Redstate

'nough said.

Perhaps this time the President would like to consult with the people who put him in office, or perhaps the Senators of his own party... instead of Harry Reid.

I hope that this is solid and not just a head fake from the WH trying to calm down those of us that oppose Ms. Miers' nomination.  Time will tell, I guess.

It is a shame that President Bush made the mistake of nominating Harriet Miers; what a wasted opportunity. Now the Democrats will see the withdrawal of Ms. Miers as a weakness when in reality it is a show of strength for the Conservative movement since it was the rebellion of the Bush base that is forcing the President's hand. Perhaps we are putting the carriage before the horse and in the end it turns out that Miers survives, but it is clear that even if this were to happen she will enter the Supreme Court weakened and battered.

Let's hope that if Miers is withdrawn that the President nominates either Edith Jones, Alice Batchelder or Karen Williams; I think that Janice Rogers Brown and Priscilla Owen have asked not to be included in the list.

President Bush finally started to listen to those who help him get elected twice. This time he would be better served picking a conservative consensus choice who would breeze through the process like John Roberts.

I just hope Bush picks someone who is the most qualified and not the PC or affirmative action choice.

No matter who is nominated by the President, the Democrats, led by Kennedy and Schumer, will revolt. Just the names Alito, Luttig, Estrada, Jones, Brown, and Owen cause the Democrats to go into convulsions of anger and hatred. I think that a filibuster is probable if Miers is withdrawn and the Republicans have to show fortitude and guts to do what is necessary to confirm a true constitutionalist to the Supreme Court even if it means the nuclear option.

Could it possibly be that Miers was nominated to clear the way for a Luttig or a McConnell? If Miers is on the record as anti-Roe and as a conservative evangelical Christian and if she does not get filibustered but is voted down on the floor, then how could senators, especially the Dem gang of 7, filibuster the subsequent nomination of one of the conservative favorites?

I doubt they could filibuster Williams or Garza.

Let me be the first on record as to say I still think Miers will be confirmed. Due respect to Erick, but his sources were utterly wrong on who was being considered for this nomination.

All I've heard over the weekend, ie Specter and the Dem senators, makes me think she will be confirmed. It goes to hearings, and I think she will ace them.

It's a bet on Bush, really. I trust him and I bet on him not to withdraw this nomination - again, with my usual caveat that a scandal breaking would naturally end this nomination the same as any other.

Should the unlikely withdrawal of Harriett Miers occur, I think I have the perfect candidate for assured confirmation with minimum resistance all around: Rick Santorum.

My reasoning:

1.)    Senators tend to show less resistance to Senate colleagues.  

2.)    Chairman Specter would likely LEAD the battle to confirm him.

3.)    The Democrats would get to temporarily appoint his replacement in PA, until the 2006 elections.

a.)    This would allow the Republicans to nominate a candidate to oppose Casey who isn't polling so negatively (perhaps a WH-coveted RINO).

b.)    It would take away the scenario that Santorum might have to oppose a Bush nominee to get reelected.

c.)     Nobody wants to say it, but Santorum's Senate seat is all but lost.

d.)    The longer the Dems take to confirm him, the longer they have to wait for that oh-so-precious pre-election Senate pickup.

e.)    It gives the Dems something they can sell to their base as an excuse for confirmation: one seat closer to majority in the Senate.

4.)    He has a guaranteed 50 votes from Day one.  Likely, he'd get many more.

5.)    It keeps a stalwart of a Conservative in the picture where he can make a difference for us for a long time.

6.)    The resistance on the right would be minimal; the support of a bone fide, proven Conservative like Santorum would have a laundry list of supporters and endorsements on the right.  The President would almost instantly resolidify the base behind him.

7.)     Bush gets to avoid the dreaded showdown, while at the same time pleasing Conservatives greatly.  He gets to dodge the fight will full approval from his base!

Hey, it's worth a shot....he's 47!!!

href="http://www.redstate.org/comments/2005/10/3/74558/9332/55#55">here and didn't much of a positive response.  Let's hope for Republicans sakes that I was href="http://mark-i.redstate.org/story/2005/10/14/121317/23">completely wrong.

here and didn't get much of a positive response.  Let's hope for the Republican's sake that I was completely wrong.

We've been discussing Miers's qualifications... what are Santorum's legal qualifications?

I'm going to lose a lot of respect for him.

The fact is that while we do take two on this slot, we're probably going to lose parental notification laws and the federal partial-birth abortion ban.  All because a bunch of so-called "thoughtful conservatives" decided to show less amturity than my three-year-old nephew and decided they would throw a temper-tantrum because one of their favorites was not nominated.

People can cloak their justification for borking Harriet Miers in principle all they want, but I know that the results of that borking are.  And those are what matter.

And you are OK with a RINO?  Wow.  I would rather a Democrat than either Snowe or Chaffee.  The only matter for one vote per term and they cause too much negative pub when they spout off about their great liberal thoughts.

NO MORE RINO'S

Now lets see a JRB, Luttig, Estrada type of nominee.  Show weakness again and your completely toast, all us "sexists" will sit on the sidelines for the next three years, and Jeb, yeah right.

What part of this nomination hasn't been a scandal?

