George Will Slams Bush's Nominee


PDA






Waitone
October 4, 2005, 10:39 PM
I have always admired George Will's facility with the American language. He writes in measured, precise terms. If he were to be a shooter, his specialty would be long distance sniping. In the following piece, he savages Bush's nomination for the Supreme Court. His language is remarkable for its precision and anger. Smoke boils off the page.


http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/georgewill/2005/10/04/159414.html

WASHINGTON -- Senators beginning what ought to be a protracted and exacting scrutiny of Harriet Miers should be guided by three rules. First, it is not important that she be confirmed. Second, it might be very important that she not be. Third, the presumption -- perhaps rebuttable but certainly in need of rebutting -- should be that her nomination is not a defensible exercise of presidential discretion to which senatorial deference is due.

It is not important that she be confirmed because there is no evidence that she is among the leading lights of American jurisprudence, or that she possesses talents commensurate with the Supreme Court's tasks. The president's ``argument'' for her amounts to: Trust me. There is no reason to, for several reasons.

He has neither the inclination nor the ability to make sophisticated judgments about competing approaches to construing the Constitution. Few presidents acquire such abilities in the course of their prepresidential careers, and this president, particularly, is not disposed to such reflections.

Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that Miers' nomination resulted from the president's careful consultation with people capable of such judgments. If 100 such people had been asked to list 100 individuals who have given evidence of the reflectiveness and excellence requisite in a justice, Miers' name probably would not have appeared in any of the 10,000 places on those lists.

In addition, the president has forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution. The forfeiture occurred March 27, 2002, when, in a private act betokening an uneasy conscience, he signed the McCain-Feingold law expanding government regulation of the timing, quantity and content of political speech. The day before the 2000 Iowa caucuses he was asked -- to insure a considered response from him, he had been told in advance he would be asked -- whether McCain-Feingold's core purposes are unconstitutional. He unhesitatingly said, ``I agree.'' Asked if he thought presidents have a duty, pursuant to their oath to defend the Constitution, to make an independent judgment about the constitutionality of bills and to veto those he thinks unconstitutional, he briskly said, ``I do.''

It is important that Miers not be confirmed unless, in her 61st year, she suddenly and unexpectedly is found to have hitherto undisclosed interests and talents pertinent to the court's role. Otherwise the sound principle of substantial deference to a president's choice of judicial nominees will dissolve into a rationalization for senatorial abdication of the duty to hold presidents to some standards of seriousness that will prevent them from reducing the Supreme Court to a private plaything useful for fulfilling whims on behalf of friends.

The wisdom of presumptive opposition to Miers' confirmation flows from the fact that constitutional reasoning is a talent -- a skill acquired, as intellectual skills are, by years of practice sustained by intense interest. It is not usually acquired in the normal course of even a fine lawyer's career. The burden is on Miers to demonstrate such talents, and on senators to compel such a demonstration or reject the nomination.

Under the rubric of ``diversity'' -- nowadays, the first refuge of intellectually disreputable impulses -- the president announced, surely without fathoming the implications, his belief in identity politics and its tawdry corollary, the idea of categorical representation. Identity politics holds that one's essential attributes are genetic, biological, ethnic or chromosomal -- that one's nature and understanding are decisively shaped by race, ethnicity or gender. Categorical representation holds that the interests of a group can only be understood, empathized with and represented by a member of that group.

The crowning absurdity of the president's wallowing in such nonsense is the obvious assumption that the Supreme Court is, like a legislature, an institution of representation. This from a president who, introducing Miers, deplored judges who ``legislate from the bench.''

Minutes after the president announced the nomination of his friend from Texas, another Texas friend, Robert Jordan, former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, was on Fox News proclaiming what he and, no doubt, the White House that probably enlisted him for advocacy, considered glad and relevant tidings: Miers, said Jordan, has been a victim. She has been, he said contentedly, ``discriminated against'' because of her gender.

