George Will’s column on Harriet Miers and the President 
    is both unfair and sloppy. He begins by suggesting that 
    the President is uninterested and incapable of making 
    sophisticated judgments about the Court and judicial 
    philosophies. This charge is patently unfair. The 
    President picked John Roberts, and has a stellar first 
    term record of selecting conservative judges for the 
    appellate bench. There hasn’t been a liberal in the bunch 
    with the exception of Roger Gregory and Barrington 
    Parker, both of whom the President obviously nominated as 
    part of an early political compromise that got Roberts 
    and others on the circuit bench. This is a man who almost 
    lost the Presidency because of the liberal activism of 
    the Florida Supreme Court. He understands full well the 
    power of the Court and has been serious about his 
    appointments in the past…

    …Will’s fourth argument is the most dangerous and absurd. 
    He suggests Miers shouldn’t be approved because she 
    hasn’t shown a “talent” for “constitutional reasoning” 
    honed through years of “intense interest” and practice. 
    Judging takes work, but the folks who think “constitutional
    reasoning” is a talent requiring divination, intense 
    effort and years of monastic study are the same folks who 
    will inevitably give you “Lemon tests,” balancing formulas,
    “penumbras” and concurrences that make your head spin. 
    The President sees through that mumbo jumbo and recognizes
    that good Justices are the ones who focus on the 
    Constitution’s text, structure and history and who call 
    balls and strikes. Bush is in favor of demystifying the 
    Court and the Miers choice is part of that effort. Will 
    seems to be buying into the “Nine Wisest Men” mythology 
    that is a root cause of the Court’s aggrandizement of 
    power over time.