What does Ray Schalk and Harriett Miers have in common?
Never heard of Ray Schalk? Then you must not love the national pastime, baseball, and its prestigous Hall of Fame, whose purpose is to "Preserving History. Honoring Excellence. Connecting Generations." And one way to honor excellence is by inducting past GREAT players into the Hall. And this is where Schalk comes in. What, a .253 batting average seems, well, only average to you? Then, you don't know how a Hall of Famer is selected. Most people are familiar with the votings done by BaseBall Writers Association of America, but fewer know that there is a back door into the Hall. There is a veterans committee, consists of baseball "old timers" and they vote to let in people that baseball writers have deemed unqualified. So what are a few undeserved votes among friends? Cronism, schmonism. Schalk got in, and it is for, well, forever.Speaking of eternity, the Supreme Court of the United States is another institution in which an appointment to its famed hall is permanent. The newest nominee, Harriett Miers, has taken some lumps from both sides of the political persuation. Unlike John Roberts, she just does not seem so qualified--no constitutional law experience--regardless of her politics. She may just squeak in because of her personal and professional relationship with the President. It is disappointing to think that is all it takes to become of SCOTUS justice, similar to how Schalk got into the Hall of Fame. Here are my few thoughts.
1. Is she a conservative, the "true" conservatives ask? Of course, she is. Bush hired her as his lawyer, both in Texas and in D.C. She is unlikely to be a brilliant constitutional scholar like Roberts, but the capacity for scholarly thoughts only make one more vulnerable to the "liberal" tilt of the justice bench.
2. The real problem is that Miers is not the constitutional heavy-weight that conservatives are looking for. That is not to say she will be easily persuaded by other justices to change her mind, no, not our "pit bull in size 6 shoes." More likely at stake would be her (in)ability to persuade others to interpret laws more friendly to her ideology. Every vote counts, and a 6-3 decision is a lot more firm than 5-4.
3. The Democrats are scratching their heads. Miers' gender and complete lack of constituional law background will make any attack on her, emotional or rational, difficult. So after the big NUCLEAR OPTION FIGHT, the democrats may end up allowing the appointment of as many as five of their most detested "conservative extremist" judges onto the federal courts, and not be able to use filibusters on neither Roberts nor Miers. I guess they told Bush. All things considered, they may just let Miers pass, it could be worse--the alternative could be someone who is conservative AND SMART.
4. Bush got the woman he wanted in SCOTUS. A bitch-slap to Alberto Gonzales, who was the man he wanted, and the man he specifically mentioned for the job. Haha, that was funny. Oh by the way, is it polite to compare Supreme Court justice as a member of breed that are aggressive and violent prone?
posted by hedgehog @ 11:10 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home