Redstate

ala John Edwards...Bush seems to have backed away from a fight...

That if this is an accurate characterization, and I think it is, that the pros are getting slaughtered.

Luttig, McConnell, Brown, Clement, Garza, Alito.....wow! this is one wasted opportunity.

from the previous thread:

The Dems have recommended her and can't very well backtrack on her now. (i.e. Reid handed Bush a name of someone he knew to be a grand slam).

Brown or Luttig wouldn't make it through and you'd still end up with someone like Miers or Gonzales.  So what's the point?  Was it just a fight for the sake of a fight?

con

She lacks the professional qualifications and experience for the job

She's an accomplished lawyer and can read the constitution better than the supposedly more experienced and better qualified repub nominee betrayers now on the court.

the only Pro that makes me even remotely okay with this nomination.

My biggest frustration is I just think there are far more qualified people-people with a true originalist philosophy, people who we know are in the mold of Scalia and Thomas, not just guessing.

This nomination just doesn't sit well with me, in my gut I just have that sick feeling that we have been snookered.

I think Bush made a mistake.  I think he needs to stop backing down from this fight, and we need to have it out over the issue of judicial philosophy.  While a Janis Rogers Brown may have had difficulty being confirmed, I think thost like Luttig, Jones, Garza, Alito etc may have had a tought time, but you could argue they were qualified, and you could stand up for their philosophy.

Exactly what philosophy does Miers have?  I keep hearing comparison's to O'Connor and frankly, that isn't what Bush promised, and it ticks me off.

2, 7, 8, and 1/2 of 3 con's are not arguments against her personally, they are against the President's tactics, that's political.

con

Her nomination dodges the fight over judicial philosophies

She was announced as an originalist by Bush and alluded to same in her statement. In fact, the hearings will probably focus a lot on this. And the dems will fight her

If the risk was too great that we would not have won confirmation on Luttig et al, then I can understand her nomination.  He just better be right about her, because I am not going to take another Souter lightly.

Let's see where we are, though: Roberts-for-Rehnquist (even trade, likely); (as it appears now) Miers-for-O'Conner (even trade, likely).  How'd we win that exchange, again?  We've not moved anything except insured another 20 years of the exact same "jurisprudence."

The problem we have with Miers is that there's no case to be made that she's qualified.  The "Trust me" vs. "Trust us" (Carol) argument doesn't float, either -- I'd rather trust 20 conservatives running blogs, who's opinions and research is transparent over one conservative, regardless of him being President.  His choices in Myers, Brown, et all don't bespeak perfect soul-searching; should we need to bring up Putin again?

Miers is a probably a great person.  Her nomination, however, is a horrible pick.  And if he's done this, don't for a moment think he won't put AGAG up next.  There's absolutely no reason to believe it.

Maybe you want to make the argument: well, we're right back where we started + 20 years, but now when Stevens retires he can nominate whomever he wants -- we just need Stevens to be lulled into a false sense of security so he will retire.  That's foolish to bank on, and he's messing with 20+ years of what is now the most powerful apparatus in the country for those two-plus DECADES.  Do NOT support this.  I don't care if he loses poll %s, it's his own fault.

We can push through any nominee we want; there's no excuse to let The Spectator and Harry-the-Reid run the show, not to mention that the Federalist Paper everyone's quoting indicates that cronyism isn't an acceptable qualification.

And Roe v. Wade is the biggest current issue, but it's not the only issue that may come along of similar weight in the next 20 years: cloning, etc.  How do we know she doesn't Frist us then?

con

She is an absolute unknown, which has historically not boded well for SCOTUS nominees

People know her. Bush, for one, better than harry knows her. She is vouched for by some impressive known conservatives that know her well. Thurgood Marshall, maybe the greatest lawyer of the century was well known. terrible judge.

• "Prolifer" evidence is very old and nominal, as weak as evidence that she's a Democrat (more money given to DNC at same time post religious conversion AND post Bork hearings)
• Being nominally 'prolife' is scant evidence of conservatism, let alone originalist/textualist judicial philosophy
• More reliable anti-Roe/originalist qualified women/minorities (JRB/Jones/Garza) not even considered
• Bush not to be 'trusted': see past GOP 'trust me' picks, Will column on Bush's past lack of respect for constitution (e.g. McCAin Feingold), Bush once said "America not ready to overturn Roe... alot of hearts need to change first"

Her lack of qualifications is especially clear in the area of constitutional law. The WH General Counsel is more likely to concern herself with ethics matters and legal personnel matters than con law matters. The con law matters are more likely to be farmed out to OLC, the DOJ's brain trust.

"We can push through any nominee we want"

Only if we hold all the RINOs

con

Her nomination discourages judges from ruling from a conservative perspective

maybe Bush's stealth strategy does but isn;t that justified given the senate and the moderate repubs

con

The appearance of cronyism is strong

there are good cronies (harriet) and bad cronies (uday)

So you think a Stealth nominee like Miers is the best/only possibility?

con

Her past political history indicates that if she is a conservative, she is a recent convert

not recent

born again in early 90's

strong conservative

she has already evolved

converts are the most zealous

like me!

con

The base needed a fight, and instead got blindsided and demoralized

the figfht is coming

she's an evangelical christian. devout. pro life active

nuff said

They are the same and a high energy fight is of dubious and debatable value. Being that this is a unique event, 3 is irrelevant. 4 is an assumption that is not demonstrable and could more easily be said about the Roberts process where writings were scrutinized. 5 is just a counter-point view to pro 1. 6 disregards the general fervancy of converts. Been around an ex-smoker?

You are left with only 1 and that is only operable if it precludes her from being confirmed in that there are, and have been, several great resume/experienced justices not worth warm spit.

con

This nomination gives the appearance of political weakness, emboldening the Democrats further

harry gave us an insider bush knows all about! If this is emboldened dems, no need to worry. Plus an emboldened water gun still shoots only water.

I would expand #1 from this angle:

If you did not trust President Bush to fulfill his promise, there was no point in voting for him in the first place.  So it only makes sense to give him at least the benefit of the doubt on this.

Time and again, conservatives and Republicans have noted that President Bush wins elections and support when he speaks from the heart, conveying to the people how he feels.

Who here doubts that he truly wants to end abortion in America?  Who here doubts that he truly wants to rein in the courts in America?

Sure, if we find that he failed when the stakes were highest, we should bury him, but I think everyone who voted for him owes him a chance.

I wish you had put your rebuttals in one post, given how short they are.

I'm a new poster here, as well as a Democrat and occasional Daily Kos reader. I have to say I'm impressed by the level of accountability, cordiality, and general intelligence of the posts. I first came here to...gloat, I guess, but it turns out that everyone is reasoned and clever. So now I swing by Redstate for actual, substantive political analysis. Which is pretty much out of the question at DailyKos.

As for Miers....we're just as confused as Conservatives. Stealth Scalia? Souter-in-Waiting? I wonder if anything will be revealed by her appearance before the Judiciary Committee. Roberts really won me over with his awesome ability to obfuscate and explain perfectly why he would decline to answer. Will Miers have the stamina to maintain the same attitude and strength?

As much as I would savor a knock-down-drag-out fight over JRB, that is a fight we would lose. Luttig, we would probably win (barely) but is that good? Does that fight weaken the President? If we lose on a Luttig that doesn't bode well, and that's a high stakes gamble. A regular stealth nominee I fear, but about the worst thing I fear about this nomination is that she is a conservative Ginsburg (ideology over process) instead of a Thomas or Scalia. I have no fear that Miers turns into Souter II

For someone to appoint their secretary to a job she is not qualified for.

What I see is someone who won't have the force of personality, nor the presence of argument to make a difference, she will just sit in the corner and write stuff.

Sad ending.

No fear?  Why not?  There's never been any proof; there can't be.  Be afraid, be very afraid.

We can't win with JRB?  Why not?  The moment they start saying no, we prove them to be racists who won't let a Black Woman on the Supreme court, but only give her welfare.

Ok, play it safe. Go with Luttig first, what's the harm there?  At least we've moved the court.  Your argument simply says, when boiled down "We can't move the court, unless we take a 50/50 shot and hope for the best."

That's a tried and failed strategy.  Hope is a great virtue.  Don't forget about Temperance and Courage and Wisdom, though.

Here's some things to think on:

• How many additional babies will be butchered if you're wrong?
  
• What will the human cloning you and I pay for entail if you're wrong?
  
• Nice house, thank you.  Here's your public housing flat.

You hope she'll turn out ok?  I sure as heck do, too.  I'm not willing to bet 20+ years of continuing down the fast-track, though.

If I understand that ruling correctly, the Supreme Court can't outlaw abortions, it is a matter for the states to decide.  Roe just invalidated state laws that forbid abortions.

So if Roe is overturned, Red states will outlaw abortions and Blue states will allow them.  It's fair to assume that many of these Red state kids will need government assistance to live.

Red states, on average, recieve far more federal monies per tax dollar paid than Blue states and anti-abortion laws will make this imbalance even greater...

based on what, precisely?

JRB?  Filibuster-bait.

Luttig?  70-75 votes in favor.

Ditto for E. Jones, Clement, Garza, Alito, and a whole host of others.

JRB is simply not (yet) in the same league as these folks,

Just because we trusted Bush more than Kerry doesn't mean we trust him implicitly.

Well, how about the fact that the right people really don't like her nomination to the Supreme Court? And by the right people, I mean these people. The problem with your line of argument, Leon, is that you mistake the lack of a judicial record, as the lack of a record.  There is a record for those who are willing to look. As one who is supposedly concerned with that "one big issue" you keep talking about, I'm surprised you're not up for a little more rigorous research on this nominee.

And while we're talking about research, you might consider the fact that as late as 1989 she supported anti-sodomy laws. (BTW, I know the headline is confusing for that article, but read the second paragraph) And if you want to judge her on the basis of personal attributes, I suggest you consider the following. And if you're still hung up on her lack of "professional qualifications," think about the following: up until the day he was appointed Chief Justice William Rehnquist did not have a single day of experience, not one single day, as a judge of any kind. And if none of what I've written impresses you, then fine, don't support her. But if you make another one of your "flavor-aid" cracks about those of us who do, well, I might have to invite you to kiss my pixels.

Harriet Miers as a Conservative Shibboleth - Tuesday, October 04, 2005 @ 7:03:23 PM  

While I'll be dealing with mostly foreign policy issues, felt like I should weigh in on the Harriet Miers nomination. Miers may be a conservative Republican But long before she was a Republican she was a Christian. That her faith may have steered her toward her political transformation shouldn't be overlooked or discounted. Why this matters underscores a continuing type of elitist tension that has long existed within the Republican Party and the conservative movement.

From that perspective, Miers is the nominee that stands to satisfy a Bush constituency that has been under-represented in this Administration since the exit of Attorney General John Ashcroft, and certainly is under-represented on the high court. Jay Sekulow wasn't exaggerating when he rhetorically asked: "Do you know the last time there was an evangelical nominated to the Supreme Court? Back in the 1930s." While there isn't much to go on -- and admittedly that is a stumbling block for many conservatives -- it's clear that the President has enough faith that Miers will indeed bring diversity to the Court, but of the kind that should make the Right rejoice and the Left howl. The problem is, many conservative commentators either can't or don't want to see beyond the standard Beltway qualifiers for such a job.

Beltway types -- including folks here -- say Miers is a "complete mediocrity" (Ann Coulter), someone who lacks "the spine and steel necessary to resist the pressures that constantly bend the American legal system toward the left" (David Frum), and "less than sterling" (Rich Lowry). And those are the positive things they are saying. Of greater concern to conservatives should be what appears to be pure institutional elitism (i.e., that she didn't attend the "right" schools or doesn't belong to the "right" organizations).

