Posted on 10/05/2005 6:46:36 AM PDT by buckeyeblogger
...
The crowning absurdity of the president's wallowing in such nonsense is the obvious assumption that the Supreme Court is, like a legislature, an institution of representation. This from a president who, introducing Miers, deplored judges who "legislate from the bench."
Minutes after the president announced the nomination of his friend from Texas, another Texas friend, Robert Jordan, former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, was on Fox News proclaiming what he and, no doubt, the White House that probably enlisted him for advocacy, considered glad and relevant tidings: Miers, Jordan said, has been a victim. She has been, he said contentedly, "discriminated against" because of her gender.
Her victimization was not so severe that it prevented her from becoming the first female president of a Texas law firm as large as hers, president of the State Bar of Texas and a senior White House official. Still, playing the victim card clarified, as much as anything has so far done, her credentials, which are her chromosomes and their supposedly painful consequences. For this we need a conservative president?
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Regarding the topic, my analogy is that he had Yankees to choose from and he chose the bat boy, or worse, the popcorn vendor.
If George Will wants to appoint the next Supreme Court Justice, he should run for President.
George Will hates the Bush family. His wife worked for Lamar !!!! Alexander in '88 GOP Primary against Bush 41. Bush 41 called Will on his bias during questioning on the Brinkley show. Will is right on many issues. Like the MoveOn whackos, the Bush family plays whale to his Captain Ahab.
Herriet Miers worked her way up to become managing partner in a law firm with 400 attorneys. She became president of the Texas bar. She worked for the President in the war on terrorism, experience possessed by a very few and is very important at this time.
I know some don't like Miers because she went to SMU instead of Yale. But the Ivy League schools are cauldrons of festering liberal sewage. I like the fact that she is not a product of blue state schools. And she is a pro-life born again Christian who supports the second amendment (I also like the fact that she supports anti-sodomy laws).
Much of the time, I feel that George Will's precious time would be better spent attending a few more "baseball matches."
AMEN!
Everyone attacks Will, but the points he makes remain untouched.
I listened to the president give a ringing endorsement of Miers' qualifications. He didn't once mention discrimination that I recall.
This appears to be one of the clear articles that Will has written. Most often anymore he's out in intellectual never-never land counting conservative angels on conservative pins.
Also, Will supported McCain in opposing the filibuster.
Give me Mark Steyn any day of the week.
I listened to the president give a ringing endorsement of Miers' qualifications. He didn't once mention discrimination that I recall.
This appears to be one of the clear articles that Will has written. Most often anymore he's out in intellectual never-never land counting conservative angels on conservative pins.
Also, Will supported McCain in opposing ENDING the filibuster.
Give me Mark Steyn any day of the week.
"If George Will wants to appoint the next Supreme Court Justice, he should run for President."
Good point. OK, new rule everyone: if you are not currently the President of the United States, please don't provide any thoughts on who should or should not be named to the Supreme Court. The proper role of the public is to watch from afar.
I am putting my trust in dubya that his pick of Miers is a good one, that she will not be a turn coat as so many have and suddenly become a liberal/socialist that will not follow the Constitution as written. I also feel the same about Roberts. Only time will tell.
GWB went to Yale. Is he sewage? By the way, here's Scalia's resume:
Scalia attended Xavier High School, a Catholic and Jesuit school in Manhattan. He graduated first in his class and summa cum laude with an A.B. from Georgetown University in 1957. While at Georgetown, he also studied at the University of Fribourg, Switzerland and went on to study law at Harvard Law School (where he was a Notes Editor for the Harvard Law Review). He graduated from Harvard in 1960, becoming a Sheldon Fellow of Harvard University the following year. The fellowship allowed him to travel throughout Europe during 1960-1961.PS-- Clarence Thomas got his law degree from Yale.
Opposite from you, I just had George Will knocked off the pedastal I had him on.
Harriet Miers reminds me of little housewives I 'v e known who display more wisdom than any three intellectuals you could name. Contradiction in terms? Not at all.
No amount of intellectual gigantism will produce wisdom. Job asked "Where can one find Wisdom?" "Job 28:28 And unto man he said, Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding. "
I would rather see wisdom in a Judge than intellect.
Will is an Idiot.
Miers is far more qualified, has practiced more Law, and been more successful outside of governemtn, than Clarence Thomas was when he was appointed.
Thomas...
1.He served as Assistant Attorney General of Missouri from 1974-1977,
2. an attorney with Monsanto from 1977-1979
3. Legislative Assistant to Senator John Danforth from 1979-1981.
4. From 1981-1982, he served as Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights in the US Department of Education,
5. Chairman of the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from 1982-1990.
6. Appointed to DCCCoA
I have less and less respect for George Will.
Scalia went to Georgetown and Harvard Law. It's not the school, it's the paper trail. She has little on which we can base our support.
Will was CORRECT on that issue. It takes a completely liberal reading of the Constitution to reach the conclusions the GOP reached on judicial filibusters. :
Some conservatives call filibusters of judicial nominations unconstitutional because they violate the separation of powers by preventing the president from doing his constitutional duty of staffing the judiciary. But the Senate has the constitutional role of completing the staffing process that the president initiates.Some conservatives say the Constitution's framers "knew what supermajorities they wanted" — the Constitution requires various supermajorities, for ratifying treaties, impeachment convictions, etc.; therefore, other supermajority rules are unconstitutional. But it stands conservatism on its head to argue that what the Constitution does not mandate is not permitted. Besides, the Constitution says each house of Congress "may determine the rules of its proceedings."
Some conservatives say there is a "constitutional right" to have an up-or-down Senate vote on nominees. But in whom does this right inhere? The nominees? The president? This is a perverse contention coming from conservatives eager to confirm judges who will stop the promiscuous discovery by courts of spurious constitutional rights. And conservatives eager to confirm judges respectful of the Constitution's text should not read its stipulation that no nominee shall be confirmed without a favorable Senate vote as a requirement that the Senate vote.
Some conservatives oddly seem to regret the fact that the government bristles with delaying and blocking mechanisms — separation of powers, bicameral legislature, etc. The filibuster is one such mechanism — an instrument for minority assertion. It enables democracy to be more than government-by-adding-machine, more than a mere counter of numbers. The filibuster registers intensity, enabling intense minorities to slow or stop government.
The crucial, albeit unwritten, rule regarding judicial nominees was changed forever 18 years ago by the Robert Bork confirmation fight: Now both sides in the Senate feel free to judge and accept or reject nominees on the basis of their judicial philosophies. So, conservatives, think:
The future will bring Democratic presidents and Senate majorities. How would you react were such a majority about to change Senate rules to prevent you from filibustering to block a nominee likely to construe the equal protection clause as creating a constitutional right to same-sex marriage? http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will032105.asp
Once again, attack the messenger, the message remains untouched. In all the postings of this article since last night, I've yet to see anyone refute anything in it. Just insults towards Will.
And then became a career bureaucrat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.