Her victimization was not so severe that it prevented her from becoming the first female president of a Texas law firm as large as hers, president of the State Bar of Texas and a senior White House official. Still, playing the victim card clarified, as much as anything has so far done, her credentials, which are her chromosomes and their supposedly painful consequences. For this we need a conservative president?

If you enjoyed reading about "George Will Slams Bush's Nominee" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
longeyes
October 4, 2005, 10:54 PM
Cronies beget cronies. Bush is there because of his connections. Now, so is Miers. And so too, given the opportunity, will be Gonsalez.

Standing Wolf
October 4, 2005, 11:20 PM
...the president has forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution. The forfeiture occurred March 27, 2002, when, in a private act betokening an uneasy conscience, he signed the McCain-Feingold law expanding government regulation of the timing, quantity and content of political speech.

Yep. I hadn't drawn that connection, but it speaks volumes.

longeyes
October 4, 2005, 11:44 PM
Bush is no friend of the Constitution. He mouths the mantras of the day. He is no conservative, no libertarian; he is a liberal with strong religious convictions. Big difference.

(Why do I suspect Miers was Laura's idea?)

Monkeyleg
October 4, 2005, 11:45 PM
Waitone, both George Will and Maureen Dowd use the pen as scalpels. They are both exceptional writers and journalists, even though they represent opposite ends of the political spectrum.

My problem with both is that they consume in 1,000 words what many here on THR could distill into three words or even less.

"Safe choice."

"No fight necessary."

"Political crony."

"Harry Reid agrees."

"Chuck Schumer agrees." :what:

The Real Hawkeye and I had some discussion about the reasons behind GW's pick of Roberts for the SC. I said that it was because GW, and the Republican leadership, realized that GW's numbers have been tanking. And that, in order to avoid a Democrat takeover in congress next year, GW had to go light on his appointees.

I still believe that. I believe that GW is sacrificing his promise of a Scalia or a Thomas type in order to give the Republicans in congress a chance at retaining their majority.

I'm not saying I'm happy, it's just that I think that's what's going on.

longeyes
October 4, 2005, 11:48 PM
I believe that GW is sacrificing his promise of a Scalia or a Thomas type in order to give the Republicans in congress a chance at retaining their majority.

If Bush thinks picking Miers is going to help the GOP he's delusional. I doubt it will even help him with NOW.

longeyes
October 4, 2005, 11:49 PM
Denial, anger, bargaining, acceptance.

Bush is in the bargaining phase.

Deavis
October 4, 2005, 11:59 PM
My problem with both is that they consume in 1,000 words what many here on THR could distill into three words or even less.

Oh but those one thousand words are so sweet to read. It's like comparing your annoying neighbor playing guitar to Beethoven. Sure, the neighbor could get it done, but wouldn't you rather listen to a master of the art every once in a while. :)

CAnnoneer
October 5, 2005, 12:53 AM
I have stopped trying to make sense out of Bush's actions. It is like trying to understand the motivations of a puppet. There are none. When on autopilot, he does kooky stuff that is both frightening and endearing, like a retarted child with kitchen knife. When his strings are pulled, he carves a wake of destruction, like an evil genius.

The more I observe him, the more I think his international business puppetteer masters only installed him to bankrupt the country and discredit the government as much as possible, in preparation of the collapse of the power of nation-states, to be replaced by a world order of multinational corporations. Freedom died in Nov 2000. It just took me five years to see it.

tulsamal
October 5, 2005, 01:16 AM
I still believe that. I believe that GW is sacrificing his promise of a Scalia or a Thomas type in order to give the Republicans in congress a chance at retaining their majority.

I don't see it happening like that either. The people that voted against Bush and the GOP in 2004 will vote against them again in 2006 and 2008. The "middle" or "swing" voters are a very small percentage of the population. And I don't really think Bush's "appeal to the center" is going to be the decisive factor in how they will vote.

On the other hand.... Bush has once again somehow ignored his base. I know the man has political advisors. They HAVE to be explaining to him that the 40% giving him positive numbers on presidential approval polls are the "loyal Republicans." In other words, the only people who are still saying good things about him is his GOP base. And yet he ignores their appeals once again. It really does baffle me if I try to find some kind of political rationality behind it.

