By Steven D. Laib, on October 28th, 2005 The correct pick has been obvious all along: Janice Rogers Brown.
When Harriet Miers, essentially an unknown in the legal world, was nominated for the US Supreme Court, this writer’s first reaction was that either President Bush has had the proverbial ace up his sleeve, or he is being extremely foolish. It now looks as if the latter possibility was correct. First it was the fact that she was unknown, and had no reputation as a judge or scholar to evaluate her by. That might have been a plus, except that things began to appear, rather like the Clinton era bimbo eruptions. Miers’ background began to look rather shady. Her implication in the Texas lottery scandal and apparent involvement in President Bush’s military service in the National Guard, something that Democrats have been harping on for years, made her look like a poor pick. Now, under questioning, she reveals herself as less than knowledgeable on constitutional law. It is really time to worry about Mr. Bush’s ability to nominate the right person.
We might note that Miers was nominated to fill the pending vacancy of Sandra Day O’Connor’s seat on the high court. Because O’Connor is a woman, one might think that nominating a woman to replace her might be a good move politically. Miers, however, was not a good choice as we are all finding out, and as Mr. Bush knew or should have known.
A few years ago I wrote a piece supporting former California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown in her nomination to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. If Mr. Bush felt constrained to nominate a woman, Brown was the logical choice to replace O’Connor. Not only is she a well qualified woman, she is African-American, from a poor Southern background, and as such cannot be attacked as many other potential nominees would be on the basis of being sons or daughters of privilege who cannot have compassion for the ordinary working man or woman. For all intents and purposes, she understands what ordinary people live through because she has been there, and knows it first hand. As a single working mother she finished her undergraduate degree and put herself through law school. Her husband had died tragically of cancer.
What might be Judge Brown’s liability is that she is unafraid to call it like it is. A few quotes lifted from the website of People for the American Way illustrate the point:
[W]e no longer find slavery abhorrent. We embrace it. We demand more. Big government is not just the opiate of the masses. It is the opiate. The drug of choice for multinational corporations and single moms; for regulated industries and rugged Midwestern farmers and militant senior citizens.
My grandparents’ generation thought being on the government dole was disgraceful, a blight on the family’s honor. Today’s senior citizens blithely cannibalize their grandchildren because they have a right to get as much “free” stuff as the political system will permit them to extract
In the New Deal/Great Society era, a rule that was the polar opposite of the classical era of American law reigned…Protection of property was a major casualty of the Revolution of 1937…Rights were reordered and property acquired a second class status…It thus became government’s job not to protect property but, rather, to regulate and redistribute it.
Theft is theft even when the government approves of the thievery. Turning a democracy into a kleptocracy does not enhance the stature of the thieves; it only diminishes the legitimacy of the government.
These are only a few of the many quotes from Judge Brown’s public renderings. Another excellent source comparing her to leading Americans of the Revolutionary War era can be found here. They show her to be traditional, conservative, small-government, and pro-private property rights. She recognizes how the Constitution has been warped to mean something not intended in 1789; something detrimental to the well being of this nation and its people. She supports the second amendment as well, which should bring in many endorsements from Middle America.
Once described as a female Clarence Thomas, at least, she will not be as easy to accuse of sexual harassment. Instead, people such as Ted Kennedy would have to resort to saying she is out of step with the mainstream of society today. The problem is that she is and has always been part of the mainstream. When someone says ordinary people can’t make it, she can proudly point to herself and say “Yes they can, and I’m the living proof.” She is the embodiment of the American Dream. She understands how government dependency is holding back America’s poor.
One can only wonder what Mr. Bush was thinking when he passed her over. It was a chance to gain massive brownie points with Conservative Americans. It was a chance to put another African-American achiever on the map, and to put another deserving woman on the Supreme Court while holding fast to the Conservative values he pledged to uphold and support in his nominations. Maybe he suffered some kind of brain freeze, or forgot to use mental floss the day he made the nomination.
The Miers nomination failed because she had too much baggage, looked too much like a political payoff appointment, and certainly lacked the expertise. Burt Neuborne, a NY University Law Professor, quoted in the L.A. Times, stated that one of her statements about voting rights would have been unacceptable from a first year law student. If she can’t reach that standard, we wonder how she could pass the bar, let alone practice law.
