I found a blog this morning that purports to be that of Harriet Miers, the new Supreme Court Justice nominee from Dubya. Going to the blog however, one sees that it's not hers. It is someone else having a good time at her expense.
Now don't get me wrong, I don't think she should even be considered for the position, not having served as a judge in any respect. But I am not surprised at Bush, heck didn't he appoint that FEMA director who had no experience whatsoever? And look what happened in New Orleans. I cannot even believe people are taking his nomination seriously- but they are and, it's just scary what the implications could be.
I wonder if we should reconceptualize all appointments. Instead of having experience be a qualifier for various positions, we should consider other factors like hairstyle, likeability, and good understanding of our Founding Father's intent on developing a Christian nation. For instance, I wonder if James Dobson might be a good Education Secretary, Richard Land could be the Secretary of State, and Miss Ellie May Hornsbeak, the President's dog groomer and Style columist in the local Crawford, Texas newspaper could become Bush's new Press Secretary. And this might happen, with the Bush's new 37 percent approval rating and his supposedly return to drinking, he just might have Ms. Hornsbeak before the cameras.
Okay, so Ms. Hornsbeak isn't really real but it highlights my point, you can't have unqualified people in really, really important positions. No matter how nice they are, no matter how sweet they are; people in really, really important positions need to be the best in their field making decisions that'll affect this country for a hundred years or more. To me, this is just common sense. But then, I am implying our President has common sense and quite honestly, I am not convinced he does.
Monday, October 10, 2005
Now this is funny, sort of..
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
I agree that there are reasons to be concerned, but I don't think prior service as a judge is necessary. There is a long history of Supreme Court justices who never served on the bench.
What stinks about this to me is that it is a weasle nomination. By that, I mean that it appears that Bush has resorted to cronyism - not that he hasn't done that in the past.....it's just, as you say, such an important position. It isn't like a cabinet member who will likely be gone at the end of dubya's term. It reminds me a lot of Clinton's M.O. in his second term...particularly toward the end. "Let's see how many friends I can do favors for!"
I would say that I hope the Senate does its job in making sure she is, in fact, qualified, but that place is nothing but a bunch of partisan bickering anyway.
Yeah, I totally agree with you that cronyism is a major problem with Bush or anyone who wants their friends in posts in which they are not qualified.
Perhaps one of the concerns from conservatives (and this is just speculation on my part) may very well be that most of the modern appointments to the Supreme Court have been experienced judges and that experience may have made the judges more liberal as a result. Does this hold water? What do you think?
Could Bush be nominating someone with less of the "liberal mindset" and to do that, he thinks he can both recommend someone with a like-mentality as well as doing a friend a favor.
But you know, by mentioning Clinton's appointments of ill-repute, can you imagine what the Republicans would have done had he nominated his White House Counsel who defended him against his impreachment, to the Supreme Court? He'd've been eaten up; which only underscores your point more: the whole circus around Miers is also very partisan.
But I have to wonder, didn't Bush's advisors know this would cause such a firestorm? While I don't like Rove or Cheney, surely they would know better. Part of me thinks this is subversive plot or something going on.
See what living in NYC does to a person? We all think there is always "something else" going on behind every decision. ;)
I don't know about most modern appointments being experienced judges. Renquist had never sat on the bench before and he was installed as the chief justice and was, at the same time, a conservative.
I also hear conservatives who are less than thrilled about this appointment because Meirs has contributed to Democrats in the past - which makes them question how conservative she might actually be.
I heard someone on TV the other day saying that of all the possible nominees Meirs' name would not have even registered on anyone else's radar.
I'm wondering if Bush even consulted his advisors on this one, it's such an odd pick.
I think it is unfair to draw too many conclusions before she's had a chance to be examined by the Senate, but I think Bush really put himself and Meirs in a terrible position with this because of the implications that can easily be drawn about this nomination.
Post a Comment