(This post is based on a comment that I left in this post)
Look, here’s the crux of the situation in terms of why I am unhappy with, and therefore oppose, the Miers nomination.
Yes, on technical terms (i.e., the Constitutional provisions in Article III), there are no required qualifications to be a Justice. By that standard, Miers is “qualified.” By that standard so am I and so is Alexander Rodriguez. I will grant that Miers is, depending on the standards one cooks up, more qualifed thatn either myself or A-Rod. However, there are numerous persons, more qualified than Miers, even using common sense standard for a person appointed to the highest court in the land.
At any rate, as I noted many days ago, there are only 9 seats, and the opportunity to fill those seats is rare, and this is a lifetime appointment. This is a very serious issue.
Given these facts, it seems to me that what we should demand is not simply an adequate or qualified candidate, but an excellent one.
(Precisely why this is considered in some quarters to be a controversial or arguable point is a cipher to me).
I have seen nothing yet to demonstrate that Harriet Miers is anywhere near the best candidate for this position and I have yet to see any arguments to suggest that she is.
The main resume point in her career that has gotten her to this point is that the President has known and worked with her for a decade or so. That is not a very good reason or process for appointing Justices to the Supreme Court of the United States.
If we were going to go the crony route, I would have preferred Alberto Gonzales, who at least was on the Texas Supreme Court and has served as Attorney General. Indeed, while Gonzales would not be my first choice, his bio clearly demonstrates better preparation for the Court.
And, in case anyone has a different definition in mind for what “crony” and “cronyism” means, please note (from Merriam-Webster online):
Main Entry: cro·ny
Pronunciation: ‘krO-nE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural cronies
Etymology: perhaps from Greek chronios long-lasting, from chronos time
: a close friend especially of long standing
By that clear definition of the word, Harriet Miers is a crony.
And then we have:
Main Entry: cro·ny·ism
Pronunciation: -nE-”i-z&m
Function: noun
: partiality to cronies especially as evidenced in the appointment of political hangers-on to office without regard to their qualifications
As such, based on the plain meaning of the words, how can the Miers’ nomination be termed anything other than cronyism?
And then ask yourself: is that really how we want to be selecting Justices to the Supreme Court of the United States?
To me, it is patently the wrong way to name such persons and that fact is the most significant element in my opposition to her nomination followed closely by her lack of demonstrated excellence in terms of qualifications for the position.
I am further upset by the argument that in her case we are supposed to be looking at her personal view, which is precisely what we shouldn’t be looking at, but the fact that that is where we are being directed further underscores her lack of preparation for this position.
Sphere: Related Content
She is not a beneficiary of cronyism because she is NOT a “hanger-on”–a definition you conveniently omitted.
Comment by Henriet Cousin\' — Saturday, October 15, 2024 @ 3:11 pm
I provided the definitions, how did I, therefore, “omit” anything?
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Saturday, October 15, 2024 @ 3:30 pm
“Given these facts, it seems to me that what we should demand is not simply an adequate or qualified candidate, but an excellent one.”
But here’s the problem: whatexactly does it mean for someone to be a “highly qualified” or “excellent” candidate for the Supreme Court? It seems to me that this question remains begged every time people discuss this issue.
What, for example, was it that made John Roberts so eminently qualified? Well, he went to an elite law school, he served as a federal judge, he seems really, really smart, and he lacks Robert Bork’s bizarre facial hair, irritating holier-than-thou manner, and outspoken opposition to any jurisprudence to the left of Roger Taney.
But let’s review these in order.
We can all agree that pedigree should be irrelevant. I suspect it’s actually WAY relevant to someof Miers’ critics, but it obviously shouldn’t be. (By the way, I do believe you when you say it is irrelevant to you. But I’m sure you’ve had many occasions to witness colleagues ooh and aah all over a job candidate simply because he or she received the Ph.D. from Princeton rather than Florida State).
