csua.org/u/dnr -> www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/06/AR2005100601468_pf.html
com Withdraw This Nominee By Charles Krauthammer Friday, October 7, 2005; A23 When in 1962 Edward Moore Kennedy ran for his brother's seat in the Senat e, his opponent famously said that if Kennedy's name had been Edward Moo re, his candidacy would have been a joke. If Harriet Miers were not a cr ony of the president of the United States, her nomination to the Supreme Court would be a joke, as it would have occurred to no one else to nomi nate her. We've had quite enough dynastic politics over the past decades. The only advance we've made since then is that Supreme Court dukedoms are not hereditary. It is particularly dismaying that this act should have been perpetrated b y the conservative party. For half a century, liberals have corrupted th e courts by turning them into an instrument of radical social change on questions -- school prayer, abortion, busing, the death penalty -- that properly belong to the elected branches of government. Conservatives hav e opposed this arrogation of the legislative role and called for restora tion of the purely interpretive role of the court. To nominate someone w hose adult life reveals no record of even participation in debates about constitutional interpretation is an insult to the institution and to th at vision of the institution. What distinguishes Harr iet Miers from any of them, other than her connection with the president ? To have selected her, when conservative jurisprudence has J Harvie Wi lkinson, Michael Luttig, Michael McConnell and at least a dozen others o n a bench deeper than that of the New York Yankees, is scandalous. The issue is not the venue of Miers's constitutional scho larship, experience and engagement. Roman Hruska achieved such unsought immortality when he declared, in support of an un distinguished Nixon nominee to the court, that, yes, G Harrold Carswell is a mediocrity but mediocre Americans deserve representation on the co urt as well. To serve in Congress, or even as president, there is no requirement for s cholarship and brilliance. It can eve n be a hindrance, as we learned from our experience with Woodrow Wilson, the most intellectually accomplished president of the 20th century and also the worst. It is, by definition, an e xercise of intellect steeped in scholarship. And is it not the conservative complaint that liberals ha ve abused the courts by having them exercise raw super-legislative power , the most egregious example of which is the court's most intellectually bankrupt ruling, Roe v Wade ? Miers will surely shine in her Judiciary Committee hearings, but that is because expectations have been set so low. If she can give a fairly good facsimile of John Roberts's testimony, she'll be considered a surprisin gly good witness. This, say her advocates: We are now at war, and therefore the great issue of our time is the powers of the president, under Article II, to wage w ar. For four years Miers has been immersed in war-and-peace decisions an d therefore will have a deep familiarity with the tough constitutional i ssues regarding detention, prisoner treatment and war powers. But to the extent that there was any role, it becomes a liability. For years -- cr ucial years in the war on terrorism -- she will have to recuse herself f rom judging the constitutionality of these decisions because she will ha ve been a party to having made them in the first place. The Supreme Cour t will be left with an absent chair on precisely the laws-of-war issues to which she is supposed to bring so much. By choosing a nominee suggested by Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid an d well known only to himself, the president has ducked a fight on the mo st important domestic question dividing liberals from conservatives: the principles by which one should read and interpret the Constitution. For a presidency marked by a courageous willingness to think and do big thi ngs, this nomination is a sorry retreat into smallness.
|
http://csua.com/feed/