Miers is the wrong pick (George Will)

Townhall ^ | October 4, 2005 | George Will

[Texas Federalist]

Her qualifications are as good as or better than a sizeable number of people who have already served on the court.

Name one justice in the last 100 years who had equal or worse qualifications than this lady when nominated.

[trisham]

I've just read the whole bloody thing and cannot find anything that limits speech, only things that limit spending. i checked both the links you suggested and they both focus on spending ,not speech.

***************

I am no authority, but it is my understanding that speech is limited by the limiting of spending.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Reaction to Will's column:

Responding to Will[two defenses of Miers on NR's 'Bench Memos']

[Texas Federalist]

McCain, DeWine and Graham strongly intimated they would press for the nuclear option if Bush's Supreme Court pick was filibustered. This was BEFORE he nominated Roberts. With these three, he could even lose Specter and have enough votes.

Luttig could be filibustered. But it's better than this.

[DLfromthedesert]

The President's judicial picks have been sterling; so why do you suppose he suddenly is taking a left turn?

The reason I trust him with this one is because his previous nominations have been excellent.

[Wolfstar]

William Rehnquist. Actually, last night I named several. There are many more to choose from.

[McGavin999]

Do you think Ms. Miers recommended herself for the nomination?

No, I do not. Dubya is an MBA, she is a corporate attorney, so there were many sessions where he asked questions regarding the nominees and expected quick, sharp answers and tight arguements. I think she displayed the qualities he was looking for and had the additional advantage of being known to the various senators.

They have been demanding a candidate from the "outside" and so he has given them what they wanted, with the advantage of being what HE wanted. Now, they are obligated, not only to confirm THIS nominee (after all, that's not a favor to Dubya because he is "giving in" to their demand) but some future event as well. Dubya plays poker exceedingly well.

[McGavin999]

I don't think a nominee's personal beliefs matter at all. What matters is what the constitution says. What is important is that any nominee understands that. Beliefs change, character does not, so character is very important. If you believe that the constitution says what it says then that's exactly what we want on the court. All other issues follow that reasoning.

[Theophilus]

only their rational perception

But "rational perception" is just too elusive a concept. Who is always, if ever, rationally perceptive? Who ever has enough information? Human nature is largely dependent on intuition and prejudice.

In God We (but sadly, never Ayn) Trust.

[JeffAtlanta]

Although he only got 9% of the black vote in 2000, he received 12% in 2004, with the increased black vote in Ohio giving the victory to Bush over Kerry.

The original poster claimed that GWB received a higher percentage of the black vote than any other Republican candidate in history.

[Diamond]

Will is right. Period. The ad hominem attacks fall flat and just show weak intellect.

And what have "...the leading lights of American jurisprudence" given us?

The Constitution does not explicitly establish any qualifications for Justices of the Supreme Court.

Cordially,

[Texas Federalist]

Not even close. Rehnquist finished at the top of his class at Stanford, clerked for a Supreme Court justice, and was a renowed Constitutional scholar before his nomination.

[JeffAtlanta]

I suspect some would rather fight than win.

No, I don't think that is true at all. Instead, many are so injected with defeatism that they will avoid a fight at any cost and choose appeasement.

[trisham]

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.

***************

Although I am waiting for the hearings to form an opinion of Miss Miers, I find the above to be heartening.

[Graymatter]

"rational perception" is just too elusive a concept.

Then, I will not waste time reasoning with you, but do tell me when you find a better method of perceiving reality.

[TAdams8591]

Politics is about winning and sometimes there's no way around it, the only way to win is to fight. Furthermore, you don't defeat yourself before the enemy defeats you.

I strongly disagree. They would NOT have filibustered the first black woman nominee to the Supreme Court. It's a bluff that we should have called them on.

The unintended consequences of a lower qualified and less than conservative nominee to the Supreme Court, include:

(1) The alienation of the conservative base who worked extremely hard for at least the past 25 years for precisely this moment: The opportunity to change the direction of the Supreme Court.

(2)That the less-than-conserative nominee will vote exactly like Sandra O'Conner when the two pro-life cases come up before the Supreme court and for the next 15 or 20 years.

(3)The Supreme Court will have the same balance for the foreseeable future, with the possibility a democratic president could tilt it further left.

That a Janice Rogers-Brown nomination would alienate RINOS in the base is preposterous. There has been NO OUTCRY regarding her possible nomination from the RINO base.In fact, many of them voiced support for her. However, failing to obtain a strong conservative nominee to the Court will most definitely alienate many from the conservative base from whom there has already been a LOUD outcry.

With this latest nomination, President Bush was attempting to be too politically clever, by half. Not only is Harriet Miers less qualified than many other candidates, we don't even know if she's conservative, and may well prove NOT to be. I fail to see how that's "winning."

[gondramB]

"I am no authority, but it is my understanding that speech is limited by the limiting of spending."

I guess my feeling is that freedom of speech is a higher right than freedom of advertising

That just gives too much advantage to the wealthy, IMO. And if there were no limits on corporate spending then candidates wouldn't even need money from the public - that would be bad.

Maybe the current restrictions are wrong or too much. But I don't believe there is a constitutional right to advertising.

And I don't see how conservatives who are supposed to be strict constructionists could argue that there is.

[onyx]

Only 51 votes are needed, but I doubt we'd muster 51 for her, given the cabal of 14 plus Chaffee, Snowe, McCain, and Collins.

[slowhandluke]

Agreed. that's why this doesn't apply to Rush Limbaugh or CNN. It's only advertising being limited. If they try to apply it to the press including blogs or boards or pundits and say they can't speak - well then that would seriously wrong and unconstitutional. At least I hope the Supreme Court would feel that way.

Sorry, but that doesn't compute. If I am prevented from printing and distributing my opinion via a printing press & the US Mail (that which the founders would regard as 'the press'), why should the same opinion be allowed on a blog?

I don't see where the Constitution has any requirement that I have to own the press, and not merely rent it for a few days in an election year.

And why is commercial advertising considered protected speech, and political advertising not protected? To believe that requires a strange reading of history.

[TAdams8591]

"Quite to the contrary, I see her as a very strong Christian conservative from Texas. The court has not had someone like this nigh onto a hundred years.

I too am a strong Christian conservative from Texas, about her age."

No bias there.

What on her resume indicates she's "conservative?" Just because she is a Christian does not mean she is a conservative.

Most conservative attorneys belong to the Federalist Society. Not only did Harriet NOT belong, but she also didn't get along with the Federalists with whom she worked. Furthermore, Harriet is a member of, and has been very active in, the more Liberal ABA. She has been given the Sandra Day O'Connor award for excellence.

Moreover, she did not join the Republican Party until 1990, around the same time she returned to active Christian worship.

At this point in time, I see absolutely NOTHING in her background to indicate she is conservative.