Wednesday, October 05, 2005

George Will, Conservative pundit: The President is not fit to serve

You have to do just a little translating to read that in Will's newest oped,--er trust me. No? Okay read an excerpt.
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...

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.

Will actually bases his claim that the president does not uphold the constitution on his signing of the campaign finance bill, a good ruse to help cut out Democrat taunting. But the way the Bush people have used the finance bill and tax code has been arbitrary and shall we say dictatorial. When a known conservative forum is considered non profit, but a known liberal one is not allowed that status. When they audit the unions, but not hundreds of right wing nonprofits, bloggers and newssites that actually get regular talking points and other coordination from the White House and RNC, it is not what the founding fathers, nor the 2002 Campaign finance bill intended.

Article at: Can This Nomination Be Justified?

Unfortunately, Bush swore to uphold the constitution under oath. Remember Rehnquist, and the "president-elect's hand on the Bible" incident in 2001 and last January?


Post a Comment

<< Home

Links to this post:

Create a Link