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.

[SpringheelJack]

Why did Bush do this knowing it would tick off his base? It seems like he has been in a real funk. Now he's blowing off those who have been his most loyal supporters. It is inexpliable. If he had picked a Luttig or JRB and the Dems filibustered, the base would have crawled over broken glass for him.

I think he was really caught flat-footed by it. The only explanation I can think of is that he spends too much time around sycophants, who are always stroking his ego about how much everyone admires him and trusts him and so on.

I mena for God's sake, David Frum says that Harriet Miers goes around telling people that George Bush is the most brilliant man she's ever met. With people like that around you, maybe stupidly tone-deaf decisions like this are what we're supposed to expect.

[EGPWS]

Why did Bush do this knowing it would tick off his base?

If he is ticking off his base, he didn't have a base to begin with.

This being the case, making his decisions without his base, is the most formidable and trusting way to make his decisions.

[holdonnow]

Reading comprehension problem? Went over resume, didn't interview him for philosophy - putz.

[faithincowboys]

She is still too old and not of SCOTUS caliber. What if, once given this power, she goes hard Left. She doesn't have a paper trail to keep her honest. All she has is her old Mother-- likely a Yellow Dog Democrat.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

"These piss ants who have been sucked into the cult of personality are only alienating the ones that they will need if GWB ever has another opportunity to select a truly top drawer nominee."

Maybe you're not communicating clearly...are you saying that if he does pick your definition of a "top-drawer nominee" next time around, you're not going to give enthusiastic support, simply because the rest of us refused to break out the tar and feathers for Miers?

Thank God you are not in charge of anything really important.

[SergeantsLady]

My opinion only, but as an "Evangelical" Christian (although I typically do not use that phrase)...I believe I am fully qualified to read & understand the Bible without needing a variety of theologians to explain to me what is "actually" written therein as applicable to "me". The Constitution and documents establishing our Nation were written by men with a variety of educational levels...and written in plain enough language to be understood by "We the People...".

Harriett Miers obviously knows the law...she obviously knows how to formulate solid decisions based on her life's work & "mediocre" legal training. She might not be able to cite case law with the ease of a John Roberts, but she's been out there living & dealing with the real world not just hypothetical legal theory. Hypothetical theory has managed to find a way for the most basic right of the individual to own private property...to be usurped by the "state"... (This post was in direct response to a specific question re: why "Evangelical Christians" seem to be supporting Miers more than "Intellectual" Conservatives. I probably would have personally preferred a more known & academically stellar conservative to be named...but I think Miers is certainly a qualified candidate...and on her worst day, I'd back her decisions over some of the inane ones that have been made lately by the activist Courts....)

[delacoert]

Because that end of the conservative spectrum would believe GW if he assured them that the sun will rise in the west tomorrow. Incapable of independent rational thought, they, like the brain-dead dittoheads lifting their arms in salute to Herr Limbaugh, are led around like a barn horse

Or maybe it's because the "intellectual" conservatives have bought into the liberal-left, elitist, arrogant, effete, fear-mongering, propaganda that the Christians have a dangerous agenda and are weak minded?

[faithincowboys]

Jimmy Carter had all the evangelicals on his side in '76. All the evangelicals need to hear is that you love Jesus and they fall for it every time. Well, Carter was an evangelical and he sucked.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

"Reading comprehension problem? Went over resume, didn't interview him for philosophy - putz."

In other words, you didn't even interview him. Good grief, you really are an irresponsible fool, you realize that?

[ARCADIA]

I'm reading that she is a constitutionalist who will not legislate from the bench. That, to me, is enough.

You have to have a very tight reign on the Constitution and Federal law in order to "not legislate from the bench"; otherwise, how would you know whether your choice constitutes a change. It is not like these cases come to you with a little check box asking "do you choose to legislate from the bench? Yes/No" Every choice made, and every reason stated, can alter the law.

[holdonnow]

And you're in charge of what, exactly? The reading room at the local mental ward?

[GB]

Can't argue with you a bit.

[EGPWS]

And when we ask for something more, we get nothing more

Ask not and disappointment will ease.

[faithincowboys]

No, a revolt on the right is precisely what we need to save the congress in '06. The Congressional Republicans need to insist Bush pull the nomination so we can keep the Congress in GOP hands.

[nopardons]

Well, he lost at least 1/2 of FR and a whole lot of the "pundits" with the Roberts nomination, so maybe Ann Coulter was right...he did this to REALLY stick it to those who had fits over Chief Justice Roberts. Then again, maybe she's dead wrong about that, as I said she was.

[holdonnow]

We are all waiting breathlessly for you, whomever you are, to tell use in one complete, well-written sentence Miers's judicial philosophy, and the basis for your conclusion. You can continue to attack each of us personally, but you are losing ground, and badly.

[kabar]

Which assault on the first ammendment? Do you mean campaign finance reform? That is only a first ammendment issue if you think money is speech. I think they are different although both important.

McCain-Feingold is more about curbing political speech than money. There are time limits in addition to monetary ones when you can exercise poltical speech. The 527s are exempt, which permit people like Soros and Moveon.org to act as Dem surrogates. It also allows the MSM to attack conservative candidates without rebuttal.

If you believe that McCain-Feingold is not an attack on the first amendment and political speech in this country, you don't know what is in the bill.

[sinkspur]

You, who do nothing for the movement, don't get to decide what I do, or anyone else here does. You're exactly what I said you were earlier. You are flailing around and making an ass of yourself. Take a break -- you reek of Moveon.org mentality.

You're not going to stop Harriet Miers, Mark.

She is going to be approved to the United States Supreme Court.

[TAdams8591]

"But I don't see any democrats with the guts on the judiciary committee to attack a black female who's the daughter of a sharecropper, as well as being ten times smarter than all of them put together."

I couldn't agree more. You are exactly right and so is the rest of your post!

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

Why don't you take a nice long draw on that bong sitting next to your keyboard and tell yourself one more time that Harriet is the most qualified nominee for the court before you go to bed.