People see Miers get the Supreme Court slot and it reminds them of when they played Little League baseball and didn’t get to pitch because the coach’s son got the slot even though he wasn’t as good.
—Black Jack responds to Hugh Hewitt
People see Miers get the Supreme Court slot and it reminds them of when they played Little League baseball and didn’t get to pitch because the coach’s son got the slot even though he wasn’t as good.
—Black Jack responds to Hugh Hewitt
They can always move to France.
I normally believe Hugh Hewitt is a reasonable guy, but think he’s allowed his antipathy toward the Democrats to color his judgment on this fight. During the 2004 elections, beating John Kerry was rightly the focus of our energy, and the party unified behind that goal.
It worked, and the Democrats were denied a victory. Now Hewitt and many of Miers’ defenders are still stuck in ‘must beat the Democrats’ mode and simply choose to ignore how terrible a nomination Bush has made. Instead, they call for party unity and try to bring back the esprit de corps that existed during the last presidential election, not realizing (or caring) that if they “win” this fight, conservatism likely loses in the long run.
Evangelophobe.
I personally wonder what the hell Bush is thinking with this one, but I’m willing to hold off on making a final determination until I hear her in her confirmation hearings. Maybe she’ll blow everybody away.
But I kind of doubt it.
BECAUSE OF THE APOSTASY!!!
Ahh, jeez. Now only democrats and Hewitt are defending Miers. Not looking good for the Bush kid’s pitching career… will she withdraw? Will Senate Republicans voate against? If they did so, will Bush nominate Gonzales?
I’ve been trying really, really hard to stay neutral on this Miers pick and “wait for the hearings”.
But the way the President’s defenders are trying to justify this pick is enough to send me into the “no” camp.
First, “trust me!”
Now, “trust Dobson”?!
It’s too much.
She certainly is not the choice anyone expected.
The immediate reaction threw everyone into an a bit of a whirlwind.
At this point, not having heard Miers own testimony, I have no idea whether Miers is a terrible nomination or not. I have heard the pros/con which will keep in mind when listening to her testimony then I can decide whether it is neccessary to bring her down. I welcome this debate, adds to my decision. So, before attacking one another let’s give each other enough room to first find out for ourselves Meir’s own defense, then we can unite in battle.
I have the impression this squabble is about ‘beating the Democrats’ by nominating a clear-cut, paper-trailed strict constitutional Constructionist?
I’m sure some Oriole kid shortstop with a bad case of sour grapes said the same thing about Cal Ripkin Jr.. Oooh lil Cal just starts b/c his daddy’s a coach.
Let’s wait and see how lil Cal performs in his/her Senate hearings, before falling into lockstep with the Cornerites, who get virtually everything wrong, I hardly need to add.
I think I’m most bothered by attacks on the critics. The immediate leap to elitism (over what schools she graduated from) and sexism (supposedly coming from people who would have ejaculated had Bush selected Janice Rogers Brown) makes the charge absurd on its face.
The problem is that conservatives don’t feel like, after winning the White House and both Houses of Congress they should have to rely on a wink and nod and a stealth candidate that pleases Barbara Mikulski and Harry Reid.
I want somebody who will act like a judge is supposed to act. Roberts has a track record of doing so; Miers, not so much—which means I have to look at her policy opinions. And I don’t like what I’m seeing as being a welcome indicator of her judicial rulings.
…Or the suggestion that critics are in lockstop with the Cornerites, I should add.
Funny, on the Katrina battle I was recently accused of being in lock step with Hugh Hewitt.
Man. I really have to decide who I’m going to let do my thinking for me—Hugh or the Corner. Get my locksteps straight so that I can have a coherent philosophy and a consistent paper trail should Ardolino ever get elected Prez and try to install me onto the Supreme Court.
Yes, the “elitist!” and “sexist!” smears were amazing both in the clear and anti-conservative appeal to naked populism and in just how factually inaccurate they were.
Now this equally naked appeal to a sectarian religious constituency as if membership in a particular denominational subset of Christianity was a stand-alone qualification for the nation’s highest court.
One of the things that most set my teeth on edge about the Clinton era was that administrations ability to insult my intelligence on a regular basis with the most obvious lies and threadbare rationales. Why Bush partisans want to emulate the Clintons in any way is beyond me, but that seems to be the method of choice for folks like Hugh Hewitt and Ed Gillespie with regard to the Miers nomination.
With respect to my fellow commenters, I don’t think a candidate’s suitability for a seat on the Supreme Court should rely so heavily (or in this case almost entirely) on how she performs during the judiciary committee hearings.
Congressional hearings of any type have become nothing more than political theater. Miers may do a good job in front of the committee, but an ability to answer questions in front of senators and cameras doesn’t translate into an ability to decide on matters of Constitutional law.
Jeff,
Careful with the lockstepping. You’ll dislocate a hip.
Lockstep with Corner? Oh, definitely—I’m sure they loved what I had to say during the Schiavo ordeal. K-Lo, Ramesh and I were the veritable 3 Musketeers. Ramesh made s’mores and I did K-Lo’s hair—those were the days.
As for the Cal Ripken comment I’ll simply say this—even Miers’ supporters admit that she will need a crash course in constitutional law. Somehow, I don’t think Cal needed to trot out to the infield with a copy of “Turning the Double Play for Dummies” in his glove.
