Was she ever truly a nominee? If you will forgive a bit of paranoia for a moment, is it possible that it was never the intention of the Bush administration to advance her nomination? Is it possible that in their distorted and perverted view of the world, the nomination was offered with the expectation that it would be withdrawn just as Pat Fitzpatrick’s presentation to the grand jury was drawing to a close? It would not be the first (and unfortunately likely not the last) time that the Bush administration abused its responsibilities to the electorate and its broader constituency by playing games with the mechanisms of government.
I can certainly be accused of being paranoid and my suppositions plainly absurd. Nevertheless, this administration has done nothing to earn the right to proclaim with certitude that it would never stoop to such an abuse of process. It may very well be that there is nothing more at play here than the arrogance and ever-increasing incompetence of a lame duck President who hasn’t a clue about his responsibilities under the Constitution to the Country and to the integrity of the Court. This was, after all, a President who either was so full of his self-righteousness or so incredibly incompetent as to defend and support the nomination of his personal lawyer by pointing not to her qualifications as a lawyer but to her qualifications as a Christian. Assuming, again, that this was not entirely a sham nomination, there can be no doubt that when the President announces that, “She’s one of us” in defense of his long-time friend and supporter all Americans lose because we are subject to a President who either cares nothing for the Constitution or is simply so ignorant of the Constitutional limits imposed on his office that he was unaware that is pronouncement violated Article IV, Clause 3 prohibiting the use of a religious test to gauge a nominee’s qualifications. This is, after all, a President who views the government as his personal play thing for rewarding his most loyal friends and supporters with government positions for which they hold no qualification other than their undying loyalty to Mr. Bush and his family and Ms Miers -- in both her loyalty and lack of qualification -- would snuggly fit this mold.
On the other hand…..is it not also reasonable to believe that Bush and his advisors never intended to go through with the Miers’ nomination? Clearly, they must have known that the nomination was doomed from the outset. Beyond the obvious…that she had never served as a judge and provided no indication that she was sufficiently conversant in the Constitution to interpret and apply its anachronistic pronouncements…Bush and his must have known that her service as personal counsel to Bush both before and during his presidency would present a nearly-impenetrable obstacle to overcome. Are we to believe that they only today or recently came to realize that her advice to W would become an issue and that they would never be able to share that information with the Judiciary Committee or was it always and ultimately that stumbling block that Bush intended to use to pull the plug on the nomination. Are we to believe that Miers and her handlers were so inept as to believe that the questionnaire answers submitted to the Committee were genuinely intended to fully respond to its inquiries or were they submitted knowing that because the answers were so obviously superficial and evasive that the questionnaire would be rejected by the committee in order to delay the nomination hearing and buy additional time for W. If all this is true, why would she subject herself to the derision and ridicule directed at her --- particularly by the extreme right --- over the past several weeks? She is, of course, a good soldier in the Bush army and does appear prepared to throw herself in the way of any political bullet aimed at her client and friend and it is not too hard to imagine that that loyalty would have included enduring those slings and arrows of [out]rageous fortune that have been aimed in her direction since her nomination.
To what end has this all been played out we may never know. The timing of all of this does again raise some index of suspicion that there is a whole other game being played out that we are simply not privy to. Whether this has something or anything to do with Rove, Libby, Hadley et al (whether they are indicted or not there is certainly going to be some criticism leveled in the administration’s direction involving the Plame affair and its manipulation of intelligence to control the debate during the run up to the war) or some gambit involving the nomination itself is not clear and, again, may never be known. Nevertheless, the whole thing seems too absurd, even for W and Big Karl, to be what it appears. As always, ignore the man behind the curtain….
