Monday, October 10, 2005

What's Up Your Sleeve, W?

W's nomination of Harriet Miers for Supreme Court Justice has thrown me for a loop. Usually he is so easy to read, but this time he's got me confused. I truly thought he would nominate a hard-core conservative. He's entering his lame duck years, and this seems like the perfect opportunity for him to be able to throw his weight around for years and years to come. Plus, as his presidency and his party fall apart, it seems he ought to be doing all he can to shore up support among his bases. He's certainly past the point of being able to bring others over to his team, so he might as well do what he can to keep his supporters strong and away from any thoughts of defection. As happy as I am that he didn't do this, I'm also a bit concerned. I mean, the President, as much as I dislike him, isn't dumb - at least not when it comes to things like this. Sure, Harriet Miers is a loyal friend, but there's got to be more to it than that. As innocuous as she seems, I feel like there's got to be some big hidden thing we don't know about. Really, I just can't see him going soft now. He has absolutely no reason to. It's not going to win him support from his opponents and it's just going to cost him friends. So what's the big secret? I'm a little nervous.

I am, however, enjoying watching Republicans get all up and arms over her nomination. While just two weeks ago, they were declaring it imprudent for a judge to reveal how he would vote on certain issues, they've now changed their tune. They must know where Harriet Miers stands on absolutely everything. How much more obvious can they be in their partisan politics? Hey, it's your president's pick. Shouldn't you just support the choice? Isn't that what good Republicans do?

I also find it humourous, in a disturbed way, that multiple politicians are stating things like they won't vote for her unless they are convinced she will overturn Roe v. Wade? Hello, last time I checked, judges weren't supposed to guarantee votes on issues. That's kind of unethical. And it's not as if she can just take her place on the bench, have a huddle with the other judges on her team, and decide that for this play, they're going to overturn Roe v. Wade or any other decision. For them to even consider an issue, whether abortion, euthanasia, medical marijuana, treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo, or anything else, a case has to be brought before them and they must rule specificially on that case and its merits. Remember, they are the judicial branch and not the legislative branch. They do not introduce issues. They simply rule on issues based on the Constitution. Do our legislators need a primer on the three-branch system of government? I'm sure there are plenty of elementary school teachers who could step up and provide it if necessary.

Anyhow, I'm interested to see what will come of all of this. I'm hoping for a full implosion. It will be fascinating.

No comments: