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.

[Mamzelle]

I don't buy the Christopher Reed qualification as evidence that he comes with insight that I should give a flip about. What kind of argument is THAT? So, don't color me guilty. If you want to plead "wheelchair wisdom"--I'm embarrassed for you (and this forum, as you put so patronizingly)

These pundits make their livings through writing what is interesting and entertaining. They have it pretty good--people flatter them continually. After a while, you get a rep for brilliance while never being brilliant. And Krauthammer has the ace of the pity vote, accding to you. Sheesh.

I pointed out his history of lacking brilliance. He supported McCain--was dogged in his brilliance that Bush could not win. He, along with other literati, and in alliance with Biden, Albright and McCain, got us in the middle of the Balkans. He went off the serious deep end with "Passion of the Christ."

This latest offering is pure patronizing elitism. If Peter Jennings was slightly right of center, they'd read a lot alike.

Miers, head and shoulders, is far above Krauthammer in qualifications. He sounds a lot like that irrelevant stuffed shirt, George Will.

[paulat]

This is a key point, which I haven't seen anywhere else:

But what does she bring to the bench?

This, say her advocates: We are now at war and therefore the great issue of our time is the Article II powers of the president to wage war. For four years, Miers has been immersed in war-and-peace decisions and therefore will have a deep familiarity with the tough constitutional issues regarding detention, prisoner treatment and war powers.

Perhaps. 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.

[DallasMike]

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.

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.

I don't think that too many people around here are going to be upset with Miers' opinions, so why does everyone have their panties in a wad? Bush can't trust the Republican Senate leadership to employ the nuclear option and stop the Democrats' filibuster tactics so he was forced to push through another stealth candidate.

 

       

        <-------- Visit Stingray blogsite for conservative Christian commentary

[Patti_ORiley]

"she was on the DEMOCRATS list of acceptable candidates!!!"

A list compiled with names submitted to them from the President!

Anyone on the Democrats list of acceptable candidates should have been immediately withdrawn from consideration.

[rogue yam]

The more I hear from these patronizing Northeastern bozos, the more I like Miers.

This is not about your personal envy and resentment of people who you perceive to have been luckier in life than you. This is about Harriet Miers' qualifications for the Supreme Court. If you need to have your emotional weaknesses catered to by the government, then perhaps conservatism just isn't right for you.

[Rodney King]

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.

Scalia would have been, don't know about the other two.

[demkicker]

The Bush presidency is indeed marked by a courageous willingness to think and do big things. And he has consistently outsmarted the Democrats. Right now, Bush has Senator Reid basically endorsing his Supreme Court nominee.

I think Bush knows what he's doing.

I think so too. Besides promising us time and time again that he will fill courts will conservative judges that will NOT make law, many forget that Bush was himself a victim of a SC justice who is a traitor.

I think Bush has learned well from the sins of his father (Souter) and has chosen someone he trusts to stay true to conservatism, the rule of law and the Constitution.

We'll know soon enough because unless Miers commits a real boner during the hearings, she'll be the next justice.

[ZULU]

Yeah.

Just another disgusting phoney liberal like Bill Kristol, Michele Malkin, Ann Coulter, George Wills,Mark Levin, etc. All obvious liberal plants who have had an axe to grind with Bush all along. Right?

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

[Bluegrass Federalist]

For those who say that we conservatives who are disappointed in Meirs are insane, reactionary, stupid, et cetera, there sure are a lot of respected conservatives who share our opinion. Rush, Krauthammer, Kristol, Coulter, Ingraham, Malkin, Will, etc. We are asked to blindly trust Bush, whom I dearly love, but to assume these others who we have trusted over the years have somehow lost their minds? Not persuasive reasoning, in my book.

[ARridgerunner]

fyi

[blackie]

I don't know what slots she fills.

GWB chose her and that's good enough for me.

[rogue yam]

But that is the argument from some quarters of Conservatism, she didnt come from a first tier law school so therefore she isnt qualified, according to Coulter and many here.

No one has argued this. You are a liar.

[AbeKrieger]

I voted last November, too. That doesn't mean that my civic obligations ended then.

I agree wholeheartedly. And if there are concerns about Miers I want to hear them all. And if she gets out of committee and 51 Senators vote for her, then she's a justice. I'll give Bush the benefit of the doubt until such time. Not just drink the kool-aid.

[over3Owithabrain]

I didn't say Krauthammer should be pitied - in fact, in your case it sounds more like envy. The wheel chair didn't make him wise, but his ability to overcome handicaps goes to character. In your defense of Meiers, who has NO public record of belief - save for pro-gay and pro-Gore in the 80s - you dismiss Krauthammer's constant support of Bush this last four years. I guess in your mind he is not allowed to question an unquestionably questionable pick.

[cgk]

Please let me know why this was excerpted from the full article to 2 sentences. I checked the list over here, and townhall.com is not included. What is the rule regarding townhall? Thank you! :)

[Plutarch]

This piece is essentially the same as Coulter's piece, just a day later and with fewer Coulteresquian zingers.

[mosquitobite]

truuuuust me... *rolling eyes*

[LowNslow]

Why does the RNC, et al list her accomplishments as a Democrat in a quota driven environment to justify Harriet's selection?

As a Republican conservative she was born again, and served as the President's lawyer.

I trust HIM, but all his personal friends I'm not sure about. Everyone makes mistakes from time to time.

[LowNslow]

Why does the RNC, et al list her accomplishments as a Democrat in a quota driven environment to justify Harriet's selection?

As a Republican conservative she was born again, and served as the President's lawyer.

I trust HIM, but all his personal friends I'm not sure about. Everyone makes mistakes from time to time.

[Revolting cat!]

Tomorrow's headline today:

Horrible Harriet Hurled!