Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Mired in Miers
When President Bush nominated his legal advisor to the Supreme Court, the hue and cry arose from conservative Republicans with a media presence, such as Ann Coulter. They all cried “Cronyism!” and expressed great disappointment with the President. All in the name of wanting a judge on the highest court in the land who would rule as they wanted. Sounds good, but…
The first tenet of our judicial system is “Innocent Until Proven Guilty.” Jumping on Miers as an unfit candidate solely on the basis of her relationship with Bush is insufficient. It’s sort of like seeing a child standing over the pieces of a broken vase and concluding that the child (not the dog or cat) knocked it off the table.
Well, I have withheld opinion on this nomination until having a chance in my busy schedule to look into the facts. Now, armed with those facts, I can confidently say that I would not support her, and will encourage the Judicial Nomination Committee not to support her, as a Supreme Court Justice.
My reason, however, differs widely from Coulter and the rest of the “hue and cry crowd.”
Harriet Miers, regardless of whether I agree with her decisions or not, does not reach those decisions through reason. She is overly reliant on non-reason in her mental capacities. The law is all fact or it is useless. To base legal decisions on non-reason lowers us to the level of the very people we are fighting in our “War on Terrorism.”
It is amazing how frequently I reach decisions through reason that happen to agree with decisions others make through non-reason. For example, I don’t drink alcohol or use tobacco products and addictive substances such as heroin. I know many others who similarly refrain. They do so based on non-reason, i.e., the threat of punishment in the “afterlife.” I do so for my benefit now, since reason states that engaging in unhealthy, expensive behaviors leads to shortened lifespan, poor health, and poverty.
Unfortunately, people often use this coincidence to say that their non-reasoned path to a reasonable conclusion is valid.
It reminds me of Algebra class in High School. Even though it was decades ago, I still remember coming up with my own “formulas” for reaching the same conclusion as the teacher. While he said he admired my creativity, he strongly encouraged me to learn and use the mathematical formulas. That way, he assured me, I would come up with the right conclusion every time, not just happen on it by chance.
As for Miers, she seems to have come up with some legal decisions with seem reasonable, and many more that seem not. Setting her aside and nominating someone who can reach conclusions through a “formula” of reason will give us all more consistently legally sound decisions. I encourage President Bush to do so without further delay. It’s time for the nation to stop being “Mired in Miers.”
Copyright © 2005 A.C. Cargill
Checked out your blogsite. Interesting quote by Adam Smith. Have to disagree with it entirely. Read Ayn Rand -- any and all of her works -- to know about true individualism.
<< Home
