Thursday, October 06, 2005

The Attacks on The Harriet Meirs Nomination Are Already Starting to Get Old

The complaints about the President's pick are beginning to look like elitist whining. Yes, most of us conservatives (including this blogger) wanted Bush to appoint a conservative legal titan. He did not. We can't change that now. Before anyone in the right makes a bigger dummy of himself or herself, let's see what the hearings produce. (This is a message I hope David Frum, Ann Coulter, Rich Lowry, George Will, and their fellow outraged conservative pundits will accept from someplace.)

There is, of course, another route to take: Conservatives can actively oppose the Miers nomination. If that's what you want to do, go ahead, join the ranks of the Buchanan Brigade. Just don't let the door hit you on the way out. From Betsy's Page:

What does irritate me is those conservatives who basically want to take their marbles and go home since they're disappointed in Bush's nomination. Fine, stay home next election. I hope your sanctimonious conservative purity is warm comfort through the years of Hillary's presidency. Remember that our choice is rarely between the perfect candidate and some other person. Mostly, we have to deal with two imperfect candidates and figure out which one would be less bad for the country. If you're lucky, there might even be a candidate you can like. My experience is that such politicians are rare.
(HT: Hugh Hewitt. Betsy has lots of good stuff; read it.)

So Miers was not a judge before. Even Power Line won't get over this one. Note: Rehnquist was never a judge. Nor was he a legal scholar. Enough said.

Brit Hume noted last night the strain of elitism that runs through the heavy-duty conservative opposition to Miers, the non-titan. This obviously stung; see Power Line again, who rushed to its own defense. It is true that most of the leading conservative intellectual lights (some named above) who are apopleptic about Miers have Ivy League backgrounds. Elitism - how unbecoming to a conservative! Watch for Laura Ingraham and others to defend themselves today against Brit's good-natured observation.

As a graduate of a state university and a state law school, I do have a dog in this fight. Despite my non-stellar educational credentials I seem to have been able to eke out a living, and I daresay my thoughts on legal and political matters are worthy of consideration alongside those harvardians and yalies. In fact, in the real day-to-day life of the law, the question of what school anyone attended never comes, at least not for me, except in silly debates like this.

George Will thinks "constitutional reasoning is a talent -- a skill acquired, as intellectual skills are, by years of practice sustained by intense interest. It is not usually acquired in the normal course of even a fine lawyer's career."

Oh, please. Is the Supreme Court only a think tank with authority, or is it a living breathing collection of bright, talented and experienced Americans? How many years did Bill Rehnquist spend sitting around and practicing his constitutional reasoning?

I wonder if George Will could ever enjoy a dinner conversation with a graduate of the University of Nebraska?

This has already gone on too long. I'm not thrilled about this nomination either-- who is? For example, I agree with Peggy Noonan's piece today. Still, I think It's time for conservative cannibalism to end. Let's watch the Senate hearings and see what we've got here in Ms. Miers.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks for the link to Peggy Noonan. She seems to have framed the real issues better than most.

Hedgehog, you're right on the money about the "qualifications" part of the criticisms. As I read the Constitution, there is no "qualification" test. That is a creation, in my opinion, of the ABA and their coterie of law professors--ironically enough given Ms. Meirs' efforts to keep the ABA review in the process.

As I posted before, Ms. Meirs could well end up being a great pick. Her having been nominated, we'll just have to see how it all plays out.

As unfortunate (and unnecessary) as the vitriol from some conservative critics of the nomination may be, the administration in some respects brought it on themselves, especially after it leaked that they anticpated disappointment and said it would just go away. For those whose number one issue has been reining in the judiciary, this only seemed to have deepened their sense of "betrayal" and egged them in a determined effort to show that they're not just sitting back for the ride. 

Posted by BlueBuffoon

Thursday, October 06, 2005 8:42:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

State of U.S. Courts. . .

Consider this:

Open Letter

October 23, 2005

United States Judicial Conference
Administrative Office
of the United States Courts
Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building
One Columbus Circle, N.E.
Washington D.C. 20544

Mr. Albert N. Moskowitz
United States Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
950 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530

Mrs. Mary Beth Buchanan
U.S. Attorney Western Pennsylvania
United States Department of Justice
U.S. Post Office and Court House
700 Grant Street, Suite 4000
Pittsburgh, Pa 15219

United States Judicial Conference
Chief Justice United States Supreme Court
c/o Mr. William K. Sutter, Clerk
Office of the Clerk
c/o Mrs. Pamala Talkin
Marshall of the Court
No. 1 First Street, N.E.
Washington, DC 20543

Third Circuit Judicial Council
United States Court of Appeals
c/o Toby D. Slawsky, Esq.
Circuit Executive
22409 U.S. Courthouse
601 Market Street
Philadelphia, Pa 19106-1790

Chief Justice
United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
c/o Toby D. Slawsky, Esq.
Circuit Executive
22409 U.S. Courthouse
601 Market Street
Philadelphia, Pa 19106-1790

RE: Formal Complaint (filed under the Judicial Improvements Act of 2002
28 U.C.S. Sections 351-364); Formal Complaint (filed under 28 U.S.C.
Section 372(c)); and Request for Investigation (pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 604)

Dear All:

Please be advise of the following criminal activity.

On or about October 11, 2005, Marcia M. Waldron, Clerk for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals forwarded a copy of an Order (No. 05-3702) that, among other, requested a copy of the district court docket entries. On October 21, 2005, I purchased a copy of the docket entries (No. 03-1400) and forwarded such to the Third Circuit. However, I noticed the August 16, 2005, entry entered by JSP that advised the clerk’s office couldn’t locate documents #16, #64 and #86. That is, the clerk office wasn’t able to transmitted the complete record (No. 03-1400) to the Third Circuit.

In short, previously I submitted unequivocal evidence of perjury (violation of Section 1746 Title 28, United States Code) to the Department of Justice, federal court and others. Since my request for a formal investigation, the evidence (documents #64 and #86) was somehow removed from the official court file.

At issue is an affidavit submitted to the court by Cassandra Colchagoff (an attorney). With the November 10, 2004 affidavit Mrs. Colchagoff attempted to change her testimony (December 2003 affidavit). That is, the district court specifically cited her December 2003 testimony as its reason for dismissing the constitutional claims in the matter No. 03-1400.
Mrs. Colchagoff had testified (made a material false declaration) that there was “no link to Kaplan Higher Education Corporation (Kaplan College) and no link to federal funding.”
The district court ruled that “without a link to federal funding” I couldn’t pursue my constitutional claims against Kaplan.

The only difference between the two Colchagoff affidavits is the November 10, 2004, testimony no longer suggested, “no link to Kaplan Higher Education Corporation (Kaplan College) and no link to federal funding.” Likewise, her attorneys, Sara Shubert, Laurence Shtasel, and Blank Rome appears to have changed their representation to the court. Her attorneys now acknowledged my October 15, 2000, Kaplan College enrollment letter and admitted in footnote 2 “certain colleges operated by Kaplan Higher Education Corporation, such as Kaplan College, received federal funding.”

Because this information (Document # 64 and #86) is “fatal” to the court’s decision at No. 03-1400, it has been unlawfully removed and withheld from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The unexplained disappearance of document #64 and #86 is further proof of criminal activity (obstruction of justice and intentional violation of my civil rights).

Please note, the November 10, 2004, Cassandra Colchagoff affidavit (Document #64 and #86) now missing from the court record, at paragraph 23, specifically admitted malfeasance.

In conclusion, the missing affidavit (Document #64 and #86) not submitted to the Third Circuit is decisive for all factual issues related to this matter and directly contradicts Judge David S. Cercone’s Memorandum opinions (May 14, 2004 and June 29, 2005).

I demand an immediate investigation.

(Name Removed)

Posted by Insider

Monday, October 24, 2005 9:44:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home