George Will - preview of column tomorrow UNLOADING on Bush, Miers

Citizen Jrnl. ^ | October 4, 2005 | B Lalor

[maximusaurelius]

3) unless Miers demonstrates in her hearing that she has "hitherto undisclosed interests and talents pertinent to the court's role," the Senate has a duty to reject the nomination to prevent this or any other president "from reducing the Supreme Court to a private plaything useful for fulfilling whims on behalf of friends"; 4) the Miers nomination vindicates the principle of tokenism under the rubric of diversity; writes Will, "for this we need a conservative president?"

[Rodney King]

It is his job to pick the person he believes will do the best job defending the Constitution.

It would be interesting to know how their discussion about the campaign fianance reform bill that Bush signed went. Afterall, if she defended the constitution, she would have to overturn the law that he signed. Any thoughts?

[Rokke]

"Er, which is it,"

I said "most of the political mess this country has to suffer through." You said "I suppose we can blame the whole lot for the mess our country is in can't we?". I specified political mess. I thought you were implying our country was a mess.

[Rokke]

"Who knows how low the other times. And this is Bush's pick?"

Sigh. What is it on this thread with people jumping into the middle of a discussion without reading the whole thing? Rodney King said Miers was not well known inside law circles. I pointed out she has twice been named to the top 100 most powerful attorneys in the nation. The only point is that she is clearly well known in law circles. End of issue.

[Cold Heat]

In the end, we can only cross our fingers and wait.

Sure, I understand that, but after the Souter disaster with Bush 41, it is unlikely that 43 would make the same mistake. It could be that he could not be assured that any of the other women would not turn into surprise.......surprise...

[Cautor]

"Move on and media matters both have been using it... It ties to the Crony claim. That is their primary argument...The lib blogs have it as well...This is the first I have seen it on a conservative forum."

cro·ny ( P ) Pronunciation Key (krn)
n. pl. cro·nies
A longtime close friend or companion. ref. Dictionary.com

[Rokke]

"It would be interesting to know how their discussion about the campaign fianance reform bill that Bush signed went."

I agree. Maybe that will come out in her hearings.

[inquest]

Post button got stuck. Don't worry, it'll happen to you one of these days. < hex mode on >

[July 4th]

Hear ye! Hear ye! Here's the column:

Senators beginning what ought to be a protracted and exacting scrutiny of Harriet Miers should be guided by three rules. First, it is not important that she be confirmed. Second, it might be very important that she not be. Third, the presumption — perhaps rebuttable but certainly in need of rebutting — should be that her nomination is not a defensible exercise of presidential deference to which senatorial discretion is due. It is not important that she be confirmed because there is no evidence that she is among the leading lights of American jurisprudence, or that she possesses talents commensurate with the Supreme Court’s tasks. The president’s ‘‘argument’’ for her amounts to: Trust me. There is no reason to, for several reasons.

He has neither the inclination nor the ability to make sophisticated judgments about competing approaches to construing the Constitution. Few presidents acquire such abilities in the course of their prepresidential careers, and this president, particularly, is not disposed to such reflections.

Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that Miers’ nomination resulted from the president’s careful consultation with people capable of such judgments. If 100 such people had been asked to list 100 individuals who have given evidence of the reflectiveness and excellence requisite in a justice, Miers’ name probably would not have appeared in any of the 10,000 places on those lists.

In addition, the president has forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution. The forfeiture occurred March 27, 2002, when, in a private act betokening an uneasy conscience, he signed the McCain-Feingold law expanding government regulation of the timing, quantity and content of political speech. The day before the 2000 Iowa caucuses he was asked in advance — to insure a considered response from him — whether McCain-Feingold’s core purposes are unconstitutional. He unhesitatingly said, ‘‘I agree.’’ Asked if he thought presidents have a duty, pursuant to their oath to defend the Constitution, to make an independent judgment about the constitutionality of bills and to veto those he thinks unconstitutional, he briskly said, ‘‘I do.’’

It is important that Miers not be confirmed unless, in her 61st year, she suddenly and unexpectedly is found to have hitherto undisclosed interests and talents pertinent to the court’s role. Otherwise the sound principle of substantial deference to a president’s choice of judicial nominees will dissolve into a rationalization for senatorial abdication of the duty to hold presidents to some standards of seriousness that will prevent them from reducing the Supreme Court to a private plaything useful for fulfilling whims on behalf of friends.

