Ann Coulter on Miers

[Bono]

www.anncoulter.org/cgi-local/printer_friendly.cgi?article=79

THIS IS WHAT 'ADVICE AND CONSENT' MEANS
by Ann Coulter
October 5, 2005

I eagerly await the announcement of President Bush's real nominee to the Supreme Court. If the president meant Harriet Miers seriously, I have to assume Bush wants to go back to Crawford and let Dick Cheney run the country.

Unfortunately for Bush, he could nominate his Scottish terrier Barney, and some conservatives would rush to defend him, claiming to be in possession of secret information convincing them that the pooch is a true conservative and listing Barney's many virtues — loyalty, courage, never jumps on the furniture ...

Harriet Miers went to Southern Methodist University Law School, which is not ranked at all by the serious law school reports and ranked No. 52 by US News and World Report. Her greatest legal accomplishment is being the first woman commissioner of the Texas Lottery.

I know conservatives have been trained to hate people who went to elite universities, and generally that's a good rule of thumb. But not when it comes to the Supreme Court.

First, Bush has no right to say "Trust me." He was elected to represent the American people, not to be dictator for eight years. Among the coalitions that elected Bush are people who have been laboring in the trenches for a quarter-century to change the legal order in America. While Bush was still boozing it up in the early '80s, Ed Meese, Antonin Scalia, Robert Bork and all the founders of the Federalist Society began creating a farm team of massive legal talent on the right.

To casually spurn the people who have been taking slings and arrows all these years and instead reward the former commissioner of the Texas Lottery with a Supreme Court appointment is like pinning a medal of honor on some flunky paper-pusher with a desk job at the Pentagon — or on John Kerry — while ignoring your infantrymen doing the fighting and dying.

Second, even if you take seriously William F. Buckley's line about preferring to be governed by the first 200 names in the Boston telephone book than by the Harvard faculty, the Supreme Court is not supposed to govern us. Being a Supreme Court justice ought to be a mind-numbingly tedious job suitable only for super-nerds trained in legal reasoning like John Roberts. Being on the Supreme Court isn't like winning a "Best Employee of the Month" award. It's a real job.

One Web site defending Bush's choice of a graduate from an undistinguished law school complains that Miers' critics "are playing the Democrats' game," claiming that the "GOP is not the party which idolizes Ivy League acceptability as the criterion of intellectual and mental fitness." (In the sort of error that results from trying to sound "Ivy League" rather than being clear, that sentence uses the grammatically incorrect "which" instead of "that." Web sites defending the academically mediocre would be a lot more convincing without all the grammatical errors.)

Actually, all the intellectual firepower in the law is coming from conservatives right now — and thanks for noticing! Liberals got stuck trying to explain Roe v. Wade and are still at work 30 years later trying to come up with a good argument.

But the main point is: Au contraire! It is conservatives defending Miers' mediocre resume who are playing the Democrats' game. Contrary to recent practice, the job of being a Supreme Court justice is not to be a philosopher-king. Only someone who buys into the liberals' view of Supreme Court justices as philosopher-kings could hold legal training irrelevant to a job on the Supreme Court.

To be sure, if we were looking for philosopher-kings, an SMU law grad would probably be preferable to a graduate from an elite law school. But if we're looking for lawyers with giant brains to memorize obscure legal cases and to compose clearly reasoned opinions about ERISA pre-emption, the doctrine of equivalents in patent law, limitation of liability in admiralty, and supplemental jurisdiction under Section 1367 — I think we want the nerd from an elite law school. Bush may as well appoint his chauffeur head of NASA as put Miers on the Supreme Court.

Third and finally, some jobs are so dirty, you can only send in someone who has the finely honed hatred of liberals acquired at elite universities to do them. The devil is an abstraction for normal, decent Americans living in the red states. By contrast, at the top universities, you come face to face with the devil every day, and you learn all his little tropes and tricks.

Conservatives from elite schools have already been subjected to liberal blandishments and haven't blinked. These are right-wingers who have fought off the best and the brightest the blue states have to offer. The New York Times isn't going to mau-mau them — as it does intellectual lightweights like Jim Jeffords and Lincoln Chafee — by dangling fawning profiles before them. They aren't waiting for a pat on the head from Nina Totenberg or Linda Greenhouse. To paraphrase Archie Bunker, when you find a conservative from an elite law school, you've really got something.

