Redstate

Isn't it a little premature to discuss killing the nomination in committee, before the Senators have had a chance to question the  nominee in committee?

Is Ms. Miers going to answer any of the questions that actually need answering?  

Of course not.

that would defeat all the negatives here?

And I recall all these unhappy conservatives, who didn't get their personal choice for the SCOTUS, lecturing the Democrats that we must give Roberts a fair hearing and an up or down vote.  How hypocritical!  How can we ask this of the Dems when our own right flank can't do it?  When they hear screeds like this, they probably can't contain their laughter.

For an opposing viewpoint, I suggest today's post from Hugh Hewitt.

someone needs to be saying this. Some people have started supporting this nominee just because President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Hugh Hewitt & Jay Sekulow have said trust us.

Jay Sekulow of the ACLJ, who has been before the SCOTUS on numerous conservative causes, has had good things to say about Miers.  Jay is someone who has been there, has been kicked around and kicked back, and would be in a better postion to make a judgement on Miers than many of these so-called conservative experts who have been trouncing her and Bush.  I'll take my lead from those who are in the best position to know.

short of watching her on the Court and crossing our fingers.

Of course, Roberts did not answer these questions with a definite yea/no either.

The President promised us this morning that she would not evolve on the Court, as that term is used, but that is evolve... from what?

Why is Mike Mussina, who pitched horribly last time, starting tonight against the Angels?  What does Joe Torre know that we don't?  I guess we'll find out.

Thing is, Torre has Aaron Small in the dugout should something go terribly wrong.  We've Edith Jones, to name one, and it is up to Miers to prove herself before the Judiciary Committee.

> And one can't help but wonder if they would have such enthusiastic respect for Ms. Miers' dishearteningly vacant legal resume if this nominee originated from a president with a (D) after their name.

They probably wouldn't.  Except that the issue is moot, because she wasn't nominated by a president with D, she was nominated by President W.   W picks people he knows he can trust-- this hasn't changed.

Where you guys are screaming "cronyism", I read "guaranteed non-Souterism".

> as a matter of politics, the White House has made a huge strategic blunder

As a matter of "politics"?  Perhaps so.  But what about the matter of "judicial disposition of SCOTUS" ?  Excuse me, but I don't care a bean about the polls or (sorry) even if my fellow conservatives are puking and losing their minds in anguish-- if this lady is an excellent choice for the court (and nomination process), then that's all that matters.

Would I have preferred to have seen Luttig go up, be filibustered, nuke the filibuster, drive the dems before me and hear the lamentation of their women?  Sure-- buy you're asking me whether I'd prefer to have the best of all "possible" future outcomes.

What it comes down to, I think, is that W is deciding to take a large pot with no risk rather than shoot the moon.  I'm still open to heartbreak, but so far I'm not convinced that this is a disaster.

If conservatives wait until her hearing, it will be too late to defeat her.  In the months before the hearings, tempers will settle, selected White House facts that seem to indicate she is conservative will be endlessly repreated by party lapdogs and Bush loyalists, and a sense that she will be confirmed will settle in.  The hearing will make little or no difference to Republican senators by then, unless she screws up in a big way.

Even if we luck out and she ends up being conservative, she is no Luttig et. al.  We have not put a giant on the court.  We have not put the best and brightest conservative jurists on the court.  If she is a conservative, she is a second stringer, maybe even a third stringer.  Why not help the conservative legal movement by putting the best minds in the movement on the Court?  

Rather than the best, we are putting someone on the court whom Bush has looked into her eyes and saw in her soul was a conservative. Great!  If Stevens retires, look for Putin to be the next nominee.

I sit and weigh this decision in view of the other choices Bush might have made -- and I can't help but think that this nomination is exactly what Schumer (and Patrick Ruffini) describe it as being:  a "threading the needle" pick that he hopes will placate his most vociferous critics in a time of relative presidential crisis.  He's asking the base to "suck it up" and keep supporting him, so that perhaps next year another slot on the court will open up and he'll be able to appoint someone more commensurate with Conservative sensibilites.  

He's asking us to sacrifice and take this leap of faith, even though there are so many holes in Meirs' record and so many questionable things about her background that conservatives can pick apart and fret over.

I'll make one final observation in Meirs' favor here:  her service to the President.  Yesterday I couldn't help but worry about the cronyism charge, but there is another way to look at it, and some commentators here have brought it up:  being a practicing lawyer in the White House has given her (we would hope) a sense of how law and politics intertwine.  In other words, her experience as Bush's counsel may very well have given her a sense of the practical consequences of abstract legal issues that she might not otherwise have had if she were, for instance, a stellar academic, or even, as John Roberts was, a seasoned advocate before the court.  She's seen the view inside the White House, at the President's side, and sometimes that experience can be invaluable in practical terms.  

I'll tell you why:  one of the most enriching and educational experiences (as well as one of the most difficult and demanding) was being the secretary to the Dean of a law school.  The Dean of the school is first and foremost a lawyer, perhaps also a scholar in their own right, but in terms of their day-to-day existence they act, in many ways, as a manager, an administrator.  Their abstract legal education informs their decisions, of course, but it is an entirely different thing to manage and lead than it is to theorize, criticize and conduct scholarly research.  In that position, I learned a great deal about the day-to-day intersection of legal thinking with reality -- and the interface is messy and often unpredictable.  

If I were to support Harriet Miers (and I'm still very undecided) I would hope that during the hearings I hear something to indicate to me that she has benefited from her experience in a similar way at the White House.  To put it differently:  she has been the legal "right hand" of the President, the most important and surely one of the most demanding jobs in the world.  Perhaps there is something uniquely valuable about that experience we should be crediting her for.

Great Question for this reason I think my team will lose the series to the Angels. Where is Shawn Chacon? Forget Small he was just lucky Chacon is the better Pitcher by far.

I quote:

"And one can't help but wonder if they would have such enthusiastic respect for Ms. Miers' dishearteningly vacant legal resume if this nominee originated from a president with a (D) after their name."

