Hugh Hewitt on Miers’ critics and criticism:
The majority of commentators who are not lawyers—there are many—are simply not equipped to judge Harriet Miers’s competence. Mark Levin is a big exception. As is Judge Bork. But against these two are arrayed Professor Graglia and Dean Starr. There is disagreement among the ConLaw superstars. Perhaps lesser mortals in this field should wait for the hearings?
So, to recap: in Hugh’s view, it is not necessary for a SCOTUS nominee to have an extensive background in Constitutional law; however, it is necessary for those who wish to discuss the nomination to have one. Otherwise, they should just, y’know, stand back and let their betters handle the heavy thinkin‘.
Wonderful. The chickenhawk argument writ small and rolled in a Party wrapper.
So—tell me again who the elitists are here?
****
(h/t Patterico; more here and here)
I mean, you need to be more qualified to talk about a Supreme Court Nominee than to be one?
I’m still scratching my head.
Don’t forget! We’re also supposed to trust Bush’s judgment; even though Hewitt just inadvertently pointed out that, by virtue of not being a lawyer, Bush is “simply not equipped to judge Harriet Miers’s competence”.
And I suppose this is what he calls logic.
Well, sure. But Bush can just ask Harriet if she’s qualified. Just like we can ask Hugh. And if they say yes, than who are we to deny them?
I’m equal to Harriet Miers in understanding Constitutional Law, so when the election is held, I’m voting for her. Because it’s high time we ignorant people had our person on the Court!
Just for that shit I refuse to patron Hugh’s advertisers.
BECAUSE OF THE LAW SCHOOL FEES/REQUIREMENTS AND MY LACK OF INTEREST IN BECOMING A LAWYERCRISY!!
This is why I never read Hugh. Even if I find I agree with him, and frequently I do, his arguments are so…highschool debate team. Yes Hugh, if I’m not allowed to respond to your parting shot I won’t be able to point out the self-contradiction within it, but do you seriously think the judges don’t see it anyway?
Speaking of judges, what is Hugh’s support for Meirs about anyway? I’ve not heard a single argument in her favor aside from Bush picked her and it’s his perogative. Which, sure it is, but it’s ours to say no. Why is Hugh hustling so hard for this no-name, no-rep lawyer from Texas? What about Luttig, McConnel, Brown, or Owen? It’s not like being defeated by your own party represents a real setback for that same party. Just make a proposal we all know and like and Bush will have unanimous support among conservatives again. You can’t lose political momentum to yourself.
So, what wrong with this picture? I just can’t see his motivation.
<a href=”http://www.cusatours.com/Day Trips/O/apple pie.jpg”>KISS IT GOODBYE</a>, YOU ELITIST PROLE!
I mean, YOU PROLE ELITIST!
Well, you’ve got me there, Jeff. I like Hewitt’s “majority of” qualifier. I expect he figures that non-lawyers supporting Miers are qualified while the rest of us are too ignorant for our opinions to matter. If only I were trained in the mysterious arcana of law I’d be able to see that she’s no less qualified than the people on the short list.
Krauthammer hit it on the head a few days ago on Brit Hume’s show. You don’t hire a podiatrist when you need heart surgery. For all Hewitt’s poo-pooing the lack of a JD, I understand law well enough to know that Bush’s family tax or estate lawyers are no less qualified than Miers. I also know that you’d be a fool to be anything but unhappy if he nominated them to the court.
Emphasis added.
Seems reasonable.
Precisely. And yet, I can’t help but think you’re missing the big point here, Sean: namely, that with the publication of Jeff’s post, the terrorists have officially won.
GO RUN ON HOME TO MAMA HILLARY, YOU ELITIST JIHAD-LOVER!
I’m going to go get some really bad hemmoroids. Only then will I be qualified to say whether they really suck or not.
So is the argument that we should shut up about her lack of qualifications and the type of cronyism that the framers of the constitution specifically warned against in the Federalist Papers until we see if she performs well on TV?
Non-lawyers are the new women.
We should just rest easy that Daddy is watching out for us, and not worry our pretty little heads.
I think you’ve missed the point, with all due respect.
There has been much (too much) hub-bub over Miers’ ‘qualification’ to serve on SCOTUS. By arguing such, those critics have created supra-constitutionalism. However, within the purview of ‘competence’, (and here I am assuming Miers’ answers to the questionaire), who better to critique than one trained in the law?
