Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Harriet Miers
I've read the criticisms of Bush's latest Supreme Court nominee. Here's a perfect column by George Will as to why this is the wrong person for the job. Here are my comments.
Don't believe what the critics are saying. They are essentially stating that in order to be a candidate for the job an individuals must first have a clear judicial philosophy. So let's follow this reasoning. The argument goes that a Republican President will nominate a conservative, but as long as they have a legitimate view of interpreting the constitution which has been documented in their writings or demonstrated through their work as a judge then they should be confirmed. Democrats in this instance, commentators and legal theorists say, need to hold their nose and vote for such an individual since he or she is qualified for the position. If a Democratic President is in office then it is more likely that a liberal would be nominated to the Court but again should be supported by the opposition party if their experience makes them eligible for the job.
No, no, no. I don't want someone on the bench who would support the Kelo decision on eminent domain whether they have a coherent judicial philosophy or not. The same goes for the anyone who supports the recent decision on campaign finance reform, growing marijuana for personal use, racial preferences in colleges, or any of the other contorted misguided ruling I have seen in recent years. No, give me someone who understands what the Founders were getting at when they wrote the Constitution and I am fine.
Second, to those who say that Mr. Bush should have nominated a well-known conservative I say that would have been almost impossible. The left was planning an all out war. While the Republicans control the Senate they could have resorted to the "nuclear option" to get the candidate through but it would have been extremely difficult. So my prediction is that we are witnessing the future when it comes to this process. Each nominee will be someone who is presumed to share the President's political views but who will not be well known so that the minority party cannot put up much of a fight. And the act of staying away from a strong ideological candidate for the Court is probably what the Founders had in mind when they set up our system of checks and balances.
PermaLink | 5:31 AM |
|
Don't believe what the critics are saying. They are essentially stating that in order to be a candidate for the job an individuals must first have a clear judicial philosophy. So let's follow this reasoning. The argument goes that a Republican President will nominate a conservative, but as long as they have a legitimate view of interpreting the constitution which has been documented in their writings or demonstrated through their work as a judge then they should be confirmed. Democrats in this instance, commentators and legal theorists say, need to hold their nose and vote for such an individual since he or she is qualified for the position. If a Democratic President is in office then it is more likely that a liberal would be nominated to the Court but again should be supported by the opposition party if their experience makes them eligible for the job.
No, no, no. I don't want someone on the bench who would support the Kelo decision on eminent domain whether they have a coherent judicial philosophy or not. The same goes for the anyone who supports the recent decision on campaign finance reform, growing marijuana for personal use, racial preferences in colleges, or any of the other contorted misguided ruling I have seen in recent years. No, give me someone who understands what the Founders were getting at when they wrote the Constitution and I am fine.
Second, to those who say that Mr. Bush should have nominated a well-known conservative I say that would have been almost impossible. The left was planning an all out war. While the Republicans control the Senate they could have resorted to the "nuclear option" to get the candidate through but it would have been extremely difficult. So my prediction is that we are witnessing the future when it comes to this process. Each nominee will be someone who is presumed to share the President's political views but who will not be well known so that the minority party cannot put up much of a fight. And the act of staying away from a strong ideological candidate for the Court is probably what the Founders had in mind when they set up our system of checks and balances.
PermaLink | 5:31 AM |
| 