Now that Miers has withdrawn, Mr. Bush will get a chance to redeem himself. Let’s pray that he gets it right the second time around.
Steven Laib is a practicing attorney.
Email Steven Laib
By Isaiah Z. Sterrett, on October 28th, 2005 What Bush must not do, regardless of whom he chooses, is worry about Democratic opposition.
As we sit on tenterhooks waiting for President Bush’s new Supreme Court nominee, it is important that we recognize Harriet Miers for her grace and dignity. Though I, like many others from all parts of the political spectrum, was critical of her nomination, never did I have personal animus or distrust for her. Throughout the past few (very messy) weeks, she has conducted herself with great poise, for which she must be commended.
Let it be known, also, that my analysis of the Miers nomination was never rooted in ideology. While some, like Senator Sam Brownback, were worried principally about Miers’ “judicial philosophy,” I was not; I was certainly concerned with Miers’ qualifications, but never with her beliefs about Roe, or anything else of similar or greater importance.
The Miers nomination, with the incredible doubt and controversy it caused, was unhealthy for America. By withdrawing her name, Miers has done a true service to the High Court and the nation at large.
What, then, will President Bush do now? What should he do?
If we accept the Coulter theory — that Bush’s nomination of Miers was a jab at the conservatives who opposed Al Gonzales’ potential nomination to the Court — we must also believe that Gonzales may well be the next nominee. I warn right-wingers now: if this is the case, disappointing as it might be, we must not complain. Miers’ questionable qualifications reflected a problem with her nomination; Gonzales’ qualifications, by contrast, are sterling. Though certainly more of a moderate than Judges Owen and Brown, Gonzales served admirably on the Supreme Court of Texas and currently serves, obviously, as Attorney General. He is absolutely qualified for the Supreme Court. If nominated, the Senate should (and likely would) confirm him.
Perhaps the principal obstacle to Gonzales’ potential to be nominated is his gender. However, assuming Bush has no problem nominating a man, conservatives would clearly much prefer Samuel “Scalito” Alito of the Third Circuit. J. Michael Luttig (Fourth Circuit) would also find easy favor among Republicans. Another choice, though obviously the least viable of the three, is Judge Thomas B. Griffith. Though he’s only served on the D.C. Circuit for a few months, he was confirmed with little opposition earlier this year. He is fairly young and a graduate of UVA Law. He also served as general counsel to the U.S. Senate.
Among women, the obvious choices (and strongest choices) are Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown. If Bush’s objective is to steer clear of conservative opposition, he could do so by nominating either of these magnificent Judges. If, however, Bush remains interested in a female non-judge like Miers, an acceptable choice would be UVA Law Professor Lillian BeVier, cited recently by National Review Online as a talented member of the Federalist Society. Though probably the least qualified candidate noted here, her legal talent is obvious.
What Bush must not do, regardless of whom he chooses, is worry about Democratic opposition. Republicans are the majority in the Senate because Americans, at this point in history, prefer the GOP to Democrats. As a result, Republicans should control things. This is what democracy is. If President Clinton had been concerned with satisfying the Republican Party, Ginsburg and Breyer would not sit on the Court today; Bush must be similarly bold.
As for the “Gang of Fourteen,” they’re irrelevant. They didn’t make a dent in Roberts’ approval. Also, to state the manifestly obvious, fourteen, though a potentially significant figure, is not equal to fifty-one. They do not constitute a majority.
Washington expects a new nominee within the next several days, and this is very positive. Sooner is absolutely better than later on an issue so impacted by timing as this. The country should be thankful that Justice O’Connor is willing to sit on the Court for as long as it takes to find and confirm her replacement.
Isaiah Z. Sterrett, a resident of Aptos, California, is a Lifetime Member of the California Junior Scholarship Federation and a Sustaining Member of the Republican National Committee.
Email Isaiah Sterrett
By Bob Cheeks, on October 28th, 2005 Columbus, Ohio attorney Eric J. Wittenberg has crafted a splendid study of one of America’s military icons, General Philip Sheridan, late of the Army of the Potomac.
