Replies

I found the Kristol, Coulter and Will pieces to be seriously lacking (at best), and Coulter's little more that a "Will on speed" with too many insults thrown in. It (all of them, not just Coulter) is really too bad, becuase this is a serious subject that deserves being approached with due respect, but not with blinders.

I agree with you. What really troubles me is to see people among the right believe or represent that the constitution is a deep mystery accessible only by certain education, associations and activities. That is something I rejected about the left while I was in college. It seems to me that the only intellectually honest thing we can say is that we don't know about Miers. And then I suppose we could debate if a better known person should have been nominated or could be confirmed. At the end of the day, I don't think using extra-constitutional requirements as a basis for rejecting this nominee is a good practice from so called originalists.

I don't think using extra-constitutional requirements as a basis for rejecting this nominee is a good practice from so called originalists.

Nor is an extra-constitutional process appropriate for confirmation, and my gut says putting an "unknown or unknowable" person up for a SCOTUS seat circumvents the role of the Senate in the confrimation process. It reduces the SSenate to a game of chance, not a serious pursuit that involves accountability for future performance by the judge.

All of "we the people" are losing with what is going on right now. All of us.

"It seems to me that the only intellectually honest thing we can say is that we don't know about Miers. And then I suppose we could debate if a better known person should have been nominated or could be confirmed."

Bravo!

Therein lies the problem.

I gave the Constitution a thorough look over, trying to find those elusive qualifications for a Supreme Court Justice. As we all know, there are none.

Suddenly, the media elitist from the RIGHT side of the political spectrum, whose entire livelihood depends on being "in the know" and "on the inside", are outraged at Bush nominating someone about whom they can say little more than "I don't know anything about her", and they've decided that the very fact that she's a veritable unknown to the DC and media inner circles, deems her an unqualified.

Admittedly, Miers may not be as good a nomination as john Roberts, and the talking heads are starting to say that this "trust me" thing is absurd, yet we have no Constitutional choice BUT to trust the President when it comes to nominations to the Federal bench, and if we are to use past results to gage present actions, well Bush did just fine!

It wasn't Kristol, Will, Coulter who vetted John Roberts and other of the President's judicial picks, it was Miers, and it wasn't a media pundit speaking about Miers who said: "While I do not think Harriet Miers will be a vote to move the legal culture to the right, I have sufficient evidence to conclude that she'll move the Supreme Court to the right."

That was Leonard Leo, Federalist Society executive, who for years worked with Harriet Miers, and who has dedicated his life to the cause of advancing judicial conservatism.