For example, in an op-ed today, Rich Lowry mocked Miers' academic and public-service background, saying: "Watching Bush strain to pump up her accomplishments was cringe-making.... She was a leader with Child Care Dallas, Meals on Wheels and other charitable groups! She has a law degree! From Southern Methodist University!" To a Washington insider such a background appears middling. But to a raft of men and women who have consistently voted Republican, and who have an abiding faith in God, country and family, this is a background worthy of celebrating and respecting.

http://www.spectator.org/blogger.asp

From the looks of it, the only thing Bush believes in is the mighty dollar.  Again, he has sided with his corporate buddies over the people who got him elected.  The corporations may have given him the money, but we gave him the votes.  Miers is clearly there to help with his corporate interests.  If she shows any social conservatism, it would be, for Bush, icing on the cake.  However, it was essential that she supports big business.

Who here doubts that he truly wants to end abortion in America?

When has Bush ever said that?

In fact, I doubt a lot of "establishment" Republicans want to end abortion, especially the fiscal cons. Why? It'll just depress soc-con turnout, in a "our battle is won, now we can go home" sense.  The battle is never won in cutting taxes, keeping Dem interest groups down, and rewarding corporate contributors, all of which require being in office.  So, you keep promising social conservatives the farm, talk the talk ("culture of life" being the especially cute and useful but meaningless phrase of choice), then say the opponents are too tough this year, but if you keep voting R, soon, sometime down the road, they'll get what they want. Maybe in the mean time we'll enforce a gag rule...or throw a bone on partial-birth abortion. Maybe. And so on...

-----------

Bush and his wife both admitted that they don't think Roe v. Wade should be overturned: "I don't think the culture has changed to the extent that the American people or the Congress would totally ban abortions."

Laura Bush reiterated her husband's sentiments on a prime-time television interview on January 18, 2001.  

Leverkuhn, you are correct that Rehnquist had no experience as a judge, but he Clerked for Robert Jackson in the 50s, and generally had a more in-depth education in 'constitutional matters' and Supreme Court History. So while he and Miers have the same experience on paper, Rehnquist was likely more familiar on a personal level with the workings of the Supreme Court

If the concern was confirmability, then why not first try a Lutting, Garza, Jones, Alito, or other clearly conservative, but at least possibly confirmable nominee?  

If one of those can't garner 50+ votes then send up the Invisible Woman whose character is known only to Bush.  The outrage of the base would be focused on the Senate, not on the President, and he still gets - in his eyes, at least - a desirable nominee.

And you can count me among one of the "new" readers, though I used to cover the DeMint campaign for RS. I've strayed far from the tree...By the way, Confirm Them is getting slashdotted by Drudge. Now that's traffic.

Negative arguments:

1. Bush knows her well personally, and we should trust his judgment.

Bush knows a lot of people well personally. I don't think we should trust his judgment. Except for Roberts' nomination, Bush's judgment is getting less and less Rovian. The architect seems to have constructed a Hindenberg administration.

2. She is an evangelical Christian, and other folks who know her personally (Cornyn, for instance) speak well of her.

This would qualify my grandmother for SCOTUS.

3. It is assumed that she is personally pro-life, having encouraged the ABA to revisit their official position.

I don't care if she's a rip-roarin', shove-that-foetus-back-in conservative. Your stance on abortion does not qualify you or disqualify you for SCOTUS, per se.

The affirmative con arguments:

1. She lacks the professional qualifications and experience for the job.

That's hypoberley, if there is such a thing. She gets credit for being a Thatcheresque iron-woman, junkyard-pitbull lawyer. But I want my supreme court justice to write discerning and consistent opinions. She need not be a hammer to do that.

2. Her nomination dodges the fight over judicial philosophies.

Yes, it dodges that fight, only to get into the "minimum qualifications" fight. I'd rather war over philosophy than incompetency.

3. She is an absolute unknown, which has historically not boded well for SCOTUS nominees.

I think we do know that she went to a second-tier law school, never held a prestigious clerkship, never taught law at a top law school, and never held a meritorious job in the executive branch.

4. Her nomination discourages judges from ruling from a conservative perspective.

Hadn't thought about this one, but not likely. Her nomination is a political hack that's not even useful for the moment.

5. The appearance of cronyism is strong.

This isn't the appearance of cronyism, this is cronyism. But for her ties with Bush, she wouldn't have a shot a SCOTUS right now.

6. Her past political history indicates that if she is a conservative, she is a recent convert.

Well, she was "converted." This should make no difference in re her qualifications for confirmation.

7. The base needed a fight, and instead got blindsided and demoralized.

The base wants a fight. I want a fight, even if we lose. I want a fight.

8. This nomination gives the appearance of political weakness, emboldening the Democrats further.

Yes, yes, and yes.

I have heard this before.  If that is the case, I wonder if she pressured George into choosing someone who would uphold babykilling.  Afterall, she did pressure him into choosing a woman.  It would not be a stretch of the imagination to think she also pushed him into choosing a pro-choice (even if it is with limitations) candidate.

A lot of us just got done saying in the Roberts hearings, that it's improper to ask these people to prejudge the issues.

Did you disagree with that or something?

Hmm. I guess what could satisfy you without running into that issue, would be a sitting judge with some strong opinions that lament the limitations that the Supreme Court has put on them.

So alright, I see where you're coming from.  I'll just point out that the President never promised to appoint someone like that, so the appointment of Meiers isn't a breach of that promise unless we find out she's a Souter.

Good thread.  Good idea.

I think you're grossly mischaracterizing that quote.

Saying that the culture hasn't changed, isn't at all like saying the culture shouldn't be changed.

5. She was the co-managing partner of a larger Texas law firm rather than an academic which gives her a broader level of experience with the practical aspects of the law.
   
6. Her practice area was largely in corporate litigation on the defense side (for those who care about the other 80 percent of cases that come before the federal courts)
   
7. She was very active within the ABA and rose to a leadership position showing that she knows how to work effectively with people who disagree with her (asset if we need to bring in Kennedy for a vote).
   
8. At age 61, she's unlikely to "grow" on the job (read: move to the Left).
   
9. Her answers to the so-called "gay rights" questionnaire in which she said that the issue of sodomy statutes should be decided by the legislature and her attempt to have the bar association's position on abortion determined by a vote of the membership rather than by committee shows that she favors having these sorts of issues decided by the democratic process rather than imposed by a small group.

Con

-she LEFT a pro-life denomination and joined a pro-choice denomination

-she LEFT a pro-family denomination and joined a pro-gay 'marriage' denomination

-There is no evidence that she is not gay, has not had an abortion, or is not biased from likely court cases in one way or another

-Bush has a history of people liberals (Chenny is pro civil unions.  Laura is considered pro-choice).

Other points:

Bush knows her well personally, and we should trust his judgment. --- THIS IS A POSITIVE?

She is an evangelical Christian, and other folks who know her personally (Cornyn, for instance) speak well of her. ---Cornyn will say only good things about whomever Bush nominates.  She left a pro-life, pro-family, pro-Bible denomination; for a denomination which is pro-abortion, pro-gay 'marriage', and pro-woman 'priests'

-It is assumed that she is personally pro-life, having encouraged the ABA to revisit their official position --- So were O'Conner and Scouter considered pro-life.  

-UPDATE: She is easily confirmable. --THIS IS NOT A POSITIVE!!!

Well, how about the fact that the right people really don't like her nomination to the Supreme Court? And by the right people, I mean these people. The problem with your line of argument, Leon, is that you mistake the lack of a judicial record, as the lack of a record.  There is a record for those who are willing to look. As one who is supposedly concerned with that "one big issue" you keep talking about, I'm surprised you're not up for a little more rigorous research on this nominee.

As Orrin Hatch so eloquently pointed out during the Roberts hearings, those people have also opposed every single Republican nominee since O'Connor, including Souter and Kennedy. Their opposition to Miers means absolutely zilch to anyone who's paid attention - and done as much research - as I have.

Oh yeah, I also remember that when Sandra Day O-Connor was nominated, a bunch of surrogates like Meese - highly respected people, were assuring everyone that she personally found abortion "morally reprehensible." And that didn't work out so well either. Which is why the lack of judicial record is lack of record. Until you know how someone is going to rule from the perspective of the bench, you don't know how they're going to rule. Period.

And while we're talking about research, you might consider the fact that as late as 1989 she supported anti-sodomy laws.

I don't consider that to be a pro or a con. I've heard a lot of folks say a lot of things about how she feels about the homosexual movement, and I assure you that the FRC is convinced, based upon some equally convincing evidence that they have amassed, that she's a member of the HRC. The evidence is entirely ambiguous, but even if it weren't, I don't care.

And am I supposed to be impressed by a political conversion that took place a decade ago? Do I believe that's formed the fruits of a deep and sincere and unshakable dedication to conservative principles? I do not. You know, we had a policy for Soviet defectors back during the Cold War. We took them in, we were grateful for their information, but they were never ever trusted with sensitive information or any matter of national security. The rationale is that if you turn on your country once, you can do it again.

up until the day he was appointed Chief Justice William Rehnquist did not have a single day of experience, not one single day, as a judge of any kind. And if none of what I've written impresses you, then fine, don't support her.

It's also been pointed out numerous times that there are significant differences between their qualifications, so I won't belabor the point.

But if you make another one of your "flavor-aid" cracks about those of us who do, well, I might have to invite you to kiss my pixels.

If you want to defend her for a variety of reasons, fine. But I'll tell you, all the folks who are defending this nominee simply based on "We must trust The Leader Guy" are making me want to scream. Reagan taught us that trust for The Leader Guy, no matter how convincing he is, is Flavor-Aid drinking folly.

about her churches/denominations?  I'd be curious to see that stuff.

You're not any better of a moby than you were as Moderate Voice. This time, stay banned.

you make many an assumption. Personally, I would have gone with Garza or Estrada. But you are assuming that we would win the fight, that's not a given with any anti-Roe nominee. We all assumed that the constitutional option had the votes, we don't know that (and the more I reflect on it, the less I think that the votes were/are there for it.)

Additionally, you mischaracterize my argument as we are not moving the court, actually I think Roberts leaves it the same, and Miers for O'Connor moves the court to the right especially on Partial-Birth Abortion and Parental Notification, 2 cases that are coming before the court this year and will be 5-4 rulings. We know O'Connor would vote the 'wrong' way on both of those, I'd rather have Miers on the court than O'Connor. Anyways, even with Miers/Roberts/Scalia/Thomas going anti-Roe, that still leaves 5 pro-Roe, so your questions at the bottom don't apply here. Plus, you do realize that when Roe is overturned we are going to have to work at least twice as hard to put laws on the state books outlawing abortion (my exceptions would be for rape/incest/health of the mother barring a c-section)

"There is no evidence that she is not gay, has not had an abortion"

WTF is wrong with you that you post garbage like this?

But once the constitutional option is initiated, we wouldn't have to worry about this anymore.  So YES, Alito, Luttig, JRB are confirmable.

#1 on the Pro list and #5 on the Con list are the same argument pointing in different directions. If a crony is someone well known, a friend or close acquaintance, someone you've worked closely with, well, so what. That's fine and dandy and not to the point.

Pro - we should trust his judgment, based on his close observations of her work, the effect its had on others, and the benefits its given to the country.

Con - we should not trust his judgment since it's myopic or clouded by his close observation of her work, limited to personal benefit and not detached and independent.

All told, "crony" seems to be popularly understood to be negative, a slur, an indication of ill repute or low worth, an ad hominem short hand attack which inaccurately describes her status.

If she's unqualified it is NOT because she is a crony, and if she is qualified it is NOT because the POTUS knows her personally and we should trust him.

I'd delete both items from the list.

Guys,

I at first did not like this pick.  If Bush did what he did because he is sure that Miers is a strong, committed evangelical Christian, this is not only a good SCOTUS pick, it is the BEST SCOTUS PICK IN THE HISTORY OF THE U.S.  

When Miers says that President Bush is the most brilliant man she has ever known, this is not completely accurate.  He is the most brilliant man that any of us has ever known.

...from the Senators.  Miers will go with Parry from the first combat round; that coupled with her character class will give her mad bonuses to AC at her level, and if she can get past the antechamber and into the main level she's pretty much home free.  The only problem with that is that Senators tend to have at least a level or two in Lawyer themselves, so if Miers loses the first initiative roll it could get ugly fast.  On the gripping hand, the average Senator tHAC0 is actually pretty lousy, and I can't imagine that Bush will send her in there without iteming her up first.  That'll help, especially if she's checked out enough on the system to rules-lawyer... which, in fact, she actually is.  In fact, Miers is going to be a rules-lawyer in a room full of power-gamers, and that means Chaos and Old Night from the start.

As to forced alignment checks... we're used to that gambit from the Democrats, but one from a GOP Senator could be harsh.  A good reaction roll by Miers - or Bush - should obviate that, or possibly some creative spell use.  After all, you don't have to Charm everything, just what's in front of you.  But no Fireballs; too enclosed a space to avoid backblast.  And the really good Power Words are a bit too volatile to trust; the ones that'll work on Democrats will leave Republicans cold, and vice versa.  Should be interesting, all around.

One thing is clear, though: rolling to disbelieve isn't going to help her opponents.  She's going to crawl that dungeon.

That you're not a Moby.

I certainly don't want to participate in a thread-jack so I'll leave your statement as is - only to add that I think you may have missed the point I was trying to make (which was that if GWB wanted to avoid a fight he could have done so while still nominating someone who would have united, rather than divided, his base supporters - you know, all of us).

Cheers.

Give me a Zell over a Linc, anyday. A Texas Dem became a Republican, gee I'm shocked, SHOCKED I tell ya. She was a Dem, back when the Dems still had conservative Democrats.

Of course I have no way of knowing but I think there's a pretty good chance she won't be a Souter.  I couldn't see someone like Souter rising so high in this Bush Administration, especially influencing him on his judicial picks - isn't she the one who helped him pick Brown, Owen, Estrada, etc.?  She did have the whole ABA thing, and I think I read somewhere about her attending some pro-life events - sorry I don't have a cite.  Plus, even if she is pro-choice, there are plenty of pro-choice (which is pretty doubtful, in my mind) lawyers who disagree with the ridiculous reasoning of Roe and its implications regarding state's rights.

Finally, she'll almost definitely lean right on commerce clause and national security issues.  So while she may not be a Thomas/Scalia and maybe not even a Rehnquist/Roberts, she'll almost definitely be to the right of Ginsburg/ Breyer/ Stevens/ Souter.  She'll probably be to the right of Kennedy.  That means that once Stevens retires, which should be soon, if there is a Republican in office, she will be the swing vote on many issues.  It might not hurt to have a "Bushie" in place in that event.

I like JRB.  I got a good impression of her when she was out here on the California Supreme Court, and I find emotionally satisfying the idea of rolling back before the New Deal.

The problem is, what makes her thoughts satisfying to me, makes her scary to a lot of people including the liberal wing of the Senate's Republican caucus.  So, she might not be able to get a majority at all.

Chrysostom,

On the cons, what facts do you have to back up those statments?  Right now you've decended into irrational hyperbole without the facts to justify the statements.

Thorley, I'm with you - this is perilously close to calling for the royal gynecological examination and moral inquisition.

See the Drudge headline posted as I write at 8:50 PM EST?  Now, all the Democrat interest groups will oppose HM, and the Dem Senators just have to quote conservatives-- heck, they can just read George Will's column into the record. This lady is going down and the Democrats will never have togive their real reasaon-- evangelical Christians need not apply.

I hope the evangelical base learns about HM's faith, and understands that it was the right wing dissidents who threw her in the creek.  We've been too tied to the GOP anyway.

I think you misread the tea leaves on that.  It wouldn't have been blocked due to too many people involved -- the Republicans by-and-large know what's at stake in supporting the party.  You saw the fall-out from the "Gang-of-14" -- Lindsey Graham almost got "recalled" out of it (as it were).  So I think you're off-base there.

However, I fail to see how "I promise to nominate [people] in the mold of Scalia and Thomas" equates to "my personal lawyer with no track-record."  I can take Roberts on a Trust-me basis, there's enough on-record.  But we're not talking about Rehnquists.  We're talking about Scalia and Thomas.  I read the NRO republishing of the Thomas article, sure.  But no way does Miers fit even that bill.

You're argument still consists of "it's the best we could get."  And I don't agree that (1) you're right and (2) we couldn't have fought the JRB or pushed the Luttig through and followed-up with the Miers on pick #3 if it comes up.  Sell Miers as the moderate,  but don't give up and go home this early.

And yes, I'm aware of the result of a Roe overturn, but "twice as hard" by what measure?  if half the states go with anti-abortion or heavy restrictions how are we not better off?  Then we work on the other half?  By saying "twice as hard" you try to make some devil's argument implication that we're better off as we are now?

If we don't roll-back the Socialism of the Left-wing (Hayek's "soft" socialism, which is still central-planning), it's going to keep going.   That's why those of us staunchly against this pick are so frustrated with your side's arguments:  you say "Trust the Leader"  (there's many examples of when this is a horrible dogma) or "We suck anyway, this is the best we could do." How do we know?  How is Miers not the follow-on even if you were right?

We're better off having fought that fight and fallen-back to a Miers in point of failure than having never tried at all.

I'd venture to question what kind of "Conservative" are you if you don't even think Churchill had some good ideas on conflict in the face of evil and the machinery that accomplishes it?

Just curious ...

Exactly.

I like your words.  My biggest miff with this though, is that it has the appearance of Bush taking advantage of us.  This is also evidenced in the fact that they WH is harping those who are criticizing Miers, and is incessantly telling us to "trust Bush."

I am not a puppet or a member of a group of mindless cattle.  I have a mind of my own...and a conservative mind at that.  I know when I need to take a stand.

I have been the strongest supporter of Bush.  He has been the best option at this time in our country.  BUT, I have severe disagreements with his interpretation of "conservatism."  He has taken advantage of the base's support to advance an agenda I am not always 100% in agreement with.

This nomination though took my patience with him to the limit.  I can't concievably keep supporting this party, while it maintains these policies.  We need a reformation when it comes to conservative politics.

I'm sorry President Bush, but you screwed up.

at least I doubt she will swing so far to the left as he has.

I do suspect we probably aren't getting a justice in the mold of Scalia or Thomas, and I am not even sure of a Rehnquist.

I suspect we are getting the status quo, and frankly I didn't vote for Bush to maintain the status quo.

Also, I am not so sure she will be an originalist-she may be a conservative, but conservative judicial activism doesn't sit with me any better than liberal judicial activism does.

To follow up on your point, that "There is no evidence that she is not gay, has not had an abortion", I cannot help but notice that there is no evidence that you do not enjoy diddling male emu, don't enjoy rubbing marmalade over your bare chest with a live herring.

Which makes your credibility quite suspect in my eyes.

If I were to say that being an evangelical Christian was a negative for a Supreme Court nominee, you'd call me a religious bigot.  But it's fair game to talk about it as a positive?

As I recall, many conservatives didn't like some of the questions from William Pryor's confirmation because they made an issue of his religion.  Is it reasonable for Republicans to urge each other to support a nominee, in part, because of her religion, and then to object strenuously if Democrats dare to mention her religion?

I don't think it should be an issue either way, mind you.  But here is my point: there are originalists, and there are people who just want a certain result.  It's going to be pretty hard to verify if Miers is an originalist, given her total lack of a written record.  And yet I see many people saying, "she's an evangelical, she's going to vote the right way, this is great."  And I guess it is great, if your goal is to pick up the 5th vote in the super-legislature.

Erick has repeatedly emphasized the importance of originalism.  Leon has added that there's more at stake here than simply picking up a vote.  Others don't seem to care one bit what her judicial philosophy might be, as long as she votes with Scalia and Thomas on social issues.  I think this nomination is going to be an interesting test of whether conservatives are truly committed to originalism as a method of understanding the Constitution, or if it's going to end up as simply a code word.

Queequeg - off the port bow!

. . . a term for people who do this.

That's another good point, and the best possible conclusion we can hope to draw from all the evidence available.  It's an ends-and-means argument in support of her.

Again, we don't know she isn't Scalerriet, but you don't make these kinds of gambles without having more than a 'gut instinct.'

We can't win with JRB?  Why not?  The moment they start saying no, we prove them to be racists who won't let a Black Woman on the Supreme court, but only give her welfare.

In the hypothetical case that JRB were nominated to the SCOTUS, why not address Democratic objections to her on their merits, rather than playing a particularly mendacious form of the race card?

(Flame retardant foam: I understand that you may not think that Democratic objections to her have any merits. Great. That should make them easy to shoot down without resorting to prima facie false charges of racism.)

...is a left-wing individual who goes to right-wing sites and pretends to be an over-the-top right-wing individual in order to dismay more moderate right-wing individuals.  Named in honor of Moby, who recommended in public that left-wingers do precisely that, the fool.

Uhm.  Bork?

Since when did merit and logical argument have anything to do with the Leahy's and Schumer's of the world?

Not that you're not right, but still....

Her answers to the so-called "gay rights" questionnaire in which she said that the issue of sodomy statutes should be decided by the legislature and her attempt to have the bar association's position on abortion determined by a vote of the membership rather than by committee shows that she favors having these sorts of issues decided by the democratic process rather than imposed by a small group.

While I still admit I am not keen on this nomination, and I feel like many far more qualified people have been passed over, I am not convinced we are looking at a Souter in the wings.

I think at best, she will have a strict reading of the constitution in mind, at worst we end up with another O'Connor, and it is the at worst that bugs me, given that Edith Jones definitely comes with an originalist philosophy that isn't stealth or up for debate.

But this is good evidence to point to a belief that is more originalist than not.

Still haven't convinced me she is a good nomination, and I still feel snookered and lied to.

I don't know who you are arguing against here, it certainly isn't me, but you erect all these strawmen, and then argue against them. Stop it, it's just rude. I would have done things differently with the information I have, but you know what, the President has different information than me. I am not saying 'blindly trust the president". What I am saying is "trust but verify", when the hearings come, we will know.

"By saying "twice as hard" you try to make some devil's argument implication that we're better off as we are now?"

Nope, not at all, I just want you to make sure that you know, that I know once Roe is overturned it will take a lot of work. It isn't the end, just the beginning.

Socialism didn't creep into our society overnight, it's going to take some time and patience to get rid of it.

I think it has to do with the belief by many that someone who is a devout Christian is going to be honest when she advises the President and if asks her if she has the qualifications he's looking for (e.g. originalist, strict constructionist), she would only say "yes" if she was and if she wasn't, she'd be upfront about it with him.

Let's just hope that she doesn't have to make her Save vs. Filibuster. That'll just bring out the rules lawyers in the party explaining why the GM is unjustified in forcing the save, which'll make a mess of the entire game. Nobody will want to play anymore.

...wait, remind me again why this is a bad idea?

Are there not amongst this site's own directors some who "defected" to conservatism within roughly the same time frame as Miers? Who were once far, far left wingers?