Certainly, prior service as a judge is a qualification, though not prima facie evidence of excellence. But the real question is whether the lack of such service is a crippling disqualification. I think there’s a role for having a few people on the Court who have real world political experience. Say what you want about Earl Warren (an eminently unqualified nominee by the Miers Test), but it was his political experience and talent that allowed him to craft the crucially unanimous opinion in Brown v. Board. And even his opponents can’t deny that he became a highly influential and important figure in U.S. history.
OK, what about being smart? (And by the way, do we have any reason to believe that Harriet Miers is less intelligent than John Roberts?) Obviously, you don’t want someone on the Court who consider Tom Clancy novels challenging, but it’s certainly possible for smart people to be rigid in their thinking. Antonin Scalia is, ideology aside, a terrible justice because he is a hopelessly rigid ideologue (indeed, some say it was that uncompromising self-certainty that helped drive O’Connor and Kennedy mildly to the left). Just to be fair, the same charge could be accurately leveled at William O. Douglas from the Warren Court days. Nope, smart ain’t everything.
The cronyism thing is a little off-putting, but hardly a disqualification in and of itself. Bush could, for example, have chosen a competent insider to head up FEMA.
What do we know about Harriet Miers? She rose in a profession when women were not welcomed with open arms. That shows a tenacity that would serve her well on the Court. She was chosen by her peers to head the state ABA. That shows she possesses valuable political skills. She apparently did quite a decent job cleaning up the Texas Lottery Commission, not an inconsiderable feat.
Do you want me to say she’s the most qualified person in America? I can’t, though I couldn’t swear to the same about John Roberts, either, and we all know with certainty that the same was nowhere close to true in the embarrassing case of Clarence Thomas.
But I think she’s got it all over A-Rod. And me. And probably you, too.
Thanks for the chance to ramble a bit. Next time., I’ll get my own blog.
But I enjoy yours, because you’re one of the rare right-of-center (or left-of-center) bloggers who is not ideologically predictable.
Comment by X — Saturday, October 15, 2024 @ 3:41 pm
X
Steven is certainly not predictable.
Steven
I don’t find your definition of “hanger-on” which is essential to labeling Miers nomination “cronyism?” I don’t find it in the Historical Dictionary Americal Slang. A hanger-on would be someone at the margins of the group bearly “hanging on.” That certainly does not apply to Miers. Therefore, the label “cronyism” fails to stick.
R/
P.S. X wins too.
Comment by Henriet Cousin' — Saturday, October 15, 2024 @ 4:37 pm
I find the “hanger-on” element to be diversionary.
Do you deny that Miers fits the definition of crony?
And if the essential element of cronyism is “partiality to cronies” in terms of appointments, then, quite frankly, “hanger-on” isn’t key,
However, “hanger-on” can be defined as “sycophant” and since Miers has been quoted as saying that the President is the “smartest man” she’s ever known, and given the following from Marvin Olasky (a supporter of Miers): http://www.worldmagblog.com/blog/archives/018820.html, I would argue that there are some serious sycophantic behavior here, and so the “hanger-on” element as used in the definition would apply.
But again, focusing on the “hanger-on” portion of the definition wholly ignore the base point in a rather Clintonesque word-parsing fashion.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Sunday, October 16, 2024 @ 7:13 am
[…] e No on Roberts - New York Times
PoliBlog: Back to Miers
PoliBlog: Politics is the Master Science » Back to Miers If Dr. Taylor doesn’t like Miers, then the no […]
Pingback by Political Bloviation » Blog Archive » PoliBlog: Back to Miers — Sunday, October 16, 2024 @ 12:38 pm
“(E)specially” in your definition of cronyism establishes “hanger-on” as the damning element and therefore the essential element. Partiality to friends is universal to the concept of friendship and so to be expected. The question is Is she a personal friend outside of and beyond the colleguial “friendship” of leader and trusted subordinate? Even then I don’t find mere friendship as a bar to nomination, confirmation, and excellence of subsequent service. Given that Miers MAY be a W crony? For the sake of argument, I grant you that she fits the WEAK defintion of “crony.”
