Monday, October 03, 2005

The Supreme Court's Michael Brown?

Given the recent furor over inexperienced Friends of Bush being given top positions in the administration, you'd think that Shrub would have had second thoughts about nominating old friend and White House council Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. She has zero judicial experience. She's a lawyer; she's never been a judge. In fact, she has only held the post of White House Council since February of this year. I thought that the Democrats remained totally spineless on the John Roberts confirmation. I can only hope that they will summon at least a tiny bit of courage and say "no" to putting another Michael Brown on the Supreme Court.

But then, Shrub often doesn't have a first thought, let alone a second. How else can one explain putting a person who's never sat on the Supreme Court in charge of the Supreme Court? Or making someone who is openly contentious of the United Nations ambassador to the United Nations? Or giving out the job of Attorney General as a consolation prize for losing an election to a dead man?

Shrub appears to have learned nothing from the total man-made disaster that emerged from hurricane Katrina. He has zero concept of the consequences that arise from granting positions of power to those who haven't earned them. When politicians in this country give powerful posts as rewards to friends and those who spent lots of money to get them elected, we call it cronyism. When leaders of other countries give powerful posts as rewards to friends and those who spent lots of money to get them elected, we call it corruption.


Anonymous kevin sandlin said...

Hey, guess what? RHENQUIST had never been a judge when he was nominated to the high court. He was a fairly good Chief Justice, no? There have been 35 - yes THIRTY FIVE - other justices who weren't judges before their tenure on the high court, some of whom weren't even LAWYERS!

12:30 PM  
Blogger Oliver said...

Hey, guess what? Rhenquist at least was clerk to Supreme Court justice Robert Jackson, which automatically gives him ten times the Supreme Court experience of Miers. While it's true that there were justices with little to no judicial experience (John Marshall, Earl Warren, and Robert Jackson himself come to mind), that doesn't make it a good idea. Rhenquest was appointed by Nixon, no bastion of honesty, but not generally considered intellectually lacking. Jackson was appointed by Roosevelt, Warren by Eisenhower, and Marshall by John Adams, all Presidents whose judgment and integrity are virtually impeccable.

My point in Bush's nomination of Miers is his virtually unbroken track record of questionable judgment. At this time of rife corruption and pratfalls, is this really the time for him to place into power a member of his inner circle who would otherwise have not been given a single consideration?

BTW, thank you for taking the time to put up with the word verification. I know it's a pain, but I appreciate the comments.

12:58 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home