Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Obligatory SCOTUS Nominee Post
The nomination of Harriet Miers seems to have caught all sorts of people unawares. Things seems kind of mixed up. Harry Reid likes her. On the other hand, Powerline is disappointed, as is Hedgehog Blog. Chuck Schumer just sounded silly wanting to know more. I don't understand all of the comment, I really don't.
I heard Bill Krystal quoted on the radio as saying the President "backed away from a fight." Who cares? - Iif this woman will be the kind of justice we want? If we can get a constitutional interpreter, not an activist, without a fight, then sounds like a win-win to me. I thought the idea was to get the rulings we liked, not stuff it to the Dems just because we can.
As best as I can tell, the biggest issue here is that people don't know what kind of judge she will really be in the end. How can we be drawing dividing lines over something we don't know? I just don't understand that. As to the fact that she has never sat on a bench -- great. She knows the law, and will not be strapped with a bunch of garbage that those that have had benches come with. My guess is she will bring some well needed fresh thought to the court, not being confined to streams of reasoning that have confined the court into a constantly liberalizing direction.
And here is the last thing I have to say on this. I worked pretty doggone hard to elect this President, and one of the reasons I did so was so he could nominate SCOTUS judges. Seems to me that in light of the LACK of information about this woman, the best thing to do is trust his judgement, not debate it. Sometimes I think it is the Republican tendency to eat our own that prevents us from ever really cementing power in the nation.
Let's not pout because its not the specific individual most wanted, let's get busy insuring we get the kind of court we want.
I heard Bill Krystal quoted on the radio as saying the President "backed away from a fight." Who cares? - Iif this woman will be the kind of justice we want? If we can get a constitutional interpreter, not an activist, without a fight, then sounds like a win-win to me. I thought the idea was to get the rulings we liked, not stuff it to the Dems just because we can.
As best as I can tell, the biggest issue here is that people don't know what kind of judge she will really be in the end. How can we be drawing dividing lines over something we don't know? I just don't understand that. As to the fact that she has never sat on a bench -- great. She knows the law, and will not be strapped with a bunch of garbage that those that have had benches come with. My guess is she will bring some well needed fresh thought to the court, not being confined to streams of reasoning that have confined the court into a constantly liberalizing direction.
And here is the last thing I have to say on this. I worked pretty doggone hard to elect this President, and one of the reasons I did so was so he could nominate SCOTUS judges. Seems to me that in light of the LACK of information about this woman, the best thing to do is trust his judgement, not debate it. Sometimes I think it is the Republican tendency to eat our own that prevents us from ever really cementing power in the nation.
Let's not pout because its not the specific individual most wanted, let's get busy insuring we get the kind of court we want.
