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.

[JeffAtlanta]

If you cannot raise and spend money for the purspoe of broadcast advocacy ads 30 days before a primary election, and 60 days before a general election, that's limiting speech. Oh, and Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist thought so, too.

But the the president did not think that advocacy advertisements should be protected speech. That is why I have such a hard time being satisfied with just a "trust me".

[Mo1]

51 votes is enough.

Not unless they pull the nuke option ... other wise they need 60 votes

[indianrightwinger]

Because:

Religious != Originalist/Constructionist Justice

Conservative = Originalist/Constructionist Justice

[shhrubbery!]

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...".

Thank you SergeantsLady. Very well said.

George Will, though he was once a talented writer, is a condescending @#$%$! (pardon my French). He doesn't surprise me anymore.

But I'm appalled at the elitist snobbery so many of my fellow conservatives -- directed yesterday at Harriet Miers, and today at the president himself. Seems to me there's waaaaaay too much misunderestimating going on heah.

I think our Founders would heartily approve of the nomination of Harriet Miers, once they got over the shock of the appointment of a woman.

And I think our Founders would heartily DISapprove of the idea that constitutional law is so abstruse that only an elite cult of Ivory Tower esotericists can deal with it!

To paraphrase Willliam F. Buckley: I would rather be ruled by the first 500 graduates of Southern Methodist University than by the cream of the crop of the Ivy League.

[dread78645]

Miers may end up being terrific ...

As might Carl Fregia^*.

Being anti-abortion and teaching Sunday school is pretty thin record for a lifetime appointment on the highest court.

^*A name I picked at random from the phone book.

[roses of sharon]

Ah, come on, you can do it, the Senate can do it, NR can do it, FR can do it, join the left, and their media.

It will be fun, it will be blood in the water, all for one common cause.

Borking Miers is just the shot in the arm the conservative movement needs. Destroy her.

Destroy Bush/Cheney/Rummey/Rice/Delay/Frist. They need it, they don't get nearly enough criticism.

Let's Roll!

[sinkspur]

If you are scared of facing down a putz like Schumer, Lord help us if you or your ilk ever had to face down a terrorist.

I'm not scared of Schumer. But the GOP Senate is. Witness John Bolton.

You need to know what's possible, and overcoming a filibuster is simply NOT POSSIBLE with Frist running the Senate.

[gondramB]

"If it is your position that money does not equal speech in this context, then you can write for the New York Times editorial page. If you cannot raise and spend money for the purpose of broadcast advocacy ads 30 days before a primary election, and 60 days before a general election, that's limiting speech. Oh, and Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist thought so, too."


I believe freedom to speak one's mind is protected by the constitution in ways that freedom to spend money to influence elections is not protected by the constitution. I cannot find anything in the constitution about the freedom to spend money on elections.

I am a strict constructionist and they do not appear to be equivalent in the constitution.\


Now actually I believe a democracy implies a freedom to influence elctions with spending but I dont see that as an unlimited right.

[Alamo-Girl]

You and Ann Coulter want a big fight, with blood all over the floor.

Indeed, some people would rather fight than win.

I'd rather win. I support President Bush and his choice of Harriet Miers!

[LauraleeBraswell]

Then, Reagan was duped?

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

Try again.

[gondramB]

"Maybe you're regarding the process of buying political advertisements as only a spending issue."

I am viewing that as a spending issue.

[gpapa]

Between Miers and Brown who would you choose?

[holdonnow]

I also am not a big fan of Will's lately. He wrote conflicting columns about judicial review and judicial activism, which raised doubt in my mind about his judicial philosophy. And I think this column, while containing several points I agree with, is overly harsh on Bush. I feel, however, that this was a bad appointment for many reasons, and it has and will hurt the president himself.- And the sheeple here are doing him no favors at all.

[MJY1288]

Good job

[gondramB]

"I oppose this nomination too, but would never feel the way George Will said it. That is extreme. The President is a great person, and I am sure made this nomination with good faith."

Well put.

[SirJohnBarleycorn]

READ MY POST.

I'm saying Bush and Frist don't have 60 votes to confirm her.

What do you know that they don't?

[Chuck54]

If you are scared of facing down a putz like Schumer.....

I don't think its a matter of anyone on this thread being afraid of Schumer. The facts are the RINOs are a bit scared, Specter included, and some battles cannot be won. JRB, Owen, etc would have brought on an extended bloodbath.

Many on this thread are ready to unleash all weapons, go for broke, unlimited warfare, no winners and the hell with the conservative agenda.

I am mostly a lone wolf here but I think Bush is playing chess with these moves and the Democrats are playing checkers. 1 or 2 more openings will probably occur on Bush's watch and if that happens, the court will be about where a conservative would want it. IMHO, of course.

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

Please...try to stay focused. Tell us why this woman is, in W's words, the most qualified candidate for the Court?

[holdonnow]

Defeatist. No need to surrender to Schumer so easily. I'd rather fight the good fight over a solid nominee and win!