Harriet Miers

[chm2023]

Did you read George Will's column on this?

[ksquared]

Did you read George Will's column on this?

I was especially taken with the title of Mr. Will’s catchy little column.

“The president picks another lightweight” by George Will

By “another lightweight” do you think Mr. Will is referring to Judge Roberts’ nomination? If so, perhaps he missed the confirmation hearings or fell asleep during Kennedy’s time at the mike. An easy thing to have done, btw, Teddy’s 20-minute questions were enough to put any rational person into a state of semi-consciousness.

Did you read Michael Gaynor column? I thought Mr. Gaynor’s title and the content had a little more substance.

“George Will, Please Chill” by Michael Gaynor

http://www.michnews.com/artman/publi...cle_9776.shtml

[rbaker]

This may be the column refered to above:

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will1.asp

[Pete Hanlin]

I was, and remain, fairly disappointed over this nomination. After making an absolutely clever selection with Chief Justice Roberts, the President makes this awkward nomination. Oddly enough, it looks as if this one will get through Congress as well.

Of course, its entertaining to read all the mindless banter expressed on this thread. Someday, I sincerely desire there is a way to be President in some sort of SIMM program- then we can all observe how well each of us operate as POTUS.

Anyway, W is President for another few years (well, unless he singlehandedly causes the destruction of the planet- after all, according to his detractors here he is completely incompetent and pretty much the source of all the evils of mankind). Unless I'm mistaken, Sen. John McCain will probably take over next. He's positioning himself for a run by beginning a pandering campaign to the party's base, and I don't see any really viable Democrats emerging from the chaos that is currently the Democrat party.

PS- I enjoy reading Will's columns, but if he truly referred to the Chief Justice as a "lightweight," I think he may be losing his grip on reality. Both advocates and detractors alike agreed the man was pretty sharp.

[ksquared]

PS- I enjoy reading Will's columns, but if he truly referred to the Chief Justice as a "lightweight," I think he may be losing his grip on reality. Both advocates and detractors alike agreed the man was pretty sharp.

It was Mr. Will's "caption" that grabbed my attention. When the last person Bush "picked" was Judge Roberts and the next "pick" is Miers and Miers is who he goes on to discuss, one could logically assume Mr. Will’s was referring to Judge Roberts as the "another lightweight". Granted I could be mistaken here. Mr. Will's could have meant, what the president picked for dinner (Bush does tend to watch his diet).

the link......

http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/debate/will/

and the caption....

George Will: The president picks another lightweight
By George Will
Published 2:15 am PDT Wednesday, October 5, 2005

WASHINGTON -- Senators beginning what ought to be a protracted and exacting scrutiny of Harriet Miers should be guided by three rules...........

[chm2023]

I assume by "another lightweight" the reference was to other past appts--e.g. FEMA head people. This situation illustrates why the president's modest intellect poses a problem for many folks: the ability of a person to navigate the complexities of Constitutional law is a paramount requirement for a SCOTUS justice. The plain fact is that it's difficult to believe W has the intellect and disposition to make that judgement. My opinion: W was ****** off that the right pre-emptively rejected Gonzales and decided to show them he wasn't about to be pushed around.

I believe the far right has been snookered--what ever happened to the idea of outlawing gay marriage? I also think (ok maybe hope!) that Roberts will turn out to be at least an O'Connor if not a Sueter (Seuter?).

Actually I thought Pat Buchanan's comment was the most cutting: "He (W) walked down the hall looking for a woman."

Lastly, the title of op-ed pieces are the perogative of the newspaper running the column, not the columnist. This piece ran in the Post as "Can this Nomination be Justified?"

[Pete Hanlin]

Actually, now that I'm researching a bit on this nomination, I'm thinking the President might have been clever again (no, I still don't like this nominee- give me someone with some judicial experience).

What I continue to like about W is his ability to make both parties unhappy- my spidey sense says anytime both parties are ticked, he's probably got it about right (to borrow a thought from his tax reform plan back in his first SOTU).

[finklstiltskin]

For the last several months, I've tried to keep my politically-minded @$$ out of politics. So, what is this about her religious beliefs being her reason for nomination? Bush has got some serious issues.

[spartus]

So, what is this about her religious beliefs being her reason for nomination? Bush has got some serious issues.

He's got a minor constitutional issue on his hands, ironically enough.

Article VI:
...but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

[chip anderson]

Don't have it with me but I think Article 4 states that the president must profess a belief in a supreme being, prior to your little exerpt.

[shanbaum]

Don't have it with me but I think Article 4 states that the president must profess a belief in a supreme being, prior to your little exerpt.

You are mistaken. Article IV has to do with relations amongst the several states.

In any case, there is no such requirement in the Constitution.

[spartus]

Don't have it with me but I think Article 4 states that the president must profess a belief in a supreme being, prior to your little exerpt.

Here is Article VI, in its entirety:

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

This was easy enough to find, since I linked to it in the original post. Here's Article IV, in case you haven't found it yet.

That said, I find your reasoning, such as it is, simply stunning. To be clear: you are asserting that immediately preceding "(N)o religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States" there's a part about affirming religion? The funhouse called. They want their mirror back.

[chm2023]

What's amazing is how quickly the worm can turn in politics. It wasn't that long ago that this WH operated as a well oiled machine, intimidating not only the opposition and the press, but its own party.

Case in point: it's been well known that this WH scripts everything and selects audiences and venues for W. Last week's little tete a tete with the Iraq based troops was therefore not out of the ordinary--questions planted, rehearsal--what is out of the ordinary was the response of the press and the Pentagon: ridicule. This is a highly dangerous situation for W: in public life, nothing is more toxic than becoming ridiculous in the eyes of the public.

What is curious to me is how can the same process yield a Roberts and then a Miers? I feel sorry for this woman, apparently a lot of Senators are reporting she is very unimpressive in her interviews with them, having nothing to say re judicial philosophy. I am starting to get that old Nixon/Watergate feeling: the circle of people the president trusts getting smaller and smaller, the surreal press briefings, the push back in the president's own party, looming indictments...God it was tiresome back then, and it's worse now. At least Nixon was a really riveting, larger than life figure. This is just sad.

[chm2023]

Well wasn't this an odd little episode? I do feel sorry for the woman.

This is interesting: does Bush buckle to the likes of Pat Buchanan and Ann Coulter (note no Republican Senator--you know, people actully elected--said they would vote against her) or does he act like a leader and exert control over his own party? I think the far right was so strident on this because they remain nervous over Roberts--too much of an independent thinker perhaps?--looking for a lock-step far rightie like Thomas.

The other person I feel sorry for is Sandra O--she's now stuck on the Court for at least 3 or 4 months, doubt is hearings could be completed prior to holiday recess.

And the band played on......

[drk]

George didn't want a distracting knock-down, drag-out with the left over this nomination, but he got guff from the right.

Let's see if he sticks to a "moderated" approach with the next candidate, or if are we going to have the "show of the century" when he picks a staunch constructionist/conservative.

I think he wants to keep the country from total schism in order to get this Iraq thing closer to the end.

[QDO1]

who?