A good many people have come to realize over the last few years of the Bush Presidency that the Administration as well as, for the most part, the party in power in Congress, seldom says exactly what it means. In fact, a case can be made that it usually does exactly the oppossite of what it says. When the Republicans, for example, bemoan the lack of civility in Washington, and speak in negative turns about the Democrats and their suppossed inclinations to engage in personal "ad hominem attacks", they usually go on to engage in what is a good lot of the time the most outrageous example of smear tactics, and innuendos, and in some cases plain flat out falsehoods. Ask former Georgia Senator Max Cleland, for one. Or consider the case of the Homeland Security Department. Initially an idea of for the most part moderate Democrats such as Joe Liebermann, and at first oppossed by the Bush administration, it was soon seized and confiscated by the Bushes upon the perception of the growing popularity of the idea. Then, a lot of questionable policies were added on to it, and the same Democrats were then berated for oppossing some of these additions, such as the right to seize library records, for one.
There are other such examples of the Republican Party talking out of both sides of their collective mouths at once, but the latest example regarding nominations to the Supreme Court, is perhaps the most serious, the most far-reaching, and by far the most troubling.
WIth today's nomination of Harriet Miers, long time legal adviser to the President, to fill the coming Supreme Court vacancy to be left by retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, we may have now seen a perfect example of double speak come to fruition. Bush assurred us that, like the recently confirmed Chief Justice John Roberts, Harriet Miers is a perfect example of a legal scholar who will respect the law, the Constiutution, and, most importantly, will not seek to legislate from the bench.
Of course, this is a lot of nonsense. To legislate from the bench is exactly what Bush is hoping for, and counting on. From a conservative viewpoint, of course. One of the top priorities of Bush as concerning his presidency, from the very beginning of it, if not his number one priority, was specifically to nominate a judge who, in his own words, would be in the mold of a Justice Clarence Thomas or a Justice Antonin Scalia. In other words, his ideal role model would be a conservative activist. The scary thing is, Bush probably personally sees no contradiction here. But of course he can't say that, he's got to spin it in a matter which would ensure the highest probability of public palatability.
There can be little if any doubt as to how Harriet Miers stands on the issues. She has been an associate of Bush's since the mid-1980's, so we can assume that sometime over the course of that twenty plus years period of time, he has taken the opportunity to pick her brain on a variety of topics, ceretainly over the last few years, with precisely this in mind. He knows where she stands on abortion, for example. But nobody else need legitimately know. Bush may have scored his most important coup de gras with this appointment.
If the Democrats confirm her without a fight her, without much muss or fuss, it would prevent Bush from using a fight he obviously expects, (and expects in the long run to win by utilizing through his pawns in Congress the prospect of the "nuclear option" if necessary) to detract attention from his growing and obvious problems which continually mount in other areas. However, they have to put up some kind of a fight. They know that, and have no choice, and know they have no choice. To weaken now over the appointment of such a questionable nominee would be a sign of the utmost weakness, and their base, especially their core constituents, their more activist base, would go completely haywire, and for once they might be at least partially right to do so. But they have to walk a fine line nevertheless.
Their best and most obvious line of reasoning in oppossing her would be precisely becuase she has no - absolutely none - judicial experience. Harriet Miers is a 60 year old woman who has made her living as an advocate, an attorney. Precisely the type of person who, if suddenly thrust into a position of judicial power, would tend to become an "activist judge". Who would be the most likely kind of judge to "legislate from the bench".
Her life experience has been as an advocate for her client. Not as a fair and impartial arbitrer of the law and the constiutution. Justice Roberts himself had precious little experience as a Judge on the Appellate D.C. Circuit, way too little really to be on the Supreme Court. But at least he had SOME experience, and in addition had a distinquished career before the Court as an attorney , and also served as clerk for Justice Rehnquist. So a case could be made for him.
But with this appointment, we now see a growing trend. The appointment of Judges, in all probability of a conservative activist temperament, who have no paper trail and no record to question or examine. This appointment I have no doubt will receive confirmation, and Harriet Miers will then become the 110th Justice Of The Supreme Court. That just leaves one appoitment to go, in order for Bush to have achieved the goal that is his most enduring wish to achieve for the establsihment of his legacy-a five to four conservative majority on the Supreme Court, led by a Chief Justice who, at age fifty, could conceivably continue for three, or even four, decades. Bush has three years to go yet before his second term expires. The next one to retire would, it stands to reason, be Justice John Paul Stevens, the lone appointment made by President Gerald Ford, now the senior member of the bench, and arguably among the more dependably liberal members of it.
It is very unlikely, saving death or severe incapacitation, that Justices Scalia or Thomas will step down any time soon. So that Conservative Court that is Bush's most important goal, may just be a few heartbeats away. It is even conceivable that Bush may yet get to make not just one more appointment, but two more-or even three. If that were to occur, the long term result may well be the establishment of a conservative court, and even an activist one, which will be of long term duration. It will be a far different country then. But conservative views to the contrary, it is likely to be a far, far cry from what the Founding Fathers actually had in mind.
Yahoo! for Good
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