I think the appointment comes down to two things. Bush doesn't really like conflict. (Which explains why he hasn't voted ONE DAMN THING since he became President.) And his core personal value is loyalty. I can admire that but you can't just have blind loyalty. The woman has been loyal to him so he is rewarding her by being loyal to her. That's great except it is the small picture. Sometimes you have to step back and look at the big picture. These two appointments were Bush's two chances to really have a long term legacy after he is out of office. I _think_ I can live with Roberts because I do see him as a real intellectual. And I could see Roberts as a first nomination to help "grease the rails" for a more conservative nominee. And then Bush comes out with this woman. A woman who seems personally very nice but whom, like G. Will said, wouldn't appear on anybody's short list of "best possible nominees."

I have to agree with someone up there: Bush drives me crazy a heck of a lot of the time. And this nomination COULD be the wedge issue that starts an actual active insurgency within the party base. Fewer will bother to vote since it doesn't seem to matter if you win. More will go to a third party candidate who they at least believe has the right ideology. And the big loser will be the GOP. Whether it happens as early as 2006 or takes longer, Bush may well have made the key mistake that leads to the loss of the GOP majority.

Gregg

Monkeyleg
October 5, 2005, 01:46 AM
Longeyes: "If Bush thinks picking Miers is going to help the GOP he's delusional. I doubt it will even help him with NOW."

Oh, it won't help him with the very conservative base. If he doesn't start s*****g them Tiffany cufflinks (apologies to R. Lee Emory) soon, they're going to stay home next year. And the Dem's will win.

I've been hearing and reading nothing but outrage about the Miers appointment. The thing is, though, that there are many Republican legislators who don't want to hitch their star to GW. The media hype--and maybe the reality--is that he's a lame duck with very low approval ratings.

I believe that, as the head of the Republican Party, he's probably doing what he can to salvage the campaigns of those who supported him even last year.

Interesting that you should mention NOW. The NOW feminist movement is dead. Why? Because Patricia Ireland and her cronies tried to defend Bill Clinton against Juanita Broderick (who was very credible), Paula Jones, Monica, and others. They compromised all of their integrity by defending a man who epitomized everything that they'd spend decades railing against.

And, now, GW has apparently crossed his own base. But his succesor won't be up for re-election in 2008. Instead, we'll see him stumping for Republicans who will take a more moderate tone, if they even invite him to stump for them.

I love GW with all my heart, and wish him every grace that God can give him to help our country and the world.

He's made mistakes. So has every other president.

Unfortunately, he has lost the media war on Iraq, even though I believe that adopting a pre-emptive strike policy on the Middle East is finally our last option, and the best option. Don't like Iraq? Fine, let's invade Saudi.

Social Security has been the "don't-touch" third rail of politics for decades. GW dared to touch it, but other events got the issue sidelined. Don't look for anyone else to touch that rail until us geezers are starving twenty years from now.

There have been so many missed opportunities for GW in his first and second terms. He's tried to be "a uniter, not a divider," so I'll blame him for some of the lost chances. But I'll blame the Democrats equally.

Cannoneer: "The more I observe him, the more I think his international business puppetteer masters only installed him to bankrupt the country and discredit the government as much as possible, in preparation of the collapse of the power of nation-states, to be replaced by a world order of multinational corporations. Freedom died in Nov 2000. It just took me five years to see it."

I just saw a WalMart ad in tonight's paper: tinfoil is 50% off.

I believe in the man that is GW. I also believe that he, personally, was naive in believing that he could do in DC what he did in Texas. I think he was blind-sided by the likes of old DC hands like Kennedy and Schumer.

It usually takes a decade or two before historians get a grasp on a president's legacy.

I hope that, by then, Americans will recognize the need to establish a strong ally in the Middle East, to establish a precedent of pre-emptive strikes, the need to touch the Social Security "third rail," and all of the other things that GW has proposed. Things that former presidents have shied away from.

