|
| Friday, October 21, 2005 |
| Bush's argument makes no sense to me |
Here's something that I find confusing. Start with Bush's standard line yesterday on Miers and the SC:
President Bush said yesterday it is an asset that Miers has never been a judge. "I thought it made a lot of sense to bring a fresh outlook of somebody who's actually been a very successful attorney and . . . a pioneer for women lawyers in Texas," Bush told reporters at the White House. He said Miers will answer all the senators' questions, and "out of this will come a clear picture of a competent, strong, capable woman" who "is not going to legislate from the bench."
What I don't get is why someone's "fresh outlook" is valuable on a court that doesn't legislate. Presumably if Bush wants them not to legislate, what he does want them to do is adjudicate the constitutionality / unconstitutionality of laws and practices. How does being pioneering or "fresh" help when that's basically an academic exercise?
In other words, real-world experience is clearly valuable for creating and fine-tuning laws, but not nearly as valuable for deciding if they fit in with the Constitution, especially if you believe in enforcing the Constitution strictly as it was written.
Agree/disagree? |
posted by CB @ 12:10 PM   |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Recent Posts |
|
| Archives |
|
| Contact Me |
| Email me |
| Template by |
 |
|
|
I fully agree, Coilin