Redstate

In this respect, George Will's column of today becomes a must read for any conservative who is concerned about the Senate's duty to discharge its Consent role.

Bush's assertion in yesterday's presser that Mier's was the "most qualified" was a deep insult to his supporters. That statement didn't even pass the laugh test. Scalia must have groaned.

talks from both sides of his mouth,and frankly contributed to this problem by helping to weaken the resolve of the Senate to reform the democrat filibuster abuse.

Will has been against this President for a long time, and is now criticisizing the solution to a problem he played a part in creating.

W has delivered consistently on judicial appointments, has been consistent on nearly every issue for conservatives.

Has he been perfect? No.

But buying into the demo-spam that he is untrustowrthy and unreliable is a gift I am not willing to give the left right now.

Why is Will, and why are so many conservatives, who frankly have no rational basis for their knee-jerk uninformed reaction on this issue?

Thorley posted an excellent comment somewhere in one of the seemingly innumerable threads devoted to the Miers fiasco, in which he lamented the elitism explicit in the criticism of Miers as lacking the requisite educational credentials, curriculum vitae and life experience.  And this judgment is surely correct, inasmuch as, by analogy, we wouldn't regard an engineer or philosopher or anyone at all as unworthy simply because he had not graduated from a school we like, or had not chosen the career path we would have chosen given his opportunities.

No, the problem with the Miers nomination is simply that, had she followed the life path she has in fact followed, but compiled an extensive record of essays, articles and reviews in which a demonstrable originalist philosophy were articulated and defended, we would not be engaged in the present debate.  Yes, her experience and career path give us reason to believe that she might well possess the required intellectual chops; the absence of a body of published work indicates that she might not well have the intellectual chops in the requisite sense.  I trust that the difference is obvious: Larry Tribe possesses, in the abstract, the intellectual ability to fulfill the duties of a SCOTUS justice, yet his published record indicates that he has not made correct use of those abilities - his opinions  evince a grievous misunderstanding of the Constitution and the role of the courts.  With Miers, the situation is similar: she may have the abilities, and one might plausibly interpret her life experience as suggesting such, yet we have no evidence whatsoever that she has made such a use of those abilities as to demonstrate that she is fit SCOTUS material - an originalist who grasps and defends what that commitment entails jurisprudentially.

There is a world of difference between having the ability and having the ability with the requisite characteristics.  Miers may have the former, but we are not warranted in believing the latter; she is a stealth candidate.

We were not promised stealth.

was and still is a bad pick.

Odd that you have to use the woman leaving the bench as the argument against the woman who should replace her.

As to the litmus test that some conservatives are now demanding be publicly used:

Shame on the hypocrisy of this.

It seems to me that most people seem to conclude that O'Connor's had always been a pro-Roe vote.

It should be recalled that she was a regular and reliable member of the conservative block of Justices who voted in favor of state restrictions on abortion, and who criticized the ruling and rationale in Roe, right up to the issuance of the Casey decision. It was expected by many observers that O'Connor would vote in that case to overrule Roe, based on the critiques she had made earlier. What made Casey such a turning point was her switch to the other side.

You miss the point entirely.

If you're unable to see the spooky similarities between what was said about her then to assuage SoCons then (and I have about four more articles from that time period I can share), and what is being said about Harriet Miers now, I don't know what to tell you.

My point is that I've heard this before, and I'm not buying it.

Odd that you have to use the woman leaving the bench as the argument against the woman who should replace her.

As to the litmus test that some conservatives are now demanding be publicly used:

Shame on the hypocrisy of this.

I haven't the foggiest what your causes are at this point, except for defending Bush. So, in response, let me just say: As to the defense of Bush that some conservatives are currently mounting:

Shame on the hypocrisy of this.

It's just as valid, and relevant.

You call it "odd," I call it "apropos."

That's why a strong judicial philosophy is important.

Now that you have decided you are no longer a Republican, will you at least shut up until this nomination gets through?

This comment doesn't seem like an argument. Note the "Good" republican link in the story.

Reagan did not know O'Connor.

Bush Sr. did not know Souter.

Bush Jr. knows Miers as both a friend and on the professional accomplishments.

You have been comparing apples and oranges.

the most astounding assertion that I heard in his speech.  Harriet Miers was the best qualified candidate for the job???  There was NO ONE else who was as or more qualified for the job than her???  That's quite an insult to the Luttigs, McConnells and Joneses of the world.

It certainly violates the spirit of the profanity rule here. Because you can't use profanity in your post, you link to surrogate profanity. I think an apology is in order.

but he is correct this time. Leaving strong textualists like Luttig and Williams on the lower courts while elevating a crony, while at the same time calling said crony the "best choice" is an insult to one's intelligence.

Shades of poor Cheney trying to peddle Miers as the New Scalia.

But with someone as slow as you, we're best served by your absence.

You know what to say, don't you?

Saying I no longer support Bush is not the same as saying I'm no longer a Republican. Your inability to recognize the difference says much about which of us has truly turned his back on the Republican party.

I shouldn't have compromised my principles, no matter how stupid the comment that provoked it was. My apologies.