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Harriet Miers and the Religious Right
Are we to take solace from the “fact” that Harriet Miers decided to accept Jesus Christ as her savior in 1979? After a bit more than a day of hand wringing by the conservative wing of the Republican Party about Bush’s failure to fulfill their lifelong dream of putting a “real” conservative on the bench, Mr. Bush sought to allay their fears that she wasn’t “one of them” by assuring his extremist constituency that she shared his views. That pronouncement was followed in short order by the beginnings of a certainly careful media campaign to assure and reassure Bush’s core support of counsel’s Christian and conservative pedigree with the release of articles detailing her private, late night soul searching conversations with fellow law partner, Nathan Hecht that ultimately resulted in her rebirth as a Christian.
While that may be good news to the Richard Vigueries of the world and the religious fundamentalists who comprise the bulk of Bush’s support, the news should not be taken well by the majority of Americans who simply believe in the integrity of our Constitution and in a democracy that has been able to survive -- quite well, thank you -- without shifting the government to a theocracy.
I do not raise these concerns because I have pre-judged Harriet Miers or the judicial philosophy she will follow as she evolves as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. I was not one who joined in the knee-jerk reaction in opposition to Bush’s selection of John Roberts to initially replace Sandra Day O’Connor and then William Rehnquist. If nothing else, ascension to the High Court has had a most sobering effect upon virtually all those nominated to its service, forcing most to recognize that the Court represents the very essence of the law and the means by which a dispute is resolved. It is that recognition above all else which led jurists like John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy and others – all envisioned by the right to be standard bearers on the court – to recognize first, foremost and forever that it is to the Court and to the rule of law that they owe their only obligation. John Roberts would appear to recognize and understand that responsibility even before he donned his robs on the first Monday of this October. Harriet Miers, should she survive the nomination process, may also come to understand the enormity of her responsibility to the constitution and distance herself from any political agenda which prompted the submission of her name to succeed Justice O’Connor.
That Bush feels the need to defend her nomination by emphasizing her religious devotion rather than her legal skills should give one more than a moments’ pause and raise concern about her capacity to understand and honor her commitment to the law and jurisprudential processes which dominate the disposition of cases which come before the Court. There is, after all, perhaps no greater principle built into the Constitution which defines our democracy and distinguishes it from every other social experiment that exists today or has gone before than our agreement to separate religious observance from social governance. Those on the right who demand that religion play a greater role in our governance simply do not understand the Constitution and why this democracy has succeeded when so many others have not. The alternative to that which has guided us over the past two hundred thirty years is the type of theocracy which took hold in Afghanistan after the Soviet Union was forced out and in Iran following the fall of the Shah in 1980 – a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam that enforced theocratic principals and, in the process, led to much suffering at home and abroad. The religious right in this country seeks to impose its will upon the general population along the same lines as the Taliban in Afghanistan and the Shiites in Iran by pushing for legislation that blurs the lines between Church and State and reshaping the Courts to ensure that when challenged those laws will be survive in the context of a new interpretation of the First Amendment. One need only to look at the chaos and turmoil that surrounded the effort to “save” Terri Schiavo’s life to understand what this political and social shift would mean to the country and our ability to govern as we have since the inception of the our democracy. Is it truly in our best interest for judge’s to live in fear that they will be subject to recall and impeachment if they fail to rule as the religious right believes they should?
There is, of course, nothing wrong with a Justice of the Court, regardless of its level, being religious and seeking solace and guidance from G_d. The problem for any government is when that solace and guidance finds its place in the interpretation of legislation and the resolution of disputes. It is first, last and always the Constitution which must control all decisions by the Court. That Ms Miers has found Jesus, I’m sure, is of great comfort to her, to Mr. Bush and to the religious right (at least the Christian religious right). Ultimately, however, it must be the Constitution and not the writings and pronouncements of Jesus which must guide her. She must understand and accept that by becoming a Supreme Court judge her first responsibility is to safeguard the Constitution, even at the expense of her own convictions.
While that may be good news to the Richard Vigueries of the world and the religious fundamentalists who comprise the bulk of Bush’s support, the news should not be taken well by the majority of Americans who simply believe in the integrity of our Constitution and in a democracy that has been able to survive -- quite well, thank you -- without shifting the government to a theocracy.
