RedState’s Erick Erickson reports on yesterday’s RNC conference call between Ken Mehlman and a small group of conservative bloggers critical of the Miers nomination (most of whom remain unswayed even after Mehlman’s GOP charm offensive).
Here’s the part that caught my eye:
[…] Mehlman call did have one interesting tidbit that tickled my legal ears. In the beginning, Mehlman said we could learn about Miers from what she had done in the White House, including her participation in forming amicus briefs for the administration. Stephen Bainbridge asked the last question of the call and it was about Miers’ role in the Michigan affirmative action case. Reports indicate Miers favored the affirmative action position. Mehlman said the White House advocated helping the disadvantaged in the amicus brief, but then refused to go into a discussion of private White House discussions of court cases. He repeated that Miers has the judicial philosophy and character to be a stellar nominee.
[my emphasis]
Translation? Miers is looking more and more like a Bush political proxy than she is a viable conservative jurist, and all that Mehlman can do to disabuse conservatives of their skepticisim is to assure them that the philosophy that led Miers to push for Administration support of affirmative action in Grutter makes her a fine choice to sit on the Supreme Court.
As I argued the other day, querying Miers on abortion is not particulary useful, as you can certainly be pro-Life, as Miers may well be, and cite several legitimate legal reasons to maintain Roe (from stare decisis, to finding no compelling justification for overturning the decision, to believing in an implied right to privacy); but it is far more difficult to justify support for race-based affirmative action programs from a textualist standpoint (see here for a summary of Thomas’ dissent in Grutter)
In fact, if anything suggests that Ms Miers is likely to start from an “enlightened” social position and proceed backwards to make her judicial rulings, it is (if this turns out to be the case, and there are several indications that it is) her support for an amicus brief in favor of, borrowing Mehlman’s spin, “helping the disadvantaged” via support for affirmative action—the presumption being that proactive social engineering initiatives supported by the Federal government (particularly those that insinuate the pernicious “diversity” standard into law) are more proper for achieving a desired end than less divisive and Constitutionally unproblematic solutions.
And that is precisely the kind of “legal” thinking conservatives and critics of the Court have long railed against.
Again: my support for Roberts grew from an opinion, based on his legal writings and his Senate confirmation hearings testimony, that—whether his decisions went my way politically or not—they would almost certainly proceed from a coherent, text-based judicial philosophy. Miers, conversely, has no such track record, and her legal advice to the President seems to match his third way approach on many social issues—which means we could be looking at Justice whose political pragmatism will supercede her fealty to the Constitution.
Which, no wonder many Democrats are so comfortable with her. She’s a slightly more liberal version of O’Connor…
More from Lorie Byrd, Ed Morrisey, Matt Margolis, Mark Coffey, and Gery Daly—who today notes that the President’s declining job approval ratings (which, as I pointed out the other day, are largely a reflection of a diminished support among Republicans) could presage a loss in House and Senate seats, and concludes, “Now is the time for acceptance [of the Miers nomination], and a more dispassionate look at what is in the best interests of conservative Republicans like me.”
I’m not sure I agree. After all, if I’m going to watch deeply held legal principles surrendered to pragmatic political considerations, I’d rather it be the Dems who are doing it.
Additional thoughts from David Brooks [subscription] and Ace. See also, James Taranto.
****
update: Glenn links to this WSJ poll showing that “by 40%-24%, Americans say her long service to the president makes them feel less positive about her potential court service. First Lady Laura Bush suggested this week it’s “possible” that sexism has played a role in the Miers controversy, but the survey shows men and women hold similar attitudes toward her nomination.”
Really? Somebody’d better tell AGAG . Maybe next, Ed Gillespie can float “racism” or “homophobia” as the reason many conservatives are less than enthused by the Miers nomination, see if either of those can resist taking on water…
****
update 2: In the comments here, Lileks says of Miers’ critics, “I’m starting to think that the Harriet Miers Horrorshow is the point where the hard-right side of the blogworld vaulted the shark and landed right in the wankertorium. But maybe that’s because I don’t have throbbing head-veins over the issue […]”
Amen to that, brother! I mean, since when was a SCOTUS nominee something to get all bitchy about?
I strongly doubt she is a more liberal O’Connor. Otherwise dead on.
I suspect she drafted a lot of briefs for TWAT, including a lot of positions that worry me. Probably no one wants to say it, but we’re supposed to surmise that she’s been instrumental in keeping the Turbanned Ones at Gitmo and locking up that fellow they caught in Minneapolis.