Too many people who were furious on this site Monday, have now jumped on the pro Miers bandwagon. Laura Ingraham has a link to an article by George Will on her website that everyone should read. I think the Republican party just tells conservatives what they think they want to hear. But when it comes to backing up their talk, their true colors show.

I believe that picking Miers was a purely a strategic move that will in the end, work. She will not be confirmed--thus letting the President say, "I picked a person that was agreeable with both sides". Once she is not confirmed, he can say that a nominee like Luttig looks like a superstar and it makes it easier for him to get confirmed. Mr. Rove is one smart guy and he is playing a wonderful game of chess. He sees many moves ahead.

Now, if she does get confirmed, the dems will have won by Bush 43's capitulation. I don't think that will happen. As several have said here at RedState, she is merely the fall gal.

I am becoming quite frustrated with the notion that I have to fall in line on this or I am somehow disloyal.  give me a break.  I am resigned to the likelihood that this appointment will get confirmed, but I refuse to acknowledge it as anything but a very poor choice.

I've witnessed this same collapse of calm in my brother in the last day or two, and I think there are two reasons.

The first is that surging, unmitigated frustration when something seems to have gone so completely wrong, so completely quickly, so completely without your control. It's like grief at losing someone. Rage on.

The second is more subtle. Day after day, year after year, liberals call conservatives lapdogs. Day after day of this administration, liberals call conservatives slaves of the Bush administration. Yes, it's a blatant hypocrisy. But one of their best weapons is nagging. They nag nag nag nag nag nag nag nag nag nag nag nag nag until it finally starts to wear on you. It gets in your head. Look at O'Reilly! Desperate to prove he criticizes both sides. How often these days does he feel compelled to point out that he criticizes republicans? It's pointless, of course. Like trying to convince Jesse Jackson that you aren't a racist. Reason doesn't even enter into it. But still, it wears, it wears. You want to be vindicated, you want, just once, to say "SEE!!! Incontrovertible proof! See my criticism! See my independence!!!"

So many conservatives I know loudly exaggerate their position when that position is one that goes against Republican leadership. So many I know that wear that dissent like a badge, like a liberal. It makes you feel ... good. I mean, isn't that feeling more than half of the reason liberals exist in the first place? The rush of rebellion? The delight of dissent? It is.

So now, when they feel the rage/grief, when a great opportunity was killed in an inexplicable but apparently preventable tragedy, now when the righteous wrath is at its height, NOW donning that indignation and displaying that badge provide the deepest satisfaction of all.

"I disagree!!!", they yell from the rooftops. See my independence! See my self-determination!

But these are smart guys and gals. They're conservatives after all, not moonbats. So it'll die down. Stages of grief you know. Maybe when they start asking themselves how many of us would be terrorism victims if Bush hadn't been in office all this time. Maybe when they think back on Bill Clinton, or look forward to Hillary. At the very least, you can expect a toning down to a "but he's OUR idiot" level of rhetoric.

Right now, many conservatives are reveling in their dissent, glad to have a meaty issue they don't agree with George on. But this delight will pass. Deep down, they know neither they, nor you and I, are owned or operated by the Republican leadership. Sheep go to the other side, thinkers come here.

This theory keeps returning.  I'll eat my hat if it happens.  This is pure fantasy.  

This was my comment on the Let Us Condense posting, and I still hold to it:

"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 think she is fairly well qualified, and am dismayed at much of the elitism, credentialism and rarefied bias expressed by many questioning her merit. It's all too typical of those whose faith rests in expertise in service of the government, usually found on the left.

Also, while CJ Roberts certainly gets close to the "most qualified" standard, nobody is indispensible, and moving beyond a decent respect for the majesty and authority of the court into a position of awed reliance on the final wisdom of the bench is worrisome and dangerous. While we strive to be a government of laws, not men, both are forever imperfect since man always is.

However, none of this explains away the nature of this selection - it is personal, not principled. I don't question the POTUS and his heart, but what philosophical principles will she bring to the hearings, expose for the confirmation vote, and ultimately hand down from the bench?

I fear we won't know until it is too late, if then.

I don't think my conservative friends who have spoken out about Miers are doing so to show that they are not lapdogs.  They are doing so because they feel deeply betrayed by a president that they have put so much time and effort into working for and defending.

...but this line of reasoning makes George Bush look too clever by half.

Occam's Razor suggests that it was a stupid, stupid pick from a President grown isolated from the base voters who put him in office to send Originalist judges to the High Court.

Again, two words: Jesus wept.

but I think the question hunter is asking is why the response is so vicious and emotion driven. If it's not clear in my response, I am also not a Harriet fan. But I'm not going to leap to "I've had it with George and I will campaign against him" either. It is this indignation I am referring to.

I think this is a good point.  I admit that I've had concerns and would still have preferred one of the female gang of five (jones, batchelor, sykes, corrigan, williams) ....

but I'm okay wih it.

when Saddam's WMD program turned out to be a hoax:

"He's flat out used up his capital of trust with me, now I demand proof. If the rest of you want to just keep trusting him, go right ahead. I really have no idea what exactly you hope to get for this devotion, given the President's track record, but count me out of this Magnificent Journey. The President goes it alone from here on out, as far as I'm concerned. I won't enable the continuation of this legacy of mediocrity with my support anymore."