The answer is simply NO. Nor would staunch liberals and partisan Dems be digging up every reason to fault with Miers if a Kerry had nominated her. Thy would be showing the same cautious approval that you suggest.

I find the double standards of both sides a bit comical.

it is only an issue because Sen. Hatch was instrumental in gradually weakening the opposition's power to refuse nominees before they even reached a hearing.

Prior to this, many a nominee were squashed before even seeing the light of day.

The little known "Blue Slip" rule was changed by Hatch when he saw that the GOP wouldn't need it first in the late 90s and further after the 2002 midterms when the GOP gained control again.

It used to be that a Senator of the home state of the nominee could "blue slip" a nominee and not  even allow a hearing or debate. Under Clinton, Hatch changed it to BOTH senators being needed and after the midterms, he ousted the rule all together.

Keep that in mind. I think the Nuclear Option is ridiculous.

Meanwhile, during Miers long affiliation with the American Bar Association, she submitted a 1999 report to the ABA's house of delegates that included recommendations to develop and establish an International Criminal Court and the enactment of laws and public policy providing that the sexual orientation of adults be no bar to adoption of children.

Under the heading Family Law and subheading Adoption, the document states: "Supports the enactment of laws and public policy which provide that sexual orientation shall not be a bar to adoption when the adoption is determined to be in the best interest of the child."

Also included, under the heading International Law and Practice, is a recommendation for "the development and establishment of an International Criminal Court."

Along with the proposed agenda was a memo, dated Oct. 28, 1998, that explained the document.

"The Committee urges all Delegates to review this list for items of interest to their constituencies, and to act as the catalyst for further contact and action so that each entity will have the earliest opportunity for consideration and input."

The memo is signed by Miers as chairwoman of the Select Committee of the House.

As a city councilwoman, Miers also said Dallas had a responsibility to pay for AIDS education and patient services. And she courted the support of the Lesbian/Gay Coalition of Dallas in her successful 1989 campaign.

In addition, economic conservatives pleased by her corporate law background may find it distressing that in 1990 Miers voted for a 7 percent property tax increase during her short tenure on the Dallas City Council.

if a Democrat had nominated a heavyweight like Tribe, I would be protesting that pick, too.

I'm kinda down the middle. I can appreciate a clash a philosophy when it's justified. However, tepid approval for nominee of one's party when this same or similar person would lambasted if nominated the other side is silly.

2002-2004: 4.55, including a 4.30 away ERA. He's not actually that good.

Hey, here's an idea, start Jeffrey Maier in those low seats in left field, and maybe he can work some more magic and save your season.

"lecturing the Democrats that we must give Roberts a fair hearing and an up or down vote" -- that's because Roberts clearly was qualified.  Miers is not clearly qualified, and some (including myself) would say she's not qualified.

"who didn't get their personal choice for the SCOTUS" -- I haven't been arguing for a particular person (although Garza, Estrada, Williams, Jones, Luttig, Alito, etc. all would have been better choices).

I addressed the ABA document here.

The nomination of Miers is interesting to me. I am not a hardcore liberal, but one of the things that I felt was problematic about the Bush administration was the way it treated some long standing government institutions.

Some flags that the liberals have been flying along these lines have been, for example, the evisceration of many government agencies, including the FDA and the EPA (but others as well, including HUD). It had been my impression that, while these agencies were being populated by Bush cronies, the main goal was to enforce a right-wing political correctness across the board. (I certaintly opposed that, but, OK, the case can be made that the electorate wanted Bush to do these things.)

So this Miers thing is very strange. In the end, is it just about cronyism? Bush could have nominated some hardcore pro-lifer with a long record. Or someone like Gonzalez, who is a public supporter of things like Guantanamo. Maybe he would have lost the nomination (I imagine the pro-lifer would have lost, I can't see a nominee losing for civil rights reasons.) But I believe that's what his supporters -- at least at the grassroots -- wanted.

So in the end, is the administration really just about cronyism? The only other thing I can think of is that Bush got exceptionally bad advice from over-cautious people high up. Or, possibly, that Miers really is a hard-core pro-lifer (and generally hard right), and Bush (and his team) know it, and they picked her because the Dems wouldn't know until it was too late?

is that oddly, the MSM/DNC lie about W being stupid and a liar is kind of the subconcious context of this reaction to Mier.

In Houston, an otherwise mainstream conservative talkshow host, Pat Gray, is literally thinking she is nominated aspart of a Skull&Crossbones conspiracy.

Suddenly conservatives who ahve gotten:

GWOT, tax cuts, an effective PA, and Roberts, a solid and proven CJ, are rebelling.

Did too many people actually believe the proven BS about Katrina? Coonet the dots: the MSM and DNC lied about what happened in the Katrina response. They lied about W being off the job and slow.

Back our guy. He needs it now: our leadership is being picked off in political show indictments, and now we are being manipulated into dumping on the best conservative leader since RWR. Have the subliminal messages of the past five + years warped thinking? It would seem so.

W has been about as conservative as the weak majorities in Congress would permit. Could he be more eloquent? Yes. Deal with it.

I am getting irritated over the reactionary rejection of Miers. The dems' strategy has been never to actually beat us, but to get us to eat our own.

I present this brouhaha over Miers as proof of their tactic possibly being effective.

W has kept his word at least as well as RWR.

We are the majority party, and we have a nation to run. History is on our side. We have the exciting ideas. We are going to ahve the first AJ on USSC for the first time in years who ahs had primarily private practice and private industry experience.

She is bringing more 'realness' to the table tahn some aparatchik judge.

And, my bet is some of the trule nasty Justices on the USSC are not too healthy these days. My bet is more vacancies are coming.

Loyalty serves us all well.

It is time to apply that truth.

Brownback,Sessions, etc. now need to demand answers to the same sort of questions that Roberts so skillfully turned back.  I wish we could verify, but don't see it happening.  I given up on trust.  I wish just one R would have the backbone to fillibuster.

I take it you didn't vote for President Bush then, if he's such a liar?

as to the specifics of why she is not qualified or "not clearly qualified", whatever that means.

How could the White House be so wrong about the politics of a nomination?

