I find myself, strangely, agreeing with David Frum…but thankfully only in part. He makes the case that the nomination of Ms. Miers to the Supreme Court of the USA is a poor one and a disservice to that good nation to the south. He states in conclusion:
Yesterday’s White House talking point was that Miers “reflects the president’s judicial philosophy.” OK. But can she articulate it? Defend it? And persuade others of it – not just her colleagues, but the generations to come who will read her decisions and accept them … or scorn them. That’s the way this president should have thought about this choice. And that’s the way the Senators called on to consent to the choice should be thinking about it now.
My question is could he articulate his judicial philosophy? He might say stuff about “good people workin’ hard” and “a judge doin’ what a judge outta do”. But is that articulating? Is even saying that “judges making up stuff is bad” articulting? For me “articulating” would include being able to present an idea of why the court finding a privacy concept in the constitutional right to liberty is good or is bad. I think the fact that no one on the left or right has a clue why he nominated her is evidence that that he can’t articulate such ideas. If he could we would know his purpose in this nomination.