Tuesday :: Oct 4, 2005

Pick The Disgruntled Pundit Who Is Trashing The Miers Selection


by Steve

Based on a tip from commenter Steve Duncan, I checked to see who the author was of this whipping against the president and Harriet Miers in tomorrow’s Post:

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.
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.

Are these the whinings of some liberal pundit bemoaning Bush’s pathetic judgment, and use of the highest court in the land as just another item of patronage?

No, these are the thoughts of none other than George Will in tomorrow’s Post, who is basically telling the intelligent part of the right wing to feel free in telling Bush to go to hell on this one.

And if you want to see a good summary of blog reaction to Miers’ selection, check our friend Michael Stickings’ post over at The Reaction.

Steve :: 9:19 PM :: Comments (8) :: TrackBack (1) :: Digg It!