Wrong? I'm betting at least 52/55 (probably 55/55)Republicans will vote for her. Add 25-30 democrats and I'll take the over on her beating Robert's 78 affirmative votes. Bush will have gotten both of his choices on the court without breaking a sweat. The Far Left and some of the Social Right will scream, but that's about the only path left.

The reality is that this is what President Bush has always wanted in his legacy -- a conservative court system that knows business issues. Both Roberts and Miers show that. Social issues have never been that interesting to him, he's a business school grad and has run companies in the oil and entertainment industries.

But in a larger sense the idea of "verification" is what lead to this type of pick. Anybody that has much of a paper trail will be "verified" to death. The left made much about Roberts "sending a girl to jail for eating a French Fry" and "siding with the bombers of abortion clinic".  The right made equally specious claims about Gonzales not being conservative enough because of his interpretation of Texas Law in an abortion case and tactics in an affirmative action case.

Anybody's record can be picked for just the right sentence to show them in a bad light. Since that's such a cottage sport on the ends of the political spectrum it actually makes it easier to pick a nominee. No need to get somebody with a record, as a record will be in the end become a liability. Finding somebody with no record and good instincts is a lot easier than finding somebody with a great bio.

Who said he was liar? I do challenge the wisdom of this appointment and given what is at stake, I'm not willing to just fall in line because someone says I should.

Definitely she should get credit for her credentials as White House counsel. I'm no lawyer, but I would think that she would have had a lot of dealing with constitutional law in that capacity. To me, it is every bit as good as being an appellate judge.

Bush is asking us to trust his choice, but I think we also have to understand that Bush, himself, must trust his choice. And Miers may be the pick that he could trust the most to be in the mold of a Scalia and Thomas.

"I wish just one R would have the backbone to fillibuster."

If she's unqualified, vote her down. An up or down vote still applies here.

We don't listen to Jay Sekulow, who doubtlessly knows what Harriet Miers thinks of Roe.

You said you gave up on trusting him. Why would you vote for a President whom you can't trust to carry out the duties of the office in the manner in which he promised he would?

George W. Bush complained much about Democrats' treatment of his judicial nominees throughout his first term. The loudest crowd applause at each campaign stop in 2004 came when he forcefully spoke about it. The issue helped the Republicans take back the U.S. Senate in 2002, and increased their lead in 2004. It helped oust Tom Daschle. It helped Bush get reelected in the historic 2004 Presidential election.

So why, when conservatives need him the most, with Senators up for reelection in 2006 and the future of the Supreme Court depending upon his judgment, did President Bush nominate Harriet Miers to replace retiring justice Sandra Day O'Connor?

The answer is obvious: Bush is in a crisis point in his presidency. As the water level in New Orleans was rising after Katrina, he was cutting into a birthday cake for John McCain in Phoenix. As thousands of stranded people in New Orleans were crying out for help on national television, Bush complemented FEMA chief Michael Brown, saying, "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job." Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff actually tried say no one had expected the levees to break on "Meet the Press."

A month later, Brown is long gone, Chertoff has been neutered and Bush's approval ratings are dismal. "Progress" in Iraq is excruciatingly slow. The Justice Department is still sifting through administration officials' emails in the Valerie Plame case and Judith Miller has a new book deal.

Put simply, Bush panicked.

Yet, for no reason. Americans overwhelmingly supported the John Roberts nomination, which should've given him the momentum make a bold move on the most important domestic decision of his presidency.

It would have put the Democrats on the ropes. Would they have filibustered? Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has long shown he's dead serious about using the "nuclear option." If they had filibustered, it would have been at their own peril.

Bush should have nominated a top flight woman or Hispanic conservative, and dared the Democrats to filibuster. If they were smart, the Democrats would have backed down and allowed an up-or-down vote for a common sense conservative in the mold of Roberts.

More likely, the Democrats would've filibustered after much obscene behavior from the left wing of the party. Then, the 2006 elections would have been a referendum on fairness to judicial nominees, and the role of the courts in American society. It would also take voters' minds off of Bush's failures.

For the third election cycle in a row, the Democrats would lose and would be sitting in the minority for the foreseeable future. Judicial nominees would then have the dignity of an up-or-down vote, and the White House would again be the Republicans' to lose in 2008.

In hindsight, nothing in the history of American politics would compare to the narrow Republican domination of the 2002, 2004 and 2006 elections, and the judiciary would be changed forever. Republicans could finally focus on important issues like tax, education and Social Security reform while the Democrats licked their wounds and started over from scratch.

Instead, Bush ducked from the fight and nominated his personal lawyer, a third-rate joke who has no business serving on the Supreme Court, at the suggestion of Democratic Minority Leader Harry Reid.

She'll look embarrassing in the upcoming confirmation hearings compared to the brilliance of Roberts. She'll likely get confirmed, but she'll be roughed up by both Republicans and Democrats along the way.

When it's all settled, and O'Conner is back in Phoenix enjoying retirement, the ever-growing Democrat monster will rear its ugly head and spit fire in every direction. The 2006 elections will be as ugly, if not uglier, than Bush v. Kerry, and the theme will be Republican incompetence.

Democrats, as in 2004, still will not offer any ideas or agendas, but it will not matter. They finally will have convinced a majority of Americans that Republicans are utterly worthless, and will take back the Senate as millions of conservatives stay at home in November.

There's no doubt Miers is a conservative. Bush's best hope is that she forever grasps why she's there, and becomes Roberts' poodle. But under new Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, the dream of a principled, conservative court will give way to another hopelessly watered-down court akin to the Renquist years.

In the event of future openings on the court, Bush will be a lame duck with a Democratic-controlled Senate. He'll have no choice but to hand over a new tennis partner for David Souter, or two.

What a shame.

is that you think everything revolves around Roe.  It doesn't.  And Jay knows better than that.  What do you have against him?  What has he ever done to you to treat him as such a non-entity?

that we listen to someone who knows more about her than her jobs and where she attended law school.

in Augustine's post as to why she is not qualified.   Anyway, I was asking you why.  Thanks for your non-answer.

