Bush: "Trust me." Will: "No."

George Will would appear not to share the President's enthusiastic support of Harriet Miers. "Yeeeeeeeouch" would perhaps be a better way to put it.

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. The president's "argument'' for her amounts to: Trust me. There is no reason to, for several reasons.

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 prepresidential careers, and this president, particularly, is not disposed to such reflections.

That word - "particularly" - is not going to get you invited to many White House events this holiday season, Mr. Will. Shifting from his focus on the President, Will puts the spotlight back on Miers:

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.

That seems a reasonable argument, though perhaps humbling. But back to Bush, Will goes:

In addition, the president has forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution. The forfeiture occurred March 27, 2002, when, in a private act betokening an uneasy conscience, he signed the McCain-Feingold law expanding government regulation of the timing, quantity and content of political speech. The day before the 2000 Iowa caucuses he was asked -- to insure a considered response from him, he had been told in advance he would be asked -- whether McCain-Feingold's core purposes are unconstitutional. He unhesitatingly said, "I agree.'' Asked if he thought presidents have a duty, pursuant to their oath to defend the Constitution, to make an independent judgment about the constitutionality of bills and to veto those he thinks unconstitutional, he briskly said, "I do.''

And thus would be the source of Will's current animus toward Bush: the "law expanding government regulation of the timing, quantity and content of political speech". I can understand his axe, but not why he's grinding it here, unless Will is making the case (in general) that the President cannot be trusted. So what is it, Mr. Will, can the President not be trusted in regard to picking Supreme Court justices or rather not trusted in general? It would seem to me you're indicating the latter.