The enemy of my enemy is my Supreme Court Justice
Well, no, I'm not sure I can even say that. Harry Reid has made cooing noises over President Bush's nominee to the Supreme Court, Harriet Miers.
On his radio program this week, Hugh Hewitt has been conducting numerous interviews with both supporters and detractors of the pick. Hugh has been one of the most vocal supporters of this pick, and while his disagreement with some may not reach the level of donnybrook as conservative internecine battles go, it's at least a donnystreamlet. (See transcripts courtesy of Radioblogger.)
Hugh acknowledged the lack of a barking dog in an interview with Jay Sekulow:
Jay's answer was essentially that the Democrats can't knock around a nice, mainstream conservative lady.
My problem with this pick, though, is why are we running from a fight at all? Why not nominate someone who will leave an indelible stamp on the Court's jurisprudence, not just someone we suspect/hope will vote with the conservative bloc?
In an interview with Ramesh Ponnuru, Hugh walked down a list of credentials, and asked if they would be important qualifications for a Supreme Court Justice. It was a fascinating interview, but in the end, Hugh was describing someone who would make a terrific director of a lobbying campaign for a publicly funded sports stadium, not a Supreme Court Justice.
Before the Roberts and Miers nominations, it had been 11 years since the last Justice was seated. What decisions has the Court made since Breyer took his seat in 1994? Just to name a few:
Stenberg v. Carhart (2000) - Partial-birth abortion is spiffy, leave it alone.
McConnell v. F.E.C (2003) - campaign contributions are not free political speech
Ashcroft v. ACLU (2004) - We love child porn!
Van Orden v. Perry (2005) - Ten Commandments can be displayed
McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky (2005) - Ten Commandments cannot be displayed
Kelo v. New London (2005) - Government can take your property. Sorry.
(Those with genetically enhanced brains will immediately recognize these are all 5-4 decisions.)
We can't afford to wait eleven years to fix mistakes. Too much damage can be done in the meantime. Miers may turn out to be a good conservative justice, but why allow even an inch of room for doubts, when someone like Luttig is available? Luttig is the kind of candidate that would make Democrats apoplectic, which would be the surest sign we were on the right track.
(Hello, fellow Radiobloggertonanianites. For your perusal, if you so wish, I have a related post here, with some additional thoughts on the Miers nomination. Here as well.)
On his radio program this week, Hugh Hewitt has been conducting numerous interviews with both supporters and detractors of the pick. Hugh has been one of the most vocal supporters of this pick, and while his disagreement with some may not reach the level of donnybrook as conservative internecine battles go, it's at least a donnystreamlet. (See transcripts courtesy of Radioblogger.)
Hugh acknowledged the lack of a barking dog in an interview with Jay Sekulow:
Jay, let me ask you about the idea, though, that Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid didn't have strokes. A lot of conservatives are reading in this reason for alarm. I'm reading in it reasons for Democrats to wonder about their leadership again.
Jay's answer was essentially that the Democrats can't knock around a nice, mainstream conservative lady.
My problem with this pick, though, is why are we running from a fight at all? Why not nominate someone who will leave an indelible stamp on the Court's jurisprudence, not just someone we suspect/hope will vote with the conservative bloc?
In an interview with Ramesh Ponnuru, Hugh walked down a list of credentials, and asked if they would be important qualifications for a Supreme Court Justice. It was a fascinating interview, but in the end, Hugh was describing someone who would make a terrific director of a lobbying campaign for a publicly funded sports stadium, not a Supreme Court Justice.
Before the Roberts and Miers nominations, it had been 11 years since the last Justice was seated. What decisions has the Court made since Breyer took his seat in 1994? Just to name a few:
Stenberg v. Carhart (2000) - Partial-birth abortion is spiffy, leave it alone.
McConnell v. F.E.C (2003) - campaign contributions are not free political speech
Ashcroft v. ACLU (2004) - We love child porn!
Van Orden v. Perry (2005) - Ten Commandments can be displayed
McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky (2005) - Ten Commandments cannot be displayed
Kelo v. New London (2005) - Government can take your property. Sorry.
(Those with genetically enhanced brains will immediately recognize these are all 5-4 decisions.)
We can't afford to wait eleven years to fix mistakes. Too much damage can be done in the meantime. Miers may turn out to be a good conservative justice, but why allow even an inch of room for doubts, when someone like Luttig is available? Luttig is the kind of candidate that would make Democrats apoplectic, which would be the surest sign we were on the right track.
(Hello, fellow Radiobloggertonanianites. For your perusal, if you so wish, I have a related post here, with some additional thoughts on the Miers nomination. Here as well.)
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home