Re: George Will says "No" on Miers
jay_...@yahoo.com
Ash Williams wrote:
> Can This Nomination Be Justified?
>
> By George F. Will
> Wednesday, October 5, 2005; A23
>
> 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 pre-presidential careers, and this
> president particularly is not disposed to such reflections.
>
> 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.
>
> 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 ensure a considered
> response from him, he had been told in advance that 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'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.
>
> 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 be
> understood, empathized with and represented only 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, Jordan
> said, 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?
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/04/AR2005100400954.html
This nomination has the chance of being withdrawn before the Senate
Committee begins discussion. The lady is a hack.
Jay
http://www.fairus.org/ Federated Americans for Immigration Reform
KenStahl
> Ash Williams wrote:
>
>>Can This Nomination Be Justified?
>>
>>By George F. Will
>>Wednesday, October 5, 2005; A23
>>
>>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.
>>
Maybe George Will is developing some common sense finally.
--
Blogging at http://HexagonalPeg.blogspot.com
KenStahl
> On 5 Oct 2005 05:10:54 -0700, jay_...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>>Ash Williams wrote:
>>
>>>Can This Nomination Be Justified?
>>>
>>>By George F. Will
>>>Wednesday, October 5, 2005; A23
>>>
>>>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.
>
>
> trying to stand up and act like a man. It doesn't become him.
I also suspect that he is an opportunist and sees the
Republican party going down in a cloud of dust and he wishes
to remain employed so he'll concede some points that are not
in keeping with the militant, radical, insane right.
rick++
Even the Wall Street Journal has been running anti-Bush
editorials.
The only thing more stupid is the Dems havent tried to
fill the vacuum yet.
Peter Vos
In today's column George Will unleashed this political cluster bomb:
"The president has forfeited his right to be trusted
as a custodian of the Constitution."
- George Will (Oct 4, 2005)
George Will chooses his words carefully. He knows that "trust" has been
one of Dubya's calling cards. He also knows that the Oath of Office
for President of the United States carries just two requirements:
1) to faithfully execute the duties of the office, and
2) to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.
George Will is directly challenging the legitimacy of this president in
ways no conservative has previously dared to consider. This may signal
the end of this administration. After all, McCarthy was brought down
by his own party. Nixon resigned under pressure from his own party.
Perhaps this is Will's response to Stephanopoulos' bombshell from "This
Week." Will was sitting right there looking awfully discomfited by
Stephanopoulos revealing he had learned that Bush and Cheney were
"directly linked" to the Plame affair.
Even at his most vituperative, Will never said anything so harsh to
George's dad... and Will made no secret of his loathing for the older
Bush.
==
You can't spell "wrong" without "W"
KenStahl
> You can't spell "wrong" without "W"
>
I love it! Spot on!
Peter Vos
KenStahl wrote:
> Peter Vos wrote:
> > You can't spell "wrong" without "W"
> >
>
> I love it! Spot on!
>
>
Use it freely. Here's a variant:
Wrong begins with a silent "W"
Sid9
>>> Can This Nomination Be Justified?
>>>
>>> By George F. Will
>>> Wednesday, October 5, 2005; A23
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> trying to stand up and act like a man. It doesn't become him.
The Rev. Will is nothing but a fundie.
The Sanity Inspector
when Caligula appointed his horse as a consul.
--
bruce
The dignified don't even enter in the game.
-- The Jam
Atlanta Ranger
"KenStahl" <kts...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:TrGdnex_Cu1...@comcast.com...
>The sky is falling, the sky is falling. Will somebody with an IQ above 60
>believe me? Beuller? Anyone?
Jim
> I wonder if the commentariat in ancient Rome had discussions like this
> when Caligula appointed his horse as a consul.
You remind me of my favorite snippet from Suetonius' "The Lives of the
Caesars". The story was that Nero married a young man in an official
ceremony. The joke that went around Rome afterward: "If Nero's father had
married that kind of bride, Rome would be a much happier place."
Ben Arthur
They have.
No demonkraps' rectum is ever empty.
Ben Arthur
(LOSERS!!!)
Peter Vos
Ben Arthur wrote:
> You kornholers are so klever.
> (LOSERS!!!)
If that is what you think passes for wit, let me point out you are half
right.
Dave Simpson
If the Wall Street Journal is correct, the Dims will love Miers, while
conservatives in the Senate will reject her.
In arguing that Cheney is not a Texan, she asked a judge to take a
"broad and inclusive view" of the Constitution.
The only thing left out of her argument was the "living, breathing
document" fiction.