Many of their justifications cannot be dignified as arguments. Of those that can be, some reveal a deficit of constitutional understanding commensurate with that which it is, unfortunately, reasonable to impute to Miers.Man, that is one hoity-toity sentence. But it's true!
As I was just trying to do with my last post, Will lays down the rule that every Democratic Senator who voted against Roberts must vote against Miers or lose all credibility (as anything other than political hacks). He has a rule for Republican senators too:
[A]ny who vote for Miers will thereafter be ineligible to argue that it is important to elect Republicans because they are conscientious conservers of the judicial branch's invaluable dignity. Finally, any Republican senator who supinely acquiesces in President Bush's reckless abuse of presidential discretion -- or who does not recognize the Miers nomination as such -- can never be considered presidential material.I concur!
पोस्ट्स
९ टिप्पण्या:
I forget, was Will jumping on the bandwagon to descredit Miers because of unclear writing? Hmm.
Menlo Bob: At some point, especially in law, we need to equate bad writing with bad thinking. The Court's work is largely reading and interpreting texts, and putting reasoning into written form. Writing is a job qualification.
So have we established that Miers writes bad legal opinions, or is that just an assumption?
(George Will can be such a prissy queen at times.)
Scott: Deal with the reality that it's a lifetime job that affects us all a lot.
Ignoring the bad writing == bad thinking argument for the moment, I am just trying to understand your opposition. (You were like opposed then for and now opposed again?)
I am curious, must a nominee have legal training? if George Bush nominated Jeff Bezos, Princeton Summa Cum Laude, EECS, Banker, CEO Amazon, Republican and no law training whatsoever, how do you think you would feel about that?
Oh God, just more proof that they have to get out of this before it even gets to hearings. It's become the Tar Baby.
Ann: I guess given your profession, this Miers nomination must be THE ABSOLUTELY MOST GOSH DARN HUGEST IMPORTANTEST THING IN THE WHOLE BLESSED UNIVERSE. But to us mere mortals who watch people in your profession weep and wring their hands, it's a bit over the top.
The problem with the law from the vantage point of us wee folk is that it has become so Epicurian in its practice that it is divorced from the reality that we experience. Miers seems to be a woman of sound judgment and deep practical experience. That ought to be good enough. I don't trust Mandarins; and it's refreshing that Miers isn't one.
Scott: Read the linked "Mellowing on Miers" post to see why your comment does not make sense as a characterization of my thinking on this. I am willing to have a hyper-competent practicing lawyer type on the Court. My problem is that she doesn't fit that description. She specialized in law firm management, bar association activities, and political work. She has been presented to us as someone who will go on the Court and vote the right way.
My comment about George Will (above) was intended to connect the David Brooks complaint about Miers writing and the confused rhetoric of Will. In that I wasn't clear, I have assumed a position alongside Miers and Will. Is it hot in here?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा