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]

I don't see why we should be forced to "trust" him

No one is forcing you to do anything. If you are dead set against the nomination, pick up the phone, call your senators and let them know. Write letters to members of the Judiciary Committee. Make your voice heard.

You're asking us to invest our hope in an unknown quantity

I am not asking you to do anything. The President nominated. The senate will advise and probably consent. You can make your voice heard where it might have some effect, or you can sit around here caterwauling with the rest of the herd. Your choice.

[america-rules]

"No, that's not the main question. The Supreme Court is not the US Senate. The main question is: HOW DID SHE ARRIVE AT THAT VOTE? Bottom line"

Good god man have you ever read what Thomas writes?

I agree 100% with what his final rulings have been but man he gets there in a way that is goofy to the normal idiot like me.

It's probably his staff but man his background on his opinions can seem way out there and not what normal folks would look at to come to a ruling.

He cites speeches pre-1776 and includes information that have zero application to the constitution but was someones opinion back in 1789 !

[nopardons]

How much bandwidth do you intend you waste with your banal replies, n00b?

[TAdams8591]

You are correct. He doesn't have an upcoming election, like he did during the Thomas hearings.

[nopardons]

:-)

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

What would be the point?

I don't think anyone seriously believes that any replacement for Miers would be any better.

In fact, there's every reason to believe that she would be worse.

The damage is done.

[nopardons]

Yes and that is part of why JRB would be BORKED and not saved.

[TAdams8591]

But Specter woudn't cause her trouble either like he did Bork.

If both Miers and Roberts prove to be conservative and President Bush gets a third conservative pick, the one who would tilt the court to the pro-life side, it is that nominee who will be attacked by Spector.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Folks here seem to think that being confirmed as an associate justice is like being elected a junior senator from North Dakota. They do more than case a vote. They need to be able to persuade their colleagues on the Court. They need to write opinions. It seems that so many have bought into the politicization of the Court, they don't know what the Court is supposed to be.

If a nomination is based on solely writing or framing an opinion, Miers is eminently qualified. Miers said she respects the rule of law and the Constitution. If one had to go on that facet alone, she's eminently qualified, especially in the current climate of "judicial tyranny", given how the judicial branch has shredded parts of the Constitution, stifled the "will of the people", and created more problems by overstepping into the legislative branch's territory by legislating from the bench. Her opinion would be the tipping point of alot of these 5-4 decisions.

[nopardons]

I think that we have reached a plane of total agreement, on that.

[ottersnot]

I agree 100% with what his final rulings have been but man he gets there in a way that is goofy to the normal idiot like me.

I recall reading a blurb somewhere that Thomas is one of the few justices that actually writes his own final rulings and doesn't always rely on clerks. Scalia is right up there too if I recall.

[BigSkyFreeper]

But perhaps O'Connor wasn't such a bad appointment.

She wasn't. In fact, she was on the right side of alot of crucial 5-4 decisions in her time on the USSC.

[ottersnot]

If both Miers and Roberts prove to be conservative and President Bush gets a third conservative pick, the one who would tilt the court to the pro-life side, it is that nominee who will be attacked by Spector. And POTUS went to bat for Specter did he not. Ironic (and already beat to death here.)

[counterpunch]

Good god man have you ever read what Thomas writes?
-------
He cites speeches pre-1776 and includes information that have zero application to the constitution but was someones opinion back in 1789 !

Yes, I am aware. There is a joke in law schools about Scalia being so Originalist that he goes back to Magna Carta law, and Thomas is so Originalist that he goes back to the Old Testament.

I didn't want to mention Thomas by name, but yes, he was in my mind when I wrote that, though not exclusively. While conservatives love Thomas for his voting record, his method of arriving to it has damaged his credibility considerably. There is a reason he is the target of so much scorn besides just being a black man who has strayed from the Democrat plantation.

While I personally like him, I don't want another Thomas on the court, I want another Scalia or Roberts.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Not unless they pull the nuke option ... other wise they need 60 votes

With Frist at the helm, the Democrats will filibuster anyone to the right of McCain.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

And I'm sure that there were many Republicans who felt this man would serve as an antidote to the Warren Court:

The White House can put the most positive spin on this nomination, it won't change the fact that they're nominating a profoundly weak candidate from a position of extraordinary weakness.

[BigSkyFreeper]

As far as I can see, she is being pilloried by a lot of elite conservative snobs and their easily stampeded followers simply because she doesn't have an elite education and prior judicial experience on a U.S. appeals court, where her political leanings might have become an open book.

I'd say it borders on "sexist" because she's a woman, who went to some "hillbilly" college, got a law degree, clerked for a Conservative judge, then became a lawyer in an age when women had a hard time becoming lawyers, headed a large law firm in Dallas, and finally, served as the first woman President of the Texas Bar.

[BigSkyFreeper]

It would be based on her deep, well articulated, long-held judicial philosophy.

Right, that's her job. It's the Senate's job to vote a nominee up or down based on their sworn testimony in the committee, not a bunch of posters on a discussion board. That's what committee hearings are for.

[ottersnot]

As far as I can see, she is being pilloried by a lot of elite conservative snobs
You may be right. I get the feeling that a lot of the resistance is just due to fear of a Souter part two. A perceived lack of track record, which doesn't give much insight into her thinking. I see a lot of folks screaming for Owens or JRB, so that leads me to believe it's not bias. I myself don't care about the elite education thing. I care more about the experience.

I will be generally pleased at this point if she turns out to be as the Pres. says. We've really got to work on this Senate thing though.

[nopardons]

Most of the same posters, who are hysterical over the Miers nomination, posted just the same way when Roberts was nominated. That should tell you something about them and what they are posting about Miers.

I have yet to make up my mind about Miers; I don't have enough information to do so.