Cronyism? It's not just a partisan charge, but a constitutional one and one of the main reasons for the Senate's advice and consent. Boston University Law School Professor Randy Barnett asks, "What would Hamilton do?" about the Harriet Miers nomination and finds he would be none too happy.
The Spectacle Blog
Our old friend David Brock has been back in the news, smearing Bill Bennett with unrestrained glee. Well, every bad boy gets his comeuppance, and Brock's occurs in the November issue of the Atlantic. Bernard Henri-Levy, in the fourth installment from his travels across America, has this to report on one of the Democrats he met in Washington. It isn't pretty. The only mitigating factor is that we're not reading it in the original French:
We are always a little ashamed, Baudelaire wrote, of mentioning names that won't mean anything to anyone in fifty years.
In the case of David Brock the shame is redoubled.
First of all because you won't need fifty years, or twenty, or even ten, to see this name disappear from American political memory. But also because the character himself is in many respects one of the most objectively loathsome I've met in the ten months I've been traveling through this country.
When I got to the office today I found a phone message left over from Friday asking who I was for this past weekend, New York or Boston. Neither, was my response. I was for Cleveland. As it happened, Cleveland lost its final key games and failed to qualify for baseball's playoffs. Boston won two of three to qualify. The Yankees, by winning just once, ended up division champions.
But wait a second. I check the final standings and they indicate New York and Boston ended with identical records. New York's won the eastern division by beating Boston more often than Boston beat it. What a rinky-dink rule. Senator McCain ought to hold a hearing.
And did you notice that Washington remains first in war, first in peace, and last in the...National League East? But otherwise it was a wondrous year for the local Nationals. They ended the season 81-81, a textbook case of gridlock. Vice President Cheney wasn't allowed to cast the deciding vote.
Prediction: Conservatives boycott Nationals' opener next year. Justice Harriet Miers throws out the first ball.
Pat Buchanan is wrong in writing that Harriet Miers lacks any qualification that justifies her nomination to the Supreme Court. An administration source I spoke to late this afternoon emphasized her Evangelical Christian belief. Miers is not a casual church goer, the source said, but one of the real faithful. Is there method in the president's Miers madness? Is she the anti-Roe stealth weapon? And to what lengths are the Dems prepared to question her religious belief? If James Dobson is happy, then the liberal alphabet -- ACLU, PFAW, NOW, NARAL -- and all the Michael Mooron Dems cannot be. Curiouser and curiouser.
Ah, the Windy City. Where you get "cooler by the lake," two baseball teams on the same "L" line, a park running uninterrupted for miles and miles along the water, dozens upon dozens of distinct neighborhoods, one of the biggest Mexican populations, a street that looks straight out of New Dehli, highways only known by their given names, and great free music festivals. In short, it's my favorite big city, as big cities go.
That status may be quickly spoiled this week as the city Health Committee may pass a public smoking ban Wednesday, for consideration by the City Council Thursday. It would be a victory for the finicky lungs of the few over the civilization of the many.
This is the latest document the White House is putting out to shut down conservative unrest over the Miers nomination.
A couple points before you all buy into it however. Consider that Miers had little to nothing to do with the renomination of the conservative judges Owens, et al. Planning for those nomination had been done by the previous inhabitants of the White House Counsel's Office and the Department of Justice in the winter of 2004. By the time Miers showed up, the deal was done, and most of the folks involved were either back in the private sector or over at DOJ with Gonzales.
There is no evidence of any kind of "deal" involving the White House and senior Democrats, such as leader Harry Reid and ranking Judiciary Dem Patrick Leahy. But Leahy, while cagey during his statement this afternoon, definitely had Miers on his list of five acceptables he presented to the White House. And now, the spin:
MEET PRESIDENT BUSH’S SCOTUS NOMINEE HARRIET MIERS
One of the good early moves of the Bush administration was to eject the ABA fromÂ any formal role in theÂ vetting process for judicial nominees. That dumb practice had hardened into custom, and the left howled when the Bush administration dispensed with it. Miers opposed that decision.Â So theÂ welcome news that MiersÂ urged the ABA to knock offÂ its pro-abortion propaganda may be counterbalanced by her cooperation with the ABA in other dubious areas.
Temperamental contrarian that I am, I'm trying hard to find something nice to say about the Harriet Miers nomination. It isn't easy! But here's my first stab: