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.

[Howlin]

"Elitist" is the label pinned on people who insist on merit, by people who are short on it.

BS.

[stop_fascism]

Exactly. People should read the constitution, its short and clear (and written by people who didn't graduate from Ivy league schools.) It only takes a genius to argue that the constitution doesn't mean what is clearly written.

[Howlin]

Well, they are its OWN posts I was discussing, so if they're trivial and boring, it's not MY fault..........LOL.

Thanks.

[Mamzelle]

re: Harry Reid screwed himself when he told Bush that Miers was an acceptable pick.)))

Indeed. The bottom line--we have to be good soldiers, and that'll just drive the left crazy. I don't think any real "fighting" is going on. That's the libs' wishful thinking talking.

Chiefly, I resent the "trust me" business. Goldberg pointed out y'day in NRO the best thing I've read on this nom and the conservative disappointment. Paraphrase--"he's demanding trust at the very moment when conservatives were hoping to see our own trust in him justified." It was just hard to take when we wanted a Constitutional Warrior on the SC.

But, we'll have to get over it. But I intend to do a lot of sulking over the "have to" part of that equation.

[jess35]

If you're going to run around calling other people a "liar", kindly back it up with just a little evidence. You're starting to sound like a petulant 6 year old.

[rogue yam]

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.

I thought that Ann's column on the Harriet Miers nomination was quite good. Ann often uses hyperbolic rhetoric, and while I usually enjoy this, I appreciate that other peoples' tastes differ. I don't participate in the oblique (or otherwise) sexual innuendo directed toward Ann here on FR, and often wish it would disappear. But I do find her interesting and attractive, and would be happy to meet her.

[Howlin]

"Elitist" is the label pinned on people who insist on merit, by people who are short on it.

BS.

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

Can you tell me which rights are currently protected under the doctrine of substantive due process and those protected under the doctrine of procedural due process? When there is a question about the legitimacy of presidential power in the absense of explicit constitutional authority, when might the president act and when must he defer to congress?

These are basic constitutional principles taught in any first year conlaw class. Can you explain them?

[SalukiLawyer]

You're right -- it's elitist to suggest that one must have a degree from one of the select few East Coast schools in order to sit on the Supreme Court. The last I checked, Ronald Reagan attended Eureka College in Illinois and he sure turned out to be a decent statesman.

Did you read the article? He specifically addresses the distinction between the Supreme Court and popular branches of government. I am trying to figure out the fracture point between FReepers who support the nomination and those who do not. The principled arguments of the latter seem to be met with (a) name-calling and/or (b) hero-woship by the former. Aside from whether Harriet Miers may end up being one vote that most of us approve of, this is shaping up to be a political fiasco and, I have to agree with Krauthammer: it seems to diminish every person and every institution involved.

Instead of getting a lot of people pulling together for a nominee we could all be proud of, energizing his base and framing a great national debate on issues we ALL care about, we have Harriet Miers.

[rogue yam]

My "contributions" to this thread have consisted of repost of YOUR posts

That is plainly false, and you must know this, therefore you are a liar.

[Mamzelle]

re: Elitist" is the label pinned on people who insist on merit, by people who are short on it.)))

LOL! What a self-contratulatory statement that is. Indeed, BS.

Elites=bragging rights

Elites="my franchise and you can't touch it."

Elites=all sizzle and no steak

[Hank Rearden]

This is for all the chips on the table. The man doesn't play small.

Just like Vegas! Wheeee! Place your bets, deliver your support (again), because it's time to gamble on an unknown outcome!

Wheeee.

Funny, I don't remember this theme a year ago today when he was begging for support, and money, because it was "all about the judges". Back then, it was all talk about the next Scalia, not "take a gamble on my crony".

[Jim Verdolini]

"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."

This is a pretty bogus strawman. Is it 'elitist' to want and demand the best possible conservative originalist possible? Are 'those who believe the constitution was written for the people'so very enamoured with mediocraty?

Is being less than the very best a job qualifier for the supreme court?

That is where your argument leads. You except, no endorse, the mediocre.

[sinkspur]

I remember the hissing, yowling and sputtering here when Buchanan and Farah in quick succession wanted the House to introduce a bill of impeachment about a month ago because of Bush's laxity about immigration and border security. Seems to me all GW's been saying since then is, "Bring it on!"

Cheerleading Pat Buchanan and Joe Farah is a sign of mental illness.

[Earthdweller]

"Elitist" is the label pinned on people who insist on merit, by people who are short on it.

Average Americans have historically hated self proclaimed "Elitists".

People who are short of it describes about 95% of the US population. The majority rules. Get over it.

[Junior_G]

Here's another longtime ally for Republicans to throw under the bus because he dares to criticize Bush's wretched judgement.

[dirtboy]

But constitutional jurisprudence is different. It is, by definition, an exercise of intellect steeped in scholarship.

The more I look at this line, the more I think Krauthammer is being self-serving here.

After all, he's a pundit for the Washington Post. And a commentator on Fox News. His living is based upon dishing up opinions that others will read or watch in large numbers. So he has a vested interest in promoting the notion that "an excercise of intellect steeped in scholarship" is needed in order to explain the complexities of the world to the common man. If it wasn't, we'd all stop watching him.

And Ann Coulter is the same way. But what folks like Coulter and Krauthammer fail to realize is that folks like we have on FR ain't slouches ourselves. And when the likes of Coulter and Krauthammer look down their noses as Miers, I tend to see them talking down their noses at us at well. Folks who don't write opinions for a living, but can still cut through the bullshiite with the best of them.

So maybe that's why I take this line of attack on Miers a bit personally.

[rwfromkansas]

I like Charles.

Even though I disagree with him, very thought-provoking and insightful article here. Very well done.

I won't attack him like Ann or the others who are just foaming at the mouth with no reasons for their views. Even Novak absolutely sucked.

Kraut certainly deserves some consideration since he actually does a good job of pointing out some issues in different ways than have been approached by other writers here.

I still think he is wrong (though the recusing issue is a big one and perhaps should lead to her withdrawal if it would lead to a Bush defeat in the Court). But, unlike every other article, it actually provides something to chew on and ponder in a serious manner.

It is also not written in the snobbish tone of Coulter's piece.

[Jim Verdolini]

"And yet these same conservatives are arguing that for 50 years "intellect steeped in scholarship" has perverted the Founding Document"

No, LIBERAL intelects steeped in scholarship and lacking in Constitutional foundation perverted the founding documents.

If we desire to repair the damage, we need our best and brightest.

[Howlin]

The definition of a Bushbot is self evident: someone defined by their loyalty to Bush no matter what

No, that's what you NEED it to be to puff yourself up.

but not the same as someone who defines themselves by a political principle, and remain loyal to the principle no matter what.

You know, I'm sick of that damn argument; by saying that you insinuate that we have no principles and are dazzled by George W. Bush and find no fault with him.

There are things I don't agree with him about, but I agree with him about MOST thing; but, unlike you, I never expected HIM to agree with everything I think; I never had a list of demands required for him to get my vote.

I care more about this country than I care about myself; I'd never endanger this country by WITHHODLING my support from a man who has done more to put this country back on the right track than anybody in MY lifetime.

I have sense enough to realize he's not the president of JUST the extreme right wing of the conservative branch of the GOP.

My vote didn't come with a price tag attached to it. And I don't threaten to NOT support him because he does things I don't understand or don't agree with.

Of course, all this makes me UNPRINCIPLED in your opinion; frankly, I could care less what you think.

But with your tunnel vision and continued attacks on a sitting REPUBLICAN president, you're alienating a hell of a lot of votes for 2006 and 2008.