George Will, not happy, is to be congratulated for writing about something besides the politics of the game and the “judicial philosophy” of the nominee, where the phrase in quotes seems to mean “how will she vote on RvW?” most of the time. He’s one of few columnists who seem concerned about the actual business of appellate judging (which does NOT equate to having judicial experience, lots of law professors could be excellent justices). You go, George.
“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….
“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.