I have just completed reading several reports regarding the criticism surrounding the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. I personally am outraged at the tenor and tone of the furor from those conservatives with whom I agree more frequently than not. This time,I think they sound like “wounded bats” in an asylum belfry. A Washington Post report stated “White House adviser Ed Gillespie suggested that some of the unease about Miers "has a whiff of sexism and a whiff of elitism”", a comment that according to the Post drew complaints from participants at a briefing Gillespie conducted. I tend to think that Gillespie may have it right. Let’s face it – Washington DC – conservative or liberal -- reflects a political elitism that is barely a notch above an "old boys club" from the 50's. Those of us who support one or the other are just pawns in their game. Perhaps they truly believe they are all knowing, omnipotent in purity of thought and most able to determine what is best for the rest of us.
I read columnist George Wills’ comments in which he, according to the Post, "decried the choice as a diversity pick without any evidence that Miers has the expertise and intellectual firepower necessary for the high court". Ann Coulter laments that Miers is incompetent and her education at Southern Methodist University “too lacking” to sit among the “high and mighty” elitist graduates of the great Universities. I am disappointed at both of these “conservative mouth pieces”.
Apparently the conservative block is particularly upset because Bush did not consult with them and engage in an all out battle with the Democrats to put someone whose views they wish to see on the Court and that the Democrats vowed to fight. The last I heard, every person has one vote and each vote counts equally. The President did not consult me and I don’t think anyone would find that particularly surprising. However, I represent one vote just as those who now cry foul that they were not consulted. Since I do not control a large “cache” of votes, I am not a big contributor to the party -- I think I gave less than $25.00 to the Bush campaign in 2004 – neither Bush nor his party owes me anything. It is people like me who Mr. Bush must represent. He is responsible for representing all of us and not a single group of people. That, I believe, is what he has tried to do.
The last time I studied the process, It looked to me as if the political activists among us support those who represent their goals. That is certainly why I voted for George Bush. I certainly could not imagine voting for John Kerry. That said, I await the hearing process to determine whether Harriet Miers can stand up to the questions from the Committee. They are now charged with the responsibility for examining her qualities, evaluating her competence and measuring her ability to fairly, honestly and diligently apply the law and uphold the Constitution. Why should that be so difficult or require an elitist degree from Harvard or Yale? I believe the conservative right are wrong to draw conclusions before they have heard Ms. Mier's testimony and had an opportunity to observe for themselves her competence or incompetence, as the case may be. It is not enough to call someone dumb, incompetent or unqualified based on surmised facts. That seems to me unamerican. Harriet Miers deserves a hearing and I, for one, think she is a gutsy lady to take the heat and accept the challenge. The conservatives who are “ranting” about this nomination are no better than the “liberals” who voted against John Roberts. They are all cross eyed.
No comments:
Post a Comment