I’m not happy with George, but it’s not gonna make me withhold my vote. I’d rather chew off my paw than listen to ‘Hail to the Chief’ play when Hillary Clinton enters a room.
tw: clear. I’m real clear on that, babe–a regular Operating Thetan…
Being against the Miers nominations, but also believing that some are against the Miers nomination for irrelevant elitist reasons–like where she went to law school–are not contradictory positions.
No, they’re not. But pulling on the faux populist overalls and suggesting that the bulk of Miers’ critics are snobby sexists who are hoping to weaken the President because they secretly hate evangelicals, women, and the non-Ivy League-educated is disingenuous.
Cal certainly didn’t need “Turning the Double Play for Dummies†in his glove since he’d probably already boned up on Tom Emanski’s tapes.
Turing Word: systems
Hmmmm.
I wonder what Hugh Hewitt will say to cover his ass when Miers gives out her first completely incomprehensible goofy swing vote love to the Left?
A lot of people are going to find out that Internet + self deception = a permanent mar on credibility.
Just a couple of quick points.
The new poster child for supreme court nominees was opposed to the end by Ann Coulter. Now what she has to say has relevance because?
The Corner whipped themselves into a hyper state of girlishness over Katrina(TM).
Now what they have to say has relevance because?
Buchanon lost relevance somewhere last decade.
I also think the punditry class and inside the beltway crowd have TRULY been disconnected from the mass of people they supposedly represent.
Jeff has been quite deliberate in his writings on Miers. Not so many others.
More….
I see two main groups that are vocally opposing Miers.
1. The strict constructualist who want to end the judicial activism of the most recent court. I agree myself, but please note: The new poster child for supreme court nominees, Roberts, HAD TO DENY THAT HE WAS A MEMBER OF THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY in the runup to his nomination hearings. That, his performance at the hearings, and the fact the he also had little paper trail, are part of the reason he was confirmed.
Can ANYONE tell me exactly how we were supposed to get one of the ‘favorites’ confirmed?
Principles vs. Possible
2. The hard right social cons, IMO, don’t give a rats ass about ‘strict constructionist’ as long as RvW is overturned. Again, IMO, they do not care about judicial activision as long as the outcome matches thier own vision.
Thats fine.
Many of these are also the same ‘one issue’ folk who wail and scream over EVERYTHING Bush does that doesn’t fit neatly into thier worldview. Pork ridden highway bill, Immigration, Black Helicopters, Deficit, Miers. If you bother hanging out at RedState, Polypundit, or FreeRepublic you recognize these yahoos. I WILL NEVER VOTE REPUBLICAN AGAIN BECAUSE ______________!!!!! Never mind that the were delivered 80% of what their agenda ask for. Never mind we supposedly are in a war against terrorist.
WE HAVE PRINCIPLES!!!! I’m voteing Tancredo, Perot, Buchanon, whoever!!!!
Now the big problem is that the ‘strict constructionist crowd is getting backing from the conservative version of Moonbats and think this encouragement is a Good Thing.
You dance with who brung ya, but your also known by the friends you keep.
People need to put thier priorities in order. Mine is to keep islamofacist from killing my children.
Whats yours?
Whew…feel better now.
Basically the same. But since Miers helped craft many of the anti-Islamofascist policies of the Bush administration, she’d have to recuse herself from those cases and thus a non-vote for policies that will help us win the war.
Hmmmm.
“HAD TO DENY THAT HE WAS A MEMBER OF THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY”
He was not and is not a member of the Federalist Society. He has given speeches to Society dinners. But he is not a member.
Hmmmm.
1. “Never mind that the were delivered 80% of what their agenda ask for.”
Really? Name them. Because all you’ve got is bullshit. If all you want to do is spread bullshit then please title your post “**bullshit**” and I’ll know to ignore it.
2. “Never mind we supposedly are in a war against terrorist.”
Which excuses what exactly? Because we’re in a GWOT I can’t criticise when Bush has violated a solemn promise?
Again. More bullshit.
Ed,
I admit I was a bit over the top in my post. Sorry if it offended.
As for the Federalist Society, my point is that Roberts and his handlers were forced to take a defensive postition, vehemently denying he was a member. This hints to me that the ‘strict constructionist’ (we need an acronym
) idea has not won yet in the public debate on the judicial system. If Roberts, the super candidate with little paper trail, had to back away from the Federalist Society during the confirmation process, what hopes for confirmation, not just nomination, would the top dogs of St.Con., Luttig Mcconoul(sp?) and JRB, have?
If you can’t explain how to achieve confirmation, then all you are hoping for is the battle. I gladly take up arms with you, down the road. I 100% feel that the only way we won’t achieve our goals in the GWOT is if/when we lose the battle on the homefront. After the damage Bush took from the Katrina media blast (with help from some righty pundits), I am very, very touchy about damaging him further.
Disagreeing with the president is fine. I do it all the time. What I see many places is an almost gleefull, fullbore and even personal blasting of him by people seem to very much to have an axe to grind. These are the actions that damage the conservative coalition and very much disturb me.
If you are not one of these ‘bombthrowers’, you should not be offended.
I do apologize to all for my hyperbole and will not attempt any future post until after my medication kicks in.
Hmmmm.
“This hints to me that the ‘strict constructionist’ (we need an acronym smile) idea has not won yet in the public debate on the judicial system. “
That’s because there *hasn’t* been a debate.
The reason why there hasn’t been a debate is because Bush and the GOP leadership have scampered off like frightened rabbits every single time a confrontation could have possibly happened.
And no they do not get a free pass for that either.