1.  Obvious cronyism accompanied by an embarrassing history as a suck-up
   
2.  Obvious caving to the First Lady's desire for a female pick
   
3.  Almost complete lack of relevant qualifications
   
4.  Embarrassing bungling of the Senate's initial questions including  disrespectfully incomplete answers and  botching of Constitutional law principles she claims to have expertise in
   
5.  A record of woeful writing ability, even for a litigator
   
6.  Likely recusal issues for crucial executive branch issues
   
7.  Enigmatic, Souter-like ideological record
   
8.  Doubtful confirmability
   
9.  Outrages the base and other political allies

Did I miss anything?

for emerging from this morass and reunifying our camp would be to withdraw Miers and immediately nominate Janice Rogers Brown.  We all know she was the favorite of conservatives before Miers was nominated and nothing the President could do in the short term would be more effective in restoring the confidence & enthusiastic support of his base.

The courts are the last bation of liberalism in the national policy arena.  Liberals no longer win the presidency, a majority in Congress, most governorships, nor a majority in most state legislatures when they campaign as liberals.  Defeats in legislatures or Congress can be reversed through elections; the imposition of judges' personal policy preferences under the guise of interpreting the Constitution is not easily undone.

Unlike the Bork nomination, we conservatives have prepared for the battle to reclaim the courts from the liberal judicial supremacists.  We are ready to proclaim the arrival of a time for choosing and a great debate on the relationship among the Constitution, the courts, and the governed.

We need not just a justice who proves acceptable after taking office, but one who is a known originalist and whose confirmation results in a decisive victory in the political arena of originalism over the "living, breathing Constitution" theory that liberal activist judges use as cover for imposing their personal policy preferences on a country whose democratic branches have rejected these views.

Please .

There are several potential folks that obtained broad support for the lower bench and could probably move through a confirmation process without significant difficulty.

Alito got unanimous consent, even nice words said about him by Lautenberg from New Jersey.

Garza was also confirmed by unanimous consent.

Luttig as well.

McConnell as well, though admittedly he was controversial and Leahy said that he was not inclined to support him for the Supreme Court.

There are lots of other examples of judges that were confirmed easily for lower seats that could and should be considered for the Supreme Court.  While we'll never see less than 22 Dems voting for a Republican appointed judge, there are plenty that could pass muster with the Gang of 14 and a few others, getting anywhere from 62 to 78 votes (though I doubt we'll see anyone else reach Roberts' 78 votes, but we just need 60.).

"Perhaps this time the President would like to consult with the people who put him in office, or perhaps the Senators of his own party... instead of Harry Reid."

AMEN brother!

That they never miss the chance to eat their own.

I'm going to have a hard time respecting the Miers critics.  The strike me as being far more interested in pundity and ivory-tower intellectualism than in dealing with real-world problems and getting them solved.

Harriet would have a much easyer time.

Could someone please tell me on what grounds the Dems could possibly fillibuster Michael Luttig?

1. Personal knowledge of the candidate helps assure that she's no Souter chameleon.
   
   
2. "Caving"???  Only if he would have done otherwise in the absence of such urging. For example, "caving" to the anti-Miers crowd.
   
   
3. Completely qualified. Brings significant balance to the court (expertise in corporate law, something missing). Never been a judge before (this is a good thing).  
   
   
4. Hmmm. You and I have a disagreement as to the general accuracy of media reports.
   
   
5. Judgement call, but she hasn't had much opportunity for flowery prose; judges making law like the bon mot; litigants seeking judgement usually have to stick to legal arguments.  
   
   
6. This is not a "scandal", although arguably it is a slight debit.  
   
   
7. This is not a scandal, but an unjustified slur on your part.  In addition, I do not want an ideaologue on the court:  I want someone who will interpret and apply the law as written.  
   
   
8. Perhaps now, but your calling it a "scandal" is analogous to the plea, "yes, I killed both my parents, but you should have pity on me because I'm an orphan."
   
   
9. Outrages some of the base (and, quite frankly, much of the outrage has been tantrum-like rather than reasoned) and allies; it also outrages some opponents and their allies.  

Yes, Mikewas, you missed a lot.  Quite a lot.  

I'm just giving a RINO-friendly White House one more reason on a list, that's all.

I'll take a Conservative anyday.  

I'm not saying, I'm just saying, that's all.   ;-)

Or maybe he is serving the people who put him in office. Bush ran as a "compassionate conservative", not as an idealogue. That way he captured the suburban vote.

By a 2-1 margin conservatives are still behind Bush on the nomination. The "movement" conservatives haven't been with him on this, but his base is.

1. Not very quiet if posting the "very quietly" third parties have begun to go back through the list. Sounds more of the interns who know very little.
   
   
2. I would hope the White House would realize that the Miers nomination is facing resistance and would have another nomination ready to go if blocked. That is not a secret nor rocket science. Bush wants Miers but will be ready if her nomination is blocked.
   
   
3. The "exit strategy" is just a story to give false hope to the anti-Miers crowd.
   
   
4. The third parties get to select the new nominee and not the President. Yeah right!  

The nomination comes down to how well Miers does in the hearings. It is that simple.

Scenario 1: She does well or average than there is "zero" chance of any Republican Senator  voting against Miers. Many of the same Senators voted in support of Ginsburg and Breyer.

Scenario 2: She performs badly and the nomination would then be in deep trouble. You would still have at least 40 - 45 Republicans still vote in support but there may not be enough to get the nomination through a full Senate vote.

