Original Vs. Conservative Part II

Here are two very different takes on the President's choice of Harriet Miers.

The first comes from George Will's editorial in the WaPo today. My favorite part;

It is not important that she be confirmed 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

and then this

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's name probably would not have appeared in any of the 10,000 places on those lists.

Talk about elitism, Mother of a Merciless God, this is the kind of crap that you would expect from Jean Phraud Kerrie, not a "supporter of the President".

Will's biggest point seems to be that because POTUS signed the HORRIFIC McCain Feingold law, while stating that the SCOTUS would do it's job, he (the President) has no standing to decide a persons qualifications to be an Originalist on the Constitution. WTF!
So I think the real problem here is George Will is upset that no one asked him first. I usually like Mr. Will, but he has this one all wrong.

Next up is Sen. John Cornyn (R - Texas) and his take in the WSJ today. He takes a less elitist view of the choice and reminds everyone that Ms. Miers is a lawyer who has been in a court room in the last 25 years, unlike the other (CJ Roberts not included) members of the Court.

So again I say, let this thing shake itself out.
Support the President, I am, on this one.