I don’t mind the Administration advocating those positions and letting the Courts decide them, but someone telling me, “She’s a zealous terror warrior” doesn’t make we want to see her in robes.
Which may be why nobody’s saying it, though for now I’m sticking with “Don’t give the Left any ammo” as the reason.
I’m more worried about Kelo, honestly.
Well put.
But I would add that one can either be a pragmatist or a person of principles, not both.
Principles don’t have to be simplistic and absolute, of course. But to be a truly principled person, one can only surrender a principle in order to follow another, more important principle.
The problem is that the “pragmatic considerations” that cause people to abandon their principles usually boil down to things like “getting reelected” or “currying favor with [somebody].”
In other words, “pragmatist” is just another word for “opportunist.”
Or “soft-headed political whore.” Take your pick.
I just want a Justice who won’t make decisions based on personal belief. Just look at the Constitution and the merits of any past relevant cases and make a decison. Roberts won me over during the hearings by showing this was his judicial philosophy.
The problem is now that the president is being challenged on the nomintation, so he’ll only fight harder for it. I like Bush, but he can be quite stubborn. That’s good for fighting a war, but very bad in this case.
Jeff:
I’ve been of two minds about this nomination. When confronted by people regarding an opinion of her, I’ve been of like mind as Michael Ledeen–no need to be the first with a view of her that turns out to be incorrect. So my reaction has been, “I don’t know anything about her, so I’ll have to wait and see what comes out in the hearings before I can form an opinion.” I’m still leaning in that direction.
The reason I remain cautiously optimistic is the chance that your conclusions–based on valid reasoning, IMO–are wrong. And Stanley Kurtz, in The Corner, has similarily argued, which I also found to be pursuasive, but I haven’t endorsed for the same reason.
I think the WH has generally been tactically successful in most all their political moves–to the extent it satisfied its base, and drove Democrats nuts, i.e. BDS. But I think this nomination has been unfortunate, as it has thrown conservatives into a dialogue we should be having with the public–in the form of a debate with the left regarding constitutional principles. I’m not afraid of that fight, for even if it were “lost”, it would help inform the public that the SCOTUS is not a super-legislature impanelled with philosopher kings.
For a president whose party holds 55 seats in the Senate, I would’ve expected a far more confident nomination–after the John Roberts confirmation, I expected an equally able nominee.
This may, in the end, turn out as the Abe Fortas nomination for Chief Justice, where Fortas was barely able to get a majority (35 votes) of his own party (66 Senators) to express support (cloture vote), resulting in the withdrawal of his nomination.
In the end, if she cannot stand-up to the likes of Kennedy or Biden–who might actually think she’s the best they’ll do–then her nomination should be withdrawn.
Cheers.
I’m more worried about Kelo, honestly.
Me too. And I’m really sick of people telling me my reluctance to embrace Miers comes from my desire to see a “more conservative” candidate, rather than the best strict constuctionist, that “would almost certainly proceed from a coherent, text-based judicial philosophy.” Roberts is arguably such, but Miers?
Just because your motives are so shallowly apparent, Hugh, doesn’t mean mine are.
I’m wondering if Bush didn’t elevate Roberts to the post of Chief Justice in order to to grease the way for naming Miers… if he hadn’t done so, he never would have been able to nominate her….
If so, not only Bush is nominating someone whose sole claim is to be close to Bush but he jeopardized the conservative gains conservatives were hoping to pick up from having two openings to fill…
Her seeming tendancy towards social engineering has me worried enough to want her nomination removed. If this goes through, the Repubs are going to take a hit from within the party, and it will be on Bush.
It’s time for him to concede defeat on this one, for the good of retaining the loyalty on the WOT.
Well, she is white, although on her job application she made a Churchillian claim of Native American ancestry.
No amount of reassurances from the WH will change my mind about Miers. Not only is she not qualified, but her personal relationship with the President is also a negative.
This appointment reminds me of the mess down on the Mexican border. The President says all the right things, but when it comes down to action, well, he just never gets around to addressing the problem. He has too many friends who might get their feelings hurt, and too many businessmen who might feel it in the pocketbook for any serious action to be taken.
IT’S ALL ABOUT THE CRONYISM, JEFF!
Those who believe that supporting the president, or muting criticism will help things are making a huge gamble.
If Miers turns out to be a disappointment–either in results or competence–then supporting this nomination will hurt the party MUCH more than withdrawing it today would.