"W" wants Miers on the bench and he will not back down. The argument to keep her off the bench is that she does not have the skills or experience in Con Law. If she proves this theory true in the hearings my assumption she will withdraw her nomination out of respect for the President. But from everyone who knows her they expect her to do well in the hearings. The bar also has been pushed very low for her to achieve success in the hearings. The anti-Miers crowd has accomplished one thing and that is make many people believe she is this little seretary fron the White House and the only reason she was nominated was her friendship with "W". When they see her in the hearings as an intelligent person that holds herself well the public sentiment will turn well in her favor.

For the anti-Miers crowd you have until November 7th to get her to withdraw. once the hearings start it will be all over.  

     

Well, I'll get more posted as I get free time at work.  But firstly, being a member of the Legislative Houses of our country, he's been a party to passing and/or writing many laws that the Supreme Court may ultimately rule on.

Secondly, he's the third or fourth highest ranking member of a Legislative House.

Of course, I'm mostly of the opinion that anyone with experience in the House and Senate should be considered pretty qualified for the Supreme Court.  After all, who better to interpret the intentions of the law than somebody who has been a part in writing or passing many of those laws?

Just IMHO

I commend this article in The Weekly Standard by Powerlineblog writer John Hinderaker.  He was disappointed with Ms. Miers' nomination, and has even greater disappointment with some of the arguments being used to defeat her nomination.  Agree or disagree, it is written in the best of the American conservative tradition, and worth reading and considering.

for the poor post.  I'm new at this HTML formatting thing.  The second version of this post below works fine.

But the problem is that they've already put blood in the water.

This is the first I've heard of this idea, and I hope not the last. Very thoughtful reasoning in your arguement.

Santorum is a confirmable, across-the-board conservative, who at the age of 45 could be on the court until 2050.

I don't think the administration would do a 180 on this and pick the polar opposite of Miers -- established judge, male, "red meat" for the base, etc.  I would hope they have at least one eye on the perception that they've "caved" to the base instead of simply nominated a klunker that they want to get right.  They'll want to stick with their blueprint for the nomination while putting someone forward who is more impressive and less likely to be savaged as less than qualified.

What do they want to be perceived as "correcting" if they withdraw Miers in favor of another nominee?

1. Constitutional law background.
   
2. Impressive education and experience.  (You can argue, as many do, that a big school and a big clerkship don't matter -- I'm more on that side than the other myself -- but this is about what they want perceived different about the new nominee, and with so many impressive candidates available, it will be easy to make this one happen)
   
3. Lifelong Republican/conservative.
   
4. Ability to write/persuade convincingly on complex issues.
   
5. Age.
   
6. More "like Roberts," as vague as that is -- a lot of the undercurrent of the Miers opposition has been that she's so drastically different than the way they did it right the first time.

What don't they want to change (IMO)?

1. Female.
   
2. "Outside the monastery."
   
3. No red meat.  (Again, you can argue, as many do, that they have a majority in the Senate and have been waiting nearly 15 years before 2005 since the last Repulican-nominated Justice, but I don't think they want to be seen as running a Brown/Owen style conservative that will assuage the movement.)

I give you your nominee.  Her affirmative action advocacy has been discussed at some length here and is a separate issue -- personally, I don't hold winning a tough case against her, but some do.  But IMO she represents everything the administration thinks is right about Miers and corrects so much that's wrong that she's a no-brainer.

I still support Ted Olson, personally.

I like your reasoning too, but does the guy know anything about the law?

I would be delighted to swap Miers for santorum, Pryor or Jones. Other than that I will be disappointed.

On their hands.

The charitable assessment is that they did not think through what their opposition meant.

Not least of which being that we know how Miers would come down on these issues.

I'm still hoping for a Santorum victory.  Once Casey actually opens his mouth and starts to campaign, I'm hoping the wind comes out of his sails a little bit.  And a Swann candidacy for Governor could help Santorum too.

But, in answer to your question, Santorum is quite well educated.  he has a BA from Penn state in 1980, an MBA from the University of Pittsburgh in 1981, and a law degree from Dickinson law school in 1986.  He was a practicing attorney from 1986-1990.  Got elected to the House in 1990 and the Senate in 1994.

I do agree that he'd make an outstanding Justice, but I don't know that he's necessarily an 'easy' confirmation.  The lefty dems would go bananas.  

at a briefing I'm watching on MSNBC right now about whether the WH has contingency plans in case of the withdrawal of the nomination.

He didn't answer.  He won't release WH papers, she's an extraordinary woman, he understands people want to learn more about her, and he looks forward to her hearings.

What counts more, that he once ran on the vague phrase "compassionate conservative," or that he twice ran with the specific promise to "appoint judges in the mold of Scalia and Thomas?"

That she's solid.  It's no less presumptuous than some of the shots aimed at her elsewhere.  Or the implication from a hired gun that we'd have gone along with appointing Caligula's horse to the Roman Senate.

We had a good enough nominee who was borked on the website of National Review and elsewhere.

The side with five votes wins in the Supreme Court.  And right now, with O'Connor on, it's almost a safe bet that there are five votes to overturn parental notification and the federal partial-birth abortion ban.

Sorry, that's the bottom line.  And the overturning of those laws will be in large part due to certain pundits allowing perfect to be the enemy of good enough.

Miers is not qualified for the Supreme Court. Stop bashing her critics as immature... your reaction to political discourse not of your liking is far more immature than the people challenging Miers.

You may be a leftist posing as a Republican, I don't know or care, but I do know you're a broken record playing notes no one is interested in. Shut up.

Care to elaborate?  With hard data and facts, as opposed to the innuendo that seems to be percolating out?

I state a fact.

Miers is rock solid on abortion. All bloggers I have read that oppose her (I mean major bloggers) indicate that they oppose her despite her support for life; Lopez, Polipundit, etc.

That is not good enough. They are accepting she is solid on Roe, but they still endanger her nomination. They risk getting Gonzales, Mahoney, Callahan or worse.

That is not acceptable. It is simply not right and not moral to gamble with the lives of the unborn in that fashion.

If the opponents were sincere in a belief that she might uphold Roe, then they would be free to Bork her. But admitting she is solid on Roe and yet taking the gamble of opposition, that is, I believe, an absolutely immoral stance to take. Nobody has the right to gamble on the next nominee when they admit that this one would do her best to put a stop to the ongoing holocaust of children taking place in America.

Thomas, you invited a new guest blogger who called Hugh Hewitt a "pimp", was utterly derided by the vast majority of 200 commenters, and then put up a snarky RedHot post gloating about it - without, of course, having the guts to defend himself in the comments section of his inappropriate story.

If you are going to put the weight of this site behind a sarcastic, offensive, sexual insult-using man like that, I believe you ought to accept that people feel just as deeply on the other side.

Without naming names or being personal, I attack a position. And the position that "I believe she will vote to overturn Roe and support all abortion restrictions - yet I oppose her and am willing to take the gamble of a new nominee being pro-choice" - is not a moral position. That is my belief. And I cannot be disuaded from it.

All indications are that she's solid.

By which you mean, she once said some bad things about abortion fifteen years ago, and Bush knows her soul.

Hm. Sandy O'Connor said bad things about it, too. So did Dave Souter. Remind me again who the authors of the lead opinion in Casey were?

Silly me, I was looking for some positive indication that she would read the Constitution correctly, not that she personally didn't like abortion.

It's no less presumptuous than some of the shots aimed at her elsewhere.

Would those be the same "shots" you've been decrying? Oh, right. Incivility only matters if it's directed at you.

Or the implication from a hired gun that we'd have gone along with appointing Caligula's horse to the Roman Senate.

Or the shots at the intelligence and good faith of his Republican opponents by a commenter who swore off this site months ago.

We had a good enough nominee who was borked on the website of National Review and elsewhere.

Well, you're proving that the old saw about assuming is correct.

The side with five votes wins in the Supreme Court.  And right now, with O'Connor on, it's almost a safe bet that there are five votes to overturn parental notification and the federal partial-birth abortion ban.

Your restatement of the obvious is spine-tingling.

Sorry, that's the bottom line.  And the overturning of those laws will be in large part due to certain pundits allowing perfect to be the enemy of good enough.

Or it's your imagined vision of the bottom line, and those laws will be overturned because the White House didn't do due diligence. One of the two.

I state a fact.

Properly, you state a prediction, based on assumptions made from some facts.

Miers is rock solid on abortion.

In the same way that John Kerry is. I could believe abortion is the murder of unborn human beings and still think it's a protected liberty interest under the Constitution. All indications are that Tony Kennedy feels this way, and he went all sweet-mystery-of-life when presented with Roe over ten years ago.

What matters is, if we're going to get all results-oriented like this, whether she'll overturn Roe. We have no indication of that. None. Period.

If the opponents were sincere in a belief that she might uphold Roe, then they would be free to Bork her.

That would be me, then.

If you are going to put the weight of this site behind a sarcastic, offensive, sexual insult-using man like that, I believe you ought to accept that people feel just as deeply on the other side.

Had you paid attention to my comments lately, you'll note that I think everyone is overexercised about this, on both sides. I understand that everyone feels deeply about it. I just ask for civility between this site's participants in so doing.

And the position that "I believe she will vote to overturn Roe and support all abortion restrictions - yet I oppose her and am willing to take the gamble of a new nominee being pro-choice" - is not a moral position. That is my belief. And I cannot be disuaded from it.

Fine. You're entitled to that opinion. And I'd love for you to prove me wrong. But everything I'm hearing runs the other way.

I've seen posts about this since the day the nomination was announced.  Historically, nominees after a withdrawal or rejection have been even bigger mysteries and disappointments (e.g., Blackmun and Kennedy.  My fear is that if Miers is gone, the WH will move in the wrong direction (i.e., instead of Luttig will get AGAG).

Miers cannot survive this process and frankly I do not wish to see her embarrass herself in hearings. To believe she will be confirmed at this point is very silly. She is Toast and I hope for JRB if she is up to the fight. Let's have the debate and let America get some understanding of original intent and not just a candidate we know will vote against Roe but a real justice in the mold of a Scalia or Thomas. We will win the fight let them try and filler buster. Bush can come back but admit it he blew this one big-time. You do not pick a judge by what religious leaders say in a conference call. Bring on the fight conservatism will win each and every time is fought for. We do not need to compromise on principal.

Which is that most conservative bloggers who oppose Miers have stated that they oppose her despite their belief that she will vote to overturn Roe.

Since you believe (I do not know why) that she might uphold it, you are excepted. But Polipundit and NRO are not.

They are, then, by definition, gambling with the lives of the unborn by Borking a woman whom they believe will overturn Roe - with no guarantee, or even probability, that her replacement will be judically prolife. In my opinion, that position is reckless to the point where it is immoral.

If I'm clearly not wanted here, fine.

But as far as I am concerned, the borking of Harriet Miers is a black mark on the consevrative movement in general, and outlets like RedState and National Review in particular.

In any case, I think I'll be more likely to see the results I want by ditching those like you who seem to value ideological purity and seeing situations as they wish to be as opposed to dealing with the situation as it is, and solving problems.

My characterization of Blanton as a hired gun stands.  And I find it real ironic that he gets to sit in judgement of Hugh Hewitt.

and could be perceived as yet another 'crony'.

Unless there is something about the men that we currently do not know it would be almost impossible to fillibuster either Luttig or McConnell although I would not put it past the democrats to attempt to do so.

"The argument to keep her off the bench is that she does not have the skills or experience in Con Law"

If she is appointed she will have some of the best Con Law clerks on the planet. If she makes it, her clerks will really be the ones that provide the deep background.

I find it real ironic that he gets to sit in judgement of Hugh Hewitt.

I can't wait to hear the explanation for this.

is qualified nominees, who have actual judicial experience and something other than a close friendship with the President to recommend them.

Even if Harriet Miers would have proved to be the next Scalia, I still wouldn't want her, because frankly, her nomination was driven by cronyism, nothing more. Conservatives have been right in standing together and exposing ourselves to weakness for the sake of principles. It is this respect for principle over power that sets us apart from the Democratic Party.

Should have sufficied.

I must not get it since I'm not a "thoughtful conservative".

Screw it.  As far as I'm concerned, conservatives have all but earned election losses in 2006.

Enjoy the collective temper-tantrum.

What good is done for those principals when you lose elections and stuff?

Losing elections has real consequences - or did you not notice 9/11 after eight years of rank incompetence from the Clinton administration?

Would he be on the list were he not Bush's friend?  Not in a Republican Administration.

but I don't think they're above making another colossal mistake.  And I think the POTUS has a bit of 'stick it in your eye' in him.  In any event, it may not be AGAG, but I doubt it will be Luttig, Brown, etc.

analysis, but I think Mahoney's involvement in Grutter will scare them away.

A loyal staffer and friend of his was borked.  Do you think he's going to make the critics happy?

Anyone who did think that has to be seriously detached from reality.

Clerks spend one year, just one, with a Supreme Court justice.  On average they have 2 or 3 clerks.  So if Miers were confirmed (shudder) and served just 20 years on the Court, she could have anywhere from 40 to 60 clerks.

Do we have any idea who she'd pick?  Would they all be smart conservatives who would hew her in to conservative judicial philosophy?  Or will she be swayed by the liberal elite and pick clerks from the wrong side of the law?

That's a problem with a stealth candidate with no enumerated judicial philosophy.  We don't know if she's the next coming of Antonin Scalia or John Stevens.  Who cares if she's Bush's best friend?  What happens when he's not in office and she isn't protecting his immediate interests?  Will she shift back to her early beliefs?  Will she stay true to standard conservative philosophy?

Someone with a public track record, even as scant as that of Chief Justice Roberts, folks have a better sense of where he's likely to fall.  We could be proven wrong, but we've usually been proven wrong the wrong way (Souter, Kennedy, even SDO).

...nominate one of the clerks then? If they're the ones who will be shaping the vote, let's put them through the process and make sure that they are in the mold of Scalia and Thomas, as Bush promised his new justices would be.

You use that term very liberally.  I'm still not convinced that you understand what it means.

Judge Bork was attacked not for his qualifications, not for wonder what his philosophy was, not for his training, but because he stood accused in the immortal words of the Senator from Chappaquiddick of

"Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, children could not be taught about evolution."

Conservative opposition to Ms. Miers has not, by an objective means, reached that level of vitriol or condemnation.  Blanton's ill-mannered and uncouth (but topically accurate) diary notwithstanding.

We have questioned her qualifications, with some justification.  We have questioned her judicial philosophy, with clear evidence compelling us to do so.  We have questioned the wisdom of appointing the President's own attorney given the docket of the court and the importance of several issues this year alone.

Where is your evidence of Kennedy-esque borking of Ms. Miers?  That some nameless, faceless loudmouths in the blogosphere have said some ill-tempered things is not 'borking'.  That some well-regarded, thoughtful conservative commentators have questioned her qualifications is not 'borking'.

Interesting that the man who should be known as Justice Bork is himself participating in the "borking" of Harriet Miers.

Ironic, no?

All he had to do to avoid this disaster would have been to nominate Michael Luttig or Karen Williams. Two judges who are clearly in the mold of Scalia and Thomas who could not/would not have been fillibustered. Both would have satisfied the base.

I did not add McConnell to that list only because he does have a paper trail on Roe. But I do believe that he would get through eventually because of the bipartisan support he received during his confirmation process.  

Self-inflicted wounds are sometimes the most unkind.

in that profanity is not allowed here.

on the power of clerks on these pages. My law professor friends tell me that they are picked from a variety of sources--sometimes and many times it is from their alma mater. In the case of Roberts many will be from  IVY league schools ---Not from Liberty University. As for Miers, SMU will no doubt be a supplier in the future. Who knows, though. In my opinion, since Roberts has been closer to the bench he knows and understands the clerk model deeply --and  seems more academically minded to me. It won't take here too long to for HM to figure it out, though.

How do you think she will be viewed among her other SCOTUS colleagues. Will she be embraced or shunned? Is there a mentorship program!

Perhaps you could elucidate--and please use small words, since I'm really having trouble with this as it stands--how stubbornly pushing an underqualified nominee that divides and upsets a large and vocal segment of your base helps your party win elections?

I'm all for party unity, but this isn't a one-way street. The President may have carte blance on who he nominates, but that doesn't free him from any responsibilities or consequences that go with that. The big nasty fight you've been worried about is unavoidable. All Bush has done in nominating Miers as a stealth candidate is provide the opposition with a huge pile of legitimate complaints to lodge against her.

In the meantime, a Republican party that betrays conservative principle entirely is one that loses elections. If the Republicans become Democrats that are pro-big business ... well, we already have those, and they've proven better at peddling their message as-is, unless you think that the entertainment industry isn't big business.

While I don't speak for Michael G, to whom you were responding, I find the claim that party unity is all-important in winning elections a little far-fetched. Party unity is certainly important--very important--but it's not everything and there are, sometimes, more important things than winning elections.

All the talk about the "borking" of Miers by the conservative intelligentsia is silly.  Does anyone truly believe that nobody would have noticed Miers' deficiencies if George Will and the posters at NRO had nursed their disappointment in private?  Harriet Miers has no chance to be confirmed today.  She had no chance this time last week.  She had no chance when the President announced her nomination.  The real- world consequences of speaking out either for or against that nomination are nil.

No Democrat was ever going to vote to confirm a born-again Christian with any history of opposition to abortion on demand.  Confirming Miers was always going to entail breaking a filibuster and there were never going to be 50 Senators willing to wage war for the sake of putting W's minimally qualified (to be generous) crony on the Court.  The Miers nomination was destined from the outset to sink into the muck of the Senate Judiciary Committee never again to see the light of day.  All the arguments along the way are stimulating but not significant except to the extent that they may influence the choice of Miers' successor.

It would compound a terrible error to push through to a vote in Committee.  Harriet Miers might do well enough in hearings but even if she does it won't revive her nomination.  She might also do poorly enough to discredit more than herself.

It is time to let go of all the resentments associated with the intramural scrimmage over Miers.  Soon we will have a new and probably improved nominee.  With any luck at all we can all agree next time.

I was waiting for you to explain how Blanton's criticism of Hugh Hewitt was "ironic." (As opposed to, you know, wrong or crass or some other such thing). Guess that's too much to ask.

I was operating under the presumption that you were seeking to draw some kind of comparison between Blanton and Hugh in either their personal characteristics, or their occupation, or their punditry, and was interested to see what it would be.

Screw it.

You know, after you say a thing so many times over and over again, it starts to lose effect.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_10_09_corner-archive.asp#079476

In any case, I think I'll be more likely to see the results I want by ditching those like you who seem to value ideological purity and seeing situations as they wish to be as opposed to dealing with the situation as it is, and solving problems.

I'm not sure if that's the most foolish thing you've written to date, but it must surely be in the running.

I don't care about ideological purity. A pro-choice originalist sits just fine with me. Most of us don't care about ideological purity; we worry that what we have in hand here is someone with a firm opposition to abortion and other judicially constructed silliness but who lacks a solid philosophy on those issues, and will slide Left, as all Justices who lack solid philosophies tend to do.

So: If you're intent on "solving" the problem by making it worse, all the while muttering a Hallelujah chorus to yourself, have fun with your intellectual masturbation. I'm determined to actually solve the problem, once and for all.

Guess that makes me a purist.

and conjugator. Bork; Borked; Borker; Borking.

your mind is already made up.

So you feel that she's been borked.  Where's the evidence that anyone of any stature has unfairly characterized her position on any issue (you can't count Specter and privacy because he recanted after she asked him to).

I'm just not sure where your evidence of a systemic effort to bork her rests.  

Perhaps because there isn't any that an objective person would find.

But is the ongoing firefight on these pages truly indicative of division in the ranks, or is this vocality a byproduct of internet anonymity?  I'm still not convinced Miers is a bad pick for conservatives in general, so I'm somewhat mystified by the interfraternal hatefest going on.

Both Erick's report today, as well as John Fund's from the WSJ, seem to bolster what I first reported her on Saturday. For those of you who missed it, here is my Saturday report based on information from sources I deem reliable.

" The Populist

Posted on October 22nd, 2005 at 5:19 pm. About 'Cue the plus-sized lady?'.

Hello again.

As of today, there is serious discussion inside the White House regarding how best to go about repairing damage done in the last week. A political calculation is being formulated this weekend with one of two possible outcomes.

1. Ask Miers to withdraw before the hearings.
   
2. Increase verbal support of Miers and hope she can withstand the hearings and be confirmed.

I have learned that there are high level conservative activists which have consulted with the White House on which direction the Miers situation should go. If Bush decides to allow the Miers hearings to go forward, there is serious concern that not only will she be rejected, but it will look terribly bad, even worse than the Bork hearings. The primary reason for this is due to Miers perceived "unqualified" demeanor.

The political calculation being discussed also involves how best to make a "credible" exit strategy if withdrawal is the action taken. With the Plame indictments coming down next week, the odds increase that Miers name would be withdrawn under the radar of press coverage focused on the indictments. The White House plans on restarting an effective PR campaign pertaining to the indictments and will need as much conservative support as possible. The theory being that if Bush can reignite conservative republicans with a new pick for SCOTUS the White House won't have to fight two media wars at the same time.

