Just because the New Republic is whining doesn't mean I'm celebrating

The first working day of the new month means it must be time for another Supreme Court nomination. And it does. And this time it's Harriet Miers, George W. Bush's personal lawyer for roughly the last 25 years.

The conservative establishment are moaning. The religious right groups are wailing. They're going on and on about how they hope that Bush doesn't get another vacancy to fill, because he's thrown two people onto the Court, and neither is to their liking.

I've heard it suggested that the moaning and wailing is all just carefully-crafted strategy; fool the liberals into thinking the nominees aren't as conservative as they had feared, and fool the moderates into thinking that if neither side is happy, then the person must be moderate and ergo "objective". I wouldn't doubt this strategy in the least. In fact, I think it's very likely what is in evidence here. All I know is that for all of the gnashing of teeth on the right, I'm not full of glee at getting one past them.

First of all, did any hard-right ideologue think that a known hard-right judge would stand a chance with a president whose approval is hovering around 40%, and polls indicating that a vast majority of Americans disagree with the hard-right agenda? Did they think that with the majority leaders in both the House and the Senate being investigated for being corrupt SOBs that getting a known hard-right candidate through the Congress would be remotely possible? If they were thinking that, they're smoking the stuff that they want poor people prosecuted for smoking.

Secondly, what exactly does anyone know about the judicial philosophy of Harriet Miers? Absolutely nothing, that's what. Why? Because she's never been a judge. Not even on something as insignificant as traffic court. At least with Chief Justice Roberts (and it rankles me to have to associate that title with him) we had two years of work on the bench to go on. Miers is the ultimate judicial tabula rasa. There is absolutely no "paper trail", no history of decisions, no rulings, nothing to be used against her. Add in that she was the "first female" for many different Dallas and Texas legal achievements (managing partner, president of the state bar, etc.) to provide the veneer of feminism, and you have the recipe for "non-threatening", or for "disaster waiting to happen".

And it's this complete lack of judicial experience that bothers me. It's been pointed out that Rehnquist had no federal judicial experience prior to his appointment in 1972. What's not being pointed out is that Rehnquist's appointment was also a very controversial appointment in a period when Supreme Court appointments weren't nearly as contentious as they have been since Roe v. Wade. In fact, the only recent appointment that was more in doubt, aside from Bork, was Clarence Thomas. Even Scalia skated by in relative ease. And Rehnquist's elevation to Chief Justice was a closer vote than Roberts, his protege, faced. So making a comparison of Miers to Rehnquist is truly a damnation by faint praise.

As I stated 4 weeks ago in "We divert you from your regularly schedule hurricane-related kvetching", this is yet another nomination that demonstrates complete and utter contempt on the part of the president and his administration for the Judicial Branch. First he nominates a marginally-qualified federal justice for an associate justice position. But that was somewhat acceptable. The elevation of that nominee to the Chief Justice's position was not. And now filling the pending associate's seat with someone who has never sat on a bench? It's complete disdain for the importance of our most important judicial institution. It mocks the gravity of the Court. It's like flinging poo at a wall and seeing what will stick; if just any old nominee will get passed on, no matter how awful, just because he figures he doesn't need to put up the most qualified, anyone will do. What's more, the nominee was the chair of the search committee; just as Cheney was the chair of the vice-presidential search committee.

It's disgusting that when people are going to bitch about this nomination (and as I pointed out, it's already started on the right), they'll bitch about it on ideological bases. They really need to get indignant his nominating people with no history, no experience, not a fucking clue what they're going to be facing on the bench. Heck, at least Roberts clerked on the Court, and had some idea of what to expect. Miers is Michael Brown, but on the Supreme Court, not at the head of FEMA. When Brown stepped down after the Katrina mess, people asked how the heck someone with that utter lack of qualification could end up at the head of FEMA. I think we're seeing it replayed now. Someone with an utter lack of qualifications is being appointed the Supreme Court. We cannot allow the Senate to make these mistakes over and over and over again. Doing so only proves the Republican Senate to be the rubber stamp that the GOP cried for decades about the Democratic Congress being. If they're unwilling to take up their role as a check on the power of the Executive, they need to be defeated in the elections.

In fact, it's time that people stopped voting for "likeable" people. It's time they started voting for qualified. It's time that this country turned off Two and a Half Men long enough to get a frickin' clue about what their government is doing to them. Otherwise, they're going to come to 2010 with the same salary they had in 2005, and scraping to get by as gas and energy prices have shot upwards. Farmers are getting hit very hard now. Corn farmers in Ohio are only going to be able to produce the minimum-quality in seed corn this season because the fuel costs to dry the corn beyond the minimum standard would mean selling at a loss. Instead, they'll break even. And they can't just increase their price to the market to compensate because of the price controls set by the government and the Board of Trade so that we don't have to pay more at the grocery. And the last I knew, wasn't it price controls that capitalists railed against communism for? And it's family farms that are most hurt by the price controls, since they can't get the economies of scale for fuel like conglomerates like Cargill and ADM can get.

The average American is being squeezed. But when it comes to the elections, they are lured in with charisma and talk about God and Jesus and tax cuts, and they are hooked. Then the squeeze is applied a little more, and they wonder why they're being squeezed. And the cycle continues every two years. It's time to rebel against the squeeze. The rebellion needs to be at the ballot boxes. People need to be willing to take a slight hit in the form of a tax raise in order to get this country back on the road to wellness. In 1993, the Clinton Administration pushed through a tax increase that mostly affected those making over $75,000/year, and this was followed by unparalleled prosperity. Taxes were cut in 2001, 2002 and 2003, and with those cuts have come record deficits and stagnation in our economy. Which is better for the economy in general?

If you want to see me celebrate, I'll wait until the people making $25,000 to $75,000 per year aren't feeling the squeeze anymore. It takes more than a few conservatives whining to make me celebrate, however. It takes respect for my country, my government, the institutions of that government, and for those whose consent is the source of the powers of that government. No respect means no joy. And insider trading, gerrymandering every two years, squeezing the compensation of the working and professional classes, and cronyism do not equate to respect.