The political calculus just makes no sense. Those opposed to this nomination are largely conservatives, so killing this nomination hurts who, exactly? Even the defenders of Miers are not so invested they would be disappointed if she were withdrawn, are they? I think the defenders of Miers believe the president won’t cave, so they’re covering his flanks so he doesn’t look like a fool to his party and the rest of the country.
What would happen if he pulled this nomination, or did a Kaus-manuever and appointed her to DC Circuit instead? What would happen? Not much, as far as I can tell. The damage is already done, some moderate voters and indepedent types think Bush is more inclined to cronyism than before, and large parts of his base are more distrustful. How does jamming the nomination down our throats help ANYBODY? It doesn’t. Nobody really wants Miers, they’re just defending her to help the President maintain some semblence of honor and effectiveness.
No Republican is thrilled with this nomination, so pulling it doesn’t hurt the base, it revitalizes it (though not to 100%). It would be one thing if the half if Republican Party now in tepid support of her were instead fervent supporters. But they aren’t. Nobody thinks this was a good pick, let alone an excellent one. They’re only defending Bush because they feel like they have no choice. It’s a “defensible” nomination, not a commendable one.
Pulling the nomination as quickly as possible is the best possible outcome. It is the only logical political decision. This is snowballing out of control. Each day gets worse, each day the White House becomes more isolated and more desperate. Why are they doing this?
Jeff, as is his wont, dowdified Lilek’s comment:
Lilek’s continues
Amen, Brother Lileks, amen.
Much as I enjoy a lot of Lileks’s writing, there is nothing these self-proclaimed “moderates” would ever actually fight for. Sweaty committment is so, like, undignified, you know?
King Solomon is their idea, but you know what? If Sol had carried out his threat, you end up with dead baby parts, which doesn’t seem a very good outcome to me.
Could this explain the Democrats’ silence and seeming giddiness:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46795
Not one of my favorite sites, but could he be that wrong?
Not that I’m bitchy about it, but it is as important as an election, if not more. Due to the fact that politicians don’t have enough guts to do their jobs, the courts are dictating laws that sometimes absolutely no relationship to any text in the Constitution. And the Supreme Court is making it easy for them. But to quote Sandra, maybe we won’t need them in 25 years.
I have to say it again, or my head will explode…
WHAT THE FUCK WAS HE THINKING??!!
I tried. I really did.
But if it weren’t for the GWOT, I think I would probably go try to urinate on the White House lawn. Bush has me feeling as dizzy (and compromised) as Web Hubbell. Do Rove and Bush really think that the Conservative base equates simply overturning RvW with Textualism? (I don’t even CARE about RvW) It’s the only thing I can think of that makes any sense.
I can’t believe we’ve put up with all his spending, the Incumbent Protection Act, his immigration shenannigans, etc. to be rewarded with something as assinine as this nomination. I’m still with Bush because I see no alternative whatsoever, but except for the WOT, he can go shit in his hat. I just don’t see how I can defend this man anymore. If you’re going to lose, lose like a man, George.
And what’s with this OPENLY scripted “visit” with the troops? Has Rove lost his mind? Jayzus! Why not just get some actors, and stop embarrassing our troops? WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON HERE??? If I wanted stuff like this, I would have voted for Kerry. AAARRRGHHHHHHH!!!!
And I really, REALLY hope that someday soon I will be eating these words, but I’m not betting on it…
Like you, that Lileks is a great writer. But you are the better thinker. He does great Gnat posts. (Seriously.) And all kinds of other stuff. I would rather read the vivid writers, even when I disagree (or especially when…)
BTW You have taken up some really difficult but intellectually honest fights in recent weeks. Kudos!
I don’t know that Jeff really Dowdified Lileks’ quote. I mean, isn’t it almost a given that he’s blogging from a Chuck E. Cheese?
(Until Target stores get wi-fi, that is.)
Hmmm.
So. Let me get this straight:
1. Bush values loyalty.
2. Bush rewards loyalty.
3. Bush is loyal to those that are loyal to him.
4. Bush values Miers’s loyalty and is rewarding her by giving her a Supreme Court seat.
5. Bush has demanded conservatives abandon their principles for 5 long years.
6. Conservatives have remained loyal to Bush all during this time when federal funding of embryonic stem cell research was done for the first time to the massive new entitlements.
Ok. So where in all this is Bush loyal to conservatives?
