitism is a strange one in this context. After all, it's called the Supreme Court, not the Court of Common Place.
OUCH! This nomination is a self inflicted wound. I think that Miers was the President's personal choice. I think that he assumed it would be a safe choice when he was told by Minority Leader Senator Reid that she was someone acceptable to the Dems. The President did not consider the fact that the Republicans are tired of "stealth" nominees.
I am one of many people who believe that putting conservative jurists on the Supreme Court of the United States the most important reason for electing conservative Republican presidents. We need to restore the proper balance of power to all three branches of government and this can't happen when we have a Supreme Court that, at any time, can decide that an issue is a matter of constitutional interpretation and, as such, is to be finally determined by them.
Courts have always had the power to legislate. However, our Constitution mandated that court created laws are inferior to laws promulgated by Congress. In 1803, this structure was modified by the Supreme Court's decision in Marbury v. Madison where the high court reserved to itself the ability to make final determinations regarding how the Constitution itself is to be interpreted. In the 202 years since then, the courts have become increasingly willing to find that an issue is a matter of constitutional interpretation.
Ok, I need to shower and get to the office. I guess I was not being lazy afterall. Let me change out of my pajamas and get to work.
I missed the Sunday talk shows. Apparently Harriett Miers did not fare too well. Even her defenders are having a rough time of it. This little blurb from THE BEST OF THE WEB at OPINION JOURNAL ONLINE deserves your attention (even though I know that my loyal reader checks OJO every day):
But one sign the nomination may be in trouble is that its defenders seem to be conceding that Miers is not a brilliant jurist. Saturday's New York Times quotes former senator Dan Coats, "who has been asked by the White House to shepherd Ms. Miers through the Senate confirmation process": "If great intellectual powerhouse is a qualification to be a member of the court and represent the American people and the wishes of the American people and to interpret the Constitution, then I think we have a court so skewed on the intellectual side that we may not be getting representation of America as a whole," Mr. Coats said in a CNN interview. [Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen] Specter, asked about that remark, laughed and wondered if it was "another Hruska quote"--a reference to an oft-quoted comment by the late Roman Hruska, a Republican senator from Nebraska, who defended G. Harrold Carswell, a Supreme Court nominee who was rejected by the Senate. "Even if he is mediocre," Mr. Hruska said, "there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance?"
Mediocre people are, of course, entitled to representation. That's what Congress is for. But the federal courts are not a representative institution, and the charge of elitism is a strange one in this context. After all, it's called the Supreme Court, not the Court of Common Place.
OUCH! This nomination is a self inflicted wound. I think that Miers was the President's personal choice. I think that he assumed it would be a safe choice when he was told by Minority Leader Senator Reid that she was someone acceptable to the Dems. The President did not consider the fact that the Republicans are tired of "stealth" nominees.
I am one of many people who believe that putting conservative jurists on the Supreme Court of the United States the most important reason for electing conservative Republican presidents. We need to restore the proper balance of power to all three branches of government and this can't happen when we have a Supreme Court that, at any time, can decide that an issue is a matter of constitutional interpretation and, as such, is to be finally determined by them.
Courts have always had the power to legislate. However, our Constitution mandated that court created laws are inferior to laws promulgated by Congress. In 1803, this structure was modified by the Supreme Court's decision in Marbury v. Madison where the high court reserved to itself the ability to make final determinations regarding how the Constitution itself is to be interpreted. In the 202 years since then, the courts have become increasingly willing to find that an issue is a matter of constitutional interpretation.
Ok, I need to shower and get to the office. I guess I was not being lazy afterall. Let me change out of my pajamas and get to work.
posted by Lucius Cornelius at 6:46 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home