Excellent point, Mr. Will. But are you mining my posts on FR for material for your columns AGAIN? :-)
To: Chena
This is not jumping the gun. Movement conservatives in the legal world know who would and would not make a good SCOTUS justice. Just ask your friendly local member of the Federalist Society. So, it's not necessarily Ms. Miers that we're down on, it's just the fact that Bush skipped over at least two or three dozen known conservatives with stellar credentials to pick her.
I bet (no, I know) you could have polled a hundred local conservative lawyers wherever you live and not heard a single one of them recommend Ms. Miers. You know this and President Bush knows this, and neither one of you seem to care very much about it. President Bush's lack of interest in qualifications, judicial experience, or the opinions of the conservative legal community is foolish in the extreme.509 posted on 10/03/2005 10:55:16 PM CDT by bourbon (It's the target that decides whether terror wins.) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 498 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
I luv watching it, as Mr Peterman would too, I'm sure! The Bushbots are trying to stop Hurricane Harriett with their sweaty fingers that more often than not can't differentiate between "you're" and "your", "its" and "it's", and "there", "their" and "they're".
"There's a reason things happen."
There's a reason George Will is a columnist for the New York Times.
There's a reason George Bush is President of the United States.
Will's column is eloquent, as always, and brutal. Well argued.
I personally have decided, not that it matters to anyone, that the nomination should be opposed. Chiefly because I agree with Will that this is not a serious nomination on Bush's part.
Granted, she'll probably be confirmed and probably work out. She's probably a fine person. Appears to be smart and to be a hard worker and tough minded. Appears to be pro-life, etc. etc.
I'm even buoyed by the reports that she became a Republican after she became a Christian.
However, bottom line is this:
Just like I don't think it's wise to take a new Christian convert and appoint them to lead a major ministry (because they are not yet solidly grounded), I don't think it's wise to take a recent convert (a decade being "recent" in her long career) conversion to Republican and put her on the Supreme Court. Not when you had so many seasoned qualified rock solid conservatives to choose from.
My opinion.
This will get George on every lib TV and radio show. Probably some rep shows too. How important it will make him feel.
WOW, a brilliant, powerful and very accurate critique of the President's nomination. No one has said it better.
I can't say that there was anything there that was actually wrong.
If George sWill is against her, I'm for her. He's no conservative.
Conservatism is the belief that the Constitution and the principles of the founders should be preserved. It is not the blind support of George Walker Bush. By signing a bill he knew was unconstitutional, he did the least conservative thing a president could do. The Senate needs to give this President a defeat so they can reclaim their constitutional authority.
Ok. Here is the membership roster for that committee. Which of them are adept at "constitutional reasoning"? Which of them are qualified to make such an evaluation, particularly in light of the trashy legislation that comes out of the Senate?
He has flowered my own mindset with rhetorical skill.
He doesn't know for he doesn't know of her yet!
Brutal, but right on the money.
If anything can derail this trainwreck of a nomination, the argumentation put forth in this column might be it.
George Will is a legend in his own mind.
Well excussssssssssssssssssssse me
But George simply chose not to address the unstated, critical question he implicitly raises.
George, I would also very much like to see well-known giant of strict conservative legal thinking, the current equivalent of a Judge Bork, on the court.
But George, show me the 60 votes, today, for an open, established Scalia clone.
Tell me very specifically who those 60 votes are, and what due diligence you have done to determine how they would vote.
I don’t wan’t to hear platitudes like “well, uh, Bush just needs to exercise leadership!”
And I don’t wan’t to hear “Well, if only we had a better guy than Frist” or “If only we had Toomey instead of Specter.”
Talk to me in terms of the here and now.
And don’t tell me “oh, the Gang of 14 agreement! Didn’t they promise, so sincerely, to put all ideology aside unless in extraordinary circumstances?”
Don’t talk nonsense to me, talk hard-headed realism.
Or, instead, show me the 50 Senate votes for the “nuclear option.”
Keep in mind, having just been through the battles over Pickering, Rogers Brown, Owens, etc., the speculation preceding the Roberts nomination, the selection of Roberts and the Roberts confirmation process, that the White House and the Senate leadership have done extensive due diligence on exactly where each key senator stands, both in terms of what kind of nominee they will confirm and whether they are willing to go nuclear.
But George, if you have better information, then please clue me in.
If you can demonstrate to me that Bush and Frist are just plain wrong, that 60 votes for an established Scalia clone are there for the taking, then I will join the chorus of Bush critics on this nomination.
But if you do not have a realistic basis with which to dispute Bush and Frist on this, then your choices are three:
1. Nominate the established Scalia clone, and face defeat, in what would probably be a protacted and, with the MSM spinning it for all it’s worth, a “humiliating” defeat. For those who say that it would not be a big deal politically to suffer a defeat like that and might even be a good thing, would fire up the base for ’06, well, that’s your opinion; I think you could not be more wrong.
2. Nominate someone with an established record that can hold the RINOS and attract enough Rats to get to 60. Such a person would probably not even be as conservative as O’Connor, and would probably actually move the Court leftward.
3. Nominate a stealth candidate. In this case, the most important factor is that the WH knows this person very well and very directly (no Souters on the recommendation of a friend of a friend, please) and the Rats do not.
Bush chose No. 3.
Your choice?