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 t