Whither Harriet?

It's pretty amazing how quickly the firestorm surrounding the surprising nomination of Bush crony Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court has died down.

But I suppose it's not surprising. I mean, after all, how do you refute the irrefutable? She has no paper trail, no recordable past, nothing to stand on. Therefore no record to use for approval of disapprove. To put it another way, there's no there there.

The only thing we really know is that she considers the W-imbecile to be 'brilliant.' That alone should be enough evidence to disqualify her from any post that requires brains and common sense.

Therefore, it's heartening to note that leading conservative George Will not only believes she should not be confirmed, he's indicating that her nomination is more proof of the W-imbecile's arrogance and ignorance.

From Thursday's Sun-Times, Will states:

He has neither the inclination nor the ability to make sophisticated judgments about competing approaches to construing the Constitution. Few presidents acquire such abilities in the course of their pre-presidential careers, and this president, particularly, is not disposed to such reflections.

That is not exactly a ringing endorsement from a longtime conservative commentator of a supposedly conservative president.

Will doesn't have all that much complimentary to say of Miers, either, 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 nomination, Will argues, is flawed because not only is the nominee flawed, so is the nominator:

Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that Miers' nomination resulted from the president's careful consultation with people capable of such judgments. If 100 such people had been asked to list 100 individuals who have given evidence of the reflectiveness and excellence requisite in a justice, Miers' name probably would not have appeared in any of the 10,000 places on those lists.

In addition, the president has forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution.

After concluding that Miers lacks the ability to be a competent justice, he concludes that the King George II's nomination of Miers goes against what the W-imbecile has preached throughout his time in office.

The crowning absurdity of the president's wallowing in such nonsense is the obvious assumption that the Supreme Court is, like a legislature, an institution of representation. This from a president who, introducing Miers, deplored judges who ''legislate from the bench.''

One wonders if Will is just discovering the absurdity of this president or that he's known about it all along and just now is transmitting that knowledge on to the rest of us.

Sorry, Mr. Will. We've known for years.

And so it goes.