I do not sense from them a fragile commitment to their conservative principles.

was to condense

so I thought each post was supposed to be short

sorry

O'Connor was 51 when she was appointed to the SCOTUS. The argument that a 61-year-old is less likely to alter their views with age than a 51-year-old does not convince me. Both are well past the point where we generally consider that most people have a firm grasp on their worldviews.

That is not to say that people do not change at that age--hardly. Merely that after a certain point, age stops being a factor from which you can derive any useful observation about their likelihood of changing their opinions.

[b]...is a left-wing individual who goes to right-wing sites and pretends to be an over-the-top right-wing individual in order to dismay more moderate right-wing individuals.[/b]

Yeah, I'd pretty much figured that.

[b]Named in honor of Moby, who recommended in public that left-wingers do precisely that, the fool.[/b]

Oh.

And here I was trying to figure out for what MOBY could possibly be an acronym ...

It seems written in English but I don't understand. Are you ANZAC?

Being a liberal, but I suffered from that youthful indulgence until age 38 so, enjoy

Lets be real. This is Bush's friend and lawyer. He knows how she will rule and its like he wants het to. Harry screwed up. Bush took the gift. If we could have put our friends and lawyers on the court we wouldn't have been betrayed by oconnor, kennedy and souter. This is a coup Bush had to take.

Miers will be fine. Look who's doing the questioning!

Tell Dingy Harry thanks

all in good humour bro or sis

what do you do, saw women in half in a clownsuit?

I fight other roosters!

religion is like a shell you can put on or throw off and change your mind at any time.

it could also be the vehicle to mislead just to get many others to approve and think she too is a conservative

but thanks to Mathew 7 we know how to judge a tree by it's fruit, and what to do if we see bad fruits coming, as we have seen the last 5 years of appointing poorly qualified public servants who do not serve other Christians, but rather many died and will die thanks to his actions

Own it.  Is your actions helping the crimes being committed?  Who was 2002 Distinguished Christian Statesman?  How about 1997 and 1996?

http://www.statesman.org/PAGES/Awards/2002.asp

You miss the point.  The Dems are anti-evangelical, and no doubt the NYT article will make up the minds of many of their interest groups to oppose her tooth and claw.  But because of the right wing die hards who only wanted someone who was an originalist with a long paper trail, HM has been tarred as unqualified, so the Dems won't have to say a word about her religion.  The message that comes across to me, a practiciiong lawyer from a mediocre law school who has done the things lawyers do in real life-- try cases, get involved in the bar association, get active from time to time in local politics, support your church-- is if you don't fit the elites little boxes, you can't be a serious, pricncipled conservative.  That just doesn't compute.  I've been a Republican all my life-- I have never voted for a Democrat for anything, but if this nomination goes down the tubes because of opposition from the righ gave the Dems the bullets to kill it, I will do everything I can to get Hsarold Ford elected in 2006 to the open Senate seat here in TN and hope Republicans lose control of the House and Senate.  See then what kind of pick you purists get when Stephens retires in 2007, or Ginsburg gets too sick to stay on.  

I heard tonight on Brit. Plus, she had a major religious epiphany in 1979 and switched parties. I think she's solid. More likely to be solid as well, due to loyalty and knowing the kind of justice bush wants. She wouldn't take the job and then betray him. i submit

RPG dialect.

There are four directors of the site, of which I'm the oldest. And I was in 3rd grade in 1979.

But I voted for Ford in the Tropical Elementary School Kindergarten Mock Election Of 1976.

Sorry.

chrysostom believes that Miers is a Methodist.  He apparently has serious issues with Methodists, as he has been blasting them all day at confirmthem.

chrysostom wanted Professor Glendon to be the nominee, because he wants someone who will represent the Holy See on the Supreme Court.

I am a Catholic, and I can tell you that Catholic churches in America vary every bit as much as Prodestant churches. Some churches (priests) are extremely liberal and openly pro gay.  Cardinal Mahony out in Los Angelas is openly pro gay, and has tried to create the LA parish to be very gay friendly. Some Catholic churches are also very comfortable with abortion rights and divorces.  John Kerry goes to the Paulist Center in Massachusetts, which is a Catholic church which openly defies the Vatican and aggressively seeks to attrack Catholics who are turned away by traditional churches.

Everything that has been written about the Church that Harriett Miers attends indicates that it is extrodinarily conservative on dogma. Certainly pro life.

Pope Bennedict would find himself more at home in Harriet Miers church than he would at many American Catholic churches.  They certainly do not suffer from the decay of Moral Relativism.

Joking aside.  I don't want to see the nuclear option used; and I don't want to see the filibuster option further abused (and the debate over that is a over-chewed set of old bones).  Bring 'em forward, debate the heck out of 'em and vote 'em up or down.

Something that I have not heard anywhere is the possibility that she will be voted down in committee.  Statements from several of the GOP committee members were lukewarm at the very best.  I think that this would be the best way to get this nomination back to where it belongs:  the trash bin.

While I realize that this is a divisive issue among the base, I hope that the editors can reign in some of the more outrageous statements just as they did to the Kossack who tried to spread the "she's a lesbian" meme yesterday.

Moby and other questions about RedState and scoop etiquette answered.  Some of it is outdated, but most is a good useful read for any new readers and commenters.  Welcome to the community.

RedState etiquette:  They aren't rules, just good ideas.

Bork was voted down in Committee, but was still given a floor vote.  

think we should protect all life first and figure out the details when we get there.  The country had a birth rate over 3 children per woman in the past 50 years and coped.  There is nothing magical about the current 2.1 children per woman.

You may not find unborn children's lives as important as who foots the bill, but don't expect everyone to put a dollar value on lives.

Upon digging for the comment that sparked my observation, I stand corrected. Kowalski is, contrary to my misunderstanding, not a director.

She was a Democrat before becoming a Republican.  And I was a very, very, very far-left Democrat before I became one.  It struck me today that if the standard of someone's past thinking was the most important measure of their current thinking, I should really have never been allowed to post a single diary entry on RedState.

The core of my point still stands, though: does anyone here seriously question kowalski's commitment to conservatism?

Dude. Back down. I'd ban a lefty who went this over the top.

This is so far over the top even I'm stunned. Retract, link, or go.

They will be offset with Dems who will see her as better than what would come next.

For Heaven's sake the Dems would not trash a Clinton/Kerry nominee!  We're acting like spoiled children.  The PREZ didn't listen to me!  Me!  Me!

Problem is that her base AC seems pretty poor -- using the real, non "d20" rules, we're talking like an 8, at best -- and although the average Senator THAC0 is like 19, there's no way around the fact that Schumer gets a +3 to his attack rolls when using an unholy avenger, which he always does, and his THAC0 is more along the lines of 12. (Fortunately, he has no Strength bonus.) Now, doing the quick math, and taking into account Miers's natural +4 armor class bonus for being a partner at a very good litigation firm, I'd say Schumer has to roll a 4 to hit, and while he's not a great roller, he's at least passable. He'll score that hit, or at least force her to use up her turn while one of the bumbling wizard types makes his roll. And while it would appear that no one on Judiciary has a vorpal sword (Coburn possibly excluded, but data suggests it might be cursed), with our luck, someone's gonna hit that 20.

As to forced alignment checks... we're used to that gambit from the Democrats, but one from a GOP Senator could be harsh.  A good reaction roll by Miers - or Bush - should obviate that, or possibly some creative spell use.

Insufficient Charisma on her part. She gets no reaction roll adjustment.

But no Fireballs; too enclosed a space to avoid backblast.

The problem is that everyone in that chamber has a scroll of Otiluke's Freezing Sphere.

And the really good Power Words are a bit too volatile to trust; the ones that'll work on Democrats will leave Republicans cold, and vice versa.

You forgot Power Word, Ni. And use of a Holy Word can instantaneously banish Ted Kennedy to the Abyss.

The R's will not oppose the President in committee.  All this talk comes down to two choices:  accept that this terrible nominee will be confirmed or a fillibuster.  

Is anyone ready to stomach that?

I would, but it would result in advancing the lame duck.  In my view, it has to be done.  This is too important.  We have been taken for granted too long.  Others could reasonably disagree. I stand profoundly disheartened.

your only hope is that she withdraws her nomination.  Don't bet on it!

Hope it is okay to post this:

FULL ADDRESS: http://thurgood.blogspot.com/

2005_10_01_thurgood_archive.

html#112844952326065016

"Harriet Miers and Abortion, Part II

OK, here's some more detail on the Harriet Miers abortion story I first mentioned below.

In 1989, the Supreme Court decided Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, which narrowed, but did not overturn, Roe v. Wade.

In response, in 1990, the American Bar Association (the largest lawyer membership organization) took an officially pro-choice position.

In response to that, on February 16, 1990, Miers' predecessor as President of the the Texas Bar Association, Darrell Jordan, wrote "an official letter ... in which he criticized the ABA abortion-rights policy as 'cruelly intolerant' and threatened to keep the Texas Bar's delegates from participating in future ABA programs.1 Jordan himself has variously claimed to be pro-choice1 while telling conservative Christians that he believes in the "sanctity of life",2 but his campaign against the ABA's pro-choice position was clearly a favorite of the organized right, which condemned the ABA's position and, indeed, was "backed by the Roman Catholic Church".1 He was condemned by other Texas lawyers for causing "an unnecessary flap" and "jump[ing] up and ... using the State Bar, like we were all behind him, and that wasn't the fact at all".1 Nonetheless, Jordan succeeded temporarily in getting the ABA to change its policy.

In addition to succeeding Jordan as President of the Texas Bar Association, Miers would later chair Jordan's campaign for mayor of Dallas. In that role, she "praised Mr. Jordan's actions and contended that they showed he would be a good mayor for Dallas. 'He really is the kind of leader who would take an unpopular position because he thought it was right and fought hard to have it sustained,' said Ms. Miers, a co-chairwoman of the Jordan campaign."1

But Miers did more than praise Jordan. She took up his fight against the ABA's pro-choice position (which was reaffirmed shortly after it had been withdrawn in response to Jordan).3 When the ABA's governing body refused to accept her argument that it should be neutral on abortion, she demanded a vote of all of the members, even though such a vote might cost $100,000 or more:

    After an hour of debate Tuesday, the house voted 313-128 to reject the referendum proposal, sponsored by the Texas State Bar and a handful of other bar groups, The measure needed 266 voters to pass.

    Opponents -- including incoming president R. William Ide III and past presidents Stanley Chauvin Jr. and William Falsgraff -- argued that a poll of the ABA's 357,000 members would cost upward of $ 100,000, would undercut the house's authority to make policy, and probably would not resolve the matter.

    Harriet Miers, immediate past president of the Texas Bar, had said the measure offered a "positive effort to involve our membership on an issue that has caused the leadership to flip-flop." The cost, she said, was a small price to pay.4

This was clearly a fight that Miers cared deeply about:

    "I remember the Alamo," proponent Texas State Bar past president Harriet Miers said as she withdrew her measure. She said she'd continue the fight today.

    "What we have is a playing field coated with butter and I don't think it is tipped in my direction." The referendum is expected to fail in the house. (Emphasis added.)5

Now, I expect that -- if this gets discussed at all -- we will hear about how this was a purely lawyerly position, and that her only concern was that the ABA should not take a position on a controversial issue and that she was trying to respect everyone's views by advocating "neutrality". The context is pretty clear, however. Given the ABA's "overwhelming"6 support for abortion rights, neutrality was the best abortion opponents could hope for, and that is what Miers chose to fight for.

1 - McGonigle, Jordan role lauded, assailed in '90 dispute on abortion, Dallas Morning News, 3/31/95.

