Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that Miers's 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's name probably would not have appeared in any of the 10,000 places on those lists.
...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's 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.
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
George Will on the Miers nomination
Most of the time I disagree with George Will. Often times I find him too apologetic for the Republican Party (for the record, I like neither party and tend towards liberal libertarianism). Even in today's editorial, I find areas of disagreement and areas which make me want to stand up and applaud. From today's Washington Post Op-Ed:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Here's my guess on the neocon planning process on this one:
1) Nominate Miers. If she gets in, fine, we have a manipulable loyalist on the court.
2) But she's not going to get in. She's going to be shot down. So we...
3) Let the lefties shoot their wad on Miers. Then we nominate Judge So-and-so: educated, scholarly, qualified - and so fascist he'd vote to approve the mandatory branding of students with Pepsi logos in order to fund schools.
4) The lefties object again, we cry "victim" as we are so good at, and point out the unassailable credentials of our extremist nutcase jurist...
5) Having spent their meagre clout shooting down our decoy, and having based their complaints on her qualifications, our clearly qualified but undoubtedly insane jurist joins the Supreme Court.
Not bad. The problem with that logic is that:
A) The conservatives are the ones firing at her. Even James Dobson, who initially supported her, is hedging his bet.
and B) Harry Reid recommended her.
Now, what I can't figure out is if Reid really supports her or if he set the President up.
Man I hope he set the president up. For once I'd like to see someone outside of Karl Rove's inner circle come up with something cunning, viscious, backstabbing and clever.
As for Miers, man: anyone Ann Coulter hates that much might just be the right person for the job.
Post a Comment