Everyone knows SoCon's had a compact with Bush on Supreme Court nominees in the last election.  I personally think he may still be fulfilling it but I don't see why you should take his word.  Moreover, I don't see why you should have to.

Where was the inappropriate material? Aside from the level of discourse, perhaps the single greatest attraction of RS is the prominently displayed and enforced civility.

Where was the violation in this case?

Dan Flynn's 'brilliant piece' somehow omitted talking about terrorism and/or 9/11 when discussing the policy decisions of the last five years.  Not suprising: take that into account and one might have to entertain the possibility that maybe President Bush isn't quite the convictionless sellout of Flynn's piece.

But... oh, just never blipping mind.

Too many people who were furious on this site Monday, have now jumped on the pro Miers bandwagon.

Can you name 3?

And try to limit those three names to people whose comment list reaches into double digits.

What we have here are three groups of people:

1. Those who support the nomination seemingly because "Leader Guy" sez so,
   
   
2. Those who oppose the nomination for a variety of reasons that seem to center around "not qualified" and/or "better choices out there", and
   
   
3. People who are not thrilled with the nomination but are taking a wait and see.

Count me in the second category.

I've not seen many people go from "3" to "1" and have seen no one go from "2" to "1", though clearly some have gone from "2" to "3".  If you have proof to the contrary, I would be more than happy to "Revise and Extend".

From ABC The Note:

"But there would be a political advantage for the Democrats if the President were to lose this fight. It would lead to more and more stories about GOP infighting and a "the Republicans can't govern" story line, as well as a stoking of the favorite press themes of "second-term curse," "Bush bedeviled by cronyism," and "ironically, Bush got -- and lost -- a big fight after making a pick seemingly designed to avoid one." All of that would be beneficial for the Democrats going into the '06 midterm elections."

Bush made a decision, it was his decision to make!  Why, why are we feeding the liberal amunition?

I see positive things that could be emphasized here and there on the conservative webs. She has been voted one of the 100 most important lawyers more than once.  Practical experience, people person, has dealt w the Senate on a regular basis, acknowleged Cristian, definitely a 'conservative'.

Instead we sound 'one note' - reverse Roe v. Wade.    We smelled blood in the Senate, get a 'true' conservative, wipe out Judicial filibusters, etc. IMHO Bush is too willing to spend taxpayer dollars but I can't be a one issue Republican.  And we can't afford to cede ground to the Dems/Libs in the 2006 elections!

My favorite question:  Who would Kerry have nominated and where would we be then?

"1. Those who support the nomination seemingly because "Leader Guy" sez so,"

A derisive and exaggerated comment worthy of the leftiest of lefty blogs.

Is this how it works around here now? Say you trust X leader and you are a cult member blindly obeying? Is it impossible for someone to actually think George has something up his sleeve? It is not.

Snarking your fellow conservatives because they believe something a republican leader (I mean, he's only the PRESIDENT right?)... why are we going there?

I think she is fairly well qualified, and am dismayed at much of the elitism, credentialism and rarefied bias expressed by many questioning her merit. It's all too typical of those whose faith rests in expertise in service of the government, usually found on the left.

I'm assuming, since you're responding to one of my posts and not one of someone else's, that you believe I've said this somewhere? Can you point me to where?

Miers is a fantastic nominee. I hope Rush is back on board

Is - 'O'Connor ASSURED the President'. Miers is personally known to him for 15 years. There are no 'assurances' needed.

Leon you forget Miers is the one who gave us JRB and Pryor.

MIERS FOR SCOTUS!

You are still basing your premise on trusting Bush. As I tried to point out repeatedly, I don't. Please explain to me a single policy initiative of Bush's that gives you great confidence that he's any sort of ideological conservative whatsoever so as to engender this trust.

I'll be waiting.

It's good to see you back after a long absence. Even if your analysis of the outrage, as applied to me, is both dead wrong and insulting.

Thank you Leon for spelling it out. Principles come first, tactics second. If we focus on maintaining priciples, then changes will come in due time. If we try to shortcut and force changes via tactics, sacrificing long-term priciples for putative short-term gain, we will lose both and fail in the end.

Or to quote C.S. Lewis from Mere Christianity", "Aim at Heaven and you will get Earth thrown in. Aim at Earth and you get neither."

Also, if the only reason to support Ms. Meirs is "trust in the President" -- this is a frail reed to base the whole conservative movement upon. The Bible itself warns against putting excessive trust in individual "princes", especially when that means repeatedly sacrificing fidelity to principles. No matter how highly you may or may not regard Mr. Bush, you should not let transient political success distract from long-term transformation of a society, and the latter is what the Supreme Court nomination process is fundamentally about.

But please explain to me what, other than "I trust George Bush", leads you to believe that Harriet Miers was the constructionist we were promised?

No paper trail.

No judicial experience.

No experience with the SCOTUS or the majority of the Constitutional issues with which they deal.

Stealth nominee.

That said, I certainly could have made that point without the snark, and for that I apologize.

However, please honestly answer for yourself the following: had Bill Clinton nominated this guy to the Supreme Court, would we not have all gone high-order?  Shouldn't we expect better from our side?

Now you know the origin of my handle. I'm sad that you find this insulting. No one is perfect, and we have all been guilty of such little guilty pleasures.

