Since I'm not a lawyer and I don't really follow news from the legal community outside of whatever "case du jour" is dominating the cable news shows, I don't have much to say about who should be the next nominee from an expert legal point of view. I know that I wish that politics didn't play such a role as it does now and I know that I'm not of the school who thinks that the pool of potential nominees should come from those with previous judicial experience. Frankly, I would much rather have a background that shows me a person with a good mind for distilling facts about an issue than one who only sees the politics of an issue. I also don't think that just because someone has put on a black robe that automatically means he has a good mind. I've seen an awful lot of mediocre judges who get high praise because they wrote for law review as a college student, but who don't have a clue about life in general. And most judges are former prosecutors and my rating of prosecutors on a scale of one to ten is zero. Most prosecutors who I have known are ambitious sleazeballs who only care about their win percentages and not about doing the right thing, or finding the truth. Its the nature of the beast and takes a certain type of personality that I find offensive and think is the worst kind of personality to end up on the bench, especially the Supreme Court bench.
I know that the conservatives are out in full force demanding that the next nominee meet their criteria and pass their litmus test. Since they are a single issue group and the only thing that matters to them is Roe v Wade, I dismiss them quickly. It isn't that I think Roe v Wade is a good decision, because I don't. But the reason it isn't a good decision is because it lacks good legal reasoning and it lacks this because it is really a political decision and not a legal one. This is what happens when one political group gets control. Conservatives are very short-sighted to only care about how a nominee will vote on this issue. Now, the liberals are just as bad and over the very same issue. They won't vote for someone as extraordianrily brilliant as John Roberts simply because of this single issue. What a bunch of fools.
So we are left with having to make choices on those who have no chance to demonstrae their true abilities, i.e. Harriet Miers, who I'm sure has that legal skill to dissect the facts and see through the bs to do the right thing by our Constitution.
Today as I've made my rounds through the blogosphere, I've read several posts and articles about potential nominees for consideration now that Ms. Miers has been withdrawn. There is one name that I never see mentioned and I wonder why? I'm talking about Ted Olson, former Solictor General. I saw him in an interview recently and I was extremely impressed. You might remember that it was his wife, Barbara Olson, a former regular TV commentator, who was aboard the hijacked plane that hit the Pentagon on 9/11. It was her last frantic phone call to her husband just before the crash that gave us some insight into what was happening aboard that plane in the minutes before their doom.
So is there some reason I'm not aware of that Ted Olson is never mentioned?
In my opinion the democrats should just roll over
Posted by: Chelsea fc | 30 October 2005 at 10:48 PM