There is a search function on this site.  Please use it.  Or, failing that, try scrolling down the front page.

He finished 7-3 with a 2.76 ERA in 12 starts and one relief apperance for the Yankees and went 4-1 with a 2.45 ERA in September/October.

Chacon will face off against Jarrod Washburn at Yankee Stadium in Game 4.

Don't forget Chacon faced Anaheim in his American League debut, allowing no earned runs in a six-inning no decision.

You cannot count Colorado that is why he was such a steal for them. The ball not only carries more there it does not break. Dumbest move ever made was Hampton signing with Rockies.He should be in Rotation right behing Johnson.

     SEASON          TEAM          W          L          ERA          G          GS          CG          SHO          SV          SVO          IP          H          R          ER          HR          HBP          BB          SO

2001         Colorado Rockies     6     10     5.06     27     27     0     0     0     0     160.0     157     96     90     26     10     87     134

2002         Colorado Rockies     5     11     5.73     21     21     0     0     0     0     119.1     122     84     76     25     7     60     67

2003         Colorado Rockies     11     8     4.60     23     23     0     0     0     0     137.0     124     73     70     12     12     58     93

2004         Colorado Rockies     1     9     7.11     66     0     0     0     35     44     63.1     71     52     50     12     5     52     52

2005         Colorado Rockies     1     7     4.09     13     12     0     0     0     0     72.2     69     33     33     7     8     36     39

2005         New York Yankees     7     3     2.85     14     12     0     0     0     0     79.0     66     26     25     7     6     30     40

Since I know Jay professionally and have for several years, I assure you that he would also insist that Roe takes first priority in assessing any SC nominee.  I find it rather ludicrous that you would think otherwise, given his extensive work in the area of law.

Because, you know, those people who "knew them best" turned out to be so right about Souter.  And O'Connor, too.

So why, when conservatives need him the most, with Senators up for reelection in 2006 and the future of the Supreme Court depending upon his judgment, did President Bush nominate Harriet Miers to replace retiring justice Sandra Day O'Connor?

I've been asking myself the same question. The only conclusion I can draw that makes sense to me is that the administration thinks there's going to be another opening on the court prior to the 06 elections.

I'm hoping that, by the summer of 06 the president will have appointed 2 conservatives in Roberts and Miers, built up some credibility with the public for being "accomodating", and the real fight (i.e. Luttig or Jones for Stevens) will present itself right before the elections.

I seem to recall that back when Democrats were nominating judges, or--more recently--had concerns about whether a nominee was acceptable, this kind of thinking was called a "litmus test" and was generally frowned upon.

Demanding that a nominee hew to any view whatsoever - i.e., being a "strict constructionist," as the President insists Miers is - is also a "litmus test."

I know him.  He's conservative.  I put him on the bench.  Now we're stuck with Souter.  

"And so we are left with no way to verify... short of watching her on the Court and crossing our fingers."

That's true of any nominee, short of one who has pre-judged cases, and is therefore unfit for the job.

There are two ways to fight the left - 1) support anything and everything the right does or 2) challenge the right to be the best they can be as an alternative, which involves disagreeing with them at times.

It seems to me that those on the right rationalizing the Miers nomination are using approach #1. But I choose approach #2 and believe the Miers nomination hurts the cause and should be withdrawn.

Harriet Miers is not qualified to be an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. She is a crony who would not have been on the short list for any other modern day Republican President considering SCOTUS nominees. She is not one of the top legal thinkers in the country by any definition.

It is not about where she went to school; it is about her stature in the legal community, which does not rise to the level where she should be nominated to the highest court in the land.

A "must read" article making the case that the Miers nomination perfectly satisfies the concerns Alexander Hamilton referenced in Federalist Paper 76 where he emphasized the importance of the Senate's "advice and consent" role to block cronyism is linked herein (courtesy of Boston University School of Law Professor Randy Barnett for The Wall Street Journal) - http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007354

In addition, I notice where former Republican White House Counsel employees Hugh Hewitt and Professor Doug Kmiec support the Miers nomination. Perhaps this is because subjectively they believe White House Counsel staff like themselves are eminently qualified and should not be characterized as cronies. The problem with their thinking is that people who got on the White House Counsel staff in the first place because they are cronies certainly should not be elevated further. William Rehnquist was elevated by President Nixon from the Justice Department to the SCOTUS, a large leap - but a leap warranted by Rehnquist's stature.

I commend to everyone the analysis of Professor John Yoo of Boalt Hall (University of California, Berkeley School of Law), a very bright young conservative legal mind and former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/03/AR200510030
1409.html.

Kill this in committee? Please. That is moonbat thinking, not serious analysis.

Excepting some dramatic revelation first, Miers is going to be confirmed (a) because she gives the left nothing to attack and (b) because Republican Senators are smart enough to know that, for all his problems, it would still be suicide for them to throw Bush under the bus.

for those times you aren't sitting on 55 votes.

And what I saw was a clear rebuttal to your contention that she is not qualified.  We have yet to hear the ABAs opinion, but the attorneys here are clearly not unanimous.  

And fwiw, I believe that the qualifieds are winning over the unqualifieds, regardless of who's in the bullpen.

I fail to see how that follows, but whatever...

I'll RedHot that Yoo piece - hadn't seen it.

He's a rising star, btw.

Miers most likely would have been president of the American Bar Association if she had not joined the White House. She has been recognized numerous times by the National Law Journal. She was president of the Texas State Bar. She has been White House Counsel, which is one of the top 3 non-judicial positions a lawyer can hold (along with AG and SG).

She has stature. Indeed, she more stature than Owen, Williams, Sykes, Janice Rogers Brown, Clement, and many others on the short list. A conservative paper trail and stature are not the same thing.

Does she have stature as a legal theorist? No.

But she has stature as a practicing lawyer.

I am not giddy about the choice, but this ongoing effort to diminish her accomplishments is not fair.

If you want to avoid trusting President Bush (or anyone else) because of the mistakes made by his father and John Sununu, that's fine.  I'll just trust the judgment of the President of the United States in this case.

you said:

"I am getting irritated over the reactionary rejection of Miers. The dems' strategy has been never to actually beat us, but to get us to eat our own.

