Rush read part of this today.
He said, "The left hates Miers and the right hates Miers... That tells me she must be the best appointment in the last 150 years."
I would invite you to read my last two columns.
"President Bush is a politician trained in strategic thinking at Harvard Business School, . . ."
"The GOP is not the party which idolizes Ivy League acceptability as the criterion of intellectual and mental fitness."
Heh. There's no spinning this one into acceptability.
But for her job has WH counsel--a job Bush gave her--this nominee has credentials that any of several hundred attorneys in this country can match.
We're better than this.
A fine lawyer does not an outstanding Supreme Court justice necessarily make. And that's what we who have supported Bush deserve.
Spin, spin, spin.
She's 60!!!
There is the possiblilty of another vacancy on the court during Bush's Presidency. Who Bush chooses should be influenced on which judge vacates the Court.
Here are some possiblities:
Antonin Scalia- Scalia has been passed over for the position of Chief Justice and he's 69 y/o. Also, he may want to leave while Bush is in office, since things are not going well for Republicans. If this happens, Bush should nominate Michael Luttig, a Constitutional conservative whose brilliant intellect would strengthen the conservative wing even if doesn't change ideologically.
Anthony Kennedy- Kennedy is getting on in years. And he presumably doesn't want a Democrat to name his replacement. His record is rather gray and mediocre, but he's far from being the worst on the court. Karen Williams would be the ideal choice here, increasing the number of women while increasing its conservativism and intellectual gravitas.
John Paul Stevens- A RINO named by Gerald Ford when the Senate had a 62 to 38 Democrat majority, Stevens was an appointment of expediency turned bad. He turns 85 and, while his health appears to be good, you never know at that age. Given Stevens liberalism, Bush can afford to put confirmability first in filling this vacancy. Chances are, most conservatives could live with an Alberto Gonzales appointment in this particular instance. And we don't know for certain that Gonzales is pro-abort. In any case, he would certainly be an improvement on Stevens.
Wow...thanks for posting this....a reasoned, well-written discussion about the nomination that flies in the face of much of the 'doom and gloom' that has been going around the last 2 days.
The author makes a lot of good points.
I'm not quite convinced, but...
I have a theory. Could it be that the publicly anti-Miers conservatives are attacking Miers on the White House's instructions? IMHO, it's possible that Karl Rove & Company are orchestrating these attacks to confuse and outsmart the Democrats into not opposing her. If so, it's a brilliant strategy.
It's called strategery
For 5 years now, whatever the issue it is he's running to the left on, we've heard variations on two lines from the Bush apologists. It's either clever strategery that's actually thwarting the Dems even though it resembles and is giving in to them without a fight, or else it's Congress's fault. This author has worked in both of them.
Well, I've shot my bolt on this one, and I think I'll shut up for a while.
ping for later.
Thanks for posting this. The author makes many good points.
"Many Don't Grasp Strategy of Miers Nomination"
I hate to say it but it looks to me a lot like the same stratety followed by the French in 1940.
After reading and hearing so much drivel since yesterday morning, a few "American thinkers" are just what we need.
Might we remind ourselves that some of the individuals most devoted to the Founders' Constitution for the United States of America, persons who are alive today and qualify as constitutional authorities and experts, are not, and have never been, judges! They may not even be widely known, except to other serious students of the Constitution!