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]

Not unless enough other Justices, and/or public opinion, support it.

Yep, afraid so.

[Wolfstar]

I might, if like then it wasn't clear to me that you understood what I was objecting to. I clarified.

You are quite capable of making yourself understood. So let's say fair enough and call it a night.

[JeffAtlanta]

You could use two bases to launch military attacks.

Politics doesn't work that way. The members of the GOP are basically governing as socially conservative democrats. That isn't good enough.

If the GOP feels enough backlash at the ballot box, then they will have to rethink their liberal ways. On the other hand, if the GOP keeps getting blind support from those who it panders to but then abandons, then what motivation do they have to change?

[nopardons]

You have no idea at all about what you are posting to me; NONE!

You flail about, posting anything to anyone, without reading, nor remembering who someone is and what they said.

We have "talked" many times before, here. But you have NO idea who I am. That's fine, I couldn't care less. To you, we're all just faceless NOBODIES, who don't matter at all. Yes, we're the NOBODIES who bought your book and faithfully listen to your radio show. We aren't the GREAT MARK LEVIN, who hasn't enough attention span to remember who he has talked with and/or read their posts on FR, nor what they have posted to you on this thread.

I didn't call YOU a "purist". I didn't call YOU a "troll". As a matter of fact, I didn't call YOU anything at all, until you kept up a thrashing and name calling posting season on me.

I've said that I was neither for nor against Miers, but was waiting to see. But of course, that made me a "nitwit" and a "putz" and a "faceless nobody" to you.

I was out there, fighting the Conservative fight, before you got out of high school. Hell, I was doing so as a teen, before your were out of diapers.

"Downer" and "loser" am I? Who says so, the putz ( your favorite word? ) Mark Levin?

Noooooooooooooo...if left up to you, we'd be forever out in the backbenches of nowhere into perpetuity.

Surrender? ME? When hell freezes over is when I might and probably not even then; unlike you.

I listened to Bob Grant from the time he first said "GET OFF MY PHONE" 30+ years ago. Find your own shtick.

[itsahoot]

Somehow Clinton got his publicly liberal nominees through the confirmation process.

Well he did have the help of Orin Hatch, unlike Specter over whom the current president, seems to have no influence.

[JeffAtlanta]

But you are going to watch the confirmation hearings and you will get to judge for yourself.

True, but by that time it will be too late. The vast majority of the GOP is going to vote for her no matter what she says - which won't be much.

We are stuck with her unless the democrats don't like her.

[TAdams8591]

Oh, yeah, I must have missed that./sarasm

Reread the post below.

"Do you really think all those big bad Senators would go after Janice Rogers, a sharecroppers daughter who rose to the ranks of Justice on the CA Supreme Court and not confirm her???"

So ya think they'd go after her AND not confirm her?????

I don't. She would have been confirmed just as Clarence Thomas was. I guess you missed that part of the Thomas hearing, you know the part where he was successfuly confirmed?

[nopardons]

I answered them, so you're both dead wrong.

That makes for a perfect score for all of your posts to this thread.

And Mark? I called not a single name, nary a one, until you pummeled me with them, you stinking hypocrite.

[itsahoot]

I found it an entirely unsatisfactory performance.

Couldn't understand him huh?

[JeffAtlanta]

Have you ever considered that you get a little too worked up over a message board?

[Killborn]

"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."

Maybe so, maybe not. Let's at least wait for the hearings. The fact that anyone at all is nominated by the toon is more than justified to be Borked based on the fact that he is a stain on America, morality, and the Executive Branch. I mean, for goodness sakes; "ACLU"? That alone disqualifies that 8!tc# Ginsburg.

The fact that more people are willing to Bork Miers than Ginsburg is quite a disturbing paradox. Should have fought tooth and nail back then.

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

The President shares mine and your concerns. But he decided that it's benefits outweigh the costs. We may not agree but that's what happens. You are free to not vote for the GOP, though I strongly advise you against it. Meanwhile, I'm trying to reform it from the inside out.

As soon as we see someone hurt by it, even if it's liberals, support them to the hilt and get the Courts to strike the unconstitutional parts of CFR (or as you see it; the whole bill) dead. Even if that fails, keep doing it until the First ammendment is safe again. Better yet, pressure your Critters to ammend CFR. We are not without recourse. And the Pres., as much as I like and respect him, doesn't have the final say on CFR.

[jf55510]

So the woman does not come from an elite Ivy League law school, and she doesn't have judicial experience on a federal appeals court. Comparatively speaking, she's a humble lawyer from Texas. Horrors!