I present this brouhaha over Miers as proof of their tactic possibly being effective."

Why are all things negative always the result of an opposition tactic? Do you really believe that line of thinking or is it just "feel good" convenient??

Bush simply nominated someone who is hard to label and many loyal conservatives are having a hard time dealing with it and Dems in the Senate aren't sure what to think or are being optimistic that she'll be fair. Plain and simple. Dispense with the conspiracies and stay in reality.

For my part, I have little confidence in the statements of such individuals when none of them can even venture a guess how Ms. Miers will rule on Roe (I would remind them that Senators Durbin, Leahy, and Kennedy consider themselves to be "personally pro-life," too).

And we complain that the Democrats are beholden to abortion interests?  I think it's about time we all get a grip.

In the grand scheme of things, Roe is minuscule.  Even without it, abortion would still be legal in virtually every state in the country, if not just plain all of them.  We have way bigger fish to fry.

you don't listen to Jay Sekulow.  I think it would help enlighten some of us as to why someone who has fought so many conservative causes before the SCOTUS would receive a deaf ear from RedState.

Roe is important because it has been the igniting factor for poisoning the entire confirmation process for federal judges.

If Hatch hadn't changed Senate rules, either Texas Senator could, being from the home state of Miers, "blue slip" her and reject her nomination. Though, I doubt Cornyn would since he's totally in step with Bush.

I wonder where you stood when the Dems were threatening to filibuster with a possible Nuclear Option looming and all that disingenuous and simplistic "up or down vote" blather was going on.

As someone who's more liberal on the social end of things and Independently Centrist on REAL issues, I wholeheartedly agree. 80-90% of what the government is does about MONEY...where is comes from, how much, where it goes and how much. PERIOD. Most of the rest is about laws that are ususally related to money and power in some way.

I may offend some people with this statement but I believe hard line social conservatives who dwell on petty wedge issues are the grunts of the GOP voting base. Ya dangle a petty wedge issue carrot in their face and they will come. Same goes for people on the far social left. Get a grip, people!! It's about the money, stupid!!

And on money, I have very little in the way of a bias to one side or the other....which is why I'll never label myself with a D or an R. I find the bst ideas in 3rd party candidates. They cut to the chase on the big issues.

i am with you....Bush dropped the ball on this...I am amazed that he is so scared to appoint an nominee whose record is conservative, and is not afraid to defend thier positions.

Hmmm.

Let's say I don't trust the judgement of Ford, Reagan, Bush Sr and G.W. Bush.

It was Senator Kennedy, not Senator Hatch, that eliminated the odious "blue slip" practice; see:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=291409

The "blue slip" was a veto accorded to a senator from the nominee's home state in the judiciary committee.  Left-wing groups like Common Cause vigorously opposed it as undemocratic in the past; now we have People for the American Way seeking to revive it as yet another way for the Democrats to obstruct the will of the majority.

I never said it was a conspiracy.

I state the fact that many good conservatives are reacting, rather than thinking, about this.

I point out that W has been very very good to conservatives.

I also state the obvious that the best strategy is to get your enemy to defeat himself. How many of us have thanked the DNC for placing Dr. Dean in power? Sen. Reid rushing out to praise Meier is no different. He sees a chance to disinguously praise someone and drive conservatives nutz and takes it. I know I would to the dems if in an equivalent position.

Frankly the conspiracy talk has been from those who have not taken the time to consider why w is ready to let his best lawyer go to the bench.

but Roberts had a track record for us to look through to understand him better than Miers.

That's the big difference.

on the court if Robert Byrd had put him on an approved list! amen?

I think this is great. Bush knows her. Its a cinch scalia/thomas vote. All this about a fight over a movement conservative, I'm game for if its necessary. But we have been betrayed by conservatives with records. She is a gift.

And stick to those 3rd party folks.  And come back when you win something.

I'd have to dig deeper. Either way, even when I read that it Hatch's doing, it did seem fishy that ONE MAN, could do that. He would need cooperation.

you then said:

"now we have People for the American Way seeking to revive it as yet another way for the Democrats to obstruct the will of the majority."

LOL. And what was it during the 90s when the GOP used it so much against Clinton that he probably thought he under water with all the Blue everywhere? BOTH SIDES exploited the blue slip for everything it was worth. If not for the blue slip, we'd have had a Nuclear Option already either during the 90s, 80s or sooner. Without the Blue slip, Reagan or Clinton probably would have nominated more extreme judges.

I'm not taking sides. It's just what it is. I still think the simplistic "Everyone deserves an up or down vote" slogan is very disingenuous coming from anyone who ever used or supported a "blue-slipping" in the past.

That article talks about changes Kennedy made to the blue-slip procedure during the Carter Administration.  That has no relevance to the battles over Clinton's and Bush's nominees.

That's a very shallow thing to say. 3rd party groups work hard on a lot of issues to gain attention for certain causes that may get "adopted" by one of the 2 parties when they hit the radar screen. I don't vote 3rd party BUT even if I were to, I don't believe it would a wasted vote. Some of the best ideas on real issues are championned by 3rd party people. I respect the work they do. Their results are not measured in election won, but in issues that gain attention.

they make you think.  Since they have nothing to lose, they're more willing to say things that politicians don't want to say, but need to be said anyway for the good of the nation.

Ross Perot was a good example of it.  Though he offended quite a few voters with some of his ideas, he incited contemplation and debate in the voter base by introducing new ideas and confronting issues that a "party" politician wouldn't dare even touch...and he captured a surprising percentage of the popular vote.

And his idea of running the government like a business?  Seems...strangely familiar now, does it not?

if I follow you.

Can you clarify?

thanks,

I won't be silent, however.