Not knowing you personally, I drew my conclusions based on my brother, though perhaps did not emphasize that this was an extrapolation rather than a real analysis.

I'm speaking for myself. I don't believe you've said as much.

I think she's qualified, just minimally so.

Tell me if you agree with this - To deny that there are many more preferable choices is to defy reason, and those of us concerned about this pick.

I support the right of POTUS to make the nomination and the right of the Senate to vote up or down. Whether anyone else likes it or not is immaterial until it comes time to vote for a new President or Senator. If you think that the President made this choice from a position of political weakness, you better figure a way to get 60, solid conservative votes in the Senate. If you think he made it from lack of intelligence or conservative values, then you need to get the 60 and a more conservative, smarter POTUS as well. Until those things happen, this is the reality. Those who don't like this reality can to stop whining and accept it or stop whining and resolve to work to change it per above. But most importantly, stop the whining, it serves no useful purpose.  

I wish I had written them down but it didn't occur to me I would be taking a quiz....lol...I can name one right off the bat because she was apoplectic Monday....SpectatorGirl...One down, two to go

That said, he is as wrong about Miers as he is when he celebrated the fact that no National League team was playing its home games on artificial turf (which is the best thing for baseball in the last 40 years, second only to the designated hitter) this year.

First of all, we've got someone who clearly has smarts, and is competent.  Miers' track record, I think, proves that.

Second, the Supreme Court seems to have mostly gone to the "legal-academic complex", which has turned it into somewhat of an ivory tower.  And now, we're getting a nominee who has done things in the real world.  Say what you will, but I think Harry Reid has a point here.

Third, I think that what is partially driving this is the fact that the base was not just gearing up for a huge frontal-assault nomination battle - they were spoiling for such a fight.  Now, it looks like the frontal-assault is not happening - because Bush found an opening with which he could get virtually the same result (a superb Supreme Court justice) without the bloody nomination battle.

Fourth, when people compare Miers to O'Connor and Souter, they are comparing apples and oranges.  Reagan did not know O'Connor.  Bush Sr. did not know Souter.  But Bush Jr. knows Miers - and has for over two decades.

I was initially disappointed - I'd been hoping for Jones or Clement (I think JRB's speeches went a little too far for a judge, and I have doubts about Luttig on the First Amendment).  But I think that nominating either would have led to a bloody battle.  We're very likely to get a justice as good as Jones and Clement without the battle.

Oops - Think I see where you're coming from. Others, NOT YOU, are the source of my comment about "elitism, credentialism, and rarefied bias". It's those complaints I dismiss or don't take as seriously as others.

I agree with what I take to be the central point of your criticism - namely, trust is not an adequate basis for support of this candidate. And worse, trust seems to be all we're going to get as a basis.

Not one thing leads me to believe that Harriet Miers is a constructionist, a fulfillment of a promise, or anything more than a squandered opportunity.

I just can't get behind what seems to be a trend toward meltdown among many otherwise cool-headed conservatives.

Surely, this is a huge issue, and probably a disappointment the enormity of which will take years to be fully realized.

But being in the first few days following the announcement, I'm alarmed to see how rapidly, and how forcefully, the debate declines. This being the first few days after the announcement, I'm simply not ready to call all Meirs supporters sheep, Bush an abject failure (or worse), or in any way look at this as a sky falling scenario yet.

We have made a lot of progress on the bench under Bush, and Roberts is a good pick for the court. If Miers turns out to be mediocre or weak, as she probably will, then it is bad, but it's not enough to make me abandon the party or anything like that.

I don't think you have any reason to complain.

Either

1) You trust the President so little to have the personal ability to discern the judicial philosophy of his lead counsel and former personal counsel with whom he has worked for over a decade.  If this is the case (as it seems to be), I'm unsure why you would spend any energy at all defending such an incompetent nitwit in the first place especially given that you seem to disagree with him on so many other issues.

or

2) You believe that George Bush has the ability to determine a potential nominee's judicial philosophy but intentionally nominated a non-originalist for either political expediency or perhaps even personal preference.  In any case, you believe that Bush is not truly committed to a conservative judiciary.  If so, you have no reason to be surprised by this pick.

Well said. I am glad that there are still some principled Republicans left. I'm completely flummoxed by this pick. How could he follow Roberts (a brilliant man no matter what your politics) with Miers?

It's stunning to me he could waste one of the most important decisions of his presidency on a hack.

One of the leaders here started his post,"I am as ready to overthrow Bush as anyone".

I have been pointing out since this SCOTUS watch started weeks ago that things would go OK and for everyone to chill.

We are destroying ourselves, to the great entertainment of the left.

We are betraying an excellent President and hurting the nimination of an extremely wel qualified nominee all for a hissy fit.

And if you think the dumbeat of 5 years aginst Bush is not setting up the context for this, you are kidding yourself.

GHWB did not know Souter.  But Sununu et al. did and extensively vouched for him.

Reagan did not know Kennedy.  But Kozinski et al. did and extensively vouched for him.

Bush knows Miers.  Yes, as as subordinate.  Yes, where she was the lawyer and he was the client.  Yes, where she gives advice but he makes the call.  But how will she act when she's the boss and makes the call?  when she has a lifetime appointment?  No one, including Bush, knows.

spent working for Reagan?

