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.

[Barnacle]

“I’d like to introduce myself...
My Name is George W. Bush’s Legacy.”

[ordinaryguy]

Sean Penn is a gun owner too. I don't think that qualifies him to sit on the Supreme Court. What kind of logic is that?

[sinkspur]

I predict george will will be attacked on this thread like never before.

He deserves to be, for making statements like this:

It is not important that she be confirmed because there is no evidence that she is among the leading lights of American jurisprudence,

That applies to Clarence Thomas, to William Rehnquist, and to many other justices from the past.

How come it is a requirement to be a "leading light of jurisprudence" to be on the Supreme Court?

[ikka]

Hate to say it, but maybe we need some "dumb" types on SCOTUS.

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.

[Betaille]

"Please see 12. I have a twisted sense of sarcasm. I agree with you."

Yeah, someone else mentioned that. It helped to illustrate my point though so thanks.

[redangus]

Okay then it has come to this. If you disagree with the President you are no longer a conservative. Wow I didn't know. Iguess I will have to vote for Hillary in 08 since I can't possibly be a conservtive anymore.

[Williams]

I hope most of you can discerna load of elitist horse dung when you see it. Bush dared nominate someone Will doesn't think is "good enough". So this article twists and turns 99 ways to beg the republican senate to dump the president's nominee. this article is horse manure and it's not the first time by Will.

[Chuck54]

Anybody who honestly thinks "Bush picked her and I trust him" is an argument, really scares me.

Let me try to give this a shot.

I would venture that 99.999999% of the FReeper nation has never met, talked, listened to, or even knew Miers until just recently. I read everything I could find about her yesterday after the announcement and the most negative was she once donated to Gore. Well damn, I once VOTED for Jimmy Carter. DUH!

We do not get to interview her, we do not know her, we will never "know" her and therefore put a modicum of trust in the person we elected twice to the highest office in the land.

The jury is still out but I think this will work out in our favor.

[nopardons]

Yes, you are 100% correct.

[olde north church]

"I trust him" does not necessarily equal "I will follow him blindly!". It could very well mean, "He knows this woman and her beliefs, her conscience, her background and the strength of her convictions. She will continue me legacy beyond the 3 additional years of my term and I trust her implicitly to do so."

Now, let's say Rush Limbaugh or George Will or James Dobson were your personal "associate" would you trust him to continue your work beyond your position?

[jdm]

"Sean Penn is a gun owner too. I don't think that qualifies him to sit on the Supreme Court. What kind of logic is that?"

Slam dunk.

[Black Tooth]

I say this as a Christian...So what? She isn't being nominated for Dean of a seminary. She is being nominated for the Supreme Court.

Best post of the thread!

So far.

[freedomdefender]

Does Will's twitty bow tie spin if you give it a twirl?

[Brilliant]

Since George feels this way, I assume that he did not vote for Bush.

[harrowup]

From 1995 until 2000, she was chair of the Texas Lottery Commission.
Very Supreme!

The President, then Texas Governor, appointed her to clean up the corruption in the Texas Lottery, which she accomplished rather well.

[flashbunny]

well, when you have 56 votes in the senate and control of the presidency, why settle for less?

Reverse the situation: If the dems had 55 senators, plus the VP, and of course the presidency, would they nominate a stealth candidate and say "trust us", or would they nominate the most liberal candidate they could find?

[Not A Snowbird]

Besides, Bush did not select her for any of the reasons you are favoring her. He selected her out of cronyism.

I find it really amusing (NOT) that so many people on this board presume to know what President Bush is thinking and why he does what he does.

That's pretty arrogant.

[Chuck54]

Yes, his too. LOL! Poor Harry has been snookered and doesn't even know it.

You know he's from a place called Searchlight?

[freedomdefender]

Intellectual conservative pundits are opposing her because she's not "in with their in crowd." They're snobs, and they're threatened by the statement that this nomination makes: That there are legal circles and legal achievements beyond their own, that are respectable and worthy of recognition.

[sourcery]

I agree with Mr. Will--although I still reserve judgement on Mrs. Miers. The Court has so badly mismanaged its primary responsibility of interpreting the Constitution that our government has been an effective tyrrany for decades now (a tyrranical government can in fact be benelovent most of the time, as ours has been up to now, but it is nevertheless a de facto tyrrany as defined by the Founders--reading the Declaration of Independence with the current US government in mind is a good way to prove this to yourself.)

Given the dire state of affairs with respect to the mountain of wrongful precedents that have accumulated over the years, there is no more pressing issue before us than the reversal of these abominal precedents and the restoration of the Republic. For that reason, George Will is absolutely correct: the only question that matters is whether the confirmation of Miers as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court will make any signficant forward progress towards restoring the United States as a Contitutional Repuplic under the rule of law.