A "MUST READ" FROM THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

I have no problem admitting why I voted for George W. Bush: the War on Terror. No more, no less. I wanted someone who would do whatever is necessary to protect & defend the United States. I pushed the button next his name fully aware that he was not fiscally conservative, that he would pander to the worst part of the conservative base, and that he had a history of "scratching the backs" of those who have scratched his. I just saw no other option. John Kerry, far from inspiring any sort of confidence, epitomized the word "lackluster." While W. most certainly has his flaws, being indecisive and timid aren't on the list.

However, I absolutely cannot support his nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. There's something about this nomination that just feels wrong. I can't put my finger on it exactly, maybe it's just the sheer cronyism of it all. Maybe it's because Harry Reid is in favor of it, and actually suggested her for the seat. Maybe its the fact that she has no judicial experience. While she appears to be a most accomplished lawyer, that alone does not qualify a person to sit on the highest court in the land. It is quite a different thing to sit in judgment on the bench than it is to argue before it. Every judge needs to start somewhere, but the Supreme Court is not the place to hone your skills, it is the place to use them.

Today's Wall Street Journal has an opinion piece by Randy E. Barnett titled "Cronyism" and it is well worth the read. I also plan on forwarding it to both of my Senators along with my personal objection to Harriet Miers.

Mr. Barnett quotes Alexander Hamilton from Federalist No. 76:

"To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. . . . He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure."

President Bush would do well to consider Mr. Hamilton's words before making any further appointments. And the Senate would do well to put them into action and decline Ms. Miers' nomination.