Has anyone seen this? Apologies if it's been discussed already, I don't have time to ketchup on the PB.
I don't read Will's column very often, but when I do, I never find myself wishing I had written it myself (although I would have left out the peevish mention of the McCain-Feingold bill).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...100400954.html
Quote:
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.
|