However nice, helpful, prompt and tidy she is, Harriet Miers isn't qualified to play a Supreme Court justice on "The West Wing," let alone to be a real one. Both Republicans and Democrats should be alarmed that Bush seems to believe his power to appoint judges is absolute. This is what "advice and consent" means.

COPYRIGHT 2005 ANN COULTER

DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE

4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111

[Citizen James]

I think that hades may have just frozen over.   Some of that actually makes sense - and is downright uncharactaristic of her.  Conservatives are blindly obidient?  Bush should not be blindly trusted?  The Senate should actually block a nominee?

Sure, there's still some of her trademarked liberal bashing in there, but she's actually making sense (or at least sounding like a well reasoned conservative in the mold of George Will) in much of the essay.

What happened?  Did someone slip tranquilzers into her morning coffee?  Did she suddenly find God and start to repent her evil ways?  Was she kidnapped by aliens and replaced by a more civil clone?

Enquiring minds want to know.

[A18]

You obviously have not read many of her columns.

[Gabu]

"I know conservatives have been trained to hate people who went to elite universities, and generally that's a good rule of thumb. But not when it comes to the Supreme Court."

Hahahaha!

[CARLHAYDEN]

I'm suprised no one has yet mentioned how Caligula nominated his horse to be consul.

[dazzleman]

I think that hades may have just frozen over.   Some of that actually makes sense - and is downright uncharactaristic of her.  Conservatives are blindly obidient?  Bush should not be blindly trusted?  The Senate should actually block a nominee?

Sure, there's still some of her trademarked liberal bashing in there, but she's actually making sense (or at least sounding like a well reasoned conservative in the mold of George Will) in much of the essay.

What happened?  Did someone slip tranquilzers into her morning coffee?  Did she suddenly find God and start to repent her evil ways?  Was she kidnapped by aliens and replaced by a more civil clone?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Ann Coulter usually makes some good points, though she usually exaggerates, and much of what she says is tongue-in-cheek.  This column is not really a lot different than some of her other columns.  You just like this one because she's being critical of Bush rather than supportive.  That's the only reason it suddenly makes sense to you.

[Speed of Sound]

Its a shame that I dont care what Coulter thinks, otherwise I'd read this.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Its a shame that I dont care what Coulter thinks, otherwise I'd read this.

Amen!  I really hate this woman.

[Ebowed]

Its a shame that I dont care what Coulter thinks, otherwise I'd read this.

You cared enough to post that in a thread about her.

[Speed of Sound]

Its a shame that I dont care what Coulter thinks, otherwise I'd read this.

You cared enough to post that in a thread about her.

this is true.

[Alcon]

I misread this topic's title as "Ann Coulter on Mars."

For a minute, I was very, very happy.

[Gabu]

I misread this topic's title as "Ann Coulter on Mars."

For a minute, I was very, very happy.

"IT'S NICE UP HERE, THERE ARE NO GODDAMN LIBERALS"

[Speed of Sound]

I misread this topic's title as "Ann Coulter on Mars."

For a minute, I was very, very happy.

"IT'S NICE UP HERE, THERE ARE NO GODDAMN LIBERALS"

"GOOD THING I DONT NEED OXYGEN"

[J-Mann]

You obviously have not read many of her columns.

Yes, Coulter was against John Roberts, as well. 

[Everett]

This was a ten-minute Photoshopping frenzy, so I apologise for its crappiness:

[Speed of Sound]

lol!

[ATFFL]

This was a ten-minute Photoshopping frenzy, so I apologise for its crappiness:

LOL!  You rock.

[phk]

You obviously have not read many of her columns.

Yes, Coulter was against John Roberts, as well. 

Why?

[Shira]

At least it’s not boring when she’s on TV.

[??????????]

She's definately a great woman for sure.

[Democratic Hawk]

I'm suprised no one has yet mentioned how Caligula nominated his horse to be consul.

You're not saying Bush's appointment of Miers is synonymous with that, Carl?

Dave

[A18]

As a matter of law and fact, Miers has not yet been appointed.

[Democratic Hawk]

As a matter of law and fact, Miers has not yet been appointed.

I meant nominated. It's just that I thought of Incitatus being appointed, rather than nominated, by Caligula

Dave