The current meme is that Miers was picked, in part, because Bush values loyalty and is loyal to those that are loyal to him. Conservatives have been loyal for 5 years now, and got what?
A kick in the teeth?
Frankly it’s a bit wierd.
Hmmmm.
I think that anybody who si worried about the fallout from this “debate” should worry even more. If Miers does get on the bench, for *life*, and turns out to be an even more liberal version of O’Connor there will be Hell to pay.
If you think conservatives are angry now, I think you need to consider what effect the realisation that 30 years of effort had resulted in a status-quo. Because that’s what we’re really facing here. We’re looking at a Supreme Court that is almost indistinguishable from 2 years ago, except that some of the members are younger.
*shrug* maybe we need to do something really idiotic like a Million Conservative March or something dumbass thing like that. Or perhaps let the GOP get an ass kicking in 2006.
Frankly it all comes down to principles. Either we have them, or we don’t. If we don’t, then let’s get the whole issue of principles out of the way then. If we do, and I value mine btw, then they need to be considered.
Miers is the straw that broke the camel’s back, and I’m the camel. Here’s all I want from Republicans. Most of them are Republican promises:
+Fight/win the war on terror (they are doing that well enough)
+Lower taxes (done)
-Cut spending (they created the new entitlement for prescription drugs instead)
-Secure/Close the borders (*crickets chirping*)
-Fix social securty and medicaid (I think they gave up already)
-Open ANWAR and any other place we own that has oil (jury still out on this one)
-Install a court that will not make up laws, but rather enforce laws so that Congress has to fix them if they are bad (Miers looks like a ‘if it seems right, make it a law’ law creator to me)
I don’t care as much as most people about gay marriage and abortion, but he’s clearly let down Republicans on these items.
This is the biggest majority in congress that the Republicans will ever enjoy, and all I get is this? I’m very close to throwing my next vote away on some nutball Libertarian, just so I can sleep at night. Man, I miss Reagan.
um, yes, yes, i think he could be that wrong.
My crystal ball tells me that Miers will be fine.
My crystal meth tells me to be very afraid.
Well, if Farah’s not wrong, we’ll have some real fireworks to enjoy in the near future.
I’m of a Lileks frame of mind, with all due respect to Mr. Quick.
It’s not out of laziness or bland moderation or distaste for sweaty commitment, it’s out of a sense of futility, plus the fact that Lileks is right – there’s no amount of blog outrage that’s going to change the situation, because either Miers will be so perfect as to defy belief or, more likely, Bush just doesn’t give a shit any longer.
The one thing that could get me interested again in the Miers saga would be the rank exhibition of political cack-handedness required to have put forth a candidate who could be attacked the way WND supposes this one will.
Oh, me too. But when you throw in that while the Dems would be doing so, they’d be moving the court even further left (if Scalia retires or dies) and getting a new 30 year lease on the liberal seats currently held by Stevens and Ginsburg, then my attitude changes quite a bit.
I am mad that we may be looking at lost years in the fight over the courts with this nomination. I would hate for that anger to lead us to contributing to losing decades in the fight. I’d kind of like to win it before I die. Or get dentures, whichever comes first.
I lied when I said “oh, me too.” I’m bad that way. If I’m going to watch deeply held legal principles surrendered to pragmatic political considerations, I would not rather it be the Dems who are doing it. If I’m watching, I would rather it be Victoria’s Secret models in the new fall line bouncing up and down on an absurdly large circular bed who are doing it.
But if not them, then the Democrats. But then I really would prefer not to watch, but rather just accept that it was happening on faith. Especially if Shalala is involved.
me: Goldstein talks to his diet drinks.
Diet Coke:
Me: Do you think you are better than me?
Diet Coke:
Me: What about Miers?
Diet Coke:
Me:
Diet Coke:(inaudible) loser
Hey Ed, how’s Chief Justice John Souter doing by you?
Some of us remember when you were doing your song and dance about him.
Ah, but now the conventional wisdom is that he’s just goovy, so superior to that Hariet Souter.
Oh well.Keep fighting the good fight to keep Bush honest. Power to “the base”.
TW: “fiscal”, as in “Bush ain’t no fiscal conservative”—well, at least if you ignore spending as a % of gdp.
Well, at least the cronyism meme isn’t being kicked around as much. It seems the ‘not qualified’ meme has died off as well.
It now is down to the meat of the matter.
Principles vs Possible.
I’ll take a Miers over an O’Conner any day.