Personally, I have no idea which direction the White House will go in deciding Miers fate. But my sources feel there is a 60% chance Miers won't be the nominee by November 1st. Just twenty four hours ago the same sources felt there was no chance of that happening. One thing is for certain, the White House is listening to conservative opposition now, whereas a week ago they were laughing it off."

Against Miers?  Marvin Olasky has asked for that, but reports the following:

I've asked anyone with negative impressions of her to come forward and either speak on the record or provide evidence to substantiate concerns. The magazine I edit, World, is stricter on that accord than some other publications are. For example, we tell our reporters not to give interviewees off-the-record status merely because they ask for it and proffer gossip. So far, we have received no negatives admissible in the magazine's pages.

I personally had to set the record straight over the ABA documents that some people irresponsibly claimed meant that she supported the ICC and gay adoption (for the record, she didn't).  That didn't exactly cover the anti-Miers camp in glory.  The whole "Souter in a skirt" meme fell flat.  If anything, it's been more of a "throw what we can at Miers and see what sticks" - and in the process, Miers supporters got labeled Flavor-Aid drinkers and worse.

With that kind of track record early on, I tend to suspect a borking.  So far, I've not seen anything to convince me otherwise.

So I ask for evidence that she's being borked and you say there isn't any, but that's sufficient for you because if people are questioning her without evidence they are obviously being unfair.

You ask for evidence of her lack of qualifications, (I'd cite the affirmative action stuff, but Bush is bad on that too so we shouldn't expect much there) and my inability to give you any is sufficient for you to condemn me.  But my inability to give you evidence of her lack of qualifications is based entirely on her lack of record.  We don't know what she thinks about anything of legal consequence, except a tortured reading that the Constitution requires proportional representation in Dallas.

There is no evidence that she is a strict constructionist, no evidence that she's an originalist, and no real evidence that she'll vote against Roe and Casey, against Kelo-esque, against VAWA, against unconstiutional emanations and penumbrae to support affirmative action policies beyond what SDO has already foist upon us.

We're asked to blindly trust Bush, which is not much of an argument when there are concrete examples of Bush's errors in judgment when it comes to personnel (Rod Paige, Michael Brown, Paul O'Neil, etc.)  That he's been right before certainly helps him, but it doesn't end the obligation for him to continue to prove that he is right now.  We're not a monarchy or the Vatican.  He, and she, need to demonstrate that she is qualified.  So far they have not.

But I will try and elaborate for you, although from your comments downthread it will likely prove a futile endevour.

<BOCKQUOTE>What good is done for those principals when you lose elections and stuff?</BLOCKEQUOTE&gt

To which I reply, "What is the point of having elections if we must sacrifice our conservative principles to win?" While moderation and center-right policies are what get us into power (and believe me, I love being in charge, and thank God every day that Kerry did not win in November), it is our conservative bedrock principles that ground us in reality and remind us of why we hold power in the first place. We see the result of forgetting these principles in our Congress, which, though under firm Republican control, has spent taxpayer money like nobody's business. We see the overwhelming failure of the Coburn Amendments in the US Senate, where a bipartisan coalition of senators banded together to defend the pet pork projects of one of their own. We see NCLB, the Medicare Prescription Drug Package, the Highway and Energy Bills, and deficets that would make Bill Clinton blush. This is not the government I voted for, nor is it one that has earned my support in the fiscal/economic field.

Besides, its ridiculous to think that by standing firm on conservative principles, the Republican Party will condemn itself to minority status. In 2000, when George W. Bush ran as a "compassionate conservative", he lost the popular vote to Al Gore and barely won the election. In 2004, running on an ambitious conservative platform, he won by a comfortable majority in both the popular vote and the Electoral College, and picked up a bigger majority than before in the US Senate and House. Indeed, only by standing firm will the party remain strong and defend its position as the majority in Congress and the leader in the White House. If the Miers nomination is defeated, it will prove to conservative activists across the fruited plain that "Yes, Virginia, your phone calls and e-mails do make a difference!" Having stared down one betrayal of principle and forcing an acceptable nominee, conservative activists, the lifeblood of the Party and the prime reason for our tremendous grassroots success, will be energized to go out and do it again. There will be a purpose to campaigning and voting in 2006, and hard pressure will be brought to bear on wayward Republican politicans to change their ways or face the wrath of the People (or at least the right-wing blogosphere). With a strong campaign, we can increase our majority once again and push the legislative path back onto a more, shall we say, orthodox, route. And as conservative principles are in truth applied to government, the general populous will see their effects on the nation, the economy, and the people, and the stage will be set for conservative majority for decades to come.

Far from ripping the Party apart, the Miers nomination battle may be the shot in the arm conservative activists need to recapture the direction of the Republican Party.

Hum, I feel a diary coming on.

You cannot be spared.

We pragmatists are in short supply here.  We simply cannot afford to lose anyone now.

As you can see, Redstate is full of True Believers that are ready and willing to burn the village so they can save it.  Matter of fact---I fear that many have forgotten what to do with the village, once they've purified it into rubble and forced moderates who refuse to swear fealty into some sort of conservative dhimmitude.  (Some Heritage Foundation Team B idea gone amok, I suppose?)