Roberts and Miers? I guess we'll just have to see.

JohnBT
October 5, 2005, 08:02 AM
"The nice part about being a pessimist is that you are constantly being either proven right or pleasantly surprised." - George Will

Some days I think he should stick to writing books about baseball. Men at Work was excellent.

John

Camp David
October 5, 2005, 08:16 AM
What public office has George Will held? What political experience does George Will have? Oh... Ok... I understand... he wipes his word processor off every morning! Massive Responsibility!

George Will is certainly entitled to his opinion; we, however, are not obligated to read it, or agree with it.

Fred Fuller
October 5, 2005, 08:22 AM
"I just saw a WalMart ad in tonight's paper: tinfoil is 50% off."

So is Kool-Aid...

lpl/nc

davec
October 5, 2005, 08:28 AM
The more I observe him, the more I think his international business puppetteer masters only installed him to bankrupt the country and discredit the government as much as possible, in preparation of the collapse of the power of nation-states, to be replaced by a world order of multinational corporations. Freedom died in Nov 2000. It just took me five years to see it.

What do you think his father was talking about when he was prattling on about a "New World Order" and why he doesn't care one iota about border control and has a hardon to CAFTA and all the rest? Bush is a corporatist of the highest order, just like Bill Clinton is.


Nothing tinfoil hat about it. There is an entire legitimate area of geopolitical thought about this very subject.

Start with the writings of Kenichi Ohmae , Jean-Marie Guehenno and Joseph E. Stiglitz

HankB
October 5, 2005, 08:41 AM
I heard a debate last night on the radio between Ann Coulter and Brent Bozell. Ann had NOTHING good to say about Harriet Miers - she basically said that this is Bush's way of "sticking it" to conservatives who had the audacity to oppose Bush friend Alberto Gonzalez before he was even nominated.

She went on to say that while our new Chief Justice may not be her first choice, he IS a very smart guy. Ms. Miers is a relative lightweight that does NOT measure up in any way, shape, or form. (Her association with the Texas Lottery Commission should not be a "plus" on her resume.)

Brent Bozell agreed, and said this time he couldn't argue with Ann. He went on to say that with a 55-45 majority in the Senate and an opportunity to exercise the Constitutional option if the democRATS filibuster, Bush could have nominated another Thomas or Scalia (Luttig, Alioto, or a few others) to honor his campaign promises - BUT HE DIDN'T!

IF NOT NOW - WHEN?

Both agreed that Bush has NO stomach for a fight with his (and our) enemies.

rick_reno
October 5, 2005, 11:50 AM
That's a well written article.

I've written both my Senators urging them to vote "NO" on Ms Miers. We need to shut this one down and get Bush back on track. It only takes a few minutes to write your Senators - do it - this is far too important to ignore.

longeyes
October 5, 2005, 12:39 PM
Will is right: we have no obligation to see Miers confirmed just because she was Bush's choice. What's important is what's good for the country, not good for the GOP or Bush's psyche. We need to send a message to Bush to remind him of who supported him and why. There's a lot at stake here, a lot more than being loyal to one's friends. Bush has a stubborn streak--what the roots of that are I leave to the psychiatric mafia--and it wouldn't surprise me if he tabbed Gonsalez if he gets a third shot (or Miers is rejected).

Gunpacker
October 5, 2005, 09:28 PM
I don't think she can be defeated. If reed, shumer, kenedy and finestine are for her, I don't think that we can muster nearly 100% republican votes to defeat demo affirmation. I stated elsewhere, I smell something fishy here. No, not fishy, rotten.

