Monday, October 24, 2005

Just in case there was any doubt

I think I speak for all of my co-bloggers, perhaps not, but I oppose the Miers nomination.

The reasons why have been expressed before. My dissertation adviser said it best:
But law, unlike politics, is inescapably an intellectual exercise, and reason is the bedrock of the rule of law. It is about the careful articulation of principles and nuanced applications, made persuasive by a compelling understanding of the constitutional order and the role of courts. Law is not molded simply by the votes of judges and justices, but in the power and cogency of written opinions and the philosophy they express, which become the fodder of law-review articles, commentaries, and conference panels, and eventually permeate the classroom teaching that forms the next generation of judges, lawyers and scholars. To bypass the opportunity to strengthen a conservative intellectual core — an elite — on the Court is not to make it a populist protector of freedom, but to abandon the field to the liberal elite. If the president does not appreciate this, there is no reassurance another nominee would be any better, and Democrats would surely feel more liberated then to jump on any candidate of substance.

Or as I wrote in this post:
Again, this is not a manner of mining for the right vote. A member of the Court is expected to forcefully articulate the reasons for their vote. They should be able to express a clear judicial philosophy. I don’t care if Harriet Miers is pro-life, and I don’t even care if she is a likely vote against Roe. In fact if she were to base her opposition to Roe solely or principally from a moral standpoint rather than a legal one, then she’s even more unfit for the bench.


<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?