2 - McGonigle, Jordan says abortion isn't issue campaign issue Hopeful denies changing views to appeal to conservative voters, Dallas Morning News, 4/6/95.

3 - Texas Delays Call For Abortion Policy Referendum; Delegates Revise Ethics Rule on Free Services Responsibility, The Legal Intelligencer, 2/24/93.

4 - Bay, ABA Takes a Pass on Abortion Poll, The Recorder, 8/11/93.

5 - Bay, Abortion Measure Goes Up Against Rules, Apathy, The Recorder, 8/10/93.

6 - Samborn, ABA to Revisit Thorny Issues; Abortion and Ancillaries, The National Law Journal, 8/10/92.

# posted by Fred Vincy @ 10/04/2005 07:15:00 AM"

Thank you for the opportunity to post.  It seems to me this site is just a rant over Meirs.

Well said and the best post I've seen on this thread.

because Nos. 2-4 on the pro list do nothing to establish that Miers has a sound judicial philosophy.

She's an evangelical Christian -- but so is Bill Clinton, a Southern Baptist. Church affiliation is not a good indicator of how an individual will actually confront issues.

She's personally pro-life -- but so is Ted Kennedy.

She's easily confirmable -- I'm not convinced at all that this fact should be on the pro list. I see it as a huge red flag. If folks like Harry Reid are jumping on the Miers bandwagon, maybe we should wonder where this ride is headed.

That leaves us with argument No.1, that we should trust Bush. The problem with this argument is that it assumes conservatives should never question a Republican nominee. After all, if we didn't trust him, why did we vote for him? We should just believe -- even after a string of stealth candidates whose conservative facades have gone down in flames, we should just smile and nod. And find out too late that we've welcomed in the wolf.

She will be attacked on the religious issue like day follows night. And it will be all to our good! I love these new post clinton libs out in the open.

I trust Bush to know the views of his own lawyer! And her loyalty. And thanks to harry for putting her on the list of his! Bush's lawyer! I'm sure his eyes got big. Don't you think Reagan wouild have put Meese on if Byrd agreed!

I care about making the originalist argument, but I care more about reliable conservative votes on the court. And to put you own lawyer frind on. No wondering.

Neither Roberts or Miers has voted on a case yet!

The question is the nature of her constitutional viewpoint.

I am not sure how accepting Christ bears in any way upon interpreting the Constitution.

Or are you arguing that we should simply support public officials who share our personal background, regardless of their political beliefs?  

Before I begin and people go nuts on me, here was my shortlist in order (I won't go into the reasons why in this order, would take too long, but some of the reasons have to do with not just ideology, but also confirmability and age):

1. Michael McConnell
   
   
2. Emilio Garza
   
   
3. Edith Jones
   
   
4. Samuel Alito
   
   
5. Michael Luttig
   
   
6. J. Harvey Wilkinson III

Now, there are plenty of other qualified conservatives not on my top six list (like JRB or Owen), so if Bush chose someone else not on my top list, I would have been very pleased.  There was, however, one person who we know little about on social issues who I would have supported (at least not disparage) and would have been easily confirmed (and is a slightly younger woman at 57 than Miers, 60):  Edith Brown Clement.

Clement has much more qualifications than Miers, having served as chief judge on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana and judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  She also earned her J.D. from Tulane, a higher ranked school than SMU (I'm just say...).

Both times she was nominated by a President Bush with a Democrat majority in the Senate, and both times she got a full Senate vote of 99-0.  Plus, given Katrina politics, she lives in Louisiana, and politically, such a pick would have delighted many in the media (rather than from inside the White House, with tones of cronyism).

She's also a proud member of the Federalist Society, who actually lists her membership on her official bio.

Oh, and her late-80s campaign contributions show that she gave to a Republican, Bush I (not Democrats or Al Gore):

http://www.newsmeat.com/judiciary_political_donations/Edith_Brown_Clement.p
hp

And while looks should not be a factor, one must admit that Roberts was very camera friendly.  So is Clement, while Miers, is, uh, nevermind...

In short, I thought that Bush should have stuck to his guns and nominated someone we know to be a solid conservative AND a great resume.  But, if "consensus" and "politics" had to be considered, Clement should have been the pick, not Miers.

P.S. The nice thing about Roberts was that he was the top person on my list during the summer for reasons I won't discuss because (again) it will take too long.  Mostly it's because he clerked/worked under Friendly, Rehnquist, Reagan, Meese, French Smith, Bush I, Starr, etc, and is a staunch Catholic with a wife who's a former officer of a pro-life organization.  Add to that the stellar resume, and I was definitely sold, didn't need to be told "trust us."

if they weren't rock-solid sure that he or she would affirm Roe. A Democratic nominee fuzzy on privacy rights would get way more resistance from liberal interest groups than Miers is facing from the right.

That's a pretty slanted list to make her look bad.  Here's the list I'd give for the pro side are:

1> Accomplished. Lots of people have had a good time talking about Miers' lack of accomplishments. I disagree strongly. Rising to the top of a large law firm is a major accomplishment. Large professional services firms of any stripe are populated by very smart, ambituous, and hardworking people. Starting as a woman(one of very few in large firms then) from a so-so school and going to the top of a large firm is outstanding.

2> Diversity of background. The current SCOTUS has 8 former judges. Is another really needed? The last few -- especially Ginsburg and Roberts -- spent their entire life positioning themself for the possibility of an eventual nomination. Right schools, right clerkships, right staff jobs, and right pro bono were obviously in their minds for decades. It's refreshing to see somebody who actually makes career moves based on mundane things like money.

3> Elected office. Running a major city like Dallas is not for sissies. It takes hard work and the ability to compromise and threaten, often in the same breath. For people orienting their life toward a possible confirmation battle that's a bad move, as investigations and second guessing are always at hand. But it does give a much better look at how large organizations really work.

4> Understanding of Business Issues. Again, unlike most of the justices, Meirs has spent time litigating issues for and around business. Not something you see in many other backgrounds around the table.

5> You're right about confirmable.  If Robert's 78 votes is the standard, I'm taking the over.

So, in a nutshell, she's a conservative from a very real world setting who hasn't spent her life either in an academic ivory tower nor has she been primping since the 70's waiting for the call. She's a very accomplished lawyer who has had a hand in running large organizations from a big law firm, to the Texas ABA, to the city of Dallas, to the White House. Oh, and by the way, she's a conservative. It gives more dirt under the fingernails, but in the end a better background than the preppies that sit in the other chairs.

the storm is building

already calling her an extremist

Perhaps you could clarify that for us, since no one else in the country seems to know.  

I mean besides Sen. Reid.

Hatch has already endorsed. She'll get all Republicans (maybe 1 abstention) and 5-6 Democrats.  Easily voted out.

Don't you guys understand that GWB knows where this person stands and knows the Dims can't find out?

9. This pick is very likely to put GOP control of Congress in jeopardy in 2006.

I don't see anyone turning out for the GOP in 2006 when you combine this with all the money they will be flushed down the below sea-level swamps "rebuilding" NOLA.

I'm generally a partisan Republican, and I can't think of a reason...

I'm not prepared to accept any notion of presidential infallibility. Are you really prepared to say that Republicans who dare to break rank and question a Bush nominee are simply spoiled crybabies?

I'm a loyalist, but my loyalty is defined by principle, not partisanship.

but you had better check your facts about Roberts not hearing a case yet.  Was he not on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit?  And didn't he recently rule in a high profile case in the GWOT?

What do you know that the rest of the country doesn't?  There doesn't seem to be one solid piece of evidence that Ms. Miers is conservative.  There are a few threads that a few folks are clinging to, but do you have any solid evidence?  

Justice Miers rules that parental notification for abortions is constitutional as well as bans on partial birth abortions? (just to name 2 cases coming up)

Did Thomas literally drop all politics and take up golf the moment Miers was announced?

I should also add that all of the "pros" are just to appease conservatives.  With Roberts, we had a golden resume.  With the people on my shortlist, they all had wonderful qualifications.  So when asked at Cornell Law School, "Why Roberts?" I was able to defend on his qualifications, as well as praise from liberal lawyers and even senators on his background (you know, when people like Schumer had to angrily admit that Roberts has a stellar resume).  Same them would have gone for the folks on my shortlist.  With Miers, I have nothing to defend.  Ironically, from what I'm hearing from my liberal classmates, they're just delighted.  My conservative classmates, however, are outraged.  If Clement was chosen, I would have given Bush the benefit of the doubt and a wait-and-see approach.  Not this time.

the rest of us.  And he's shootin' a troll here or there.

If you want to bow down to a ruler, there are a lot of other countries out there you can live in.  I'd rather ask a President to provide evidence and reasons for making a certain choice.  

There are other younger, more qualified, and more certain strict constructionist candidates who could have and should have been nominated. Luttig, Jones, McConnell, and Rogers Brown would be at the top of that list.

What does "5 n/t" mean?

Seriously - Coburn and Brownback are already making noise.

all day yesterday.  And I'm still scratching my head over them as I sit here and type.

It makes a difference.  In my state of Virginia, Sen. Warner has already declared his support for Miers, unfortunately, but Sen. Allen is still on the fence and has made an official statement reserving judgement.  Even if a Senator has already declared himself in favor of Miers, he could change his mind.  Take a couple minutes to go to www.senate.gov.

We can change this if we show enough opposition.  Sen. Allen is on the fence, and Sen. Brownback and others are likewise discontent.

We all thought we had a real conservative when Justice Kennedy was vetted by Mark Levin during the Reagan administration.  We all know what has happened with that one. And Levin has the gall to be screaming about Miers. Don't look for too many threads on this site as solid evidence, because most are preaching to the choir.  Check out some other sites as I have and you will find the evidence.  That is, if you're really looking for it.  

There used to be a rating system here...1=troll to 5=great post.

However it caused more hard feelings than it was worth and was done away with.  The N/T just means there's no text to look at, it's all in the subject.

I'am taking a 'trust, but verify' approach with Miers.

That said, if it is just a matter of trusting. Do you trust the President to make the right pick, or would you trust the Senate GOPers to suddenly grow a collective backbone to 'ram through' a known nominee?

I'm apparently not one of the "results oriented" conservatives around here. I doubt I'm alone.

A crony of Bush who rules "correctly" but tends to write intellectually underwhelming opinions is still a crony of Bush.

But yes, in fact I did a column for the atlanta paper on the case!

But Roberts was trashed as well as an unknown, evn though his reagan docs showed reaganite to me.

The base (I believe that is code for us RedStaters :] ) may have been spoiling for a fight, but don't forget that we get to wander in the wilderness if we don't win the votes of lots of those uninformed moderates in the world.

I use as my bellwether a friend of mine who is extraordinarily well informed as to the new fabric colors on HGTV, but would rather have a beating than to have to read an entire editorial about a political issue.  Surely each of you know someone like that.  

My friend is a swing voter in the classic sense of the word.  She did NOT have a good impression of the Rs when we were threatening the Byrd/nuclear/constitutional option (right before the gang of 14 cheated us out of our rightful place in front of the saloon.)

If we eliminate the filibuster to get our dream candidate, it may very well be our last vote as a majority party for a long time.

Like it or not, a single phrase taken out of context (think Bill Bennett's desire to abort all black children) could destroy a nominee just because our opponents buy their ink by the barrel.  The MSM is still the primary source of information for about 60 percent of real voters.  

Don't forget the MSM hates us and everything we stand for.  We have the alternative media now (blogs), but the uninformed do NOT ever come here.  They are shopping.  But they WILL vote.  And if we don't tread carefully, we will lose their vote and go back to a 40% party.