I do wonder what affect the Katrina media/NRO/Malkin hits on the presidents popularity had on his decision not to have the ‘steel cage match’ over a more obvious choice.
Hey all y’all anti-Miers folks:
You now have the Corner and Tucker Carlson on your team.
Na na na na na.
“I am mad that we may be looking at lost years in the fight over the courts with this nomination. I would hate for that anger to lead us to contributing to losing decades in the fight. I’d kind of like to win it before I die. Or get dentures, whichever comes first.”
This is really stupid. If Bush shoves this nomination down our throats, and she is CONFIRMED (which I think is what you want), how does that help the large segment of Republican who have felt betrayed?
The absolutely worst thing that can happen is her confirmation. The damage done is a sunk cost. The only sensible thing is to withdraw this nomination immediately.
Simply put: What is an electoral obstacle is not anger–that is a one way street, those supporting Miers don’t really support her, they wouldn’t be angry if she was withdrawn–but pushing this nomination forward DESPITE that anger.
Why is this so hard to understand?
I really hate to see Lileks and Goldstein on each other. I adore them both!!
Bill Quick:
You know what? That makes me mad. I can tell you that I’m pretty moderate, and I believe in my opinions and beliefs as strongly as you believe in yours. Our opinions may differ, but it isn’t because moderates are weak minded or of weak constitution. Maybe we don’t fight as many battles because…lucky for us! The compromise is often what pleases us. I thought we weren’t doing the superiority thing this time around.
I never do this, but tw: along…can’t we all just get?
I don’t think it does and I never claimed it did.
Unless you have a really powerful remote control in your pocket (if so, I want one) then you have control over yourself but not George Bush. While I agree that he has angered some of us, I cannot control him, nor can you.
Perhaps, though, he can be influenced to change his mind. Withdraw her. How? Well, this would be by exerting pressure. Fanning the flames of discontent. Trying to convince others to join us in being unhappy. Making arguments to keep us unwavering in our anger, and make it absolutely clear that we won’t stop until we get our way.
Of course, there is no way to ensure that in doing we won’t piss off some people who disagree with this approach. There is no way to ensure that in doing this, we will convince some who were ambivalent about the whole thing that Bush really screwed the pooch on something very important, and he’ll permanently lose their support. And there is no way to ensure that they won’t look at the GOP as a whole and say “what a cluster f. Count me out.”
So on the one hand, we have “Bush could back down.” But we have no way of making that happen other than to quite probably harm the GOP’s electoral chances (see the data in my article that Jeff linked for the tenuous position the GOP is currently in)– and even this does not ensure that Bush would back down, and even if he did withdraw the nominee or the nominee is defeated it does not ensure that he won’t choose someone else we’d object to. He’s done something stupid, but there is no easy or sure way to fix it, and it is mostly out of our control.
On the other hand, we have control over our own behavior.
So I could either focus on the thing I cannot control (Bush) or focus on the thing I can control (my behavior).
It sucks all around, but the smart thing to do is to stay on board holding our nose, hope for the best, and then work our asses off to ensure that the next GOP Presidential nominee is committed to the core on the matter of judges. And that they win.
You don’t have to agree. Make up your own mind. But just be aware as you do– the only thing that is separating Bush right now in a public opinion perspective from a 1952-Truman or a 1972-Nixon or a 1980-Carter or a 1992-Bush is Republican (in-party) support. That folds, he’s with them. Each one of them not only lost the Presidency for his party, but also left the Senate in the hands of the other side (often surrendering control while doing so) and giving up House seats as well.
And why did such a change in party fortunes occur? Because the crash in approval was in part an indication of the President’s own party’s support base fracturing. Korean hawks and doves for Truman. Establishment Republicans and conservative populists for Bush. Liberals and conservatives for Carter, and for the GOP post-Nixon. Just what we need now, a in-house battle between the establishment Republicans and the movement conservatives. Not.
Am I mad at Bush for potentially picking that fight? You bet. Does that mean I think we should fight? No.
So if it strikes you as wise to fight like the devil over this seat, go for it. Just keep in mind the next President will get to fill 2-4 seats. It matters a lot what happens before then.
Let’s say the President does withdraw Miers. Who is he going to pick? And for that matter, who is going to accept knowing they are a second choice after Miers. Say what you want, but these people have egos and if you think they will take kindly to being selected after this debacle, think again. Kinda puts the President in a tough position. He has to stay with her at this point. There is no other option for him.