(sarcasm, everyone.   sarcasm )

Strength and honor, Harold Hutchinson!  Stick it out.  Take it, and then dish it right back.

For instance, I find it entertaining to ask aloud here if the conservative juggernaut that will sweep True Red Conservative Justices into office is the same juggernaut that elected Senators Coors, Forrester, Nethercutt and Jones.  (Funny, but I can never get those Senators to return my calls.)

I do recommend, though, that you avoid any references to donkeys, or the Eastern Seaboard between Maine and Richmond VA.  Much agita can result.

Remember, all:  Politics is the contact sport of the mind!  May we all play hard but clean, and maintain our perspective and dignity.

This is the Hugh Hewitt Appreciation Network, returning you to your regularly scheduled programming.

don't be so naive. The Dems would simply try and paint either of those two as being too "out of the mainstream" and "extreme" to be given a lifetime appointment to the nation's highest court. They would try and use naked ideology and politics -- pure and simple -- as a rationale for a filibuster.

per se.

I fully expect the Dems to take whatever actions they deem necessary to obstruct a genuninely conservative/originalist/textualist nominee. Even if they know their efforts won't succeed, they'll want to curry favor with their activist left wing, especially if they have presidential ambitions.

I'm more worried about the willingness of the White House to risk a fight, and the ability of the GOP caucus to hold together and take whatever actions it deems necessary -- including the nuclear option -- to get the president's (new) choice through.

...but I don't know that he's necessarily an 'easy' confirmation.  The lefty dems would go bananas.

Without a doubt. I gather Santorum is to the left what Ted Kennedy or Hillary Clinton are to the right: a sort of punching bag used for raising money from people like Babs Streisand. He's polarizing, in other words. I think we'd risk losing the votes of the RINOs. The New England senate RINOs would be absolutely inundated with threats from liberal voters in their states.

I like Santorum a great deal, and hope he prevails to keep his senate seat. But he's not going to be on the Supreme Court any time soon -- this is sheer fantasy.

Rick Santorum on the Supreme Court would accomplish manifold purposes:

Would keep a strong voice for conservatives actually doing something constructive.  He's likely to lose his seat anyway.

He'd be easily confirmed, if for no other reason than Hillary would love to have him out of her hair.

Though many of us would love to have him as POTUS, the populace wouldn't elect him, so what else is the guy gonna do for a promotion?

Talk is one thing.  Getting a True Red conservative elected in a blue state---well, that's another.

Ask Senators Jones (CA)and Nethercutt (WA) and Forrester (NJ).  All ran against batty or weak Democratic opponents, yet all won!    

Of course, I meant to say that all three of these True Red conservative GOP candidates LOST.

But, you knew that already.

I have to admit that the confirmation hearing would be great entertainment given all the bone headed things he has said.  But really, get serious.  He is not confirmable (Hillary does not need him appointed to SCOTUS to get rid of him), and he would be a terrible judge.  His track record implies that he would very likely be an activist judge, and unpredictable to boot.  He is downright scary to a majority of americans.    

Hmmm.  Is that a bad thing?

You may be way more up on what the guy has said than I, but everytime I hear him on Hannity I want to stop my car and applaud the guy.  What has he said that the average RedStater would reject?

from PA. I don't know but it would probably involve a disposable cap.

be just as bad as a liberal.

While they may decide things more my way, in the end I want a judge who is anchored to the constitution, and not to their own preferred positions.

She had approval of the Gang of 14.

Even if she were firmly opposed to Roe-and all of the ill-conceived decisions that emanated from it, e.g. Doe, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Carhart, etc.,-the anti-Roe contingent would still constitute a minority on the SCOTUS. What's more, the fact that she hasn't demonstrated a firm grasp of the underlying tenets of the Constitution leads me to believe that any attempt to move Anthony Kennedy in our direction will be utterly futile.

You wrote: But firstly, being a member of the Legislative Houses of our country, he's been a party to passing and/or writing many laws that the Supreme Court may ultimately rule on.

Sir, that's a disqualifying factor!  We want our judges to be independent... there's almost a conflict of interest for him to review these laws that he took part in writing.

Secondly, he's the third or fourth highest ranking member of a Legislative House.

I'm sorry, but it doesn't matter if he was the previous President of the United States.... it has nothing to do with his being qualified to serve on any court, let along the SCOTUS.

After all, who better to interpret the intentions of the law than somebody who has been a part in writing or passing many of those laws?

For reasons of bias towards legislation he pushed, I think this is still a negative... If he was a former state legislator, I think you point holds water.  But he is so unqualified in every other respect, that he cannot seriously be considered.

For the dangers of appointing senators to the Supreme Court, please see my posting at http://gopliberty.blogspot.com/2005/07/senator-reids-judicial-nominee.html ("sending a Senator to the Supreme Court is like hiring a panhandler to organize a senatorial fundraiser: the recruit possesses some sense of what the job entails, but he lacks the proper disposition.")

Wow, you don't think much of her.  What an unkind statement.

I find it a real stretch to think that she had anything to do with it.  There are other female nominees much more qualified to do the job.  I think he mucked this one up nicely all by himself.

Take a look at the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Santorum#Controversy

and ask yourself if this guy is confirmable.  I don't think so.  Most americans do belive that there is a constituional right of privacy, and would not want the government snooping around in their bedroom.