Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Miers is the wrong pick (George Will)
Townhall ^ | October 4, 2005 | George Will

Posted on 10/04/2005 7:33:33 PM PDT by jdm

Edited on 10/04/2005 7:41:50 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]

WASHINGTON -- 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 discretion to which senatorial deference is due.


(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: bushisadummysayswill; georgewill; harrietmiers; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 961-979 next last
To: sinkspur

Said by whom?


101 posted on 10/04/2005 8:07:47 PM PDT by Don'tMessWithTexas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: msnimje

See 12.


102 posted on 10/04/2005 8:08:29 PM PDT by Black Tooth (The more people I meet, the more I like my dog.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Texas Federalist

"He was joking"

Are you sure? It wasn't very different from other things said here quite seriously.


103 posted on 10/04/2005 8:08:51 PM PDT by gondramB (Conservatism is a positive doctrine. Reactionaryism is a negative doctrine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur

Just curious, what will it take for you to criticize the President? Does he have to go so far as to physically attack you or a family member, or is this a complete "unconditional love" sort of thing?


104 posted on 10/04/2005 8:09:06 PM PDT by Texas Federalist (Republican senators please Bork Harriet Myers!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Don'tMessWithTexas

Check it out yourself. Thomas' Circuit Court career was as dull as bondo.


105 posted on 10/04/2005 8:09:20 PM PDT by sinkspur (Breed every trace of the American Staffordshire Terrier out of existence!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Black Tooth

lesson learned: you have to remember to declare sarcasm in your original post, otherwise you'll be explaining it until the thread dies.


106 posted on 10/04/2005 8:09:20 PM PDT by flashbunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

Me neither. Sounds like something from DU.


107 posted on 10/04/2005 8:09:24 PM PDT by TheDon (The Democratic Party is the party of TREASON!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SandyInSeattle

"Wait and see" is a bad strategy for lifetime appointments.


108 posted on 10/04/2005 8:09:31 PM PDT by Drago
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
That applies to Clarence Thomas, to William Rehnquist, and to many other justices from the past.

We can at least say that both Rehnquist and Thomas were both more qualified - and had been in positions, moreover, which forced them to begin exploring and developing coherent views on constitutional law - than Miers. Miers' experience is almost entirely in commercial law.

Even Thomas - who plainly was an affirmative action pick by Bush - had spent a year on the federal bench.

Will lays it on thick with this "leading light" rhetoric. But the fact remains that Miers is the least qualified nominee since Abe Fortas. And like Fortas, her chief qualification seems to be that she was a close friend of the president.

Maybe she'll somehow turn out to be a great justice. The problem is that we're being asked to take that almost entirely on faith. Many more qualified originalist jurists and scholars were passed over. Disappontment is not unreasonable.

Chances to appoint Supreme Court nominees don't happen every day. Espeially not for "swing" seats.

109 posted on 10/04/2005 8:09:35 PM PDT by The Iguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: JOE6PAK

You too, see 12.


110 posted on 10/04/2005 8:09:45 PM PDT by Black Tooth (The more people I meet, the more I like my dog.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Revolting cat!
The woman (we think) owns a gun and is (we hope) against abortion. That alone qualifies her as a Constitutional scholar. Call up those Hurray For Everything Singers pronto!

The Constitution and all its amendments amount to a whole heck of a lot more than these two positions.

111 posted on 10/04/2005 8:10:37 PM PDT by msnimje (Hurricane KATRINA - An Example of Nature's Enforcement of Eminent Domain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Texas Federalist
Just curious, what will it take for you to criticize the President? Does he have to go so far as to physically attack you or a family member, or is this a complete "unconditional love" sort of thing?

I support Bush to piss you off. Looks like it's working.

112 posted on 10/04/2005 8:11:15 PM PDT by sinkspur (Breed every trace of the American Staffordshire Terrier out of existence!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: olde north church

Conservatives have their elites as well.


113 posted on 10/04/2005 8:12:00 PM PDT by TheDon (The Democratic Party is the party of TREASON!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Black Tooth

What is it, you're having a multiple sarcasm this evening?!


114 posted on 10/04/2005 8:12:01 PM PDT by Revolting cat! ("In the end, nothing explains anything!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: flashbunny
you have to remember to declare sarcasm in your original post, otherwise you'll be explaining it until the thread dies.

It's good for a laugh. But your probably correct.

Hard to believe such sarcasm can be considered legitimate. On second thought, maybe not.

115 posted on 10/04/2005 8:12:35 PM PDT by Black Tooth (The more people I meet, the more I like my dog.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur

BECAUSE SHE IS A WOMAN AND NONE OF THEM WILL SAY THAT. Sorry for screaming.


116 posted on 10/04/2005 8:13:11 PM PDT by Snoopers-868th
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
I'm almost glad that the "penumbra" of conservative elites are showing me what stuck up snots they are so I can realize these guys do not really have any tolerance for me, much less an extremely accomplished attorney like Miers.

George Will wouldn't know a brilliant attorney or judge if they sat on his big fat head. But then we can't all be brilliant baseball writers, and act affected all the time, and look laughably smarmy in bow ties.

117 posted on 10/04/2005 8:13:32 PM PDT by Williams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Betaille
"Bush picked her and I trust him" is an argument, really scares me.

President Bush says Miers is an originalist, Miers says she's an originalist. Do you think one or both of them is lying?

118 posted on 10/04/2005 8:13:54 PM PDT by TheDon (The Democratic Party is the party of TREASON!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: The Iguana
But the fact remains that Miers is the least qualified nominee since Abe Fortas.

What are the "qualifications" for the SC for originalists? Is it something beyond what the Constitution states?

If so, how come? I thought we are not supposed to extrapolate from the original meaning of the Constitution.

If John Marshall's non juridical background was sufficient for qualification, then that's good enough for Harriett Miers.

119 posted on 10/04/2005 8:14:16 PM PDT by sinkspur (Breed every trace of the American Staffordshire Terrier out of existence!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Mulch

Spoken like a true elitist!


120 posted on 10/04/2005 8:14:38 PM PDT by TheDon (The Democratic Party is the party of TREASON!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 961-979 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson