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.

[itsahoot]

Well, if the Democrats take over Congress, I'll know who to thank.

You won't have a clue who to thank, it will be George W. Bush, that you can be thanking.

[Killborn]

Thanks. People keep missing the biggest point of all regarding Miers. Frustrating. :e

[nopardons]

You aren't on FR enough, to know the slang, Mark. Would you rather I had used DONNER PARTY CONSERVATIVES? Or, how about the old standby UNAPPEASEABLES?

Don't you dare take umbrage over a FR slang use, which you so patently do not understand. It isn't a "lib phrase" at all and just because you feel angry and set upon, on this thread, do not take it out on me!

For your edification.........we here at FR use the "purist" to describe those supposed Conservatives, for whom, nobody is PURE CONSERVATIVE enough and who would much rather lose every single election, than, *cough*, sully or compromise their, *cough*, oh so vaunted "principles". These are the same people who back every single person, who hasn't a chance to EVER be elected to anything at all, but if that would ever happen, then, in a matter of months of weeks, they wouldn't be good enough either.

I have been a CONSERVATIVE for long than you've been out of diapers. I have lots of principle's too. Where do I draw the line? Lots of places and for starters, never listening to your radio show again.

I have been madder than a wet hen, at some things that President Bush the younger, the elder, Reagan, Ford, and Nixon have said and done. None of that has ever kept me from supporting the GOP with time, money, and effort. But the tiniest of tiny sliver of an iota of something, DOES keep FR's "purists" from doing ALL of that!

[JeffAtlanta]

It couldn't possibly be that someone knew more about him when he was nominated than the political couch potato.

Then why did they screw up so badly with Kennedy and O'Conner? Republicans have appointed 7 out of the 9 justices on the supreme court.

You have too much faith in your betters. It is always better to go with a known quantity in such a big decision.

[Wolfstar]

And it would be a shame for a nominee's convictions to be an open book because...?

I didn't say that it was a shame. You're reading something into my post that is not there. I was drawing a contrast between former justices with comparable qualifications to those of Harriet Miers, and what people seem to be demanding today. In order to be qualified for the Supreme Court, a nominee does not have to be on a federal appeals court where he or she has established a judicial track record. Heck, Constitutionally speaking, he or she doesn't even have to be a lawyer, although all 109 of those who have been confirmed to the court since 1789 have been lawyers. They have not all been judges, however. That is my point.

[JeffAtlanta]

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

If Miers is as conservative as you believe, then why will she not be fillibustered?

[holdonnow]

It's not a choice that I am posing, it is one I am repeating -- made by your likes right here on this thread. Please keep up. Here's what I think my friend ... leaders lead. If we cannot confirm solid individuals to the Supreme Court who share our values and ideology with a 55 Republican majority, and the veep's vote if necessary, we don't deserve to be in the majority, and we won't be. In 1981, the Reagan tax cuts were passed because Reagan went to the moderate House conservatives and won them over. You have to make the effort. You have to make the case. You have to be motivated for the fight. If Specter's a problem, why did Bush save his reelection in the Republican primary? Why is he, even now, threatening a conservative mayor in RI from running against the pathetic Lincoln Chaffee? Why do these things -- we are told to keep a majority. And then you and your likes complain about this majority, and Specter and Chaffee. This is a self-fulfilling prophecy and a foolish political strategy that will result in defeats -- and surrender on such crucial issues as this Supreme Court nominee. That's my view, take it or leave it (you'll leave it, because you're into "trust me").

[SpringheelJack]

Bush got more of the black vote in the last two elections than any other Republican in history.

I say that's false. Got anything to back you up?

[gondramB]

"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>"


Ok, should political spending have no limits at all?

[Mo1]

yes it's really him

[JeffAtlanta]

Bush got more of the black vote in the last two elections than any other Republican in history.

Are you sure about that? Gore got about 96% of the black vote and Kerry got about 90%. No republican has ever recieved more than 4% of the black vote?

[itsahoot]

"I must bow down to you horseface, after all you have a really important position as designated bootlicker of future Senate Minority Leader John Warner."

I see. You intend to throw out Republicans to elect Democrats

Uh, John Warner is a pretend Republican.

[sinkspur]

You won't have a clue who to thank, it will be George W. Bush, that you can be thanking.

No, I'll be thanking blatherskites like you.

[gondramB]

"Bush got more of the black vote in the last two elections than any other Republican in history."

I dont know if you intended to go back that far but I thought the Republicans got almost all the black vote right after the civil war?

[gpapa]

I trust Bush too. Harriet Miers may or may not be a good choice. It is the 'may be' I am worried about.

[sinkspur]

If Miers is as conservative as you believe, then why will she not be fillibustered?

She may be filibustered. But I doubt it.

[MJY1288]

Good God, I didn't realize how infuriated the Elites on our side get when the don't get their way. They scream that they don't know her judicial philosophy and demand we tell them what it is ???

"I didn't nominate her, Ask Dubya" is the only response I can come up with.

President Bush has nominated some very good judges and I'll keep my powder dry until I know her judicial philosophy and trust Bush until then

[Chena]

I'm tired so I won't go into depth here. Suffice to say, "bull pucky". No offense intended, I'm just tired and more than a bit sick and tired of the "wah wah" crowd....the "we need a professional, proven record, paper trail...blah blah blah" crowd. Some of the wisest and most honorable men and women thoughout history began with far less credentials than Ms. Miers.

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

Please answer two simple questions:

1. Do you agree with the President that Harriet was the most qualified person for this seat on the Court?

2. If your answer to question #1 is no, then how can you trust him?

[Torie]

I am basically a RINO, so you don't have me pegged right. If you are complaining about the political consequences longer term, have at it. I don't think it will matter much, since I suspect Miers if confirmed will be more conservative than O'Connor, at least for awhile, but whatever.

What offends me, is that I don't want mediocrities on the court, of any stripe. It is an insult to the institution.