“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 [President Bush] has neither the inclination nor the ability to make sophisticated judgments about competing approaches to construing the Constitution. …
- “Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that Miers’s nomination resulted from the president’s careful consultation with people capable of such judgments. …
- “In addition, the president has forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution. …”
Who wrote this today? Answer below:
George Will, Washington Post columnist.
Today’s column in the WaPo, and syndicated nationally, goes on and on and on. His “Can This Nomination Be Justified?,” is a full-body slam.
“… The crowning absurdity of the president’s wallowing in such nonsense [“diversity”] 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.” …”
And about that forfeiture of the right to be a custodian of the Constitution? (Uh, isn’t that sort of like saying maybe he should resign or be impeached?]
That comes from here:
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.”
See also: Catnip’s excellent rundown on the many conservative voices speaking out against Miers: “Reasons To Vote For Harriet Miers.”