Bring them along gently.  Don't spoil for a fight.  We will win this battle, but we are more likely to make it without any major setbacks if we remember that a HUGE swath of the public is not nearly so passionate as we are and they REALLY don't like extremists and boat rockers.

I'd rather have a stealth originalist nominee who is approved in advance by the Democrats than the best originalist fire breather on the planet.  Not for me, but for them.

And yes, I know, at this point we're not 100% certain that she is an originalist/textualist/strict constructionist.  But you guys have to admit, the odds are in our favor.

Did I say that? No, but you inferred it, sorry I wasn't more clear. However, how can one tell the difference between a correct ruling for the wrong reasons? I am not speaking to that here (that's one thing I would despise if that were the case). That said, if she is a strict constructionist, and rules with Scalia/Thomas/Roberts/Kennedy on these 2 cases, then the rulings for both of these cases will show up before the 2006 elections. That's all you brought up in your original post, the political fallout in 2006, and that's all I was replying to. I get mad at people when they reply to something that wasn't in my original post, so I try not to bring up other things, unless they are relevant (not saying you did that, just explaining my reply to you).

I figured you would be scrambling around after servers or whatever equip you have to keep, with all the traffic today.

I think the thought is worth considering, but I doubt it's correct.  Moderates don't normally vote on those issues, to my knowledge.  Can you name a mid-term or presidential election when a party lost votes because the views of their Sup Ct nominees were extreme?  Serious question.

You can spot 'em.  Shoot him.

A hundred times 5.  

"I choked on my tea" kind of 5.

You are obviously getting tired.

Consider yourself Moses and I'm holding up your arms.  Shoot him.

the Methodist church is in danger of fracturing over the whole "gay marriage" issue. I can assure you the southern, conservative Methodists are not the ones ready to marry homosexuals at the altar.

Ted Kennedy cannot, however, ever fail a Save vs. Poison: he has no liver left.

For some of us Republicans, the whole point of the conservative movement was to reverse the out-of-control spending of the Democrats.  All this talk about the Supreme Court vacancies being "what it was all about" is a little unsettling.

Nothing the court can decide will affect the country more than the massive debts the Republicans have run up in the last 5 years.  The thought that all we worked for was a chance to feed millions more welfare kids is sad.  Let's get the budget balanced first.

clerked for Jackson, but I just don't think that means very much in the scheme of things.  Being a clerk is kind of like being a well-paid intern.  You get the job if you know people.

The fact of the matter is this woman was a senior partner at one of the most important law firms in the country in her 30s, which is hard enough for anyone, but for a woman in the 1980s it was darn near improbable. It means she made money hand over fist doing a job that required her to stay several steps ahead of the hundreds of smart young punk lawyers that were trying to take her place. That appeals to my conservative fondness for the marketplace and the people who manage to succeed in it, and I think her professional life more than proves her intellectual chops.

Every single one of the paper trail qualified jurists had a ruling that could have been misrepresented.  Don't you remember when we were talking about Priscilla Owen (I think it was) who had been on the court with AGAG?  He had said something that did not say that she was a judicial activist, but there was a word there that could be misrepresented and all the MSM was saying that she was a judicial activist and used AGAG as a reference.

Roberts was painted as a barefoot-pregnant-wife-hater because of a lawyer joke he made in a reference letter.

They twist things.  They lie with no repercussions.  Their lies get front page, our rebuttals get nowhere.

Yes, people vote on SC nominees.  We won Senate seats in '04 because the Ds were straight out obstructionists and overplayed their hand.  Yes, it's just the margins, but the margins are where elections are won and lost.

If the front page says "Extremist,"  "Nominee Wants to Roll Back Environmental Protections," "Opposes Civil Rights," etc., and we have to nuke to get a vote with Teddy, Diane, Chuckie, Hillary, Harry et al. all saying that they gave the President a long list of potential nominees but he just stuck a thumb in their eye with "this radical," we lose.  Those who don't care enough to pay attention now, won't care enough to research the charges in '06 or '08.

And if there are only 5 percent who swing thusly (and there are really more, I believe) then it is President Kerry, reporting for duty.

I find the nay sayers to be insecure and panicking due to their (a) ignorance of Miers and (b) willingness to assume Bush is an idiot easily fooled.

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/727

Uber conservatives must realize there are limits beyond which few will follow.  It is better they learn these limitations and work within them for general progress.

1. By all means, share some of this prodigious research with us. I can be convinced, provided that you have evidence. But everything I've seen so far indicates that she is what the President, and the ACLJ, and others say she is: a conservative. The only thing I'm getting from you and other alarmists on this site is a bunch of "we don't know this and that, so assume the worst" hand wringing.
   
2. If you're going to quote Hatch, quote what he actually says about this nominee. A text without context is a pretext.
   
3. The difference between Miers and O'Conner is that the former has run a political campaign in which her opinions, at least at the time, became known.  Did you click the link I provided, or were you too busy slitting your wrists.
   
4. Miers's "conversion" happened over time, not in an instant. And as I understand it, that process was more or less complete by the end of the 1980s, about 15 years ago.  You don't have to be impressed by that. I'm sure moma read "Selected Speeches by Barry Goldwater" to you as before you were walking, and perhaps conservatism is your birthright. But you don't own it. No one does. And this lady has been in the trenches with an administration more reviled by liberals than any other.
   
5. For crying out loud man, you're comparing Miers to Soviet defectors? That isn't just alarmism, it's paranoia.

GB I didn't know Souter .. he heard it from a friend who heard it from a friend who ....

GB knows Miers ..

At least on Social Issues, she is a conservative ...

She's an evangelical Christian whose been very involved for a number of years at a conservative church.  

Even her so called gay questionarre shows that she was specifically asked if Lawerence should be repealed and said NO .. which puts her to the right of Sandra Day O'Connor.

I have no idea where she stands on business issues, but she also has expressed strong second amendment belief that private citizens have a right to bear arms.

So she's right on guns, abortions, and gays.  I have no idea where she is on property rights, etc.

It's so lazy to suggest otherwise. Overturning Roe returns abortion to the states.

She has actually run a large buisness, and has dealt firsthand with all the regulatory (insert banned word here)that the government has foisted on business owners over the last 50 years.

Real world experience-Souter had none, she had loads.

I agree that most major newspapers and networks twist the facts to work against conservatives.  This has no bearing on the question itself, however, which is whether a candidate for re-election has suffered because of his support for a court nominee whose views were not moderate.  To this you claim that the Democrats lost Senate seats because they were obstructionist on judicial nominees.  Which races were affected by this?  The races were determined by other issues, such as the War on Terror, taxes, and social issues.  TI'm not aware of any race in which judicial nominees became an issue of any weight.

But please correct me if you have evidence to the contrary, from that national election or any other.

a number of articles. You want the links? Be glad to send, but it will be a little while. We have the evidence of the inability of too many justices on the court to read or exercise the judicial restraint the job requires so that we continue to be governed by the consent of the governed.

are not really businesses that expose you to the kind of regulatory stuff that you normally think of when you talking about government regulations.  I don't know what Texas is like, but regulation of law firms in my state is generally not that bad considering that it is generally lawyers who are writing the regulations.

because she's not a known quantity.  She will probably end up being as conservative as most want, but she's not someone who was forefront in most people's minds.  

It was interesting watching the process to see what names were continually bandied about as being people's "first choices" (i.e. Owen, Clement, etc.).  If Owen hadn't been the focus of a protracted filibuster battle and Clement hadn't been named out of obscurity, I think that most people touting them wouldn't have known who they were.

Just because Miers wasn't a "trendy" pick doesn't mean that she won't fit the mold that the president set out.

that if Miers is shot down by conservatives, the president will then nominate someone that the conservatives want.  Based on this president's track record, he doesn't strike me as someone who caves into pressure when he doesn't get what he wants.  I have no idea who he would pick if Miers gets shot down by conservatives, but something tells me that it is unlikely to be who those same conservatives want.

how exactly does someone prove that they haven't had an abortion?

for a long time?  Wasn't there a Methodist Minister who married some gay folks a while back (5-10+ years) in Nebraska or Oklahoma?

I can see the beef that fiscal conservatives have with the president, and the reluctance to give him the benefit of the doubt. But I believe that he has gone out on a limb enough for social conservatives (me being one) to trust him. He probably went along with the effort to save Terry Schiavo against his better judgement. And what about the threat to veto embryonic stem cell research? Does anybody remember the press conference with the "snow flake" babies? He's supported us at times when he probably knew it would hurt him in the polls.

And this idea floating around that Miers isn't qualified and doesn't have "intellectual heft" is laughable to me. It sounds so liberal. From my perspective, "intellectual heft" has a lot to do with the mess the court is in today. Maybe we need someone with a bit of humility and common sense on the bench.

Yeah, I would have loved the fight for a big time conservative too, but I think this president has done enough for us to take his back on this. Unless I see some concrete reason (i.e. questionable responses in the committee hearings) why I should doubt the president on this nomination, I'll be calling my senators to ask them to confirm.

Although in NJ it probably won't do any good anyway.

That a "conservative republican President and 55 Republican senators are useless when it comes to pushing through a conservative judge to the Supreme Court.  We must ask ourselves, again, what good is this republican party.  Why should we continue to support such establishment? It's been well known that this president and most of the senate have abandon all most of the principles known to conservatism.

Given that we cant have McConnell, Luttig, Garza, Brown, Clement, Alito on the Supreme Court....it has dawned on me: Is John Roberts the best we can expect? And what kind of message this Miers's pick send to Brilliant lega Conservatives coming up? Stay inside the closet! Dont you dare write an Op-Ed! Dont you dare give a speech! Stay away from laws reviews, anything you may say or write (unlike Ruth Bader Ginsburg)or any association you may belong (The federalist society) will be held against you.

The more I think about the Miers's pick....the more desilusioned I become.

myself included before I got my mind right, are guilty of elitism and many talk show hosts are discussing it today as challenged by callers, then deny elitism and then say something elitist.

The Ivy League and "top ten, top 20,..." law school conventional wisdom, even pat buchanan who loves us out here in the red america is washington product.

They, and us on this site, sometimes imagine that people like harriet can't be picked cause their not involved with us or on our radar screen.

I heard Laura Ingraham, who I love, talk about having to have the best minds to take on Breyer!

And who are the best minds? Why, people she knows about, of course. And Breyer a great mind. Please.

The idea s well that only a select few can do this job. I respect the "great minds" like Bork, really he is an icon to me, but also the great minds that aren't known because of where and how they do their work.

Plus, lets get real. I'm a trial lawyer. Appellate work that actually is loyal to the comstitution is much easier than trial work, that harriet has done! Trial judging is harder too.

We really need to learn from this as republicans or the blue blood country clubbers that resented the religious conservatives may be joined by the elitsts. Elitists in the dem party ruined it.

that said, I am an elitist. Beware of me

later

And yes, it has been going on for far too long.  Personally, I'm ready for the split.  

that as a born-again Christian, I am certainly happy to see a fellow sister in Christ (an evangelical Christian) getting an opportunity to sit on Supreme Court.

I think it's about time that we have an evangelical Christian that represents a large segment of American society.  We have born-again Christians in Executive and Legislature Branches, why not Supreme Court?  Only God knows how long it has been since a genuine evangelical Christian sat on Supreme Court.

Evangelical Christians have been suffocating under secularists, atheists, and false religious people's reign and rule of law.  It's time to say, "Enough is enough already!"  For the last 40 or 50 years, morality in America has been on decay, we no longer hold genuine born-again Christian values.  Now, all good is considered evil, and all evil is considered good.  Where is God that America used to revere?  I don't see that nowadays in America.  We need more of God in America.

America is a great nation, because God has choosen to bless her just as He blessed Israel when she walked with the Lord.