No one is complaining that she did not go to an Ivy League school. In fact most of the other names talked about did not go to Ivy League schools for law school. They went to public universities like the University of Virgina, University of Texas, University of California Los Angeles, University of Baylor (not a public, but not an Ivy), University of Michigan and so on. On the USNews rankings they are ranked above and below SMU.

The lack of judicial experience in and of itself is not a problem either and the fact that she is a humble lawyer of Texas would usually not be a problem. As I am sure many have pointed out CJ Rehnquist was not a Judge before hand and Thomas had limited judicial experience, the same with Roberts btw. But there is a difference between Rehnquist, Thomas Roberts and Miers. Rehnquist was a constitutional scholar and held high positions within the Department of Justice and other governmental positions. Thomas was on an appeals court and before that was a well regarded government lawyer (though hated by the ABA), and we all know about Roberts. Miers on the other hand is a corporate lawyer and has done ConLaw for only a limited time and not much at that whose main experience is on the Texas Lottery Commission. When appointing someone to the Supreme Court you want someone with practical legal skills and a working knowledge of Constitutional law and issues Miers does not have that ConLaw knowledge.

This nomination should have been used as a referendum on the democrats vision of the court. This was an opportunity for Bush and conservatives to argue that our vision of the Supreme Court is the right version and to convince Americans that the democrats are wrong. You beat the democrats at the ballot box and the arena of ideas. This nomination does not allow you to do that.

To me, it seems the main arguments against her from the conservative media elite seems to be that she isn't who they wanted for the court. She's not their pick, so she must be an awful pick. She doesn't have conservative bona fides documented in a paper trail, so some people won't get the battle royal they wanted.

The point which many opponents of Miers have tried to get across but people don't understand is that she may be a fine pick, but we don't know what she is but what we do know is that a lifetime appointment is to precious to waste on a stealth nominee. Republicans have been screwed before by stealth nominees in Souter, O'Connor, Kennedy and so on. With as many important cases coming before the court this and upcoming terms why tempt fate when you can appoint a brilliant legal conservative on the court who is a reliable vote for your position.

Why should we wait ten years to see if Miers was a good pick when you know so much about so many other judges like Luttig, McConnell, Jones (either of them), Rogers Brown, Batchelder, Garza, Owens, Pryor, Clement and many others? Nevermind the fact that she is 60 and will only be on the court 15 years or so when you could appoint a Luttig, McConnell or many others and get 25-30 years out of the nomination.

Finally, at lot has been said her and other places that Miers will be a vote to support Bush. That is just wrong. A Supreme Court justice should not support a person but constitutional ideas. Bush has pushed many things which conservatives should be against. You have Campaign Finance and Affirmative Action to top the list. Bush supported CFR and did not stand up against AA. By the logic that Miers is a solid vote for Bush, you are conceding that she will support CFR and AA, which isn't a conservative position or a strict constitutionalist position. Flame away.

[counterpunch]

He will say the same thing when he announces Greenspan's replacement.

A God! I'd forgotten about Greenspan's looming retirement!
Who is Bush going to appoint to replace him, his personal financial advisor? "I know Bob, he's a good and decent soul. He gave me some good advice on a Texas oil venture. I know his heart."

[ridge]

Bush took a master strategic course and a leading strategic change course at Harvard. It's all part of his strategic mind.

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

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

*chuckle* That ought to inform one that the tales of Meirs being a fundamentalist Christian are as fictional as John Kerry being a devout Catholic.

[counterpunch]

He will say the same thing when he announces Greenspan's replacement.

Oh God! I'd forgotten about Greenspan's looming retirement!
Who is Bush going to appoint to replace him, his personal financial advisor?
"I know Bob, he's a good and decent soul. He gave me some good advice on a Texas oil venture. I know his heart."

[Wolfstar]

Who are the members of that elite group?

Start with George Will, the author of the above article, and a quintessential snob. Then work your way down from there. However, the pundits, themselves, do not constitute an elite group. Instead, many are elitists. Snobs. Do you seriously think that only Leftists are capable of elitism? Elitism is not a political characteristic, but a class characteristic.

[Mo1]

So ya think they'd go after her AND not confirm her?????

Yes they would go after her and they would not vote for her

So then it comes down to the Rino's and would they stick around to confirm or would they run

They have a history and can't be counted on

I don't. She would have been confirmed just as Clarence Thomas was. I guess you missed that part of the Thomas hearing, you know the part where he was successfuly confirmed?

I remember it and I remember how nasty it got back then

The crowd of Dems today are even more nastier they they were back them

[itsahoot]

No, they didn't.

I stand corrected.

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

The reason I keep asking the question is that sheeple like you don't want to answer it.

I think the question of qualification is the central question. But you tell me what the main question is and quit whining.