I take her comment that W is “smartest man” on its face–meaning “alertness, quick-wittedness that enables one to get ahead.” She did not say he was “bright”–clever especially in liveness of mind or in liveliness of talk or manner. Had she then I would argue against her confirmation. I would point out that both words are used IRONICALLY, “bright then implying dullness or stupidity and “smart,” facetousness, or somethimes trickery or duplicity ( a smart aleck)(any other bright ideas).
Words instrumentally convey thoughts/ideas. Words have mutiple meanings. The purpose of speech/writing is to transmit ideas accurately–nearly impossible. Therefore, words must be defined and definitions agree to by the parties–the very definition of Knowing.
Parsing is a good thing–to give a grammitical description of a group of words. To say that an honest debater/conversationalist parses words like Billary is insulting unless made in jest?
R/
Comment by Henriet Cousin\' — Sunday, October 16, 2024 @ 12:52 pm
Insult is not my intent.
However, what you are doing is ignoring a rather large number of words, and focusing on the two that you think will derail that overall argument without addressing the overall content of that argument.
This reminds me of Clintonian parsing in which the argument becomes about the meaning of words so as to avoid arguing the substance of the overall issue.
For example, you don’t find your interpretation of “smart” to be a tad tortuous to get the meaning to fit your argument? Upon what do you base your interpretation?
Clearly we are not going to come to the meeting of the minds on this topic; you are satisfied with Miers and I am not. Perhaps it should be left at that.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Sunday, October 16, 2024 @ 1:23 pm
[…] not so justify? Talk about drinking the Kool-Aid. Prof. Bainbridge responds to Hewitt. Steven Taylor on the definition of ‘crony’
[Permalink] […]
Pingback by The Politburo Diktat » Blog Archive » Elitist, Sexist, Cynic … Terrorist — Sunday, October 16, 2024 @ 2:51 pm
Meeting of the minds–maybe.
I know no more than any member of the general informed public about Miers’ suitability for a seat on the SC and so spend my time until the hearings in informative argumentation with others on your blog.
What I am most satisfied with is The Bush II
administration.
Comment by Henriet Cousin\' — Sunday, October 16, 2024 @ 3:38 pm
Now tell me, why is it that you can use the dictionary to define complex terms and I can’t?
On the other hand, I can see it didn’t work out too well for you either.
Comment by Jan — Monday, October 17, 2024 @ 8:23 am
Well, I used the dictionary to look up the meaning of a word (two, actually). That’s within the bounds of proper usage.
Using it as the basis for a more complex concept is a different issue.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Monday, October 17, 2024 @ 8:28 am
It would seem that “cronyism” is only complicated in this context if one is hellbent on supporting the nomination
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Monday, October 17, 2024 @ 8:29 am
Obviously I was just teasing you, not really trying to provoke you, but. . .
Honestly, I really don’t get your distinction (Steven said: “Well, I used the dictionary to look up the meaning of a word (two, actually). That’s within the bounds of proper usage.”)
between what you did in this post and what I did here. But, oh well. . .maybe you’ll have time to explain it to me IN PERSON some day. *gasp* *turns blue* *passes out*
Comment by Jan — Monday, October 17, 2024 @ 9:32 am
# 13
Or withholding final judgment until at least some evidence is in?
R/
Comment by Henriet Cousin\\\\\\\' — Monday, October 17, 2024 @ 9:34 am
btw, I posted a reply, but it said it was flagged as spam.
Comment by Jan — Monday, October 17, 2024 @ 9:36 am
Fixed and retrieved.
And yes, I figured
And I would argue that rationality is a far more complex a discussion than is cronyism
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Monday, October 17, 2024 @ 9:55 am
# 16
Then I offer some modern Laws of Thought:
The law of excluded middle (that anything must be either P or not-P)
The law of non-contradiction (that nothing can be both P and not-P)
The law of identity (that if a thing is P, then it is P)
The law of causality
Memory fails me. Any more?
Comment by Henriet Cousin\\\\\\\' — Monday, October 17, 2024 @ 4:08 pm
[…] President Bush for his cronyism (see Miers, his ICE appointee and others). […]
Pingback by PoliBlog ™: A Rough Draft of my Thoughts » Happy Festivus! — Saturday, December 23, 2024 @ 11:23 am