I appreciate Bush for making a gutsy move, at least he knew not to mess around with God.  That shows that he is a genuine born-again Christian and that figures into every political decision he made so far.  I'm happy that Bush looked to God for guidance and wisdom in all things.  I'm happy that perhaps we may finally have Hezekiah, if only a milder mold.

In fact, Bush and his Miers pick have finally lightened a fire in my heart.  My heart is rejoicing, and it shall rejoice, because somebody made the right move.  I never expected it from Bush, but wow, he did it!

Thank you, President Bush!  May God guide Harriet Miers in all days of her life and give her wisdom and courage to sit through brutal grilling from Senators on Judiciary Committee.

Dan

You would still have all the HR functionality, which is heavily regulated.  Income for the firm would have to be allocated to the partners in a tax-friendly way, which opens up another can of worms.  And interactions-financial and otherwise-with elected officals would no doubt be part of the job.

That is enough red tape to give her more than a taste of the problem.

Here you go:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20051005/D8D1JRI00.html

She's a MODERATE.  Okay, I'll give you the abortion issue (not a small issue, I understand).  But she will be just as bad as O'Connor on other important, social issues.  She will advance minority and women issues at the expense of fairness and reality.  For example:  how will she vote on affirmative action issues?  Will she vote to extend preferences?  Will she vote to recognize same sex marriage?  It seems from everything I've read to date that she would.  

Also, if she were the intellectual heavyweight, why did she put Bush in this mess in the first place?  Why did she not warn Bush of the base revolt?  The attack from conservatives seems to have caught the WH off guard.  And, she is the person in charge of this whole process, right?

Trust Bush and you'll get what you deserve ... another O'Connor.

I hope a true leader steps in to fill the vacuum that this pick has created.

A soundbite and people vouching for her are irrelevant.  Go back and look at Souter's soundbites and the people vouching for him.  

I started out as a wrist slitter the first day, but I'm more and more convinced that we're going to get a solid conservative and that Harry Reid is going to be with us all the way.

If you read the details of the "gay questionarre", she was specifically asked about repealing the law that the Lawerence case repealed and was asked if as a private citizen it should be repealed and she said NO.

And that was when she was still "liberal" ...

has prevented the split?  From what I know of the minister in question (isn't his first name John?), he is aggressively outspoken.  I would think that his stance would have provoked conflict long ago.

If you voted for him, you already intrusted him to make these choices. If you didn't, the majority did. It's called democracy. Whether you still trust him or not is immaterial. Deal with it and quit whining about the pick.

but I'm not convinced that confronting normal HR issues and tax issues surrounding a partnership would really give her a sufficient window into the regulatory state, which say a drug company would face, to be a real check in her favor, assuming that such an understanding is relevant to her role on the court, which I'm not convinced it is.  Anyway, it's a pretty academic question.

Re: and I find emotionally satisfying the idea of rolling back before the New Deal.

But that's no more a task for the courts than gay marriage or abortion should be.

You know, I'm an originalist. I  have practiced law for 16 years. I can read and write well. And I am no less an originalist than the famous icons the elites know. And writing appellate opinions or deciding cases based on the originalist view does not require years on the bench.

See John Marshall's background. Never a judge before SCOTUS cheif. The elites in DC seem to think that the "best minds" and the ones that have slaved for years that they KNOW, are the only ones qualified.

And that they "deserve" to be rewarded with the spot rathe r than "some old lawyer" that hasn't been in the fight. That hasn't thought a lot about these issues and can take on Breyer. fooey

Vote against Breyer and he's been taken. And the assumptions that she has no great legal mind. I know so many lawyers smarter than so mnay judges.

The best way to KNOW is to know the person intimately. He wants what we want.

I have not been privy to the internal vote counting - have you?  What if 5 or more GOP Senators made it clear they would not vote to confirm a Lutting, Garza, Jones, Alito, or other clear conservative?  I would even say if that  chance was 50/50 - then the reason Bush does not send such a nominee is because a defeat forces him to send a moderate - that would be the worst case scenario.  At this point, if Miers is not as conservative as a Lutting, Garza, Jones, or Alito, then there's only one person to blame.  If any of Bush's nominees vote to uphold Roe v. Wade I will never vote GOP again.  I can at least wait until they vote though.

In fact, for me nothing else comes close. And I don't have a problem with stating that homosexuals deserve civil rights. In fact, I agree with it. Should she have said "No, they're not entitled to civil rights"? That doesn't mean she would support homosexual marriage. I sure don't. And I don't think someone who pledges not to legislate from the bench would find it in the constitution. In fact, the same article said that she backed the anti-sodomy law. Why would someone support a law preventing behavior that they thought people had a constitutional right to?

Re: - she LEFT a pro-life denomination and joined a pro-choice denomination

-she LEFT a pro-family denomination and joined a pro-gay 'marriage' denomination

??? Can you provide some evidence that her current church is either pro-Choice or pro-gay marriage? And in any event since when is church membership a determining criterion for public office?

Re: -There is no evidence that she is not gay, has not had an abortion, or is not biased from likely court cases in one way or another

This is borderline disgusting, and sounds like a line from a classic witch-hunt. The details of the lady's personal life have no place in this discussion

Re: -Bush has a history of people liberals (Chenny is pro civil unions.  Laura is considered pro-choice).

If you describe Dick Chenney as a liberal then you must consider Ronald Reagan to have been a Socialist. As for Mrs. Bush, the lady is a class act, and has largely kept her political opinions to herself, more so than any other first lady of recent tenure. She has no role in the political process and was married to George well before he gained political stature of his own. And somehow I doubt they at around discussing Hayek and Burke during their courtship.

Since the New Deal, the Congress and the President have grossly exceeded their authority under the Constitution.

If it's the job of the courts to protect the Constitutional limitations in the Bill of Rights, why can't it go all the way protecting federalism, too?

To which I say "good riddance."

Why do you think the left and the media hate the president so much? It has nothing to do with Iraq. They hated him before we invaded. In fact, they hated him before he got elected. Why?

Because he's one of us. That is, socially conservative. And I can't believe he would give the left the long term satisfaction of having forced him into a moderate pick. In fact, when I think about it, I think she'll be their worst nightmare.

So basically, what you're saying is that in the Republican Party (or at least your wing of it), non-Ivy educated people, ex-Southern Democrats, self-made people without a long track record in the national spotlight, and folks who may not be darlings of East Coast conservative establishment ARE NOT WELCOME and should not be considered for high level appointments such as SCOTUS.

The George Will's and Pat Buchanan's were spouting the same lines back when the GOP was a small, small minority party.  It was those of us who are ex-Southern Democrats, socially conservative, mostly NOT educated at the Ivy schools, and largely unknown to the Eastern establishment that have given the GOP the votes (electoral and otherwise) and a fair share of the money to get where they are today.

The criticisms of Harriet Miers can be interpreted as nothing but a slap in the face to many of us who can identify with her and who believe that what the Supreme Court really needs a little less blue blood and lot more common sense from someone who will sensibly interpret the laws rather than rewrite them.

If you voted for him, you already intrusted him to make these choices.

If I understand a basic tenet of life in a federal republic, as long as the POTUS stays within constitutional bounds and the moral law, by your mere consent to live among the governed, you have already intrusted him to make these choices!  

all 55 Republican Senators to be conservative, we know that is NOT the case.

When I watch or read folks like George Will, and Buchanan (or liberal commentators for that matter)it reminds me of something I read by GK Chesterton. I think you'll like it:

What we call the intellectual world is divided into two types

of people--those who worship the intellect and those who use it.

There are exceptions; but, broadly speaking, they are never

the same people.  Those who use the intellect never worship it;

they know too much about it.  Those who worship the intellect

never use it; as you can see by the things they say about it.

Hence there has arisen a confusion about intellect and intellectualism;

and, as the supreme expression of that confusion, something that is called

in many countries the Intelligentsia, and in France more especially,

the Intellectuals.  It is found in practice to consist of clubs

and coteries of people talking mostly about books and pictures,

but especially new books and new pictures; and about music, so long as it

is very modern music; or what some would call very unmusical music.

The first fact to record about it is that what Carlyle said

of the world is very specially true of the intellectual world--

that it is mostly fools.  Indeed, it has a curious attraction

for complete fools, as a warm fire has for cats.  I have frequently

visited such societies, in the capacity of a common or normal fool,

and I have almost always found there a few fools who were more

foolish than I had imagined to be possible to man born of woman;

people who had hardly enough brains to be called half-witted. But

it gave them a glow within to be in what they imagined to be the

atmosphere of intellect; for they worshipped it like an unknown god.

You seem to believe we have a "democracy" in which those elected to office are then entitled to deference based on blind trust.  In fact, we have a constitutional republic in which those who hold office are expected to represent the will of those who elected them -- and to make it clear that they are doing this.  I do not want a President who operates behind a curtain and expects me to trust Oz-the-great-and-powerful.

You misunderstand the power our constitution grants to an Executive based on the winning of an election.  Our founders understood well the weakness of any government that requires the governed to place blind trust in a single leader.  They understood the dangers of power and, most especially, absolute power.  This is why we have a system based on checks and balances.  One of these checks requires that the Senate "advise and consent" on appointments to the federal courts, including the Supreme Court.

If the Executive makes appointments that the electorate feels do not represent their best interests, then the electorate has every right to speak out and to expect to be heard by those who represent them in the Senate.

It is self-evidently illogical, not to mention not republican (small r republican), to claim all political debate must end after a vote.

then yes, I believe it is likely the President will choose a more clearly conservative nominee in order to appease the conservatives.  It wouldn't make sense for him to try to nominate any other kind of person if he was defeated once by the conservative wing of the party.

But I certainly admit the possibility of his stubbornly choosing another nominee who also annoys conservatives - unlikely, but possible.

Thanks

why we should reserve judgement until she testifies. Some conservatives ahve really gone too far, unjustifiably.

It would be justified only if they knew the nominee was a liberal. This presumption that we have to know the person inside and out from jump street is not reasonable.

For instance, just because their are known to all judges with a track record and the character to remain conservative, does not eliminate unknown to most conservatives.

Its just presumptuousness and realy a denigration of conservatives all over the country that have talent and are just as vital in ways diferent that the knowns.

we try

We voted. The republic part does not apply to the Executive branch, only the Legislative branch. Call your Senator, it is your right to lobby the advise and consent. It is not a right to "advise" POTUS on his appointments unless he asks you.  Whether you like it or not, the POTUS does operate behind a curtain and is empowered to do so. It's immaterial whether you trust him now. You did when you pulled the lever.

There have been a number of well-thought-out comments on this message board that deserve the attention of the "uber conservatives" (thank you, AJStrata) out to sabotage Harriet Miers' nomination because she is not Luttig or Alito.

AJStrata has a VERY valid point: "Uber conservatives" will never get everything they want, and as the French often say, "Le mieux est parfois l'ennemi du bien" (Better is sometimes the enemy of good). Or as they say in Texas (where Bush and Miers are from), "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

Politics is "the art of the possible", and to get ANYTHING, you need 50.0001% of the population to go along with it, even if grudgingly, or if only because the alternative is worse. Why did Reagan succeed where Goldwater failed? Because Reagan was willing to slowly and patiently take whatever he could get, and not insist on instant perfection! With SCOTUS nominees, you need 60 Senators to break a filibuster. Anyone who insists on absolute perfection risks alienating the fuzzy middle, and we need them right now!

Picard90 is also onto something. Harriet Miers is a born-again evangelical. Born-again evangelicals are notoriously zealous in their strict devotion to God's laws, much more so than "mainstream" Christians, both Protestants and Catholics. I AM a Catholic, and will remain so until death, but how many Catholics do we know (Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry, Dick Durbin, Tom Daschle, etc.) who turn their backs on their faith when they enter the Senate?