I do not raise these concerns because I have pre-judged Harriet Miers or the judicial philosophy she will follow as she evolves as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. I was not one who joined in the knee-jerk reaction in opposition to Bush’s selection of John Roberts to initially replace Sandra Day O’Connor and then William Rehnquist. If nothing else, ascension to the High Court has had a most sobering effect upon virtually all those nominated to its service, forcing most to recognize that the Court represents the very essence of the law and the means by which a dispute is resolved. It is that recognition above all else which led jurists like John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy and others – all envisioned by the right to be standard bearers on the court – to recognize first, foremost and forever that it is to the Court and to the rule of law that they owe their only obligation. John Roberts would appear to recognize and understand that responsibility even before he donned his robs on the first Monday of this October. Harriet Miers, should she survive the nomination process, may also come to understand the enormity of her responsibility to the constitution and distance herself from any political agenda which prompted the submission of her name to succeed Justice O’Connor.
That Bush feels the need to defend her nomination by emphasizing her religious devotion rather than her legal skills should give one more than a moments’ pause and raise concern about her capacity to understand and honor her commitment to the law and jurisprudential processes which dominate the disposition of cases which come before the Court. There is, after all, perhaps no greater principle built into the Constitution which defines our democracy and distinguishes it from every other social experiment that exists today or has gone before than our agreement to separate religious observance from social governance. Those on the right who demand that religion play a greater role in our governance simply do not understand the Constitution and why this democracy has succeeded when so many others have not. The alternative to that which has guided us over the past two hundred thirty years is the type of theocracy which took hold in Afghanistan after the Soviet Union was forced out and in Iran following the fall of the Shah in 1980 – a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam that enforced theocratic principals and, in the process, led to much suffering at home and abroad. The religious right in this country seeks to impose its will upon the general population along the same lines as the Taliban in Afghanistan and the Shiites in Iran by pushing for legislation that blurs the lines between Church and State and reshaping the Courts to ensure that when challenged those laws will be survive in the context of a new interpretation of the First Amendment. One need only to look at the chaos and turmoil that surrounded the effort to “save” Terri Schiavo’s life to understand what this political and social shift would mean to the country and our ability to govern as we have since the inception of the our democracy. Is it truly in our best interest for judge’s to live in fear that they will be subject to recall and impeachment if they fail to rule as the religious right believes they should?
There is, of course, nothing wrong with a Justice of the Court, regardless of its level, being religious and seeking solace and guidance from G_d. The problem for any government is when that solace and guidance finds its place in the interpretation of legislation and the resolution of disputes. It is first, last and always the Constitution which must control all decisions by the Court. That Ms Miers has found Jesus, I’m sure, is of great comfort to her, to Mr. Bush and to the religious right (at least the Christian religious right). Ultimately, however, it must be the Constitution and not the writings and pronouncements of Jesus which must guide her. She must understand and accept that by becoming a Supreme Court judge her first responsibility is to safeguard the Constitution, even at the expense of her own convictions.
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
The Greatest Threat
The greatest threat to our country lies not in the sands of Iraq and its gathering insurgency or in the foothills of Tora Bora, but in our nation’s capital. The world has become a far more dangerous place for its inhabitants because of policies advanced by the Bush administration that on their face purport to offer safety and security for the nation, but, in truth, offer something quite different. That which we are witnessing is nothing short of a political and societal revolution that will leave us less secure, less safe and less prosperous than any point recent history. This is an administration that views the government as a personal playground to reward party loyalty at the expense of its obligation to protect and defend the constitution and its broader constituency. It gives refuge to and encourages an ideology that blatantly seeks to re-write the basic principals that have allowed this democracy to survive and prosper for more than 230 years. I am a life long Democrat, but, like most of the country, am neither liberal nor conservative in my views. I want to be safe, secure and prosperous and share a very real concern that the hole we have dug for ourselves will be difficult to overcome and that the damage inflicted upon us by those sworn to protect and defend us, while hopefully not irreparable, may be nearly so.
