Ronald Cass makes a good argument in favor of Harriet Miers and against the arguments hurled against her here. He makes a good argument for trusting the President on this nomination. Fred Barnes makes a similar, but lukewarm argument here. National Review Bench Memos disagrees here with law professor Randy Barnett's cronyism take in the WSJ OpinionJournal here. Meanwhile, Jonah Goldberg explains the real reasons conservatives are unhappy with the Miers nomination here.
I maintain that as long as the President's nominee for an appointment is qualified to serve, he/she should be confirmed, regardless of my opinions about his/her personal philosophy. Many conservatives used this argument in favor of Roberts, and they can't very well say it doesn't apply to Miers.
I saw that Barnett piece on Opinion Jounal. He mentions Abe Fortas as an expample of cronyism as if there were some comparison to Miers, but Fortas actually took money from - was on the payroll of - a convicted stock swindler and interceded with the Johnson White House on behalf of two of his benefactor's companies that were under investigation! So there's nothing that I know of to indicate it is fair to compare Miers to Fortas.
(Recall that Fortas was also invoked as some sort of precedent for wholesale democrat filibusters of Bush judicial nominees. For the reasons mentioned above, the filibuster of Fortas when Johnson tried to elevate him from associate to chief justice is a really in-apt foundation on which to justify dem filibusters of perfectly ethical nominees with whom they merely disagree on political grounds).
Post a Comment