Adam's Apple
Senior Member
- Apr 25, 2004
- 4,092
- 449
- 48
After Harriet--One Choice, Really
By R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr., The American Spectator
October 28, 2005
The President said on Tuesday that he would not hand over documents relating to Miers' work for him to the Senate Judiciary Committee. That, he said, violates his lawyer-client relationship. His point was well made. Moreover, Democrats were going to insist that they see these documents. Stalemate was going to be reached. Miers did the prudent thing to bow out.
WHERE DO WE GO from here? The President needs a nominee with stature, proven knowledge of the law, integrity, and special authority in talking about the Constitution and the Supreme Court. Immediately after Miers's withdrawal Chris Matthews on MSNBC provided a solution. The President should nominate former Solicitor General Ted Olson. If sensible liberals such as Matthews see Olson's attributes, surely sensible Democrats will agree. Moreover even the "hard right" led by Frum and Chavez will have to agree.
Olson is a solid conservative, though he is not "hard right." His many appearances before the Court as Solicitor General and as a practicing lawyer are legendary. He has already passed muster with the Senate during the hearings on his nomination as Solicitor General. Finally there is a qualification that only Olson has. In a time of war on terror no one has thought more carefully about the role of law and the condition of the Constitution in time of this sort of insidious war than Ted Olson. As many know, Olson lost his beloved wife, Barbara, in 9/11. He then proceeded to serve as one of the finest Solicitors General in American history, balancing individual rights with the requirements of national security. What Democrat on the Judiciary Committee would take cheap shots at a nominee such as this?
Olson has devoted his life to the law. He is the "heavyweight" Matthews perceives, and only an obsessive partisan would oppose him.
For full article:
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_ret.asp
By R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr., The American Spectator
October 28, 2005
The President said on Tuesday that he would not hand over documents relating to Miers' work for him to the Senate Judiciary Committee. That, he said, violates his lawyer-client relationship. His point was well made. Moreover, Democrats were going to insist that they see these documents. Stalemate was going to be reached. Miers did the prudent thing to bow out.
WHERE DO WE GO from here? The President needs a nominee with stature, proven knowledge of the law, integrity, and special authority in talking about the Constitution and the Supreme Court. Immediately after Miers's withdrawal Chris Matthews on MSNBC provided a solution. The President should nominate former Solicitor General Ted Olson. If sensible liberals such as Matthews see Olson's attributes, surely sensible Democrats will agree. Moreover even the "hard right" led by Frum and Chavez will have to agree.
Olson is a solid conservative, though he is not "hard right." His many appearances before the Court as Solicitor General and as a practicing lawyer are legendary. He has already passed muster with the Senate during the hearings on his nomination as Solicitor General. Finally there is a qualification that only Olson has. In a time of war on terror no one has thought more carefully about the role of law and the condition of the Constitution in time of this sort of insidious war than Ted Olson. As many know, Olson lost his beloved wife, Barbara, in 9/11. He then proceeded to serve as one of the finest Solicitors General in American history, balancing individual rights with the requirements of national security. What Democrat on the Judiciary Committee would take cheap shots at a nominee such as this?
Olson has devoted his life to the law. He is the "heavyweight" Matthews perceives, and only an obsessive partisan would oppose him.
For full article:
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_ret.asp