Father Knows Best
October 5, 2005, 10:47 PM
Reginald Brown, an accomplished attorney who worked with Harriett Miers in the White House Counsel office, wrote this response to Will's column (emphasis mine):

George Willís column on Harriet Miers and the President is both unfair and sloppy. He begins by suggesting that the President is uninterested and incapable of making sophisticated judgments about the Court and judicial philosophies. This charge is patently unfair. The President picked John Roberts, and has a stellar first term record of selecting conservative judges for the appellate bench. There hasnít been a liberal in the bunch with the exception of Roger Gregory and Barrington Parker, both of whom the President obviously nominated as part of an early political compromise that got Roberts and others on the circuit bench. This is a man who almost lost the Presidency because of the liberal activism of the Florida Supreme Court. He understands full well the power of the Court and has been serious about his appointments in the past.

Willís second argument is that the President didnít consult with serious people before making the choice of Miers. This is also a silly argument. We know that the President consulted with eighty members of the Senate, including all of the Republicans on Senate Judiciary. He also reached out to people like Leonard Leo and Jay Sekulow. And he has serious, principled conservatives, like Bill Kelley, on the White House Counselís Office staff. These arenít cronies or toadies who will only tell the President what he wants to hear. And they are, for the most part, very comfortable with the Miers choice. And some of these people have seen Miers up close -- vetting the choices for the first vacancy, taking Roberts through grueling moot court sessions, and recommending judges for the lower courts.

Willís third argument is equally weak. He basically says the President has forfeited his right to be taken seriously because he didnít veto McCain-Feingold. As an initial matter, if the President canít be taken seriously for signing the bill into law, the Senate canít be taken seriously for having passed it. McCain-Feingold was a bad law, but bad laws get enacted all the time, and at least the President had the sense to have GOP political lawyers challenge significant components of the law in court. While it is true that DOJ defended the law on appeal, the politics of the entire situation were plain, and understandable, to all involved. The President has demonstrated great seriousness about the Constitution during his tenure, particularly as it relates to the power of the Executive under Article II.

Willís fourth argument is the most dangerous and absurd. He suggests Miers shouldnít be approved because she hasnít shown a "talent" for "constitutional reasoning" honed through years of "intense interest" and practice. Judging takes work, but the folks who think "constitutional reasoning" is a talent requiring divination, intense effort and years of monastic study are the same folks who will inevitably give you "Lemon tests," balancing formulas, "penumbras" and concurrences that make your head spin. The President sees through that mumbo jumbo and recognizes that good Justices are the ones who focus on the Constitutionís text, structure and history and who call balls and strikes. Bush is in favor of demystifying the Court and the Miers choice is part of that effort. Will seems to be buying into the "Nine Wisest Men" mythology that is a root cause of the Courtís aggrandizement of power over time.

Willís final argument is that Miers is an affirmative action quota pick. Underlying this theme is a subtle snobbery that conservatives should dismiss out of hand. One need not go to Harvard or Yale Law or be a member of the right Inn of Court to serve with distinction. Miersí career suggests she is plenty smart and obviously hard working. She also happens to be a gun-toting evangelical who gives money to pro-life organizations and spends her free time taking care of her elderly mom. Sheís served as a public official, a commercial litigator, a policymaker and Counsel to the leader of the free world. These arenít the qualifications that have led to appointments in the recent past, but given the nonsense regularly emanating from the Court maybe they ought to be.
Miers lives in the real world. She knows what the practical impact of a Kelo decision will be and that the laws of Nigeria and the European Union arenít terribly relevant to U.S. constitutional analysis. And as important, the people that she hangs out with donít give a hoot what Linda Greenhouse and the New York Times think. Thatís not evidence of a quota pick -- itís solid progress.
I love George Willís work, and heís a great conservative, but heís way off-base with todayís column.

I tend to agree with Mr. Brown.

Waitone
October 5, 2005, 10:53 PM
Please cite sources!

I could counter her arguments. Its late and I'm sleepy.

PATH
October 6, 2005, 03:03 AM
Why oh why do I have a bad feeling about all this? I can't get sick over it. I ;lost my republican congressman to redistricting and ended up with Nita Lowey. Those people will probably have the governors office and all the rest of the high offices in this state, Except for the state senate all will be held by those people.

Miers used to be one of those people. I pray GW did not inflict one of those people on us. If he did then I'm just staying home next election. What's the difference. If the Republicans don't have the courage to fight then God help us!!!

