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.

[Wolfstar]

So do you want to consign these elite conservative media types to purgatory?

I don't want to consign anyone anywhere. But I'll do my own research and make up my own mind about Miers or any other nominee, candidate or issue. I don't need the elite media, left or right, to tell me how and what to think.

[nopardons]

We appear to belong to very select club. I don't mind. I think that we are better than the hysterics.

[SpringheelJack]

I think the most important thing she has going for her is that she vetted Dubya's nominees. He got to observe her during that vetting procedure, got to listen to her reasoning. He has been listening to her reasoning for years, but this was the first practical application of it as it applied to the courts.

I'm not so sure of this. What if she's a suck-up and knows how to play to him? I mean, that for instance is one of the excuses people here have been coming up with for her contributions to the Democratic party --- everyone she worked with was a Democrat, so was everyone she worked for, so she needed to play along for advancement, harmony, etc.

[nopardons]

Why don't you just join Crazy Cindy Sheehan and try to get him impeached?

[gipper81]

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

The main question is: HOW WILL SHE VOTE? Bottom line.

Tell me, years from now ... if she votes the way you want, I want, and 90% of Freepers want, will you be posting here and saying "yes, that's good, but she still wasn't qualified!" ?????

[JeffAtlanta]

Tell me, years from now ... if she votes the way you want, I want, and 90% of Freepers want, will you be posting here and saying "yes, that's good, but she still wasn't qualified!" ?????

And what will you say if she ends up being an embarrassment?

[jf55510]

A working knowledge of ConLaw would actually have some experience with it. You can go through law school with as little as six or seven hours of ConLaw, that isn't working knowledge that is an overview. Since this is a nomination to the top court in the land who deals with Constitutional Law I want a Justice who, while not an expert, has some working experience with it. In private practice Miers was a corporate lawyer she would have dealt with very few, if any constitutional issues. Her six years at the Texas Lottery Commission is the same. So basically her knowledge and dealing with ConLaw comes with less than a year as White House counsel. I want a Justice who knows ConLaw not someone who has to pull out a horn book or Emanuels to figure out what is going on.

Previous service as a Judge is not a requirement and I never said it was. But lately Justices who were nominated had extensive service in Government or some other relevant post while that just isn't the case with Miers.

Why should we settle for less because people in the past were nominated with worse credentials? Last time I checked, conservatives were for the best qualified person getting the job. There is not a single person who can say that Harriet Meirs is the best qualified person for the job.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

Whether or not she would have ultimately been confirmed by the U.S. Senate-which no one will ever truly know-is not the issue.

The issue is whether or not President Bush was even willing to fight for her-or anyone with a discernible conservative viewpoint and a distinguished scholarly and/or judicial record-and stand behind his decision.

I'm almost certain that Ronald Reagan believed Judge Bork was going to be confirmed before he sent his name to the U.S. Senate, but the fact that his nomination was eventually rejected does not retroactively make his initial instincts incorrect.

[Wolfstar]

Do you seriously think only leftists get drunk on koolaide and think ad hominem arguments have merit?

Ah, yes, the old koolaid/ad hominem cliche. I am doing my own research and making up my own mind about the Miers nomination. So far I've learned that she is qualified from both historical and Constitutional perspectives. Her qualifications are comparable to or better than many former SC justices. She appears, from what little I know of her background, to be a social conservative.

I'm willing to keep an open mind until the hearings. If I don't like how they're going, I'll contact my senators and say so. In the meantime, I'm more than willing to trust the President I voted for twice. If that makes me a fool, so be it. That's my choice to make. Not yours or anyone else's to make for me.

[gortklattu]

I notice that you dodge the issue of your accountability in order to continue your admonishment of others.

[BigSkyFreeper]

It's a decent law school now. 40 years ago it wasn't quite that.

Sure it was, it was just harder at that time for women like Miers to become lawyers. You can live in 1965, but the fact remains, it's 2005.

[McGavin999]

Sucking up is not how you vet. He watched her asking questions of the nominees, he listened to her presentations of their strengths and weaknesses. He undoubtedly asked her why she thought someone was this or that and listened to her answers.

There is no room in a vetting procedure for "sucking up". It's pure logic and presentation.

Did you like the nominees that were sent up? Do you realize that many of the people that everyone here wanted for the USSC they found out about because Miers recommended them?

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

You have no way of knowing how a justice will rule, you can evaluate their qualifications and their record. If s/he is not well qualified, you have a pretty good idea as to how they might rule. A judge is not a frickin senator or congressman.

[nopardons]

Oh no, dear, I must be your TOP priority, since you kept posting reply after reply to me, ordering me to immediately answer your dumb question.

I frankly don't give a damn what you "feel"! You have emotionally blustered and bombastically insulted and name called and belligerently attacked anyone and everyone who didn't kneel down before you and tell you just how wonderful and brilliant you are.

You just said that you liked Roberts and now are lumping him in with whom you FEEL is mediocre. And I should pay you any mind?

You were putting on a show for Mark Levin. Trust me, he won't remember you nor any of your posts. He doubtless forgotten them and you by the time he logged off.

You wanted a bloodbath. The president didn't.

Specter came to Thomas's rescue; he was NOT prepared to do that for JRB.

And IF Miers is BORKED, I don't think that any of us will like her replacement at all. That, I can guarantee you.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Actually Thomas has written a number of opinions.

The number "one" does not infer plural. Even that one single opinion wasn't any "Earth-shaker".

[McGavin999]

She's already a known quantity.....to Dubya. We elected him because he promised to nominate people to the court who would be strict constructionists in the mold of Thomas and Scalia. He has done everything he has said he would do so far, and there is no reason to believe he will start doing otherwise now.

Some may not like some of the things he has done, but basically, he did do what he said he would do.

[nopardons]

BRAVO!

[gipper81]

And what will you say if she ends up being an embarrassment?

I will surely say that JeffAtlanta first alerted me to the possibility.

[SupplySider]

She's a poke in the eye to judicial and DC elite, left and right.

I like seeing the poobahs squirm, too, but Ms Miers is also a poke in the eye to those who are sick of stealth candidates.

[BigSkyFreeper]

I think elites are people who say "trust me."

I presume you didn't say that when vetting Anthony Kennedy?