True, But You're Still a Pussy

Sure neo-conservative and Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer is a pussy, but he's 100% right to call for Bush to withdraw his nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. (Yes, Ed Gillespie, I'm sexist and elitist!)

When in 1962 Edward Moore Kennedy ran for his brother's seat in the Senate, his
opponent famously said that if Kennedy's name had been Edward Moore, his candidacy would have been a joke. If Harriet Miers were not a crony of the president of the United States, her nomination to the Supreme Court would be a joke, as it would have occurred to no one else to nominate her.

Of course, it doesn't take long for Krauthammer to embarrassingly wet himself. After accusing liberals of corrupting the integrity of the courts, he goes on to argue that courts should ignore the constitution and rubber stamp social policies he agrees with.

For half a century, liberals have corrupted the courts by turning them into an instrument of radical social change on questions -- school prayer, abortion, busing, the death penalty -- that properly belong to the elected branches of government. Conservatives have opposed this arrogation of the legislative role and called for restoration of the purely interpretive role of the court.

Uh, I thought courts were being interpretive when they decided the constitutionality of school prayer, abortion restrictions, etc. It's one thing to argue that certain justices are misinterpreting the constitution or something more devious, and quite another to say they shouldn't interpret laws at all. It's even worse to suggest they just shouldn't deal with particular laws you favor. Who wants judges to be activists now?

Speaking of interpreting, I can only hope that Nikos will translate the following for me since it sounds like something he would write:

We've had quite enough dynastic politics over the past decades. (Considering the trouble I have had with Benjamin and William Henry Harrison, I pity the schoolchildren of the future who will have to remember who was who in the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton presidential alternations from 1989 to 2017.) But nominating a constitutional tabula rasa to sit on what is America's constitutional court is an exercise of regal authority with the arbitrariness of a king giving his favorite general a particularly plush dukedom. The only advance we've made since then is that Supreme Court dukedoms are not hereditary.

You would think that someone who is trying to influence the President would write in language he would understand.