George Will had championed for the courtÂ J. Harvie Wilkinson. He was the judge who let it be known that Bush had questioned him on his exercise schedule. Wilkinson had a careful sensibility andÂ wasn’t an “extremist,” wrote Will, arguing against pure orginalism.Â So Will’sÂ constitutional jurisprudenceÂ isÂ itself a species, albeit it more intelligent than most kinds,Â of liberal thought.Â Will’s ideal justice would be neither an originalist nor an outright living-constitution-style activist.Â
Will scores at least oneÂ point in his column on Bush’s use of identity politics as aÂ crutch.Â That can’t be defended. Yesterday BushÂ at the press conference kept saying that Miers was a femaleÂ “pioneer” in Texas. So? Does that confer upon her some special insight into the meaning of the Constitution?Â How can he make the case for justices as apolitical and justify them on representational grounds?
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?