"George Will Is Not A Happy Camper" from Daily Kos - wow

[Pirate Smile]

George Will Is Not A Happy Camper
by Armando
Tue Oct 4th, 2005 at 21:02:54 PDT

Some folks have not absorbed the level of Right Wing anger on Miers. Perhaps George Will can explain:

Senators beginning what ought to be a protracted and exacting scrutiny of Harriet Miers should be guided by three rules. First, it is not important that she be confirmed. Second, it might be very important that she not be. Third, the presumption -- perhaps rebuttable but certainly in need of rebutting -- should be that her nomination is not a defensible exercise of presidential discretion to which senatorial deference is due.

. . . he president has forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution. . . . It is important that Miers not be confirmed unless, in her 61st year, she suddenly and unexpectedly is found to have hitherto undisclosed interests and talents pertinent to the court's role. Otherwise the sound principle of substantial deference to a president's choice of judicial nominees will dissolve into a rationalization for senatorial abdication of the duty to hold presidents to some standards of seriousness that will prevent them from reducing the Supreme Court to a private plaything useful for fulfilling whims on behalf of friends.

I think Georgie Will is not a happy boy. I think most Right Wingers are not happy.

Dems need to join those Republicans urging a full and frank discussion of Miers' views and philosophy. Republicans want to know. And so should Dems.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/10/5/0254/93742

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/04/AR2005100400954_pf.html

[TaleWgnDg]

1. George Will is a snot who enjoys over-using a thesaurus, period.

[longship]

9. Agreed. But that does not prevent him from being correct

In this case, he may be hitting the nail on the head.

Miers' appointment should be doomed. In any other political environment it would be. Who in the Sam Hell knows what it will be during these screwball times?

[Carla in Ca]

16. Whoa...love this part

. . . The president has forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution.

That about covers it, don't you think?

[Cha]

26. Yeahhh, that stands

OUT! Coming from a rwinger like george will?!

[The Backlash Cometh]

20. Do you really think George Will would help us push anti-cronyism law?

Isn't there information out there that George Will was one of the paid pundits? Maybe he's peeved that Bush cut off his pay checks?

[NV Whino]

2. We must reject her

And continue to reject any unacceptable, unqualified nominations. It simply doesn't matter that the next nomination may be worse. If so, we reject that nomination. We should have done this with Roberts. We should have done it with Bolton. We should have done it with Ashcroft, with Gonzales, with Rice.... well, you get the drift.

[Itchinjim]

3. F**k the twerp.

[xxqqqzme]

4. '...private plaything useful for

fulfilling whims on behalf of friends.'...

Hard 2 argue w/ that! with or without a thesarus

[Cha]

27. "fullfilling whims on behalf

of friends" is classic!

[Rowdyboy]

5. W-O-W

Just WOW. George Will, the conservative apologist from hell, Mr right-wing intellectual blisters Dubya's yankee ass big-time! I am beyond stunned.

This should cause enough conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats to stop, reconsider, and-hopefully-block this nomination.

Wouldn't it be a kick if a filibuster was lead by a combination of left-wing Dems and right-wing Repubs against their respective party leadership!

Harriet is not a sure thing, folks. In fact, I'm not even sure she's likely. We'll probably like the next nominee even less but-WTF, I love denying GWB something he wants.

[serryjw]

13. WANTS???

This is plain and simple payback.(MY GUESS...Nat'l Guard) He has F*CKED up every other institution, can we at least have respect for SCOTUS??

[Rowdyboy]

15. That seems to be the conclusion of this thread I posted in LBN....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1827628&mesg_id=1827628

This could be VERY interesting

[serryjw]

17. RFLOL!!!!!! See brilliant minds think alike!

I'm also convinced she knows way to much about Valerie Plame investigation

[Rowdyboy]

18. As horrible as the next 3 years will be, they'll also be a lot of fun....

Cause Dubya is a worthless, POS lame duck!

[The_Casual_Observer]

6. What happened to all that high minded "advise and consent"

we were having shoved down our throats when it came to owen and those other shit heads?

[Pirate Smile]

8. I didn't see "up or down vote" in that column. Did you?

[last_texas_dem]

7. Interesting

I can't stand George Will, but am surprised at just how harsh this article is, and wonder how reflective Will's views are of standard right-wing sentiment. There are plenty of wingnuts among the Republicans in the Senate and it will be interesting to see how many of them stand on principle rather than just being rubber-stamps for whatever Shrubbie wants. Even if Miers ends up on the Court, her nomination will at least have a positive aspect if it causes some major conflict within the Repug Party.

[ReadTomPaine]

14. Yes it's a good sign, and there have been others. n/t

[Wabbajack]

10. Not one puke senator is gonna vote against her

no chance

[Tinksrival]

11. One word...

Smokescreen

[ochazuke]

12. The REALLY troubling thing is...

...that conservatives like Will and Kristol are opposing this insulting nomination on non-ideological grounds. It's just wrong to put a person with such a weak resume on the court just because she is your pal. Why aren't liberals saying that?

We suck.

[crispini]

28. Because if we say it, it's "partisan."

If they say it, it's "objective." :eyes:

[NVMojo]

19. wonder if Harry Reid has heard this rant?? He needs to.

[OneGrassRoot]

21. So, if the repugs are up in arms about cronyism.........

that seems to be the crux of the issue regarding their opposition to Miers, right?

I wonder if this would have been an issue were it not for Brownie's incompetence revealed so blatantly.....:shrug:

[sendero]

22. The story of .

... Brer Rabbit and the Tar Baby comes to mind here. I'm just not sure I believe anything Will or Kristol has to say.

[formernaderite]

23. The right just wants a fight...

they're not truly as upset as they're making out. Trojan horse alert.

[Roland99]

24. Why is this not on the Greatest Page?

George sounds entirely PISSED OFF!

[npincus]

25. George Will also SLAMS B*sh- read THIS:

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/georgewill/2005/10/04/159414.html

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 prepresidential careers, and this president, particularly, is not disposed to such reflections.

Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that Miers' 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' name probably would not have appeared in any of the 10,000 places on those lists.


In addition, the president has forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution. The forfeiture occurred March 27, 2002, when, in a private act betokening an uneasy conscience, he signed the McCain-Feingold law expanding government regulation of the timing, quantity and content of political speech. The day before the 2000 Iowa caucuses he was asked -- to insure a considered response from him, he had been told in advance he would be asked -- whether McCain-Feingold's core purposes are unconstitutional. He unhesitatingly said, ``I agree.'' Asked if he thought presidents have a duty, pursuant to their oath to defend the Constitution, to make an independent judgment about the constitutionality of bills and to veto those he thinks unconstitutional, he briskly said, ``I do.''