Faith

It's been a crazy couple of days with the latest Supreme Court nominee. I've read so many editorials on this decision by President Bush that I may need to stop by the optometrist and see about a prescription. It seems to me that the arguments on the conservative side boil down to: 1) Ms. Miers is not qualified and 2) Ms. Miers may not be conservative enough (or there is really no way to know if she is because no one really knows what she believes). Problem number two brings me back to an entry I wrote not too long ago about growing up and needing proof to believe what those in authority say. President Bush had a press conference yesterday and, of course, was asked extensively about his pick for the nation's highest court. Basically his answer to why conservatives should support his choice was to "trust him" and his decisions. This is a tough pill for many conservatives to swallow. We've watched as the president, in his attempts to bring a more civil tone to Washington and work with those across the aisle, has made decisions in domestic policy that has not been what we had expected. It's hard to place blind trust in anyone, but when the person requesting it has made decisions that challenge that trust, it becomes increasingly difficult.

I have many favorite columnists and George Will ranks right up there among the best. He is a great conductor of words. His column today says what I would say about this issue from a conservative stand point, if I could only write so well. I've included it so you could take a look. http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/georgewill/2005/10/04/159414.html

From the liberal side of this argument there are also two basic points: 1) This President is practicing cronyism by nominating someone so close to his White House for this post and 2) There is no way to see what Ms. Miers' judicial philosophy is because she's never been a judge or even a professor of the law - for that matter there is no proof that she's interested in Constitutional Law at all. I'm sure that my liberal friends will come up with more things to hurl at Ms. Miers as her confirmation hearings approach. One can only guess what that might be, but I'm sure the attacks won't be original. I can grant them the cronyism problem, however. I have a bit of a problem with nominating friends to positions that they will continue to hold after the nominating President is no longer in office. Washington is not a town of friends, which is why many Presidents bring their friends with them when they come to town. I applaud that. It is necessary to have people around you that actually like you and are there because they want you to succeed. President Bush appointing Ms. Miers to White House Counsel was a good move because he knew her as a friend and as a lawyer, and when you have to work with a lawyer everyday, it is probably not a bad idea to have one that likes you around. But nominating her to the post of Supreme Court Justice is a much bigger step. President Bush will be gone from the White House in less than 3 years; if confirmed, Ms. Miers could sit on the bench for another 15 - 20, maybe more. I'm not saying that a President cannot nominate a friend to the bench, but when the friend appears to lack the experience and knowledge that many other potential and past nominees have had, he has to expect to be questioned about it - not only by the opposition party, but also by his own.

It has been hard these past days to decide what I believe regarding the question of Ms. Miers. My original reaction was anger and disappointment. There were a several other choices that were clearly conservative and highly qualified. They would have had to fight to get through confirmation, but they would have been confirmed and this President could have saved time trying to justify their nomination. I think this selection wastes time and political capital. I also feel it is an extremely arrogant pick – “trust me on my pick because I say so” – that’s a hard sell these days and I think if President Bush doesn’t know that, someone around him should have told him. That being said, I do believe that fundamentally President Bush is a conservative and I have to trust that he learned a lesson from his father’s appointment of Justice Souter – a little known judge who was sold as a conservative and has turned out to be very liberal. There have been and I’m sure will continue to be decisions made by this President that I just simply don’t understand. I would like to believe that there are factors not immediately available for my inspection that make these decision not only necessary but desirable. It is hard to believe that at times, but I suppose that even when presented with as many facts as possible, every thing comes down to having a little faith.