The other day, a friend of mine (edit: the infamous Dr.Heinous… dummy me, I forgot he’d guest-blogged here) asked me what I thought of Georgie Porgie’s new SCOTUS nominee. It sorta set me off on a random tanget, and afterwards I thought well, it’s not bad, why don’t I edit into a post? So, my response to his question was, in a word: crap.
Now, in a lot more words…
First, in my not so humble opinion, a SCOTUS nominee should always be drawn from within the federal bench, or possibly a state supreme court. (Preferably a non-elective one. Elective judges are best described as politicians with judicial powers.) It’s not just a matter of qualification, it’s a matter of mindset. Someone who’s never been a judge should never be nominated for that position. Yet in our history, we’ve seen various cronies appointed. Some of them may have done excellent jobs, but I have a really strict view about the law, and it doesn’t include the words compromise or political. Politicians do not make good judges, and are (in my view) more likely to legislate from the bench.
Although we’ve certainly had 40 years of the judges doing it, so maybe I should say “should be more likely, but your milage may vary.” Anyway, I’m suspicious of such.
Second, the Democratic leader of the senate likes her. That’s definately a big minus. Reagan appointed people that the Dems would confirm after the Bork fiasco, and look what we got: Breyer and Ginsburg. The orignal Court Commies.
Edit: ARGH. Tuning Spork, over at the Rottie, pointed out I had the judges wrong, both were Clinton appointees (and Dem Senate confirmations, as I pointed out in Why a Non-Democratic Majority is Crucial.) The correct names were Souter and Kennedy.
On that point, I will now rest my case about Miers.
The bottom line is that I want a strict constructionalist on the SCOTUS. I think the best words I have heard on the subject were spoken last week. In comparing the “living constitution” with the “constructionist” viewpoint, the constitution was likened to a contract. When we, the people, created the United States, we did so by agreeing (in a vote) to ratify the constitution. That document, as written then and there, is what we, the American people, agreed to. No one has the power to unilaterally change the terms of the agreement.
Only, that’s not exactly true is it? The government, through the SCOTUS, can change the agreement any way it wants to. But can you suddenly decide to change what it means? No. So why can the government we created do so? What the hell kind of a contract is that? Well, to answer my own question: It isn’t one. A contract is meant to bind one party to another in agreement. If one side can change the rules any time it wants to, then it’s not a contract. It’s just a set of instructions to a mechanism called a government, and the constitution is no more than a mechanism containing some particularly hard to change rules.
But it is a contract. “Huh?” says the average person, who probably slept through civics class. “Prove it… I didn’t hear none of this contract stuff back in class.” (Like the government would tell you, duh!) Ok, that one is easy. It’s a contract, which either side can change, because we set in place a specific method for altering the terms: the amendment process.
But nine robed people in Washington have quite openly declared a coup and seized the reins of goverment. They can decide that the contract is whatever they want it to be, and no elected official can gainsay them. That is a very, very dangerous power, and it has been abused horribly. I feel quite certain the Founding Fathers would pick their guns right back up and start the Revolutionary War all over again in an instant if they saw the Kelo decision.
So to come full circle, the question is: What the hell is Bush up to, picking her? It’s riled the base, and pretty much encouraged the libertarian, small-government, anti-spending wing of the party to stay home in 2006. I sure as hell don’t see anyone standing out in the Republican party who will carry forth our standard. And the last thing the Republican party needs is a discontented faction ready to revolt. The last time that happened, we got Clinton.
And you know… we just might this time too.
So what are the alternatives? Well, they’re all flawed, but lets see.
Cheney: Health problems, Halliburton, Iraq… the media has all their talking points ready to slyly dog him with and poison the electorate. And this time, they’ll be ready for us. No Mapes and Rather screwing the pooch in prime time.
Guliani: Weak on the 2nd amendment. And while he came across great during 9/11 and since, that’s more showmanship than governance. I don’t know enough about his actual performance to overcome a natural skepticism about his conservative credentials, being from New York.
McCain: I used to like him. Lots. Then came McCain-Feingold. No, sorry, I can read the goddamn First Amendment, even if he and the Supreme Court can’t.
Rice: I’m a little annoyed at her softpedaling to the Arabs and pressuring Israel, but she’s got to carry out Bush’s policy. Maybe she gets a pass. While I admire her, the lack of political experience means she’s not serious Presidential material. Yet.
General Honore’: Well, him neither, but I can dream, can’t I? How about Secretary of State? “Goddamit Jacques, don’t get stuck on stupid! Now get the goddamn Legion over to Iran this minute.”
So what do I want? I want a Jacksonian president.
varying degrees.
incompetents.
And I’m not real hopeful about any of that.
Now what may happen is if the conservative/libertarian section of the blogsphere doesn’t get what it wants in 2006, we might see some of the movers and shakers start to get together. A caucus or formal group within the party. Or even another party. It hasn’t worked so far, but if the Dems keep marginalizing themselves, even the media may not be able to save them. (Ok, that’s rank optimism, but still….) Of course, the media will just sneer at a new party as a bunch of extremists… and try to convince everyone that they have no chance at all.
And then wonder why they start polling consistantly 15-20%. Our problem is that we can’t get our agenda through without the rest of the party, and the rest of the party knows that we won’t walk away as long as the the alternative is another Clinton.
Except we just might, anyway if we get pissed enough. I think that’s going to be a bad thing, because we really will get a Clinton. Hillary, of course. And frankly, it no longer means “woman whose boobs defy gravity.” It means “socialist bitch who scares the crap out of me.“
I’m really wondering how long the Democrats and Republicans will last as parties. Especially the more and more deliberately obtuse the Republicans are being toward the whole PorkBusters thing.
The PorkBusters could be the biggest sleeper-bomb to hit the Republicans in 2006. I forsee a few primary challengers, but probably not enough to make a difference — it takes too long to build up a campaign organization, especially if you’re challenging YOUR party’s incumbent, since your party isn’t going to help you.
The Dems will survive, based on their allies in the media, for at least a few more years. The real problem is that as they melt down to the left, the Republican party can continue acting like the old Dems (spend, spend, spend, enlarge government) and look “reasonable.” At this point I see the following political parties-within-parties in action:
America-Bashing Party (the moonbats, commies, & eco-freaks)
Jacksonian (firmly small-government, balanced budget)
Religious (Hail, Christian Sharia!)
Establishment (R’s and D’s who don’t have any principle but staying in power)
Whether or not such parties come to exist in reality (though they’ll have other names) remains to be seen, but the biggest thing preventing it is money. Political campaigns cost huge bucks, and the donors are going to spend their money in self-interested ways, not altruistic. Thus any party has to show that it can get elected to office before it can obtain the donations it needs to field candidates for office. The top political consultants, pollsters, and staffers in this country do NOT work for free.
And the only people that might, (that’s us, the public) have gotten too lazy and apathetic to organize from the ground up. Maybe we’re seeing a change in that, what with Protest Warrior and other groups being formed. But they need a leader of national stature to rally around. Someone’s got to carry the banner while a national organization is built. There’s 2 or 3 pols on the outside of their party’s structure that *could* do it. But why *would* they?