Conservative commentator George Will wrote this week that the U.S. Senate should feel no obligation to confirm Harriet Miers to the U.S. Supreme Court — not because of abortion politics but because of qualifications. “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,” he wrote.
Will added: “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.”
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Jed on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
16 Comments
I believe I said that earlier yesterday in a nother post. But lord I hate being in agreement with Wills!
The wrath of grapes has finally taken its toll on the Bushmeister.
Who needs “Constitutional reasoning”? She can just make decisions based on her instincts and her interpretation of the Bible.
I think that the problem with the Supreme court is that over the last 50 years there has been to much “contitutional reasoning”. We need a little less of what has gotten us to this point. What the contitution says is really quite simple in most cases and what has become complex is the series of precedent layered upon precedent layered upon decision upon precedent until you end up with decisions based not upon the text of the constitution but upon a history of decisions that may or may not be valid.
It wouldnt hurt a thing to have someone come in and say, look, what you are saying here has no basis in the text of the constitution, this is crap, I don’t buy it.
If your going to flame me for wanting to “roll back the last 50 years of ‘progress’” be specific about what you’re afraid of being rolled back, and why.
I don’t like Bushes pick, it smacks of political maneuvering and cronyism, I’d rather have seen him choose an established constructionist justice with a clear history of decisions, but who knows Miers may be the best thing thats ever happened to the Supreme Court.
George Will is a bright guy but sometimes he plays a little bit to much to the elitist mindset of Washington.
Of course Miers could be just step one in a plan to really confound the Democrats. She may get a planned bi-partisan rejection because she’s not ‘qualified’ and then Rove substitutes the ‘real’ pick, Janice Rodjers Brown and Ted Kennedy will have a stroke, and the real show will begin.
Heckler,
I’ve heard that idea floated for a few days now. Seems an awfully expensive route, in terms of the base’s support, to get what would have been gotten in the first place. If this truly is their thinking, it’s no wonder they’ve been floundering the last couple of months.
Plus, it would have to be Rove outmanuvering W, because I really can’t imagine W deliberately hanging Miers out there to dry as the sucker punch for Janice Rogers Brown or Edith Jones. Bush does feel loyalty to his capos, although that too is not without its limits.
In this case, what we’re seeing (a bad SCOTUS pick that signals a White House in disarray) might actually be what we’re seeing (a bad SCOTUS pick that signals a White House in disarray).
I really don’t know enough about Ms. Miers to comment on her ability, thought processes or anything else.
But, I was wondering that with the animosity towards GW, is there ANYONE he could nominate who would not be castigated? I mean, the same people would wail and gnash their teeth if he picked someone to the left of Ted Kennedy…true?
CF
I really agree with most of what you say, I don’t think that this is any stealth strategy, you just never know.
I don’t know that Miers is a bad pick, just not what I would have preferred, and I really am an anti-elitist, so to some extent I like the fact that she’s not Ivy League, puts a different mindset on the court.
remember,”constitutional reasoning” got us prenumbras…
Heckler,
Agreed on the need to expand the circle of the SCOTUS outside the usual ruling class suspects.
That’s one of the things that made O’Connor so unique, the fact that she came up through the state courts in Arizona. I don’t see Miers in that light because she’s personally beholden to the elite of all elites.
But as for the general need to break the Northeast/Beltway lock on court picks, yes. Absolutely.
Of course there to is the very concept that is always said of a preidental SC appointee. “He is leaving his mark on the court!”.This is the third branch of Government. It is to be free of the stain of politics.But is used as both a partisan play and a legacy of the President.Something that outlast the person in office.
And since a legacy will outlast the man. One would think that G.W. would have given some thought to his.
But judging from his actions in the last few years. I suspect G.W. think “Legacy” is a fancy french word for the part of the chicken he likes best.
Has it occured to anyone that maybe she’s the sacrificial lamb?If they shoot down his first pick, they’ll be more likely to take the second.
Stupidity or strategy?
Interesting thought, Tracy…
Think on the bright side. Instead of 61 she could have been 50.
Karl Rove discusses her religious views, which are far-right, with other evangelical nut-cases.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/12/D8D6JKBGC.html
At issue here is whether or not elite expertise is helpful in this job. I wouldn’t expect excellent dental care from someone who is not an excellent dentist. On the assumption that Constitutional law is at least as complicated as dentistry, this nomination is a farce, and should be rejected on those grounds, not whether or not Miers has the right attitude, the right religion, or even the right IQ. As her encounter with Specter re: Griswold-CT shows, she doesn’t have the expertise, and she’s not going to acquire it in a month.