Krauthammer: Retreat (on Miers' nomination to SCOTUS)

Townhall.com ^ | 10-7-05 | Charles Krauthammer

[cgk]

WASHINGTON -- When in 1962 Edward Moore Kennedy ran for his brother's seat in the Senate, his opponent famously said that if Kennedy's name had been Edward Moore, his candidacy would have been a joke. If Harriet Miers were not a crony of the president of the United States, her nomination to the Supreme Court would be a joke, as it would have occurred to no one else to nominate her.

[America's Resolve]

I think Bush knows what he's doing.

I sure hope you're right. If you're wrong, we're looking at 30 years of another Souter in drag.

[rogue yam]

Knock that kind of talk off.

How does it promote conservatism to pretend that dishonest people are being honest?

[ZULU]

I don't agree with Krauthammer on everything - intelligent people very rarely agree on everything.

But he IS a brilliant mind. I'm sure your assessment of his intellect hurts him deeply.

I suppose you think George Wills, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, Mark Levin and Bill Kristol are mental lightweights also.

[TUAN_JIM]

"Another "pro abortion" "elitist" "snob" who "haven't taken his meds" in the Free Republic doghouse!"

-$20 says a Bushbot tips over Krauthammer's wheelchair by the end of the day.

[Right_in_Virginia]

..... we're looking at 30 years of another Souter in drag.

Or another O'Connor. Or was she okay with you because Reagan nominated her?

[dc-zoo]

WE know Georgie knows all, sees all and can never be questioned, don't we?

No, I believe that would be Karl Rove.

[Howlin]

You are now actually claming that you calling somebody a liar is "promoting conservatism?"

You're out of control.

[Paladin2b]

That may be so, but would Scalia, Rehnquist, or Thomas had been on the top of anyone's list if they had not had advocates in the administrations that named them to the court.

Abso-friggin-lutely.

Scalia would have been on any conservative's short list since the Carter Administration, he was a rising star and intellectual heavyweight from the get-go.

Rehnquist is a special case; remember that Nixon's two previous nominees for that seat had been rejected (and I would suggest that the one rejected for "mediocrity"--Harold Carswell--had a record that made him look like Oliver Wendell Holmes next to Miers. I think you'd be seeing him as a natural pick anytime from 1974 on by a GOP president.

Thomas was also a fast-riser; I know that people in the conservative movement were saying to keep an eye on him for SCOTUS as far back as the mid-80s.

[Patti_ORiley]

Thomas has no baring on the present case. I notice you leave out Warren and Souter from your argument -- I wonder why?

[gov_bean_ counter]

Amazing. We have a nominee who has spent her entire career interpreting and arguing the law. If it was in State Court it from time to time been done in light of precedent and the state constitution. If it was in Federal Court it would from time to time been done in light of precedent and the U.S. Constitution. I thought that is what conservatives wanted.

[Map Kernow]

We have no idea what her role in these decisions was. But to the extent that there was any role, it becomes a liability. For years -- crucial years in the war on terror -- she will have to recuse herself from judging the constitutionality of these decisions because she will have been a party to having made them in the first place. The Supreme Court will be left with an absent chair on precisely the laws-of-war issues on which she is supposed to bring so much.

This was supposed to be the problem with an Alberto Gonzalez nomination. Perhaps Miers' "lack of a paper trail," which the zombies tout as so important a qualification, was a factor bearing on her ability to decide issues arising from the War on Terror: unless memos authored by Miers like the ones Gonzalez wrote on detainees can be found, she'll probably refuse to recuse herself. And the Chief Justice, Bush nominee Roberts, will back her up.

That's what really matters to the Bush White House---not her supposed views on abortion, not her supposed evangelicalism: the latter is just "boob bait for the base." Talk about getting your "ducks in a row"!

[cogitator]

The most reserved calculated and spot on conservative rebuke to date. Not much heat but a large dose of common sense.

I agree. Better said than George Will, which was a decent assessment, too.

[Edit35]

..the alternative is far from what you want to think about. Imagine a nominee from a possible President Kerry in the mold of Ginsberg

That logic is ridiculous.

That's like saying to someone who just lost their legs in a car accident, "Well cheer up. You could have lost your arms too."

WE WON THE FREAKIN ELECTION, not Kerry. Not the Ginsberg supporters.

If GWB is embarassed at being a strong right wing conservative, then he shouldn't have run for a second term cause everyone knew the winner in 2004 would get the chance to select two US Supreme Court members.

[RinaseaofDs]

I think the application of the word 'penumbra' when 'shadow' would do fine is another indication of the problem, in that the actual amount of intellectual power on display is inordinately lower than the wattage of the vocabulary.

[rogue yam]

Luttig went to Washington and Lee...

Luttig was an undergraduate at W&L, and then went on to get his law degree at the University of Virginia, a very fine law school.

[ZULU]

"Lately, and becoming all too frequently, Bush has been more wrong then right."

Bingo!!

[over3Owithabrain]

Then he compares that to Miers getting the job because Bush has known her for over a decade.

And that is incorrect? President Bush said so himself - in fact, it was a main point in his "trust me" defense of this pick.

Pundits should serve at our pleasure

And presidents more so. I'm more concerned with the tin ear of "George" than the silver pen of "Charlie".

[jess35]

W is hurting our future severely with dumb moves like this.

It seems to me that we have two groups of people weighing in on this matter. The elitists...who believe you must attend the "right" law school and work for the "right" law firm and attend the "right" social functions..... and those who believe the Constitution was written for the people, not for the lawyers.

Some of you are acting like snobs...and spoiled little children. You can save your revisionist history and your whining for the moonbats. After all, they're also playing from the same page.

[ZULU]

Aren't they the same person??

[Earthdweller]

Ann needs a spanking for going over the top and saying she wanted to put impeach Bush stickers on her car....I'm sure you will be the first to volunteer.