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.

[MJY1288]

BINGO

[republicofdavis]

Well, yeah, that's the issue. I expect Supreme Court Justices to see things clearly, like me and Justice Scalia. If there's not a constitutional provision preventing an exercise of legislative or executive power, then the court should have nothing to say, unless it's an exercise of power that is not delegated to the legislative or executive branches.

Simple

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

And it would be a shame for a nominee's convictions to be an open book because...? I guess you're trying to say that the only good conservative is a closet conservative. Are you ashamed of being a conservative Wolfstar? Should any judge or attorney have to be ashamed of being a conservative? This nomination is a slap in the face of judges and lawyers who have the guts to openly proclaim their convictions in a field that has been commandeered by liberals.

[SpringheelJack]

Harriet Miers is qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. The Constitution is silent on judicial qualifications and, instead, entrusts the President of the United States with making the decision as to qualifications. In other words, the Constitution says "trust the president."

Bulls**t! There's that little "advice and consent" thing in there too, which Hamilton (in the Federalist) said was there to, among other things, prevent the President from picking his friends and cronies.

[holdonnow]

I see, and your staunch defense of the appointment, with nothing more than trust, is not jumping the gun???

[Torie]

Oh don't do the Hobson's choice thingie on my counselor, and truncate the choices. What I am saying is that Bush had considerable latitude to pick a nominee who would in the end be confirmed. Certainly not Janice Brown, probably not Owen and maybe not Jones, but probably an O'Connell or Luttig. Of course Miers is not the most qualified, indeed she might be unqualified, and Bush does not need to round up liberal GOP senators, of which there are about 5. absent it being a totally partisan affair. If Miers tanks it will be on my playing field, not yours.

[TAdams8591]

I heard the Senate is asking for many white house documents and confidential communications.

[sinkspur]

Texas is right. The black vote is tottering. If the country watched the dems scorch JR Brown, whether she makes it or not, 3-5% of the black vote goes Republican next time.

The black vote is not "tottering." 70% of blacks thought George Bush intentionally let black people starve to death on the streets of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.

George Bush is Bull Connor to the "black vote."

Bush was not going to win the "black vote" by nominating Rogers-Brown to the Supreme Court, especially when the "black vote" is waiting to see who gets the $2000 vouchers.

[itsahoot]

You saying that McCain Feingold prohibits political speech at certain times? I've never heard that - only that it limits spending

And you are in a position to make a rational judgement on a Supreme Court Justice?</sarcasm>

[gondramB]

"So having no qualifications makes her the most qualified person for the Court. Now, that is a ringing endorsement!"

Isn't it sad that we have come to this? The great supreme court justices from history could never be confirmed now.

[MJY1288]

Mark, Please show me where I attacked you?

My God Mark, I didn't realize you were so thin skinned

[Wolfstar]

But if the Senate sets the precedent by confirming her, you can be!!!!

In no way would the Senate be setting a precedent by confirming Harriet Miers. Her qualifications are as good as or better than a sizeable number of people who have already served on the court.

[Mo1]

they won't get the confidential communications

[Chena]

I wonder if those who supported and respected William Rehnquist when he was nominated and years later looked at it as "luck"....as you apparently do. It couldn't possibly be that someone knew more about him when he was nominated than the political couch potato.

[MJY1288]

"Why don't you leave?"

ROFLMAO

[MJY1288]

Mo1, is this really Mark posting tonight?

[akdonn]

"What makes you think George Will is a conservative? He is not you know."

It's truly amazing how many experts there are on exactly what makes a person a "conservative." Doesn't conservatism require a range of thinking, just as IQ measures a range of intellect? What range of intelligence would you say it takes to go around and declare who is and is not a conservative? Is your criteria something based on faith--from church perhaps? How did you become the expert on this and how much do you think George Will cares about YOUR opinion of his conservative credentials?

[woofie]

Do you buy the argument that Bush should appoint a non judge for balance on the court and if so why would not anyone he picked be similar to Miers? ie an unknown

[Republic of Texas]

Bush got more of the black vote in the last two elections than any other Republican in history. The people of NO are not the segment of blacks moving right. They are staying right on the plantation to wait on daddy gov'ment to bail them out. I'm talking black middle class, they are the ones who would even pay attention to a SCOTUS hearing. The NO crowd would just believe whatever Rev Jesse said about the hearing.

[sinkspur]

I see, and your staunch defense of the appointment, with nothing more than trust, is not jumping the gun???

Bush gets to make his appointments, Mark. I trust Bush, especially given his record of judicial appointments.

You want somebody appointed who will get filibustered, and defeated.