"Once again, President Bush showed exceptional judgment in naming Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court to replace Justice O'Connor," said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ, who argues regularly before the high court and has a pro-life protest case at the high court this term.  "At a time when the high court is facing some of the most critical issues of the day - including a number of cases dealing directly with abortion and life issues - the person who replaces Justice O'Connor is critical.  Harriet Miers is an excellent choice with an extraordinary record of service in the legal community and is certain to approach her work on the high court with a firm commitment to follow the Constitution and the rule of law.  I have been privileged to work with her in her capacity as White House counsel.  She is bright, thoughtful, and a consummate professional and I enthusiastically endorse her nomination."

Sekulow added:  "We look forward to a speedy confirmation process and will work aggressively to ensure that Harriet Miers gets full and fair consideration before the Senate.  We call on members of the Senate to reject the partisan political rhetoric and focus on the judicial philosophy of this conservative mainstream nominee."

Sekulow said the ACLJ will begin mobilizing a national campaign to ensure that Miers is confirmed.  Sekulow said he will generate support for the nominee through his daily radio broadcast that reaches 1.5 million listeners, through his weekly television show, by using direct mail, phone calls, and emails to a list approaching one million supporters.

"We know the intentions of the liberal left - to do anything possible to derail this nominee," said Sekulow.  "We are prepared to meet those challenges head on and ensure that this battle ends with the confirmation of Harriet Miers as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court."

You're right Kennedy and Biden aslo used this tactic.

Hatch also used it and changed the rules depending on who was president. Under Clinton, he allowed nominees to blocked with one blue slip. Jesse Helms, in fact, used his to block ALL of Clinton's nominees to the NC courts and Hatch upheld his single blue slip. Whe Bush became president, he changed (or reverted back to ...if you will) the rule to force BOTH home state Senators to blue slip a nominee to avoid having many nominees blocked.

This became a big stink in 2003, when both Michigan Senators blue-slipped Bush nominees in their state and Hatch proceeded with the hearings anyway saying it didn't see just cause for the blue slip (while he never sought just cause for ONE blue slip under Clinton.)

Frankly, I find this action deplorable by any Senator. Tweeking the rules to suit your agenda is despicable. This practice of blue slipping goes back to George Washington and it a useful tool to keep extremists off the benches. Whether or not one would consider it undemocratic is a worthy discussion. But to blame one side for it when both sides have a history of using it is nonsenscial.

Glad to claify, despite tired hands!

I'm just saying, that with all the trouble we have had going back to Ike, Nixon, Reagan and Bush 41, with betrayals by conservative judges with a  paper trail or defeated nominees due to the msm/lib repubs are racists and maybe too mnay spineless repubs now,

That I think Bush was smart to jump on harry Reid's mistake of putting Bush's lawyer, that Bush knows intimately, on the approved list and getting someone he knows and how they would decide cases.

Its a lock conservative vote.

Reagan would have jumped on a similar scenario for meese, given the occonnor disapointment and then kennedy.

But, we will all get our wish for a fight. She's an evangelical christian. She will be attcaked.

Sorry to say that the blood is in the water and our fellow Conservatives are biting the chum, and any dangling legs as well.

I don't see Reid as scheming or "up to something" simply because he approves of Bush's nominee.

He's either being duped or he just genuinely approves of her for some reason. Or maybe he just thinks it's best he's gonna get from Bush.

I've noticed that you're fond of that word. I confess to being unclear as to how you're using it here, though. For what other concept or phrase is "Roe takes first priority" a substitution? How is it standing in here?

I'm willing to accept that it might be used metonymically in this case, but ultimately I don't see how that makes it any less a litmus test for how a nominee might vote in a hypothetical situation.

I should also note that I don't object, in principle, to vetting a nominee based on how you think they might vote. I think that all judges--to a greater or lesser degree--allow their ideology to influence their judicial philosophy; it is simply human to do so, and part of the measure of the excellence of a judicial nominee is the degree to which they can separate their ideology from their approach to the bench.

What I object to is the inconsistent and bewilderingly naive way that the issue is typically treated--to wit, the ridiculous and naive notion that ideology does not inform a judge's ruling, and that it is out of line for anyone to question a judge based on that. The reaction of many fine and principled conservatives to the possibility that Miers may not vote the way they prefer on [insert issue here] demonstrates that both sides understand this when their own agenda is at stake. I think the process would benefit from both sides acknowledging this, and I think the bipartisan dismay over Miers' qualifications will help ameliorate that situation somewhat.

gets attacked by the left, speaks, has more of history known and they finally get it that BUSH KNOWS HER WELL. The commies did all that work to get Hiss in!

White House that would return his calls.

...any human activity prior to its occurrence!.

All human interaction, from conversation among friends through jury deliberations to the selection of a SCOTUS nominee, is inevitably tied to more than mere deterministic projections of similar earlier situations. As helpful as those clues can be to guessing what X will do or say next, we invariably also factor intangibles into the mix, and high among those is a degree of trust established (or destroyed) as familiarity grows over the course of a relationship. Whether we acknowledge its presence or not, that trust (or its lack) is sometimes so strong as to overrule all opposing projections.

Why is Mike Mussina, who pitched horribly last time, starting tonight against the Angels?  What does Joe Torre know that we don't?  I guess we'll find out.

In his gut, in the face of the Baltimore disaster, he still trusted him to deliver--which trust has now been verified. And not only has Joe's trust in Mike been validated, but the fans' trust in Joe--which certainly had some scratching their heads (or worse)--has been as well.

(The balance of this is NOT aimed at you, Mark!)

I urge those who feel compelled to abandon any pretence of trust in the President due to frustration at the unverifiable nature of his claimed trust in Ms. Miers and his request to be trusted for that trust to:

1. remember that the President knows logarithmically more about Ms. Miers as a person than you do, from long familiarity (caveat: OK, excluding any on this site who happen to know her personally), and should not be required to elaborate the intangibles of that relationship any more than you would if you were asked "is your spouse an honorable person?" If they don't believe you when you say "Yes--trust me", why should they believe you if you feel compelled to elaborate?
   
2. please refrain from public POTUS-bashing. I am grieved that a sitting CIC, in the midst of a very real war, could be publically slandered as i++++, m++++ and the like on his own party's site, while happy eyes elsewhere doubtless take it all in. IMO this goes so far beyond policy disagreement as to approach aid and comfort.

