Can This Nomination Be Justified?

Washington Post ^ | 10/5/5 | George F. Will

[HisKingdomWillAbolishSinDeath]

I'm going to take my cue from Senator Brownback. He is skeptical of her conservative positions. If he changes his mind and gives her an enthusiastic endorsement, I will feel comfortable that President Bush made a good choice. If he doesn't, "Houston, we have a problem with one of your own".

[MEG33]

George writes well about baseball..

[leadhead]

If Wills is against it, the Dims will rush to do it.

[ONETWOONE]

Widsom coming from a guy who parks at ABC. YAWN......

[Past Your Eyes]

What a sap. I suppose when you work as a writer, you have to write something, even if it is stupid.

[appleharvey]

As Jimmy Kimmel said, "Only George Will could make a boring subject like baseball even more boring."

[paudio]

I've been reading here about how Bush has betrayed his 'grass-roots' conservatives who worked hard for his election and re-election. These people argue that the so-called 'grass-roots' want a nominee who is a 'strict originalist' legal scholar.

My question is: which 'grass-roots' actually that we're talking about?

I doubt that a typical social conservative 'grass-root' completely understands words such as 'originalist', 'textualist', or other terms that are familiar to the legal community. Many of these grass-roots people were concerned with the judges they perceived as 'trying to destroy the American values that are based on Judeo-Christianity'. Their top issues are abortion, rights to bear arms, gay marriage, etc. If the judges rule 'their way', it's considered a good ruling. Do they really care what kind of judicial philosophy that leads to the 'good ruling'? Probably not.

If what we read that Miers is in-fact a 'Christian fundamentalist' like some people have argued is true, and as a judge, she rules 'our way', can we say that the president has betrayed us? Some people will say no.

[mmercier]

The line between insanity/genius is thin.

The line between eloquence/nonsense is thinner.

The nominee is viable. Will just tripped over the line; It happens after a few Glenlivet's and water; even to the best of us.

[libertylover]

He has neither the inclination nor the ability to make sophisticated judgments about competing approaches to construing the Constitution.

Good grief, Will sounds like a liberal here with this not "sophisticated" enough argument. Bush knows enough to know that legislation from the bench is bad, very bad. And besides, all of this fuzzy think "sophistication" has gotten us into one helluva mess. Exactly what we need to straighten it out is some clear thinking people.

[SubMareener]

George Will's twenty or so years as a Washington pundit, and house Conservative at ABC, has had an effect on his world view.

[Alberta's Child]

But Will raises a very, very good point.

Bush lost an awful lot of credibility when he signed McCain-Feingold -- while apparently believing that the Supreme Court would overturn it.

[Shalom Israel]

Will nails it.

[niteowl77]

At least Will openly used the word "sophistication," which is more revealing than some of the more opaque outrage from other nominally conservative professional scribblers. How dare that simplistic cowboy try and bring someone from the flats up to the mansions on the bluff?

[Oldeconomybuyer]

bump

[BluH2o]

I rarely agree with anything the WP writes, especially when it comes to GWB and his administration. However this time I fully agree, by choosing Harriet Meir as a nominee for a seat on the USSC Bush picked the runt of the litter. Poor choice Dubya, no wonder Dirty Harry, Schumer and other 'Rats are delighted with this choice.

[Shalom Israel]

At least Will openly used the word "sophistication," which is more revealing than some of the more opaque outrage from other nominally conservative professional scribblers. How dare that simplistic cowboy try and bring someone from the flats up to the mansions on the bluff?

This argument is becoming a recurring theme in discussion of Miers. So far the main credentials people claim for her are: that she's a woman; that she'll be good at fetching coffee (see Lifson); and that she lacks any notable discernment concerning the Constitution. That third item is advanced as a positive by attacking anyone as "elitist" who expects a supreme-court justice to demonstrate some actual knowledge relevant to the task.

I started assuming that she's at least not an idiot, but these cries of "elitism" are convincing me that she must be one. Her defenders can't seem to find a shred of evidence that she has thoughts worth sharing on the Constitution, so they all argue that human decency requires us to give the dummy a shot. Wow.

[Past Your Eyes]

It may well be a poor choice but that is not Will's point.

[bkepley]

This article could have been written (and probably was) about both Rhenquist and Thomas, leaving out the gender stuff.

[Right_in_Virginia]

He has neither the inclination nor the ability to make sophisticated judgments about competing approaches to construing the Constitution.

Think what you will about Harriet Miers, but there should no longer be a doubt that George Will is a pompous, arrogant elitist who should be ridiculed and shunned by the Conservative community.