Randy E. Barnett writes about Bush's cronyism in this morning's Journal, and quotes Alexander Hamilton, in Federlaist No. 76, to good effect:
To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity...He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure.
This certainly seems to sum up the cronyism of the Bush administration, and also predicts the problems that it would cause the administration, and the country. Barnett rightly wonders about the reaction if Clinton had nominated his personal lawyer. In another editorial, the Journal says, "Mr. Bush is asking his supporters to accept his judgment about his personal lawyer as an act of faith.
Given that she has so little track record, one wonders what Miers will do during her confirmation hearings. Will she artfully clam up like Roberts did? At least with him it was possible to get an idea how he would approach things. For Miers, we only have Bush's assertions about "legislating from the bench," whatever that means.
I'll go out on a limb. I don't think Miers will be approved; given Bush's weakened position these days, and the unhappiness of the Republicans, and the obvious cronyism of this nomination, I think Bush will suffer a crushing defeat. Or maybe I'm just being hopeful.
9:53:14 PM 
|
|
