George Will isn’t pleased with the Miers nomination and asks: Can This Nomination Be Justified? And his answer is in the negative.

Along the same lines of what I was getting at here, Will notes

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. 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.

Indeed.

Further, I find it both amusing (because it is Will) and yet also quite accurate that he cites Bush’s signing of McCain-Feingold as evidence that “just trust me” is not a convincing argument coming from Bush in terms of him being the consummate protector of the Constitution.

h/t: Stephen Green for noting the column.

4 Comments

1. The Karl Rovian plot thickens and Bush gets to have it both ways. By nominating a qualified, obsure, but possibly non-stellar person, Bush is OK if Miers gets nominated. However, if Miers is not approved, then Bush can nominate are more contraversial female with more a well more documented judicial record, and the Democrats will have to face being the party that rejected “two” qualified female nominees.

   Bring out the tin foil hats, things are just starting to get interesting.

   Comment by Rodney Dill — Wednesday, October 5, 2024 @ 7:37 am

2. She is about where Thomas was when he was nominated: Not a known legal scholar, not known outside conservative circles, most of his career in government, but not the judiciary, with a president that said “trust me”.

   What’s your take on Thomas as a Justice?

   Comment by Director Mitch — Wednesday, October 5, 2024 @ 8:21 am

3. Thomas did not have as much experience as I would have liked, to be honest. He was chosen partially because of his meager paper trail. Still, he had more experience of significance than Miers.

   For example:

   Government Service
   Assistant Attorney General of Missouri, 1974-1977; Legislative assistant to Senator John C. Danforth of Missouri, 1979-1981; Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education, 1981-1982; Chairman U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Com mission 1982-1990.
   Judicial Offices
   Nominated by President Bush to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit: took oath of office, March 12, 1990.

   http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/justices/thomas.bio.html

   Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Wednesday, October 5, 2024 @ 9:55 am

4. [...] kes me as rather important. My basic views are here, and followed up here, here, here and here.

   5 Comments
   »

   It’s obvious we [...]

   Pingback by Pros and Cons » A Point of Clarification — Wednesday, October 5, 2024 @ 12:15 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The trackback url for this post is: http://poliblogger.com/wp-trackback.html?p=8318

NOTE: I will delete any TrackBacks that do not actually link and refer to this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.