Wednesday, October 05, 2005

Dear Mr. President,

It's come to my attention that you've got another spot open on the Supreme Court, and this time you've nominated Harriet Miers to the post. Well, I'd just like to take a few moments and tell you that I'm the man for the job, not Miers.

"Wait just a hog-jumpin' minute," you're probably thinking, "this sounds awful familiar." And it should. I actually applied for a job with your organization a few months ago, but I never heard back from you. It's okay that you went with another candidate, but really, would a call thanking me for my resume and application have been that hard?

Anyway, back to the matter at hand. I feel like I've got a decent shot here, because whereas Wolfowitz had relevant experience (no matter his failures) to the then-available World Bank job, Harriet Miers and I share something big: neither of us has ever been a judge. Some critics, even ones from your own party, might say that you're nominating Miers has more to do with her loyalty, or cronyism, than any actual proven ability to lead. Pshaw and harrumph, I say! It's not like there's a rule stating that in order to get a job a candidate must demonstrate skill in the area which the job will cover. You made it all the way to the Oval Office (remember, an oval is almost like a circle, but it's not) based on that argument alone.

So what makes me think I've got the edge on Miers? I read in one of those crazy commie liberal rags the other day that as your staff secretary, Miers was "known to correct spelling, grammar and even punctuation errors in memos" to your office. I am currently a copy editor at an industry trade paper here in L.A., and I was a journalism major in college.

Do I have to spell it out for you? That is, do I have to spell it out for you more than I normally do?

You're looking for someone with an eye for grammar errors and an easy approach to work. I know that, even though John Roberts won a boatload of spelling bees as a child, I could take that guy to town. Besides, he'll be too busy acting as Chief Justice and wondering whether he should bring back those gold bars on his sleeves to help you out with your obvious linguistic needs.

Anyway, since Dick Cheney is probably reading this to you, I should wrap things up. Here's hoping you pick me, Mr. President. I know I'd do, if not a good job, then at least one that could keep up with your administration.

Sincerely,

Daniel Carlson

P.S. Is it okay to wear shorts under that black robe? I mean, I'll be sitting behind a bench all day, so really, who cares? Let's negotiate. --DC

4 Comments:

We don't normally see eye to eye on things regarding old W, but man, how can you nominate someone to the supreme court (which I hear is important) who has never been a judge (and no, judging people is different than being a judge).

I would submit my application, but I would rather see you there, so W, voting is important, and I am voting for Dan. That means 50% of you and me are voting for him. You chip in your vote and we win this thing by a landslide.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:01 PM, October 05, 2005  

Not defending his pick, but lots of supreme court justices have not previously been judges.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:14 PM, October 05, 2005  

You're also from Texas, so that's got to count for something. Oh! And you can magically change your appearance from that greatly resembling Bill Murry to one even more amazingly similar to Owen Wilson. A Texan with magical powers, just what we need!

Seriously, I am neither pro-Bush or anti-Bush and I make it my policy not to care too much about politics. Even I can't help but wonder about this nomination, though. Enlightenment is welcomed.

By Blogger Jennifer, at 9:09 PM, October 05, 2005  

You stole my column.

According to The Washington Post, 14 Supreme Court justices nominated since 1930 had no previous experience as a judge and of those, seven served in the administrations of the presidents who appointed them.

Some I've never heard of, but others including William O. Douglas, Earl Warren and William H. Rehnquist could hardly be called incompetent judges. But, all of them had significant experience elsewhere, unlike Miers, who probably has the same resume as several top law professors.

By Blogger Sarah, at 11:02 AM, October 06, 2005  

Post a Comment