Wednesday, October 05, 2005
. . . Still Not Bothered
I find the anger of the Republican rank and file toward President Bush for the Miers nomination quite interesting, and I greatly respect the opinions of my fellow members of the Reform Club. I have been quite critical of President Bush on this site, from the right of course, especially as regards his economic policies. I think that I have been the most critical of the Reform Clubbers by far, toward this president. Perhaps this is why I have not reacted with such horror at the Miers nomination: My expectations of this president have evidently been not nearly as high, and hence my disappointment is minimal. To me, the nomination remains a practical question: Will Miers make a strict-constructionist majority on the Court? And to me the answer is yes.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Come on, where's the love. I think if all we conservatives have a big group hug and drink some hot chocolate we'll all feel better. And one day we'll get some fire breathing, powerfully orating proud originalist with a long paper trail nominated to the court and we'll all be able to sing kumbaya. Until them I'm with Sam.
I've held out of the Miers discussion until now. It appears to me that most in the anti-Miers crowd are upset for political reasons, not because of how she might vote.
They are upset because of what the nomination looks like, as opposed to the nomination itself.
I will wait until I see how she does in confirmation. Until then, I'll have to be a bit pragmatic about it and side with "Karnick the Magnificent."
Sam,
Well said. =)
I'm with Tlaloc and Goldberg against the "reliable vote" argument.
But isn't the head of the Texas Bar Association a sign of significant achievement in law? Does it only count if you show up in Washington and argue before the Supremes?
I'm also against the reliable vote. Goldberg is right. I almost posted his remarks yesterday. As I've said before, there is a way to deal with lifetime appointments to the top court and this is NOT it.
But isn't the head of the Texas Bar Association a sign of significant achievement in law?
No. It's a sign of significant achievement in a particular brand of low-level political gladhanding and bureaucratic fiefdom construction. Her work with the TBA is a negative, in my book. A lawyer with the kind of intellectual rigor and curiosity I want to see on the bench would have viewed it as a colossal waste of time.
Post a Comment