I am just a middle class woman who attended an undistinguished university - the kind of person the Bush administration claims to be championing with the Miers nomination, even as they insult me personally for not supporting Miers dutifully.
I have been one of Bush's staunchest supporters, but I am not a Bush groupie. We do not owe the President our blind loyalty, which can only lead to insulation and a lack of accountability. We do not work for him. He works for us. I will continue to support him when we agree and feel free to criticize him when we disagree. Why is that such a revolutionary, threatening concept to Miers' protectors?
As loyal as I am to Dick Cheney, his assurance that in ten years we will appreciate what a fine choice Bush made assumes that conservatives have an unlimited supply of time and faith. My initial research on John Roberts was confirmed by his performance in the Senate hearings. Now I cannot wait to read his first decision, which I have every reason to believe will be informed by his brilliance and experience. When I think about Harriet Miers arguing a legal point or writing a legal opinion, based on my initial research, I am filled with sick anticipation over the unknown. Call it judge dread.
For the record, I am not disappointed in Harriet Miers because I have no expectations of her. I am disappointed - deeply, painfully - by her Ivy League boss who carefully cultivated expectations in conservatives of an outstanding selection like Scalia or Thomas to the Supreme Court, which he failed to deliver this time, in exchange for our precious votes.
My preference would have been Janice Rogers Brown, who received her B.A. from the California State University, as I just discovered by Googling her biography. But I would have been happy with any other constitutional originalist of verifiable judicial philosophy, regardless of their educational pedigree, of whom there are many ripe for the picking.
This is Ivy League:
This is Bush League:
No comments:
Post a Comment