Father Knows Best
October 6, 2005, 10:11 AM
Please cite sources!

I could counter her arguments. Its late and I'm sleepy.

To whom are you speaking? Are you referring to my post quoting Reg Brown? If so, it's a "him" not a "her." His source is his personal experience. He served in the White House Counsel Office, working for President Bush and with Ms. Miers. He is currently in private practice with a reputable law firm. Here's his bio: http://www.wilmerhale.com/reginald_brown/

He's certainly qualified to speak about Ms. Miers' qualifications, her views and the selection process. He has a B.A. cum laude from Yale, and he received his law degree, also cum laude, from Harvard. He was deputy general counsel to Florida Governor Jeb Bush. He was the lead lawyer for the White House Office of Political Affairs during the 2004 election cycle. He worked very closely with President Bush and Ms. Miers.

R.H. Lee
October 6, 2005, 10:54 AM
Didn't GWB promise rock-ribbed conservative originalist nominees for the SC? Instead, we get a middle of the road Mr. Roberts and an unknown FOB (Friend of Bush). I'd say he lied.

Waitone
October 6, 2005, 11:00 AM
Father Knows Best, I refer to a length post presumably extracted from another document. I'd like to know the pedigree of someone else's work. Thank you for provide a backgrounder on its author.

BigG
October 6, 2005, 11:07 AM
George Will is a leg wetting crybaby for the most part. I wish he had some experience to back up his big mouth (pen). YMMV

marshall3
October 6, 2005, 11:11 AM
Harriet Miers owns a .45, and has defended the 2nd amendmendment. I read she is a bad shot, so you had better leave her alone!

HankB
October 6, 2005, 11:43 AM
I heard an interview yesterday on the radio with Mary Matalin. Her support for Harriet Miers consisted of one, and only one, point: she trusts Bush to name good judges.

She said it several times in different ways, but that's it, there was no more substance to her support other than "trusting Bush."

longeyes
October 6, 2005, 01:17 PM
Beware thin men wearing bowties.

Look, you don't have to go to Harvard to understand "shall not be infringed."

Consider Miers the antidote to Ginsburg.

TheEgg
October 6, 2005, 03:23 PM
Miers may be a real nice lady, and good friend to the Shrub.

But from what I know as of this point she has no more qualifications for being on the Supreme Court than my neighbor the D.A. (also a woman, a lawyer, a very nice lady, very active in Republican politics -- but NOT QUALIFIED TO BE A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE!).

Maybe during the hearing, Ms. Miers will reveal herself to be a Constitutional Scholar and Legal Philosopher of the first order, but if so, she has done a great job of hiding those aspects of her life from EVERYONE!

longeyes
October 6, 2005, 03:29 PM
Please, let's not turn SCOTUS into the Illuminati.

Miers can hire a brilliant clerk or two from the "right schools" if she needs her thinking pumped up. You think all these guys are writing and researching their own stuff?

She would not have been my pick but, that said, I don't think she's by any means a lightweight. The issues most of us are interested in don't require genius, they require clarity and right values.

Nehemiah Scudder
October 6, 2005, 03:40 PM
What the conservative intellectuals are saying is that she lacks "clarity".

:D

Fletchette
October 6, 2005, 03:41 PM
Bush needs a slap in the face.

The Senate needs to reject Meirs on account that she is simply not qualified. Bush needs to wake up and understand that he must answer to those that voted for him. I completely do not like Bush. The only reason I voted for him was the fact that there would be several Supreme Court justices leaving the bench and I could not fathom the idea of Kerry selecting new judges.

The Supreme Court has made several very bad decisions even recently. Imminant domain, Posse Comitatus. We even have Breyer openly admitting that he ignores the Constitution and looks to international law!

We NEED good justices in the Supreme Court. These people will affect the country for the next 30 years. It is absolutely critical that we get people in there that treat the Constitution seriously. Roberts appears to be good - I liked his rebuttal to Schumer's "little guy" question. But Meirs is simply unknown. The fact that she switched from Democrat to Republican recently does not make me feel good - it just means that after decades of politcal legal work, she still does not have a firm set of ideals.

