Thursday, October 27, 2005

She Didn't Make the Cut!

Today, Harriet Miers excused herself from the room. In the wake of revelations from transcripts of speeches she gave in the 90's, showing her to be a malleable, shape-shifting ball of silly putty, she finally threw in the black terry-cloth robe. The world is a better place.

I stayed away from this debate until now because I suck as a prognosticator (I'm much better as a procrastinator, but I'll deal with that later). We didn't know much about Ms Miers, and as time dragged on, bits began to appear. Finally, I made my decision based on the fact that she has no record of having studied Constitutional law. Then, after I'd heard all I needed, I heard more: she plays the chameleon, becoming what she believes her audience wants her to be.

Not good.

Now, she's withdrawn herself from contention. I'm good with that. I'm given to understand that a groundswell of conservative criticism caused her withdrawal, though that's not what she says.

Leftists, who were pretty mixed about her because of her seeming anti-abortion ethic but, on the other hand, is a woman, place the blame on the "far right wing." Someone even said that Miers, who seems less ept than other potential candidates, might be the Justice to represent the "common man." Or, more politically correctly, the "common person of undetermined gender."

We don't need justices that represent sections of American society. We need Justices who will compare the facts of the cases to the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and simply decide whether the lower court decisions conflict or not. There's no need to complicate it, no need to look at precedent. If the Justices study The Federalist Papers, The Anti-Federalist Papers and other letters and writings of the Founders, they will be able to understand what the Founders meant--and what the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights mean.

For example: After reading various letters written by Thomas Jefferson (and others), it becomes very clear to the point of the absolute that they meant individuals have the right to "Keep and Bear Arms" and that all able bodied men are presumed (but not required) to be the militia.

If, as the socialist sector of the Supremes assert, the Constitution needs to be updated to become more relevant to today's challenges there is, within the Constitution itself, the solution--the Amendment process. It's not the job of the Supremes to redefine the US Constitution.

It seems really odd to me that a student of American law, who has been one long enough to achieve an appointment to the Supreme Court, wouldn't know this.

Disclaimer: I'm not, in the end, an advocate of a Constitutional Republic such as we have now. I think the Republic, as framed in the Founders' papers and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is the best form of government ever devised by man up to now. As such, I advocate a return to strict adherence to these documents--to the letter. Then, I'd advocate moving on from that point to further limiting government until it is no longer capable of initiating force against individuals.

They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

No comments: