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.

[nopardons]

You're the one acting like Carville; hurling insult after insult at anyone and everyone, who isn't slavishly kissing your arse and taking after someone ( ME !), because you don't understand what was said.

[MJY1288]

I don't understand it, the POTUS Nominates the person who advised him on all of his Judicial Nominees and these pouting pitchforkers are pledging their allegiance to Hillary. And they wonder why are called the Stupid Party?

[Chena]

Goodnight, everyone. Try not to feed the trolls tonight. ;)

[holdonnow]

Conservatives have defended the president's handling of Katrina. I don't know why you have such contempt for conservatives. Are you a conservative, or what? If his poll numbers are down, it has nothing to do with conservatives. Silly.

[Black Tooth]

George Will is so yeasterday.. John Denver glasses are too..

Thank God for Tony Snow!

Do I have to say sarcasm?

[JeffAtlanta]

Agreed. that's why this doesn't apply to Rush Limbaugh or CNN.

It's application to Rush is only theoretical. It already does limit political advertising with the 60 day window.

[SpringheelJack]

You can hold the street language. You're right, and I discussed the advise and consent role in a later post on this thread. However, while the senate can say yea or nay to the president's nominee, it is the president in whom the Constitution invests the trust and authority to choose nominees. The senate never has the proactive role, only the reactive one.

What I objected to was your claim that the Constitution said in essence, "Trust the president." That is not the case. The Constitution calls for the president's choice to be scrutinized, and if it does not pass, rejected.

[zarf]

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

True, but don't underestimate street smarts.

[nopardons]

Thank you for posting facts.

[McGavin999]

Where are his critical thinking skills? Anybody who honestly thinks "Bush picked her and I trust him" is an argument, really scares me.

She has vetted most of Dubya's court picks and it looks to me like she's done a pretty good job. Most of the names I have heard around here as "better picks" are only known here because this woman found them and vetted them.

[gondramB]

"It's application to Rush is only theoretical. It already does limit political advertising with the 60 day window."

If it ever got applied to Rush and got upheld then I hope to God they would change the law.

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

Check out my questions propounded at #536.

[pollyannaish]

Fair enough. I don't want to argue, since quite frankly, nobody is going anywhere on this subject. So we'll leave it at that.

Good luck.

[slowhandluke]

If you like all those people previously mentioned, how can you not like the person who selected them in the first place?

It's called a 'talent scout'. Many mediocre players have been great scouts and coaches. That's not the pool of talent you look in to find the next quarterback.

The President was disturbed by CFR. He only signed it because he either had to sign it or veto the bill entirely since the Courts took away his line item veto powers.

There was precious little that was constitutional in that bill. He should have vetoed the CFR, and vetoed any rewrite as well.

[Cold Heat]

Ya know.....you seem to be saying that we have the constitutional right to pick a SCOTUS justice and second guess the president.

We don't.

The Senate does that with advise and consent, and we elected them to do that.

That is a Republic.

Your leading questions require the the honest answer that some of us trust the presidents judgment, but following that is the work of the Senate, which has yet to start.

What you seem to advocate is a pure democracy, or a European model, and we don't have that, for obvious reasons.

So how about we all sit back and watch the show? Our job is done, and no amount of pressure on these senators will change their minds. At least I hope the hell not.

That's a government by public poll for Cryin out loud.

Lets watch the show and see if she has grit. If so, the Senate should have little to object to.

If not, she won't be confirmed.

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

Cut it out and answer the three questions.

[JeffAtlanta]

If it ever got applied to Rush and got upheld then I hope to God they would change the law.

It already does apply to many groups though.

[Black Tooth]

She is after all a tough old broad from Texas

Well no wonder he picked her. This explains it all!

Brilliant!

[MikeHu]

What bothers me most is this incitement by the media to rush to judgment of everyone.

They do lynch mobs proud.

[gortklattu]

I provided you with an example before I editorialized. You did nothing of the sort.

Now....what does that tell you about the both of us?