The Latest Objection to Miers?
John Podhoretz can't expect this
to be taken seriously. Quoting one of her answers to the Senate questionnaire, he concludes:I have no problems with any of this, but it is basic conservative boilerplate.
Speaking of Miers, David Limbaugh has some very thoughtful observations on the Senate's proper role:But Professor Bainbridge's disagreement with me goes beyond semantics. He rejects my contention that the Senate's role should be limited to vetting the nominee's qualifications and character. He cites a few constitutional scholars, like John McGinnis, who have argued that the Constitution empowers the Senate to confirm or reject nominees for any reason at all. "Nothing in the text of the clause appears to limit the kind of considerations the Senate can take up."
Bainbridge writes, "To be sure, as McGinnis notes, Alexander Hamilton thought the Senate could only reject a nominee for 'special and strong reasons,' but that qualification is nowhere in the Constitution."
But doesn't an "originalist" approach to constitutional interpretation oblige us to inquire what the Framers understood the meaning of "Advice and Consent" to be? Surely Hamilton's Federalist 76 cannot be dismissed so casually if it gives us some insight as to the Framers' original understanding.
He also makes Carol Platt Liebau's
point:If Republicans thought they could properly reject the president's judicial nominees for political reasons alone, or on the basis of judicial philosophy, they've certainly done their best to prove otherwise. How else do you explain their overwhelming affirmation of the radically liberal and activist Ruth Bader Ginsburg?
For the responsible contra opinion, check out John Hawkins of Right Wing News
. John's doing a much more gracious and fair job of leading the attack against the Miers nomination than Rich Lowry and company, who think questioning the motives of Miers' supporters is a good approach. At the end of this process we're all going to have to get back on the Republican bus.
I should mention here that one of the major reasons I'm sticking with Miers is Hugh Hewitt.
He earned a lot of credibility with his amazing performance on election day last year. When the Chicken Littles over at NRO's The Corner were running around saying "The sky is falling!", Hugh was on the air letting us know that we had to ignore the ridiculous poll numbers and that Bush was going to win.