| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
One criticism of the Roberts nomination was that he was not necessarily opposed to judicial activism. From Ann Coulter (with whom I agree on most things):
The relevant question for a prospective justice, and it can be asked properly either by a president or a senator, is: "What, in your view, is the legal force of a Supreme Court opinion?" If Roberts believes that Supreme Court opinions are law of some kind, all is lost.
Now comes the news that Roberts says he respects "precedent" — which is another way of saying: We can count on Roberts to uphold the court's previous unconstitutional findings.
It doesn't help to have someone who thinks that, as an original matter, the Constitution says nothing about state abortion laws if he is then going to "balance" the law against "the integrity of the institution," "public confidence in our system of justice," "the need for stability and predictability," "the sweet mystery of life," blah blah blah. The problem with establishment types is precisely that they worry about everything except the law. Just get the law right and shut up.
Most nominees aren't personally known to the Presidents who nominate them, and often end up voting in unexpected ways after being appointed to the Supreme Court. Miers is someone Bush knows well:
"I've known her long enough to know she's not going to change, that 20 years from now she will be the same person with the same judicial philosophy she has today," Bush said. "She'll have more experience. She'll have been a judge, but nevertheless the philosophy won't change, and that's important to me."
Dismissing Democratic charges of cronyism, Bush said: "I picked the best person I could find. People know we're close." Bush has known Miers for more than 10 years, first as his personal lawyer and most recently as a White House counsel.
The Judicial Watch foundation is far from a rubber-stamp for Conservatives, having just supported the indictment of Tom DeLay. Here's their statement on Miers:
The fact that President Bush has nominated Harriet Miers to the U.S. Supreme Court speaks well of her. The president has a history of nominating high quality conservative judges who refuse to legislate from the bench.
What appears to be a retreat from a fight, may in fact be an innovative and reasonable strategy for insuring that the justice he nominates will not support judicial activism.
#1
#2From Ann Coulter (with whom I agree on most things):
Ann Coulter is not cutting Bush any slack on the Miers nomination.
Unfortunately for Bush, he could nominate his Scottish terrier Barney, and some conservatives would rush to defend him, claiming to be in possession of secret information convincing them that the pooch is a true conservative and listing Barney's many virtues — loyalty, courage, never jumps on the furniture ...
"I've known her long enough to know she's not going to change, that 20 years from now she will be the same person with the same judicial philosophy she has today," Bush said. "She'll have more experience. She'll have been a judge, but nevertheless the philosophy won't change, and that's important to me."
That's an interesting assumption to make about someone who was donating money to Al Gore's campaign to challenge Bush's father a mere 17 years ago.