Did I miss the part where SDO got the ABA to return to its politically nuetral stance?

Did I miss the part where you and other nihilists have apologized for imposing a litmus test?

Plus the selection of Vice-President Cheney.

(Sarcasm)  If you want us to take seriously your opinions on the nomination, praising astroturf and the DH isn't the way to earn that cred!  What's next?  Aluminum bats in MLB?

But most importantly, stop the whining, it serves no useful purpose.

So, when any of us thinks that our leader(s) have buggered the pooch big-time, we're supposed to 1) shut-up about it, 2) take a deep draft of the Bush bathwater, and 3) drive-on.

Thanks, I'll remember that.

Becasuse the dems/MSM tell you so?

it doesn`t matter how conservative she votes, for bush to stand there and say she was the most qualified candidate he could find makes him look like an idiot.

she will probably be conservative, but she probably is less qualified than any nominee i

have seen in my lifetime and i`m over 50.

I back the DH and artifical turf.  I like the extra offense in the game both provide.

For any potential nominee to the Supreme Court, including Kozinski, Luttig, Jones, Garza, Clement, and JRB...

Weren't people up in arms when Bush 41 called Clarence Thomas "The most qualified" candidate for SCOTUS at the time.

I don't recall what Thomas's credentials were other than EEOC bureaucrat- maybe he was another Stanford genius, but I seem to recall his "life story" being the big emphasis.

If you think Thomas is a good justice, then drop the "who's the most qualified" complaints, and focus on how we think she is going to vote.

I agree that my trust in Bush has fallen, and he's done with politics anyway in a couple of years. But Rove helped make the pick and he will still need a job- and after what Rove has done with the '02 and '04 elections, I do cut him some slack and expect that he is smart enough to understand that if Miers turns out to be SouterII, then he is done in the Republican party.

This decision is too big for just the president. And Mr. Rove is a master at creating a sophisticated domino set fall...

A baseball player should at least approximate the ideal of a complete athlete: hitters should take the field and pitchers should take the bat.  And fielders should learn to deal with the vagaries of grass.  

I, too, enjoy offensive production, but I no longer know what to think about its inordinate status in the game.  Too much of the recent upswing in offensive stats has been fueled by steroids and the dearth of pitching talent exacerbated by the fact that there are too many teams competing for the limited pool of talent.  And let's not even delve into the subject of competitive imbalance...

many conservatives have reached the tipping point with the president.  Most of my friends have watched as the president passed the medicare bill, failed to veto any spending bills, signed McCain-Feingold and did other things that made political sense, but offended their sense of what it means to be a conservative.  During that time, they comforted themselves with the thought that "at least the democrats aren't in charge" and "it will all be worth it when the Supreme Court nominees come."  And when it came time to name Supreme Court nominees, they expected Bush to deliver on his promise of Scalias and Thomases.  They felt that there were plenty of very qualified individuals out there who clearly fit this mold.  However, when it came time to appoint this latest nominee, a nominee who could turn the court decisively to the right, the president nominated an unknown quantity.  Their thought has been "even if she turns out to be another Scalia or Thomas, we have not worked our buns off for this president and put up with policies that are anathema to our conservative ideals to be put in the position of having to take a chance on another nominee."  In their minds, this was the decisive moment, this was when Bush had an opportunity to pay back all of their loyalty and, in their minds, he didn't.

That's what I think is happening, much more than some sense of wanting a talking point when debating democrats.

Personally, I think Miers is on the very low end of the qualified scale and is a very mediocre choice, but, at the end of the day, it is the president's prerogative to choose who he wants.  I am astounded by his assertion that she is the best person for the job.  That's just plain ridiculous and insulting to the others that were on the short list.

I guess I haven't really been paying attention to politics for the last five years at all, and I'm taking all my cues from the Donks. You've really got it figured out, there.

BCRA was only liberal because the Dems/MSM called it liberal. Medicare reform was only liberal because the Dems/MSM called it liberal. NCLB was only liberal because the Dems/MSM called it liberal.

Or perhaps you're implying that none of those things actually happened, and they're all just figments of the Democrats/MSM.

but once they have been, it's time to move on to positive action that is productive and realistic. Beating a dead horse comes to mind.

I have been arguing with several people here that she is not qualified.  But that doesn't make her a hack.  But she certainly would not have appeared anywhere on any other president's list of the top 100 (or more) potential nominees.  That says a lot.

. . .that have convinced you that GWB is not to be trusted--but I'll ask a specific question based on comments a few others have made:  has he ever betrayed the base on judicial appointments before now (assuming that Miers is a matter of doubt)?   His record there would seem to be rock-solid, in the face of virulent opposition by the Democrats.

In the first place, the war on terror isn't a conservative initiative, it's simply an accident of the current political climate that conservatives happen to be pursuing it.

I'll grant you tax cuts, but that's pretty much it. And, being a tax cutter doesn't really apply to anyone in the judicial branch, and doesn't establish him whatsoever as an ideological conservative, especially without accompanying spending cuts. The conservative call is "smaller government," not just "smaller taxes."