I’ve only walked the earth for a bit more than fifty years and thus can’t say with any certainty that we as a nation have seen a worse time in the nation’s life. Certainly the threats posed by both world wars represented unprecedented threats to our nation’s survival yet in both instances those threats were imposed by forces beyond our borders and, in many ways, galvanized a response which permitted the country to emerge stronger and positioned in the new global paradigm as the world’s first and now only surviving super power. Unlike that which has come before, what we face now is of our own doing and, more to the point, the doing of the Bush administration and all those who support it. Never in my lifetime have I seen a government as arrogant, so incompetent, so deceitful, so insensitive and so out of touch with the hopes and aspirations of its constituents as that which controls our lives as we go to bed this night.
We are, as well, witnessing a cultural shift by that leads creatures like Bill Bennett to believe he has license to very publicly state that the best way to reduce the crime levels in this country is to abort all black babies. As with so much about this cultural shift and its proponents, it is not so much an absolutist view of the world as it is a view that picks and chooses its way through its social agenda to produce an outcome that simply serves their end. It is not that abortion is wrong in all its forms, but that when applied in the fashion advocated by Mr. Bennett, it can actually serve a social end. I suspect that Mr. Bennett, an ardent anti-abortion activist is not the only one of his ilk to share this view concerning the selective use of abortion to further a political end. The view, in fact, seems to have been embraced in less strident terms by many Republicans in Congress who view the Diaspora created by Katrina as a way to re-create the character of New Orleans by controlling the numbers of black families returning to the City and, in turn, redistricting the City to limit the effect that a black vote would have both locally and state-wide. While it’s certainly not the same as killing black babies, the effect, in many ways, is unfortunately the same.
Ultimately, I suspect that Mr. Bennett’s perverse views will not prevail and that the de-minoritization (admittedly not a word) of New Orleans will be resisted and fail. The point, however, is that the culture created by and surrounding Mr. Bush invites, encourages and ultimately protects this type of philosophy and therein lies the danger.
I’ve only walked the earth for a bit more than fifty years and thus can’t say with any certainty that we as a nation have seen a worse time in the nation’s life. Certainly the threats posed by both world wars represented unprecedented threats to our nation’s survival yet in both instances those threats were imposed by forces beyond our borders and, in many ways, galvanized a response which permitted the country to emerge stronger and positioned in the new global paradigm as the world’s first and now only surviving super power. Unlike that which has come before, what we face now is of our own doing and, more to the point, the doing of the Bush administration and all those who support it. Never in my lifetime have I seen a government as arrogant, so incompetent, so deceitful, so insensitive and so out of touch with the hopes and aspirations of its constituents as that which controls our lives as we go to bed this night.
We are, as well, witnessing a cultural shift by that leads creatures like Bill Bennett to believe he has license to very publicly state that the best way to reduce the crime levels in this country is to abort all black babies. As with so much about this cultural shift and its proponents, it is not so much an absolutist view of the world as it is a view that picks and chooses its way through its social agenda to produce an outcome that simply serves their end. It is not that abortion is wrong in all its forms, but that when applied in the fashion advocated by Mr. Bennett, it can actually serve a social end. I suspect that Mr. Bennett, an ardent anti-abortion activist is not the only one of his ilk to share this view concerning the selective use of abortion to further a political end. The view, in fact, seems to have been embraced in less strident terms by many Republicans in Congress who view the Diaspora created by Katrina as a way to re-create the character of New Orleans by controlling the numbers of black families returning to the City and, in turn, redistricting the City to limit the effect that a black vote would have both locally and state-wide. While it’s certainly not the same as killing black babies, the effect, in many ways, is unfortunately the same.
Ultimately, I suspect that Mr. Bennett’s perverse views will not prevail and that the de-minoritization (admittedly not a word) of New Orleans will be resisted and fail. The point, however, is that the culture created by and surrounding Mr. Bush invites, encourages and ultimately protects this type of philosophy and therein lies the danger.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)