The wisdom of presumptive opposition to Miers’ confirmation flows from the fact that constitutional reasoning is a talent — a skill acquired, as intellectual skills are, by years of practice sustained by intense interest. It is not usually acquired in the normal course of even a fine lawyer’s career. The burden is on Miers to demonstrate such talents, and on senators to compel such a demonstration or reject the nomination.

Under the rubric of ‘‘diversity’’ — nowadays, the first refuge of intellectually disreputable impulses — the president announced, surely without fathoming the implications, his belief in identity politics and its tawdry corollary, the idea of categorical representation. Identity politics holds that one’s essential attributes are genetic, biological, ethnic or chromosomal — that one’s nature and understanding are decisively shaped by race, ethnicity or gender. Categorical representation holds that the interests of a group can only be understood, empathized with and represented by a member of that group.

The crowning absurdity of the president’s wallowing in such nonsense is the obvious assumption that the Supreme Court is, like a legislature, an institution of representation. This from a president who, introducing Miers, deplored judges who ‘‘legislate from the bench.’’ Minutes after the president announced the nomination of his friend from Texas, another Texas friend, Robert Jordan, former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, was on Fox News proclaiming what he and, no doubt, the White House that probably enlisted him for advocacy, considered glad and relevant tidings: Miers, said Jordan, has been a victim. She has been, he said contentedly, ‘‘discriminated against’’ because of her gender. Her victimization was not so severe that it prevented her from becoming the first female president of a Texas law firm as large as hers, president of the State Bar of Texas and a senior White House official. Still, playing the victim card clarified, as much as anything has so far done, her credentials, which are her chromosomes and their supposedly painful consequences. For this we need a conservative president?

[Cautor]

Oh, I missed the distinction between "political mess" and just plain old "mess." Please forgive me for my inaccurate parsing of your statement. Just so I don't make this mistake again, please help me understand the difference from a political mess and just an ordinary mess. Thanks in advance.

[SpringheelJack]

Sigh. What is it on this thread with people jumping into the middle of a discussion without reading the whole thing? Rodney King said Miers was not well known inside law circles. I pointed out she has twice been named to the top 100 most powerful attorneys in the nation. The only point is that she is clearly well known in law circles. End of issue.

Sorry bud, but slipping two times onto one magazine's list in her legal career of 30 years does not well-known make. Drop the chip on your shoulder.

[inquest]

George Bush has selected people like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, Karl Rove, Karen Hughes, John Bolton, and John Roberts for positions of responsibility.

You're just begging the question. What makes them more trustworthy than his father's conservative advisors? Something concrete, if you don't mind, rather than just vague subjective feelings.

[Cautor]

I was just ribbing you. It already had happened to me...many times. And I'm sure it will happen again to me.

[Cold Heat]

Democrats are using it because they believe political favoritism is rampant and caused the FEMA mess.

What's gonna be fun, is to see how Harry Reid reverses his support if he can....

I have plenty of popcorn!

[inquest]

Move on and media matters both have been using it... It ties to the Crony claim.

I'd be fascinated to see a link to them pushing the idea that their own guy Kerry is a Bush crony.

[Rokke]

"Sorry bud, but slipping two times onto one magazine's list in her legal career of 30 years does not well-known make."

So let me get this straight. She is listed as one of this nation's 100 most powerful attorneys in one of this nation's leading law publications in both 1997 and 2000, but you don't think that indicates she is well known in legal circles!!?!? Where do you people come from!!!!

[Cautor]

"Sure, I understand that, but after the Souter disaster with Bush 41, it is unlikely that 43 would make the same mistake."

Since Souter is already on the SCOTUS I don't see how Bush 43 could make the same mistake. But I certainly think he's capable of making a similar mistake. I trusted his dad on the tax issue and he sold me out. That was the end of my trusting the Bush family. I will wait as that is the only choice I have left in the matter.

[Rodney King]

An excellent column.

[Cold Heat]

Posted earlier and pulled by Jim Rob because attributions could not be made and it needed to be excerpted.

Will is dead wrong on this on many levels.

But who cares....he has lost his glow long ago.

[Rokke]

"Just so I don't make this mistake again, please help me understand the difference from a political mess and just an ordinary mess."

Watch CSPAN next time it shows live coverage from the Senate. Then tour Pakistan. The contrast will be blatantly obvious.

[inquest]

But who cares....he has lost his glow long ago.

Speak for yourself.