But supposing I'm willing to grant both of those, neither of them has a whit to do with anything involved in the federal judiciary. So there's still absolutely nothing that is engendering my confidence, here.

Well, I appreciate your honesty.  But here's an insight -- nobody who believes in artificial turf or the DH could ever be an originalist in Constitutional matters.

I don't think the anti-Bush drumbeat from the left is affecting the conservative reaction to this.  

I do think that everything is going to work out fine for conservatives, but that they are just ticked off that they got a question mark when they should have gotten an exclamation point.

I think what it comes down to is whether you choose to be loyal to the president or the ideals that the president has appealed to for so long.  If the former, then you have little choice but to support Miers.  If the later, this situation breeds a bit of fear and trepidation that leads on down the path of the emotional responses that we've seen.

I'm with Maximos on this.  It will come to a head with me when the decision for AL MVP is made this season.  It will likely go to this guy in spite of my belief that this guy is clearly more deserving if for no other reason than the fact that he has to play defense (and has done so very well) as well as offense.

Also, I like the strategy involved with "small-ball" - the double switches, bunting the runner over, stretching a single into a double.  YMMV, I accept.

Nice post, Leon.

As a fiscal conservative, I don't see what the big deal is about this nominee.

So Roe gets overturned.  The Red states outlaw abortion, children are born into poverty, and the Red states become even more dependent on the Blue states for handouts.

Intelligent Design is allowed to be taught in Red state schools instead of science, and even more Red state kids fall into poverty.

The ten commandments get to be displayed in public buildings, doesn't really affect anything, but is just kinda creepy.

The constitution gives congress the right to borrow money, the defecit will continue to grow.

The constitution gives the president the right to wage war, we'll still be bleeding away American $ and lives in Iraq.

As an old-school conservative, I just don't see why this pick is such a big deal.

to insist that someone have some type of track record showing experience with the types of issues that come before the Court?  

Let me try it this way.  I've seen the difference between big firm lawyers and small firm (small firm generally kicks arse in trial, often loses on appeal).  I've seen the difference between big firm lawyers versus big firm lawyers -- and believe it, there are substantial differences (again, generally speaking) between firms like the one where Miers was at and the true superstar law firms when it comes to the bet-the-company situations.  And within superstar firms, I've seen differences between the appellate lawyers who focus on SCOTUS-type litigation and those that hew to the more mundane topics such as antitrust, securities, etc. -- not it terms of pure candlepower, but in terms of how they approach things, overall knowledge base, and so on.  To me, that's why it's important that someone have had some experience (whether public or private sector) dealing with those types of issues.  Miers has none.  The SCOTUS is no place to be learning as you go.

The vacation from reality we took from 1/20/1993 to 9/10/2001 is over, and we paid a pretty bad price.  And it's patently obvious that continued isolationism and ignoring areas of instability that allowed al-Qaeda to eventually set up shop was a greater danger to national security.

What was derided as nation-building five years ago is now cutting al-Qaeda off from the next generation of recruits.

Again, don't mistake anger for an invitation to pee on our rug.

But don't we at least get 72-hours to vent?

Much as it seems like forever already, Miers was only nominated about 53-hours ago.  For some of us, it takes a tad longer to work these things out.

Cheers.

Never have I suggested that campaign finance, medicare reform, etc. were not mistakes.

But we are talking about judges, and I remmeber Pryor, Estrada, and the end run done around filibuster reform.

I do recall that while the party is in the majority, conservatives are not necessarily in majority. We still have McCain, who just messed up a lay down election Orange Cty., hurting Republicans. And he is still promoted as a conservative.

I simply think the drumbeat of several years with the DNC/MSM slandering Bush as nincompoop is starting to bear fruit.

I think the lies about Katrina were far beyond body counts, but had the effect of people misunderestimating W.

Look objectively at Meirs: no other judge brings the real world to bear to judgements as she will.

We want elected officials to have at least some real world experience.

Why are we now against it in judges?

She reformed the ABA back into non-political stances. She led Texas lawyers statewide, for God's sake. I know a past Texas Bar prez, and the job is like herding cats.

How can that kind of leadership not help reform a USSC that is incresingly led by Ginsburg?

I am not trying to dictate to you, I am trying to wake up a very fine conservative mind.

And it is time for the hiisyfit to be over.

;-)

"No paper trail.

No judicial experience.

No experience with the SCOTUS or the majority of the Constitutional issues with which they deal.

Stealth nominee."

Using your criteria above, we should not have nominated, nor confirmed, someone who had clerked for the SCOTUS for 2 years, spent 2 years in the DOJ, and spent the majority of his time (16 years) in private practice.  That person would be the late Chief Justice Renquist.

I can remember arguing that we should give judicial nominees a fair hearing and an up or down vote. How can we expect that of the Democrats when so many on our right flank are calling for Miers' head before she even gets to the committee?

Let's tone down the rhetoric and let the vetting process work.

You singularly failed to discuss the selection of Cheney as VP - after he was in charge of the selection process; which has the most direct bearing on this nomination.

the fact that GWB claimed to comprehend the difference between judicial activism and originalism, and promised to nominate originalists, in the mold of Scalia and Thomas.  In other words, he indicated to us that he was so committed, and has possibly proven himself, with this nomination, not so committed, to originalism on the bench; we believed c, and received a possible, because unknown, not-c - a broken promise.  Surprise there was, and broken faith there is.