"But whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be in danger of hell fire."

Don't know why. Words don't usually get stuck in my head like that. Once, in college, metathesis did, but that only lasted a semester.

For what other concept or phrase is "Roe takes first priority" a substitution? How is it standing in here?

Roe (itself) is the examplar of the living Constitution silliness; a nominee who sees it as offensive (for the right reasons) will come down correctly on other issues as well, because that would be consistent with her philosophy. If I know she's an originalist, I can say, yes, Roe will be overturned, and the expansion of the Commerce Clause is about to be yanked back, and so on, because these things do not comport with the original meaning of the words as written.

I think that all judges--to a greater or lesser degree--allow their ideology to influence their judicial philosophy; it is simply human to do so, and part of the measure of the excellence of a judicial nominee is the degree to which they can separate their ideology from their approach to the bench.

I think you have a cart and horse thing happening here. I'm sure there's the odd conservative living Constitutionalist out there, and the exception-that-proves-the-rule liberal originalist; but these things are generally consistent with political ideology, not in opposition to. So, all things considered, I'd rather they not separate their "ideology" from their approach to the bench.

What I object to is the inconsistent and bewilderingly naive way that the issue is typically treated--to wit, the ridiculous and naive notion that ideology does not inform a judge's ruling, and that it is out of line for anyone to question a judge based on that. The reaction of many fine and principled conservatives to the possibility that Miers may not vote the way they prefer on [insert issue here] demonstrates that both sides understand this when their own agenda is at stake. I think the process would benefit from both sides acknowledging this, and I think the bipartisan dismay over Miers' qualifications will help ameliorate that situation somewhat.

The problem, if I may, is not saying, how do you approach Constitutional and statutory interpretation? Rather, the problem is making the politicization of the Courts even more apparent, more naked, and more in line with the Court as the final arbiter of power in this country. From this side of the aisle, Roe is the lynchpin of so much: It looks like you guys got a lot of what you wanted, picked those rulings in particular, and made adherence to those rulings the litmus tests for confirmation. To do this is to turn policy into the benchmark by which judges are graded, and to turn jurisprudence into a mere extension of party or political preference.

What point are you trying to make with the reference to Alger Hiss?  Are you comparing President Bush to the commies?

So much of repub problems with court nominees has been betrayal and/or really knowing how they will rule, We look at the parer trail, etc.

To be able to put his loyal attorney that shares his desire for an originalist rather than guessing about anyone that he does not KNOW, even if they are one of the famous people in the movement.

I'm so tired of all this whining for the great career conservatives that we all know. And I love the judges like Bork. have all his books. But there are conservatives like harriet that also are just as valuable in relative anonimity.

That we don't know them through a paper trail is but one way to know them, a very unreliable way in the past.

the best way to know them is a close person relationship. And she cares not for georgetown parties. She has evolved!

The USSR was thrilled to have their man in the state dept. eh bad analogy really.

Republican stall tactics are no more acceptable than Democratic stall tactics on this.

The Senate has a job to do, and that's give the nominee a vote. If you don't have a majority, too bad.  If the President doesn't have one, well, then that's too bad, too.

Many people these days do not know much about Alger Hiss, and some younger folks have been misled by leftist academics into thinking that Hiss was not a spy.  I really wasn't sure where you were coming from.  I figured if you knew Hiss was a spy, then you were trying to make a relevant point but could have picked a better analogy to do so.

I appreciate your clarification, and your gracious acceptance of my point regarding choice of analogy.

Alas, I cannot agree with your conclusions.  I am sure President Bush thinks he knows well where Ms. Miers stands on key issues.  However, I am concerned that President Bush trusts his own instincts about people a bit too much.  History has shown that governments based on blind trust in a leader do not work out well.  This is why we ask those who govern to be accountable to those who elected them, which entails providing a justification for important decisions that goes beyond "trust me."

especially the first 18-20 pages really was a major reason I had the june 2001 epiphany. hence my knowledge of Hiss. Reagan and Robert Novak cite this book as major reasons they went to the GOP. I'm sure you have read coulter's Treason. Very enlightening and footnoted.

I honestly can't understand for the life of me how so mnay conservatives can't see that this is precisely the best verification possible to ensure a real conservative judge gets on the court. I mean, if I want to make sure a job gets done or that I pick a person that shares my views, the first choice is someone I know well.

Plus, she will testify. We should trust Bush at least till then. His court picks have been stellar in dc and texas.

So, the verification process goes forward...

But i still say, the best evidence we have, we already have. The testimony will be helpful. But his intimate knowledge of so mnay years, much of which has been abot originalists, is better evidence that appelate opinions or testimony.

time will tell

but we shouldn't attack this woman

many are attacking what they don't know like some beltway xenophobia

as if we are entitled to know any pick before they are picked

we picked bush twice to make picks

and all the good picks aren't known

we try

He's not a good pitcher, and certainly not who I'd want on the mound for a potentially decisive Game 4.

You did not include away ERA you Included Colorado which I pointed out is flawed! The ERA I list is home and away as a Yankee. He is the guy right after Johson. I also like Wang he threw good last night got some bad breaks. Both these guys are the future not Mussina that is the point.

Roe (itself) is the examplar of the living Constitution silliness; a nominee who sees it as offensive (for the right reasons) will come down correctly on other issues as well, because that would be consistent with her philosophy. If I know she's an originalist, I can say, yes, Roe will be overturned, and the expansion of the Commerce Clause is about to be yanked back, and so on, because these things do not comport with the original meaning of the words as written.

I see. I suppose this makes a great deal of sense if you believe that the theory of a "living Constitution" is silliness. I confess to always having been baffled by that stance, which I suppose contributes to my fundamental inability to understand so many conservative positions. I believe in the government's ability--nay, duty--to do good for its citizens, and in my eyes that extends to revising our understanding of unenumerated rights in accordance with our growing understanding of life and the world.