Bush seems to think he owes nobody. He needs to be enlightened. Bluntly.

Father Knows Best
October 6, 2005, 04:20 PM
she has no more qualifications for being on the Supreme Court than my neighbor the D.A. (also a woman, a lawyer, a very nice lady, very active in Republican politics -- but NOT QUALIFIED TO BE A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE!).

Maybe during the hearing, Ms. Miers will reveal herself to be a Constitutional Scholar and Legal Philosopher of the first order, but if so, she has done a great job of hiding those aspects of her life from EVERYONE!

I couldn't disagree more. I'm a lawyer. There's a joke that lawyers tell amongst themselves that goes like this:

Q: What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 50?

A: "Your Honor."

The point is that there are lots of stupid judges out there. The fact that someone hasn't been a judge in the past doesn't make him or her any less qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. The same thing goes for academia. Our colleges and universities are full of "professors" who think they're the smartest people on the face of the earth, but that doesn't make it so.

Of all the lawyers I've known in my career, including judges and professors and plain old practicing lawyers, the smartest and wisest have been the plain old practicing lawyers. Ms. Miers has had a long and distinguished career. She was a top trial lawyer, and knows her way around a courtroom. She has done many other things that would also prepare her well for the bench -- probably much more so than lawyers who spent 20 years on the bench. As an attorney, I would much rather have my cases (and my clients) in front of a judge with plenty of real world experience than in front of a judge who has long since forgotten what kind of world the rest of us live in.

I like the fact that Ms. Miers is someone who has worked closely with President Bush for 10 years. He knows her and her philosophy better than he would any other candidate. He has seen her in action in a wide variety of circumstances over a long time.

TheEgg
October 6, 2005, 04:31 PM
I couldn't disagree more! :neener: :D

I in no way implied that in order to be qualified Ms. Miers had to be a Professor, or a Judge.

What I am looking for is some evidence that the nominee has spent a fair fraction of their time over the years at least ruminating over the major issues of constitutional law. AND that they have developed a legal/judical philosophy that at least reflects what I think is the proper role of the judiciary in interpreting the law and the constitution (role=modest!).

At this time, we have no evidence whatsoever that she has even read the Federalist papers. Corporate law, which I believe was her major field, is far removed from constitutional law. Like asking a foot doctor to do brain surgery, perhaps. Rather have the brain surgeon, thanks.

The fact that she has worked closely with Bush for 10 years holds zero weight for me, because, even though I voted for the man twice, I no longer trust his judgement. He has proved several times that he is not a good judge of people in some of his appointments. Mrs. Miers is going to have to make her own case.

goalie
October 6, 2005, 04:38 PM
I like the fact that Ms. Miers is someone who has worked closely with President Bush for 10 years. He knows her and her philosophy better than he would any other candidate. He has seen her in action in a wide variety of circumstances over a long time.

So, what you are saying is that you TRUST Bush to appoint a judge that you agree with on the issues of the day? Considering just how far apart Bush and I are on, oh, let's say immigration, I am not too certain that I want to implicitly trust him with something this important.

History has a way of repeating itself if it is ignored. Or, I could just say, "Like father, like son."

GoRon
October 6, 2005, 09:52 PM
This whole Supreme Court issue of the last few months has left me discouraged. Not ready to jump ship yet, but discouraged.

It would be nice to have had two home runs, sure things selected and rammed down the liberals throats. That would have been fun, Hurray for our side!!

Instead we are left with an uneasy feeling. The truth is President Bush promised judges who are originalists like Scalia and Thomas and that MIGHT be what he gave us. The problem is we just don't know yet.

I am cautiously optimistic. Not a slam dunk for sure.

afasano
October 6, 2005, 10:44 PM
So how did Earl Warren ever get by these guys with his record? :rolleyes:

If you enjoyed reading about "George Will Slams Bush's Nominee" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!