Justice Thomas graduated from Yale Law School, was the head of the EEOC for 8 years and was a judge on the D.C. Circuit (albeit for a short time) before being elevated to the Supreme Court.  While one could certainly argue that others, such as Robert Bork or Ken Starr or Edith Jones, were more qualified at the time, Justice Thomas was, at the very least, in the same realm of experience and qualifications.  

Harriet Miers does not measure up to the experience that Justice Thomas had before going on the bench and does not measure up to the qualifications of Judges Luttig, Jones, Wilkinson, or Rogers-Brown.  Heck, there are liberal/moderate judges out there who are more qualified (other than ideologically) than she to be on the Supreme Court.  IMHO she is on the low-end of qualified and does not come close to being the most qualified person for the job.

But Rove helped make the pick and he will still need a job- and after what Rove has done with the '02 and '04 elections, I do cut him some slack and expect that he is smart enough to understand that if Miers turns out to be SouterII, then he is done in the Republican party.

I don't think that is necessarily true.  Although it is a popular belief, I don't think that Rove controls every decision of the president and Miers as the next Souter would not destroy his standing given all of the successes he has had over the past decade.

I'm not pitching a hissyfit.  I'm lukewarm on Miers, but don't have the same emotion as some others 'round here.  The time for the hissyfit is over only if you think that everyone's primary loyalty should be to supporting the president.  I don't feel that way and I think that it is entirely appropriate for people such as Leon H and others to speak out vociferously on this.

Because Bush says so? Because dems say so?

Why, in the last few days, has this argument and its various forms become so popular around here.

If I want to be called a sheep, I can go to Americablog and disagree with something the liberal overlords say.

It's not elitism to insist in some type of track record. It is elitism to wander into the indicators of the distinctions you note, rather than the distinctions themselves.

Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Chicago law are all well and good, but they're neither the beginning nor end of the argument. They indicate initial impressive critical thinking capabilities. Fine, add twenty - thirty years of experience and what do you have.

Now go on to the distinctions you note. All well and good, but again, note the difference between "SCOTUS-type litigation" and "mundane" topics. I'd much prefer a "modest" approach from the SCOTUS (to take a favorite quote from the new CJ) rather than a philosopher-king approach.

The problem I have with Miers is not her track record on the type of issues so much as it is her lack of track record on the role of the court itself.

Given the concentrated power on the court today, as it has grown and developed over the past 50 years, elitism is necessary and required. I'd prefer a different approach from the court to eliminate the extreme need for such elitism there in the first place.

I am a lawyer. I have tried murder cases, medical malpractice wrongful deaths, products liability, etc. all over the country. I've argued 8 cases in the court of appeals and many in the SoCar sup ct. I admire Bork more than most any scholar, legal or otherwise.

Now, I do not in any way denigrate the difficulty of appelate work when I say that I almost consider it a plus that she has not been an appelate judge.

It takes no history for someone as intelligent as she, given her work as the more difficult task of trying cases, to read the law and precedents an d apply it.

When it comes to the Supreme Court and the vitally important task of judicial restraint and adherence to the umpire sticking to the text and original meaning, I think it actually could help to be an originalist  that comes straight to the court as almost a prophet or evangelist that preaches the simple strait forward commoin sense words and follow them.

On the big issues, its not difficult.

And when I say that, I do not denigrate Miers. I denigrate the libs on the court.

Its just that readin g the constitution and seeing its non application to so many issues, requires, as Bork says, simply saying case dismissed.

the real hard work is the lib that has to construct a fraud to appear to follow the constitution.

the big firm-small firm seems to be wholly irrelevant to this job. maybe it was to others.

But to be a sup ct justice is to be a small firm cloistered in the 18th century

many intelligebt lawyers and even non lawyers could do this job

we lawyers sometimes make things look more complicated than their are for our own vanity.

but I'm sure she's over qualified

and what really matters is a real committemnt to originalism

and I do trust bush and her integrity oin that

she knows what bush wants

and probaly has helped shape his views

and so would not take the job if she did not agree

them main thing about a judge is integrity to restrain their desire to play god

I am always amazed at the clarity of scalia and thomas. but its not just them. its a function of how simplified the task of umpire is..

Your analysis ignores more that a few things in the repective resumes of the two people you are attempting to link here, but fine.  If you think that Miers is going to be the next Rehnquist, that is certainly your perogative.  Comparing their relative histories and CVs I somehow doubt it - but would love to be wrong.

BTW, if you think we're going to hear anything during the vetting process that sheds any light on Miers heretofore unknown judicial philosophy, you're absolutely kidding yourself.

Finally, have I called for Miers' nomination to be blocked?  Withdrawn?  Filibustered?  Nope - not once, nor will I.

I'm not saying that Miers will-not or should-not be confirmed.  What I'm saying is thatI think the nomination was a poor, poor choice by Bush and demonstrates precisely the lack of seriousness that his detractors accuse him of all the time.  Those of us who would like to see conservative principles moved forward (for the first time in 5-years) have little to take positively from this action by the man who is supposed to be our guy.

