Miers is the wrong pick (George Will)

Townhall ^ | October 4, 2005 | George Will

[jdm]

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.

[holdonnow]

There were actually several who vetted him. I spent about 10 minutes with him, going over his resume. Now, you dumped on Thomas, Rehnquist and me -- you are, how shall I say, a putz.

[editor-surveyor]

If George sWill is against her, I'm for her. He's no conservative.

[JohnBDay]

Conservatism is the belief that the Constitution and the principles of the founders should be preserved. It is not the blind support of George Walker Bush. By signing a bill he knew was unconstitutional, he did the least conservative thing a president could do. The Senate needs to give this President a defeat so they can reclaim their constitutional authority.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

"Don't you remember what happened when Bork got "BORKED"? Need a refresher course on who we got on the third try? Does the name Souter ring any bells?"

Actually, it was Kennedy, about as bad as Souter.

[DLfromthedesert]

And this accomplished woman is the village idiot?!?

[republicofdavis]

"The "brilliant" ones are so impressed with their blinding intellect that they believe that international law should be listened to, that the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean what it says, that there are "penumbras" and "auras" and what not...at least someone dumb would not try to pretend that Kelo (eminent domain) or Warwick v Filburn represent genius level reasoning of the court."

Does this mean that there are not "brilliant" judges that are strict constructionists. Are all "brilliant" judges out because "brilliant" leftist judges have been wrong in the past.

[cruiserman]

Oh boy, here we go. Another conservative joins the ranks of the leftist. Will there be any conservatives left by 08?

Bush or Will?

[republicofdavis]

Although I'm not firmly decided, I'm leaning toward yours and Will's line of thinking.

[Black Tooth]

#12

[itsahoot]

Will there be any conservatives left by 08?

There will be the same number of conservatives, just not mindless supporters of the agenda. The President has brought this on by picking a fight with his supporters.

[Bonaparte]

Will insists that the Judiciary Committee evaluate Miers' abilities in constitutional reasoning.

Ok. Here is the membership roster for that committee. Which of them are adept at "constitutional reasoning"? Which of them are qualified to make such an evaluation, particularly in light of the trashy legislation that comes out of the Senate?

[nopardons]

Try to follow the debate! That was a reply to someone else, who asked me for a hypothetical. I gave one, and now you are taking it all out of context.

But, on a side note, just about everyone has been calling for a woman to replace O'Connor. Luttig isn't a woman. Luttig is also one of Roberts' oldest and best friends. The Dems could and WOULD use both of these things against him. They'd also pull out the argument used against FDR: "STACKING THE COURT." Of course that really would NOT apply, but when has the truth ever been used by the Fems and the MSM?

My scenario is eminently plausible; to anyone who knows history and understands how this stuff works.

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

You sound just like a DU troll! LOL! You're hilarious. It's time for you to change the water in your bong, buddy.

[sinkspur]

LOL! And you are a knee-jerk reactionary, Mark.

Why don't you focus on taking down Ronnie Earle? You'll earn lots of kudos from all conservatives if you do that.

Harriett Miers is going to be approved for the Supreme Court because nobody, you included, can come up with cogent reasons why she shouldn't.

[Black Tooth]

#12

[SpringheelJack]

Clarence Thomas has written two or three opinions in 14 years. Not very distinguished, huh?

Utterly false. You're either stupid or a liar.

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/author.php?Thomas#OPIN

[nopardons]

Exactly!

[holdonnow]

Fact is, the president knew he was picking a fight with his base (and no, I don't mean the sheeple who believe in a cult of personality -- "trust me" -- first used over and over again by Jimmy Carter, as I recall). Ther is no serious defense for such a poor selection to such a major position, and we are witnessing it here in all these lame (and personal) arguments.

[EGPWS]

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.

He has flowered my own mindset with rhetorical skill.

He doesn't know for he doesn't know of her yet!

[af_vet_1981]

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.

It takes "light" or "talents" to force pornography, sodomy, abortion, and international law on the country ?