As a born-again evangelical, Harriet Miers' anti-Roe vote is a given. Believe it, even if Harry Reid doesn't know that yet.

I agree with lots of frustrated posters on this site that President Bush COULD have named a judge with a long paper trail of solid strict constructionism, and gotten his nominee into a Democrat filibuster, followed by a vote on the "constitutional option" which may or may not have succeeded, given the wishy-washy attitudes of a few Senate RINOs. Under ideal circumstances, the President probably would do just that.

But these are not ideal circumstances! After O'Connor announced her retirement in June, Bush probably thought he could replace her by Roberts, and shift the court slightly to the right. But Rehnquist's death put him in a quandary--he had no Chief Justice, only two reliable conservatives on SCOTUS, two vacancies, and two abortion cases coming up in December. He solved the Chief-Justice problem by nominating Roberts to that post, but the response to hurricane Katrina distracted attention from SCOTUS nominations.

After Roberts' confirmation, Bush had about two months to find and confirm a nominee BEFORE the abortion cases came up. He didn't have time for a long, drawn-out filibuster/nuclear option confirmation, but needed a solid anti-Roe vote with a short paper trail who could be confirmed QUICKLY, so that his nominee, not O'Connor, would vote on the abortion cases.

He then conferred with 80 Senators (which must have included at least 25 Democrats), and found that Harriet Miers would be acceptable to Harry Reid.

Bingo! Bush knows Miers better than Reid (or the rest of the Senate) knows her, she's a solid anti-Roe vote with no paper trail to pick apart, and the Democrats won't object! She can get on to SCOTUS and repeatedly vote with Scalia...what's wrong with that? As a former corporate lawyer, she can also defend business interests, which are another key part of the Republican base.

There is a downside to this strategy--Republican Senators who would have gone to bat for Luttig, Alito, et al. don't know Miers, and need to be convinced. This is what Miers is doing right now--meeting with them privately, where she can be honest about her positions, without them being broadcast over C-SPAN and spun out of control by the MSM.

It is not in any true conservative's interest to be writing to Republican Senators asking them to vote against her. If she goes down in flames due to a revolt from the right, what chance has President Bush to get someone else confirmed by December 1?

President Bush knows Harriet Miers better than anyone on this blog, and it's up to HER to prove her judicial competence to enough Senators to get confirmed. If she fails due to her own incompe-tence, President Bush will have learned his lesson, and will probably appoint a judge with a known conservative record, too late to affect the abortion cases anyway.

But what if she DOES show her competence and conservative credentials to the Senators? We owe her the benefit of the doubt, and we need to not give any ammunition to the other side. The Constitution gives the "advice and consent" role to the Senate, not to the bloggers or lobbyists.

What if she turns out to be a "Scalia in skirts" (which she may very well be)? Any conservative who tried to bring her down would be mighty embarrassed, and good ol' misunderestimated and re-misunderestimated George W. Bush would look like a political genius!

It's now time for Harriet Miers to step up to the plate. Let's not throw her any curve-balls--let her concentrate on playing hardball with the Senate.

Perfection is not of this world...

There have been a number of well-thought-out comments on this message board that deserve the attention of the "uber conservatives" (thank you, AJStrata) out to sabotage Harriet Miers' nomination because she is not Luttig or Alito.

AJStrata has a VERY valid point: "Uber conservatives" will never get everything they want, and as the French often say, "Le mieux est parfois l'ennemi du bien" (Better is sometimes the enemy of good). Or as they say in Texas (where Bush and Miers are from), "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

Politics is "the art of the possible", and to get ANYTHING, you need 50.0001% of the population to go along with it, even if grudgingly, or if only because the alternative is worse. Why did Reagan succeed where Goldwater failed? Because Reagan was willing to slowly and patiently take whatever he could get, and not insist on instant perfection! With SCOTUS nominees, you need 60 Senators to break a filibuster. Anyone who insists on absolute perfection risks alienating the fuzzy middle, and we need them right now!

Picard90 is also onto something. Harriet Miers is a born-again evangelical. Born-again evangelicals are notoriously zealous in their strict devotion to God's laws, much more so than "mainstream" Christians, both Protestants and Catholics. I AM a Catholic, and will remain so until death, but how many Catholics do we know (Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry, Dick Durbin, Tom Daschle, etc.) who turn their backs on their faith when they enter the Senate?

As a born-again evangelical, Harriet Miers' anti-Roe vote is a given. Believe it, even if Harry Reid doesn't know that yet.

I agree with lots of frustrated posters on this site that President Bush COULD have named a judge with a long paper trail of solid strict constructionism, and gotten his nominee into a Democrat filibuster, followed by a vote on the "constitutional option" which may or may not have succeeded, given the wishy-washy attitudes of a few Senate RINOs. Under ideal circumstances, the President probably would do just that.

But these are not ideal circumstances! After O'Connor announced her retirement in June, Bush probably thought he could replace her by Roberts, and shift the court slightly to the right. But Rehnquist's death put him in a quandary--he had no Chief Justice, only two reliable conservatives on SCOTUS, two vacancies, and two abortion cases coming up in December. He solved the Chief-Justice problem by nominating Roberts to that post, but the response to hurricane Katrina distracted attention from SCOTUS nominations.

After Roberts' confirmation, Bush had about two months to find and confirm a nominee BEFORE the abortion cases came up. He didn't have TIME for a long, drawn-out filibuster/nuclear option confirmation, but needed a solid anti-Roe vote with a short paper trail who could be confirmed QUICKLY, so that his nominee, not O'Connor, would vote on the abortion cases.

He then conferred with 80 Senators (which must have included at least 25 Democrats), and found that Harriet Miers would be acceptable to Harry Reid.

Bingo! Bush knows Miers better than Reid (or the rest of the Senate) knows her, she's a solid anti-Roe vote with no paper trail to pick apart, and the Democrats won't object! She can get on to SCOTUS and repeatedly vote with Scalia...what's wrong with that? As a former corporate lawyer, she can also defend business interests, which are another key part of the Republican base.

There is a downside to this strategy--Republican Senators who would have gone to bat for Luttig, Alito, et al. don't know Miers, and need to be convinced. This is what Miers is doing right now--meeting with them privately, where she can be honest about her positions, without them being broadcast over C-SPAN and spun out of control by the MSM.

It is not in any true conservative's interest to be writing to Republican Senators asking them to vote against her. If she goes down in flames due to a revolt from the right, what chance has President Bush to get someone else confirmed by December 1?

President Bush knows Harriet Miers better than anyone on this blog, and it's up to HER to prove her judicial competence to enough Senators to get confirmed. If she fails due to her own incompe-tence, President Bush will have learned his lesson, and will probably appoint a judge with a known conservative record, too late to affect the abortion cases anyway.

But what if she DOES show her competence and conservative credentials to the Senators? We owe her the benefit of the doubt, and we need to not give any ammunition to the other side. The Constitution gives the "advice and consent" role to the Senate, not to the bloggers or lobbyists.

What if she turns out to be a "Scalia in skirts" (which she may very well be)? Any conservative who tried to bring her down would be mighty embarrassed, and good ol' misunderestimated and re-misunderestimated George W. Bush would look like a political genius!

It's now time for Harriet Miers to step up to the plate. Let's not throw her any curve-balls--let her concentrate on playing hardball with the Senate.

Perfection is not of this world...

Good stuff, to be sure.

I still disagree with the choice, but this is a strong defense of President Bush's actions.  Worth considering seriously.

Thanks.

And the irony is that if conservatives end up rallying behind the president on this, there's no way the libs are gonna let a female Pat Robertson (hope I'm not offending anyone) on the court. They'll totally wig out over this pick unless we kill it for them.

Another irony is that, I really don't think Reid cares if she's pro-life. He just wants to get through this without NARAL humiliating him and the rest of the party. He needs an excuse when she does turn out to be pro life on the court, and the fact that there's no paper trail will be it.

I understand both the existence of and necessity for checks on the dangers of autocratic power, and was in no way implying that such safeguards exist: in the subject at hand, in the form of a thorough confirmation process informed by, among other sources, the voice(s) of the populace.

My intent was rather merely to illuminate the fact that consent to live in a federal system presupposes investiture of the executive with the right to make an appointment--based, if necessary, upon reasons known to him alone--and having done so, to say, "Trust me!".

If Miers turns out to be very conservative once on the Court, no one should be embarrassed for opposing her because of a lack of information before her confirmation.  To oppose an appointment because we don't know enough about the nominee to rely on her is perfectly legitimate, not to say preferable, regardless of how the nominee turns out once confirmed.

I am sure everyone in this forum hopes that Miers is indeed conservative.  The question is whether trust in the President, is good enough, even in light of the political pressures you have outlined very well for us.

she is seated on the court? Her testimony? Public statements?

Or, do you consider only paper trail nominees to be acceptable?

I know plenty of originalists with no paper trail. To eliminate all but the known that have made a career of this is to unduly restrict the field and deny the nation their talent.

We elected Bush on this issue. His appeals court appointees are awesoome.

If you can be persuaded by testimony, that would be fair/.

5: If Miers is a Conservative vote on the Supreme Court it will be damaging to the Democrats in 2006

http://cicero.redstate.org/user/Cicero/diary

6: Miers will fullfill an important role in small group dynamics that will be benefical to the Conservative Block.

http://realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-10_4_05_TL.html

I don't know if I accept this last arguement, but I thought it was interesting enough to add to the list.

Hypothetically: if I were the President and I nominated someone who was an unknown that might make my base uneasy at first, I would probably want someone to ask some tough questions publicly so that when they're answered and these same Senators come out in support of her, my supporters would feel more confident about the choice.

but she's got a high standard to meet at this point.

A nominee with a consistent and long paper trail - articles, decisions, books - is ideal, not because we must know beforehand how she will vote on each case, but because it is the best indication of her approach to the Constitution.  

Testimony can be misleading, and talk is, after all, only talk.  Writings - court decisions especially, but other writings as well - over a period of many years show that an opinion is held firmly.  

Of course, actions could substitute for writings.  Serving conservative groups for a number of years would give us the same strong indication.  Miers has worked for the President, but her actions otherwise do not tell us much about her constitutional beliefs.  

Found this at www.smalldeadanimals.com and thought people here might want to read it.

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/002771.html

To Jeb2008, Mike F:

I'm not sure what you mean when you say the liberals would "wig out". Is that something like "flip their wig" and then filibuster? If so, would OUR side be willing to go "nuclear"?

Maybe Senator Reid is trying to play this both ways...appear like a pro-life moderate in Nevada (a purple state in 2004), then blame the lack of a paper trail if Miers turns out to be pro-life.

But you made an excellent point--WE should not kill (this nomination) for them. We need to get OUR side to "chill out" and let Miers defend herself in private meetings with the Senators, then publicly before the Judiciary Committee.

Incredibly, there are still some posters here who seem delighted that Senator Trent Lott considers the Miers nomination a "mistake". Miss Miers will have to have a word with Senator Lott.

If we're talking about justice, isn't Harriet Miers innocent until proven guilty?

has a bureaucracy rivaled only by the federal gov't.

I do not remember all the ins and outs of the controversy the last time it was brought up, but if IIRC, he was defrocked.

Now, the lesbian minister out here in WA is another thing...

Honestly, I'd have to do more definitive research on exactly where the church is in regards to a split.  I can tell you from a southern, conservative Methodist church point of view, the rank and file are not happy with the homosexual marriage issue.  And many churches, if given the chance, would vote to split.