As an aside, some of us (present company included) are a little perplexed at the positive, sometimes gushing, reaction to this nomination coming from normally rather sensibe people who we all know would be apoplectic were the other side of the big ditch ever to make a similar nomination.  FWIW.

But I am hard pressed to find a republican leader who always does what I would do, everytime there is something to be done. In the case of George Bush, I find far more to argue with than many other republican leaders.

And yet, I still can't see a reason to go cannibal on him. I'm sorry, but he's not a moron, he's not a betrayer, he's not evil incarnate. In other words he's no Bill Clinton!

I'll take Bush over Kerry or Gore any day of the week. He can't be an abject failure. Not with Roberts, Condi, Bolton, Iraq, Afghanistan, tax cuts, and the myriad conservative issues he's at least brought to the table, like Social Security reform and tax reform. Would any of this have happened without George?

If you have a pro-con sheet, he may have more cons than pros with regard to your political philosophies, but I simply can't watch total villification without saying something. It's unjust.

That:

1. Dick Cheney is a policy initiative
   
2. Dick Cheney was even consulted about this nomination before it became public.

I'd check both of those assumptions at the door.

...a huge Rube Goldberg cartoon in my head. Nope, it's not working. Makes about as much sense as artificial turf.

Miers has spent 5 years in a war-time White House dealing with issues Renquist never saw.

Also, I never said Miers would be the next Renquist.  I was only responding to the criteria you set out for rejecting this nomination.

As far as being perplexed, I guess people like Jay Sekulow must know more about this nominee than you.

How quickly we forget David H. Souter.

George Will was one of the first people to come out against the Souter nomination when it happened, he told everyone what we'd end up with and nobody believed him.

Perhaps more people will listen this time.

Miers has spent 5 years in a war-time White House dealing with issues Renquist never saw.

And serving solely as an advocate for the WH position (and not before the SCOTUS, either) on these current issues will guide us on how she will view fundamental issues before the Court 5-, 10- and 20-years from now how, precisely?

I was only responding to the criteria you set out for rejecting this nomination.

Which kinda flies in the face of my previous statement which starts, "I'm not saying that Miers will-not or should-not be confirmed."

As far as being perplexed, I guess people like Jay Sekulow must know more about this nominee than you.

And people like Ramesh Ponnuru, Mark Levin and Gerry Bradley probably know at least as much as Sekulow and are opposed - we could play dueling advocates all the live-long day.  It proves precisely nothing.

He vetted Justice Kennedy during the Reagan administration, and we all know how that has turned out.  And Levin has the gall to talk about Miers.  Please.  

How did Renquist's background guide us on how he would view those fundamental issues before the Court?  

You have to spin a bit better than this.

In his book, Men In Black, he emohasizes a number of things that apply in Miers' favor.

These judge are lawyers, not gods.

Yet levin treats his favorite KNOWNS as if they are god.

He decries the evolving of those enamored of the georgetown set.

She doesn't hang there.

He speaks of the simplicity of a true originalist's job and that character matters a lot.

I would say this about Sekulow as opposed to the others. he knows her very well.

Kennedy's nomination came after "Borking" was invented and Ginsburg (not Ruth Bader) had to withdraw after admitting to marijuana use.

How did Renquist's (sic) background guide us on how he would view those fundamental issues before the Court?

Well, perhaps that he was rather well published and spoken on Constitutional issues prior to becoming Assistant AG in the Nixon Justice Department (which led to no shortage of consternation from Democrats during his SC confirmation hearings, by the way), which includes already having stirred more than a bit of controversy in his early years with a 1953 memo arguing (as Devil's Advocate it seems) in favor of "Separate But Equal" (while he was clerking for AJ Jackson, by the way).

But the fact of the matter is that Rehnquist was, at the time, a relative unknown and seen as a compromise pick - the best Nixon could get through a Democrat controlled Senate.  With 55-votes in the Senate and up-to 22 Democrats there for the taking, I believe that we deserve better than a stealth candidate.  Feel free to argue otherwise.

As to Levin, no one's judgment is perfect - except yours, apparently.

if you are going to quote from Renquist's bio.

"When questioned about the memos by the Senate Judiciary Committee in both 1971 and 1986, Rehnquist blamed his defense of segregation on the late Justice Jackson, stating - under oath - that his memo was meant to reflect the views of Justice Jackson. But Justice Jackson voted in Brown, along with a unanimous Court, to strike down school segregation. According to law professor Mark Tushnet, Justice Jackson's longtime legal secretary called Rehnquist's Senate testimony an attempt to "smear the reputation of a great justice." Rehnquist later admitted to defending Plessy in arguments with fellow law clerks. He did not acknowledge that he had committed perjury in front of the Judiciary Committee to get his Supreme Court job."

Not a very stellar performance from someone who would become a great Chief Justice.  Like I said, let's let the process work and cut all this non-productive rhetoric.  The Dems are laughing at us.

Also, that last remark wasn't called for.

about the federal judiciary in specific.  But if you had, I think John Roberts and many of the appellate court judges he's appointed have shown that he is some "sort of an ideological conservative."  But then if Bush has supposedly proven time and time again that he's no kind of conservative at all, I wonder why you're shocked and dismayed that he (supposedly) did something decidedly unconservative in this case.