Will's animus
posted by CS | 11:00 PM 
As I wrote yesterday, I was frankly shocked to read George Will's piece on President Bush's choice of Harriet Miers. The level of antipathy for the Bush administration on the part of Will seemed to me to be running so very high - "and from a fellow Republican?", I thought. Well, I think I understand Will's enmity a bit better today, after having read this piece by Will on Chief Justice John Marshall. Take for instance this comment toward the end of the piece:
The prospect of the Executive or Legislature of the United States officially interpreting the Constitution (rather than the unofficial bombast they yield today) gives me the same pause it does Will.
Smith locates Marshall's greatness in this fact: Unlike Britain's constitutional documents, which are political documents that it is Parliament's prerogative to construe, the U.S. Constitution is a legal document construed by courts, not Congress. When judicial supervision of our democracy seems tiresome, consider the alternative.So it's not so much that Will has a disdain for the Bush administration as it is that he has a love for the High Court - and that naturally anything that would undermine the legacy of John Marshall's influence (in this case, an arguably flippant choice for a Justice) would incur Will's animus.
The prospect of the Executive or Legislature of the United States officially interpreting the Constitution (rather than the unofficial bombast they yield today) gives me the same pause it does Will.
2 Comments:
Even as an admirer of Thomas Jefferson, I too must speak in favor of Marshall. My constitutional law class in college spent what, at the time, seemed an inordinate amount of time on the Marshall Court and the effects that rulings such as Marbury v. Madison had on the growth of our nation. Although I can agree that some of Marshall's decisions paved the way for overly broad federal powers, it's undeniable that without a strong jurist at its early helm, the Supreme Court would be little more than a joke today. With it, so would be the idea of "checks and balances" that has supported our republic for over two centuries. Alexander Hamilton's writings in Federalist No. 78 are worth revisiting to see what a cogent argument he makes in this regard.
I am, frankly, shocked to think that President Bush and his staff could not have found a pool of jurists with qualifications similar to those of our new Chief Justice. Certainly from that pool, for whatever reason -- justified or not -- the President could have found a woman or minority with a judicial philosophy compatible with his desire to leave a mark of legacy on the Court. (Janice Rogers Brown comes to mind, although I imagine her somewhat cantankerous nature would have become a central issue in the confirmation process.)
Just as the White House deserves at least a modicum of respect -- the institution, I mean, and its attendant posts, including that of the President -- so too does the Supreme Court as the highest judicial body in the land. President Bush's nomination of Ms. Miers, to me, and apparently to quite a number of other Americans on both sides of the aisle, is a sign of exactly the opposite. Our Court is worthy of a new justice who has significant judicial experience and a concomitant written record of thoughtful opinions. Ms. Miers comes absent the extraordinary amount and quality of experience that made John Roberts such an exceptional nomination to the Court.
That experience is what made his confirmation process a foregone conclusion; even liberal Democrats would admit behind closed doors, no doubt, that any opposition to his confirmation could only amount to partisanship and not to an objection to his qualifications. Ms. Miers' confirmation is far from a certainty -- in fact, I would say at this point it is entirely the opposite. I would be shocked if Senatorial Republicans hold the party line in view of the tremendous popular outcry against her nomination.
My wife mentioned last night that it was possible that Ms. Miers was acting as a sort of "hard target" to draw the brunt of the vitriol sure to be expended in the course of the next justice's confirmation process. Certainly her long relationship with the President would support such an action, although I don't think this assessment is really correct. But you have to admit the publicity generated by the process would probably more than guarantee a solid future income from private practice, speaking tours, book authoring, and so on. Maybe Ms. Brown should keep her cell phone charged up.
Well put. Kinda hard to imagine Bush would allow a "trusted advisor" to unknowingly so take the heat... but then perhaps your wife is arguing that she is indeed knowingly doing so. That would seem at least partially more sensible. In any event, it's a good conspiracy theory and worthy of discussion at Reasonable Nuts.
Post a Comment
<< Home