That said, I would submit that the use of Roe as a metonym for requiring a judge reject the living Constitution and embrace originalism is counterproductive. The Republican party and conservatism in general--much less the nation--are not monolithic in their opposition to abortion rights, and raising the spectre of Roe in the context of judicial appointments scares people who might otherwise agree with the general thrust of your philosophy towards Constitutional jurisprudence.

I think you have a cart and horse thing happening here. I'm sure there's the odd conservative living Constitutionalist out there, and the exception-that-proves-the-rule liberal originalist; but these things are generally consistent with political ideology, not in opposition to. So, all things considered, I'd rather they not separate their "ideology" from their approach to the bench.

While I agree about the general political breakdown of originalism vs. LCism, I disagree with what that means. I think that Thomas and (to a lesser degree) Scalia allow their views of right and wrong to inform their jurisprudence on a regular basis. The issues that come before the SCOTUS are not always straightforward--indeed, the deck is stacked against them being so--and when the meaning of the law is uncertain enough to require interpretation, it requires a judgement call. Those judgement calls are the result of a lifetime of formative experiences and self-examination. They are necessarily, unavoidably personal.

The problem, if I may, is not saying, how do you approach Constitutional and statutory interpretation? Rather, the problem is making the politicization of the Courts even more apparent, more naked, and more in line with the Court as the final arbiter of power in this country.

I will have to think about that some more. I am conflicted here, because while I'm inclined to agree with conservatives in their concerns about judges with unaccountable lifetime appointments having too much power--I'm also disinclined to trust Congress to protect the rights of minorities against the tyranny of the majority.

From this side of the aisle, Roe is the lynchpin of so much: It looks like you guys got a lot of what you wanted, picked those rulings in particular, and made adherence to those rulings the litmus tests for confirmation. To do this is to turn policy into the benchmark by which judges are graded, and to turn jurisprudence into a mere extension of party or political preference.

I'm afraid I don't see much of a way around that, given the willingness of both parties to tie their support for nominations to specific policy positions. As I see it, my choice is between:

1. an originalist court which will not step in to right wrongs but will still reliably rule with a conservative bent simply because you cannot avoid having your rulings informed by your worldview, or;
   
2. a court that recognizes a living constitution, which may well overstep in ways I do not like, but which will at least recognize that the 9th Amendment exists and means something, and will frequently keep an uncaring majority from trampling the rights of a minority that lacks sufficient numbers to defend themselves through elected office.

I prefer the second option, or at least a court which leans towards it.

I see. I suppose this makes a great deal of sense if you believe that the theory of a "living Constitution" is silliness. I confess to always having been baffled by that stance, which I suppose contributes to my fundamental inability to understand so many conservative positions. I believe in the government's ability--nay, duty--to do good for its citizens, and in my eyes that extends to revising our understanding of unenumerated rights in accordance with our growing understanding of life and the world.

My problem with this has always been two-fold, but stemming from the same initial problem: Men aren't angels. (1) If we allow them to expand unenumerated rights -- how they have that power in the first place is beyond me -- then why can't they expand enumerated powers? Add unenumerated ones? Given the rise of the regulatory state and the delegation of, and subsequent expansion of, Article I, Article II, and Article III power, I'd suggest that this isn't a hypothetical. (2) What the government giveth, the government can take away.

That said, I would submit that the use of Roe as a metonym for requiring a judge reject the living Constitution and embrace originalism is counterproductive. The Republican party and conservatism in general--much less the nation--are not monolithic in their opposition to abortion rights, and raising the spectre of Roe in the context of judicial appointments scares people who might otherwise agree with the general thrust of your philosophy towards Constitutional jurisprudence.

You misunderstand. The aspect of my problem with Roe I was addressing was not the license to slaughter the unborn. Rather, my problem is that it added a power to the Federal government while simultaneously creating out of whole cloth a new right. Perhaps raising Roe as the examplar of the problem is bad politics, but as a factual matter, it's pretty decent for an argument.

While I agree about the general political breakdown of originalism vs. LCism, I disagree with what that means. I think that Thomas and (to a lesser degree) Scalia allow their views of right and wrong to inform their jurisprudence on a regular basis. The issues that come before the SCOTUS are not always straightforward--indeed, the deck is stacked against them being so--and when the meaning of the law is uncertain enough to require interpretation, it requires a judgement call. Those judgement calls are the result of a lifetime of formative experiences and self-examination. They are necessarily, unavoidably personal.

Well, never having been a fan of legal realism, I'm not really down with this argument. (I do find it odd that you're the one commenter around here I've seen recently who thinks Scalia injects less of his morality into decision making than does Thomas. I suspect it's because the issue of pot hasn't come up in this thread. That's not an invitation to bring it in.) Those judgment calls of which you speak can be informed by a view of the law and, as Scalia shows, can produce unfortunate, but unavoidable outcomes.

This is why I favor originalism: It sometimes produces outcomes I do not at all like; but it is consistent, predictable, and comports clearly with the phrase, "the rule of law."

I am conflicted here, because while I'm inclined to agree with conservatives in their concerns about judges with unaccountable lifetime appointments having too much power--I'm also disinclined to trust Congress to protect the rights of minorities against the tyranny of the majority.

Let me be clear about something: I trust none of them. Not a whit. But the difference is, that if I must be ruled by some branch of the Federal government, I'd rather it be the one in whom I have some say; and as a situational minority, I might burn at an injustice, but I'd rather the chance to seek redress from my fellow citizens, rather than inflame them against me and each other by resorting to the courts, where the decision can only with extraordinary difficulty be remedied.

1. an originalist court which will not step in to right wrongs but will still reliably rule with a conservative bent simply because you cannot avoid having your rulings informed by your worldview, or;

2. a court that recognizes a living constitution, which may well overstep in ways I do not like, but which will at least recognize that the 9th Amendment exists and means something, and will frequently keep an uncaring majority from trampling the rights of a minority that lacks sufficient numbers to defend themselves through elected office.

This is, I think, a false choice, but I suspect we're largely at an impasse here. I would note, however, that the Ninth Amendment does not mean what you seem to think it means.

He is the guy and he will win game 4 if it is played today. I do not expect Yankees to win series but Chacon will out pitch Johson that I know.