Tuesday, October 04, 2005

Harriet who?

I've been away for the past month, busy with a job search and just overwhelmed about the disasters in the South and in DC, where FDR seems to have been resurrected, the House GOP leader indicted on ethics issues and money laundering charges, and croneyism rules the day. I haven't posted since, in my opinion, there wasn't anything new for me to post regarding these events other than to say that I'm highly critical of FEMA, DHS, Congress, POTUS, and the entire Louisiana governmental establishment and that the only thing they know how to do is play the blame game to try and save their own sorry rears.

But now that we're into October, fall is in the air and the winds of change are sweeping through our nation. Except for inside the Beltway, where business as usual continues. POTUS, after the successful installation of Cheif Justice Roberts to the bench, has in his hand the power to shape the SCOTUS for the next generation by appointing a true strict-constructionist and conservative justice, not as a swing vote, but as a way to rebalance the court and start leading our country back into the realm of balanced power and proper interpretation of the law from the bench. Unfortunately, POTUS has decided that his historical legacy should be one of mediocrity, political spinelessness and inappropriate political awards, so he's nominated his chief council, Harriet Miers.

I don't mean any dispariagement toward Ms. Miers; she's obviously more intelligent than I am at the legal and political game since she's in a position to be nominated. But a better choice shoe could not be further from. She has no judical track record to speak of and little is known about her ideological leanings. Granted, the media is trying to dig up some dirt such as old contributions to the Gore 1988 campaign, but there's very little on her to begin with, so that might be a moot point. Rather, this is a reward for Ms. Miers' enduring loyalty to President Bush and that seems to be the primary reason for the nomination.

I think that I can speak for many when I say that croneyism is not a sound qualifier for an appointment or nomination, especially for an associate justice slot. We've seen how poitical appointees based on repaying favors and loyalty have helped muck up the works in the halls of power over the past six weeks, so why use it as a basis for an appointment that will last at least 20-30 years and have immense influence over the legal evolution of our country? And, to add insult to injury, the Republican controlled Congress seems poised to let her in without even a minimal fight lest they anger President Bush and his team in the White House. Be afraid, be very afraid of what Ms. Miers might morph into over the span of her term.

We had a chance to set the tone of the SCOTUS for the next generation, and we've blown it. Once again, the GOP has managed to wrest defeat from the hands of victory, and the battle was all ours to lose. I don't know what happened to the party of Lincoln and Reagan, but it certainly sounds and smells more like the party of Johnson and Carter.