Well said, Gerry. But here’s my problem: I’ve been saying pretty much the same thing for the last 30 years, and Bush was supposed to be the “nominee committed to the core on the matter of judges”. Just how long do I let the Republicans play cock-tease before I tell them to fuck off? Another 20 years, maybe? This is the best chance we’ve ever had to get real judges on the SC, and instead we get a nominee who has puposely avoided the Federalist society as out of the mainstream, but has no problem with the NAACP. This is “committed to the core”?
So my response is Fuck The Republicans. It’s quite clear to me now that it needs to get a whole lot worse before it gets better. And if that punk-ass Lileks thinks that’s just my throbbing head-veins talking, well … get back to me when you hit the 30-years-of-shit-sandwiches mark, OK, Jimmy?
I still have the horrible thought that, if not for the war on terror, John Roberts, and the fact that John Kerry was the alternative –
– I would rather see George W. Bush in jail than in the presidency.
No vetos, not even McCain-Feingold?
Prescription drugs?
Illegal immigration?
Big spending?
Is there a conservative in the house?
Can we get him or her to run in 2008?
I’m with Lileks. All this vein-popping hysteria is giving me a headache.
When Roberts was nominated he too an unpaper-trailed unknown who did not receive the level of vein-popping Meirs is receiving. Based on my personal observation of both nominations, at this point I have to wonder was Roberts spared because he was male?
I was hoping someone would clear this up, but I guess I’m gonna have to ask. I can usually figure this stuff out from context, but maybe I haven’t had enough coffee this morning.
What in the world is “cack-handed”?
Susan,
I don’t think so. It has more to do with her inexperience in Constitutional law. Personally, I think all justices should be plucked from the corner bar, because most lawyers I know have trouble understanding plain text. Our Constitution is not a word puzzle, and I don’t believe it was written so only lawyers could understand it. The Constitution is pretty clear to me if you just read what it says, but most lawyers insist that it DOESN’T say what it says.
I think that the problem with Meirs (at least for me), is that the few tidbits we DO have about her past seem to lead to the conclusion that she is another O’Connor, or maybe even to the left of O’Connor. I just don’t feel that being scorned by socialistic morons for 30 years is worth replacing O’Connor with O’Connor. Most Conservatives see this nomination as THE pivotal point in the future of the Supreme Court, and Meirs is an unknown (regardless of gender) that has been put above a whole benchful of proven textualists.
So except for the ever present idiots, I really don’t think gender is in play here at all.
Hmmm.
“When Roberts was nominated he too an unpaper-trailed unknown who did not receive the level of vein-popping Meirs is receiving. Based on my personal observation of both nominations, at this point I have to wonder was Roberts spared because he was male?”
Frankly I didn’t spare Roberts one bit. I didn’t like him, I still don’t. And I absolutely oppose “stealth” candidates.
Hmmm.
“What in the world is “cack-handedâ€Â?”
All hail our Google Masters.
http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-cac1.htm
http://cgi.peak.org/~jeremy/retort.cgi?British=cack-handed
“cack-handed adj :
clumsy.”
“cack-handed”
And I thought it was a typo. Silly me.
Sorry for the unnecessarily obscure word choice, D(L).
Other, more earthy definitions of “cack-handed” in addition to the excellent links above, or more properly, the portion of the phrase that’s obscure, cack, can be found here.
When I think of someone who’s cack-handed, I tend not toward the Urban Dictionary version or the British version, made popular in the U.S. by The Economist, so much as the idea of someone masturbating while wearing boxing gloves.
Clumsy, goofy, and ultimately fruitless activity, or so I’d guess. Sort of like the Miers nomination.
Joe,
I agree that we (meaning conservatives) have been doing this for 30 years. That means we have not done a good enough job identifying the right candidates and getting them nominated.
Sadly though, you may be right that things need to get much worse before they get better. Which could mean a court that ends up with 6 liberals, 2 conservatives, and 1 moderate locked into seats for another 30 years. In which time one or both of us may be dead.
I think I’ll try the other path where we shoot for things not getting worse before they get better.
Gerry,
I didn’t mean “we conservatives”, I meant me, personally. I’ve spent a great deal of effort, in both time and money (and almost entirely on Republicans) over the last 30 years, trying to get the conservative/libertarian/classical liberal viewpoint elected to office and onto the bench; what should be the triumphant climax of this effort is about as satisfying as a wet fart. I see no point in enabling the Republicans to disappoint me further.
TW: morning, as in It’s not morning in America any more, Ronnie; it’s just mourning.