Miers and the Court
I've posted before about the pros and cons of the Supreme Court nomination of Harriett Miers. And I am most dismayed at posts from very reasonable people like this who are trashing this nomination before it gets off the ground.
I tend to agree a bit more with Capt. Ed's thoughts and those of Red State. But I find this post from David Frum at National Review Online to be positively frightening. The spine issue is a big one. I think it had something to do with Souter's, O'Connor's, and to some degree Kennedy's "growth" in office. One has to be able to stand up to the temptation that has regularly been present to "tweak" the law.
Frankly, I wish Bush hadn't nominated her either, as the point to these nominaitons is that the President can with confidence state that the person he is nominating is qualified for the job and will not run off with the left side of the court on a crusade to rewrite the laws to fit liberal political views (or conservative political views for that matter). But pulling her nomination now would make Bush look stupid, so he likely won't do that.
It should be very clear to my readers that I am a Christian foremost and then a conservative. But I must disagree with those who want a justice to move the court in any political direction other than neutral apoliticism. It gives me some emotional comfort to know that a judge is ardently pro-life, pro-defense (and anti-civil rights for terrorists), pro-free exercise of religion, and pro-everything else that I am, and will rule on cases that way. And Miers very well may be all of those things, but that does not make her a justice of integrity. It would make her a political hack (see Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, Stevens, Brennan, Blackmun, Warren, and Marshall, for example). Those principles are very important, but without a certain basis in the Constitution, they have no place in the law, just as abortion, the legalization of sodomy, philosophy and the principles of foreign law, and the expansion of eminent domain powers for the taking of private property for another's private use have no place there either.
The law is what it is.
And to dispel the myth that Antonin Scalia is a right wing hack, I direct you to Texas v. Johnson, where Scalia, true to the original intent of the Framers, considered flag burning which was otherwise not associated with acts of violence to be political expression. And I probably would have voted with the majority as well, despite the fact that I find flag-burning to be a disgrace and the act of America-haters. Regardless of feelings, the law is the law. It's just that the left hates Scalia and Thomas because they are both conservatives, and because they will not permit the Supreme Court to expand the federal reach beyond the Tenth Amendment or to become a third legislative chamber for the legalization of the leftist agenda.
That's why the left says that these justices are extreme: Scalia and Thomas have the audacity to disagree with the orthodox left, and use their influence to ensure that the intent of the framers as laid out in the Constitution is carried out, namely that there be but one lawmaking body (and to the hopelessly confused yes, that is the Congress, not the Courts) accountable to the people, rather than a Star Chamber court accountable to nobody.
Hopefully Harriett Miers agrees with that. Because if she doesn't, Bush, who claimed to understand the significance of this appointment when he was running for office will have blown his biggest campaign promise.