Little Phil: A Reassessment of the Civil War Leadership of Gen. Phillip H. Sheridan
By Eric J. Wittenberg
Potomac Books
Ppbk, 250 pgs., appendix, bibliography, index, maps
ISBN: 1-57488-548-0
DUTY IS THE SUBLIMEST WORD IN OUR LANGUAGE. DO YOUR DUTY IN ALL THINGS. YOU CANNOT DO MORE. YOU SHOULD NEVER WISH TO DO LESS.
– General Robert E. Lee, commanding
The Army of Northern Virginia
Those history books written for popular consumption tend to be of two distinct categories. First, there are those books by authors whose creativity and talents deliver a narrative that is supported by a prose that rivals the finest novelists. Such distinguished authors as David McCullough, Shelby Foote, and Allan Eckert immediately spring to mind, though Mr. Eckert has been criticized for playing a little too loose with the historical data. Nevertheless, authors such as these are able to craft their historical narrative in such a way as to not only inform the reader but to entertain as well.
The second category of historical writers is more interested in historical content and/or the re-examination of events. The latter tend to be a little drier and sometimes academic but they do, on many occasions, deliver a literate, incisive, objective, and interesting study.
An author within that second category is Columbus, Ohio attorney Eric J. Wittenberg, who has crafted a splendid study of one of America’s military icons, General Philip Sheridan, late of the Army of the Potomac.
To his credit Wittenberg has scoured the available sources and retrieved innumerable gems with which to illustrate a military career much different than the one described in standard histories.
To be sure, Phil Sheridan, who carried the sobriquet, “Little Phil,” because of his diminutive size, was at least at the beginning and the end of his career a fighter, which is no small tribute for a general officer of the Army of the Potomac. But, even in the beginning of the War Between the States his actions were not without controversy. At Perryville he violated orders and brought on an unwanted general engagement. At Missionary Ridge he took unwarranted credit for seizing Confederate artillery.
But, in his defense, at Stones River he had his division fully prepared for the Confederate onslaught and displayed the most efficacious use of artillery by any officer during the war. His efforts, and those of his gallant division, saved The Army of the Cumberland from annihilation.
Regardless of his actions, Phil Sheridan was promoted time and time again. In April of 1864 he was brought east and placed in command of the cavalry of the Army of the Potomac. The author’s analysis of Sheridan’s term of command, his tactics, and his failed leadership leaves little to doubt. “Although history remembers Philip H. Sheridan,” Wittenberg writes, “as the greatest cavalry commander of the Civil War (sic), the evidence simply does not support the conclusion.”
Wittenberg’s description and overview of the 1864 Shenandoah Valley campaign that pitted Sheridan against the irascible Jubal Early is among the best written and a must read for any student of the “late unpleasantness.” The author’s summation sets the record straight, “A truly great general, one with the killer instinct, would have pressed on to destroy his foe. In doing so, Sheridan would have brought the war to a faster conclusion….Many more good men lost their lives as a result.”
Timid, slow, and rarely commanding from the front after ascending to corps then army command (with the exception of the final campaign of the war), Sheridan was also disobedient and his “cruelty and pettiness toward his brother officers” bespoke a small man, indeed. And, his cruelty is best described in his cashiering Maj. Gen. W. W. Averell, perhaps the most competent cavalry officer in his command, his removal of Maj. Gen. Gouverneur K. Warren, the “hero of Little Round Top,” following the battle of Five Forks, and his betrayal of his oldest and dearest friend, Maj. Gen. George Crook. Wittenberg covers these events closely and provides a powerful rebuttal of the “received” wisdom concerning General Sheridan.
The author warns his readers, in his “introduction,” that there is some redundancy and he is correct; I did find it somewhat annoying. But, the scholarship, research, and manner in which he presented his evidence has produced a work that is easy to read and understand, even for the “beginning” civil war (sic) enthusiast. Wittenberg has eschewed any obligation to “political correctness” found in too many histories. His analysis is always logical and objective. He has researched the military career of Phil Sheridan and found a lesser general, and a mendacious, solipsistic, man.
Eric J. Wittenberg’s Little Phil is a desirable book for any scholar of the “late unpleasantness;” it will be much cited in future works.
Little Phil is available on Amazon.com.
Bob Cheeks has written for The American Enterprise, Human Events, Southern Partisan, and The Pittsburgh Tribune Review.
Email Bob Cheeks
|
|
|
Recent Comments