I wonder, had Bush nominated a non-attorney type for the post, if many of us would spontaneously combust.
One more, because I can’t resist. For some reason, whenever Hewitt argues that opposing Miers is tantamount to supporting the Democrats, I think of the scene in “Raging Bull” where Jake is accusing Vicky of having slept with his brother.
“I jus’ wanna aks you one thing: why’d you fuck Hillary?”
James, the point is that Hewitt is full of it; training in the law isn’t a requisite for criticism. I’ll take my constitutionalism the way the framers intended and it doesn’t take a lawyer to see that this nomination is exactly what they warned against and expected the Senate to block. Barnett’s a lawyer if that helps in taking him seriously.
I, for one, welcome our new conLaw overlords.
So, if on his blog, Mr. Hewitt speaks to any subject other than Conlaw, we can jump his shit for being out of his depth?
Just wonderin’.
My. God. I generally like Hewitt, even when I cordially disagree with him, but I found myself thinking, “Elitist!! HYPOCRISY!!!” before I even reached the end of your quote. This is a perfect example of George Will’s point, that an indefensible choice like Miers ends up discrediting those who try to defend it.
Incidentally, this argument is not only prima facie stupid, it’s a lousy tactic. Looking around the blogosphere, this nomination is being lambasted by people like Ann Althouse and Patterico, whose legalistic cred isn’t in question. The list of Miers partisans with similar credentials is pretty short. So, even if I were to take Hewitt’s idiotic advice and let my betters make the decision, my betters are saying this nomination sucks.
T/W: “which.” Hey, it’s appropriate to the season, and I’m not even going to make any cheap Harriet Miers/Margaret Hamilton jokes.
Assume Fitzgerald hands down one or more indictments before the Miers hearings start. Anyone taking bets on whether Hewitt will cite that as another reason to support her?
E.g., “Our president is under siege. He has a lot on his mind. The least we can do to ease the burden is help shepherd his crappy Supreme Court nominee through the confirmation process.”
SeanH:
Again, I said criticism in the context of Miers’ questionare responses.
And just so you know, I take few lawyers seriously. But that’s just me.
harrison:
I you want to make such a sophomoric comment, then go straight ahead. We are not talking about speaking about a subject, per se, but critiquing answers which pertain to the matters of those specifically trained. Would you tell an engineer he miscalculated load bearings if you were a salesman?
Hewitt’s a good guy, but his prejudice is affecting his logic. I don’t think he’s an elitist; he’s just being irrational.
Taken to its natural conclusion, his argument means that Ronald Reagan, although not an economist, was not qualified to criticize the Keynesian voodoo economics of the previous administrations.
However, Reagan’s assessment was accurate and his corrective actions led America to two decades of economic vigor.
tw: theory. Your theory is incorrect, Hugh.
Hmmm.
Dibs on the next SCOTUS seat!
With that ridiculous standard set by Hugh Hewitt, I’m perfectly suitable to be a SCOTUS. Hell I look smashing in black!
…
Does anyone else find it rather humorous that a professional Professor of Constitutional Law, I.e. Hugh Hewitt, is pushing the meme that Constitutional Law is really really easy?
If it’s that easy, why does anyone need Constitutional Law Professors?
spamword: “future”. Squidward: “Future! … Future!”
OK, James, but then I really don’t see your point since the questionaire has nothing to do with either Hewitt’s or Jeff’s posts or any of the comments before yours.
BTW, sticking with expertise analogies, I would tell a mangager that hiring his buddy the chemical engineer to calculate those load bearings was a poor decision.
What does anyone expect to learn from the hearings? The hearings are a relatively short process in which a nominee simply needs to play a public relations game. Dress nicely, don’t lose your temper, take all questions seriously even when they are just baiting and refuse to answer any questions that might potray how you would vote in a future case.
You could put literally hundreds if not thousands of unqualified people in these hearings and not be convinced they weren’t completely capable. Put any capable public speaker in front of a hearing like say a White House spokeperson like Ari Fleischer and they would pass the mustard.
So in summary, you will learn absolutely NOTHING during the hearings and to wait for them before you pass judgement is a red herring.
Hmmm.
“Would you tell an engineer he miscalculated load bearings if you were a salesman?”
No. But if I hired him to build something 50 feet long and it turns out to be 25 feet, I’m well within my rights to complain even if I’m not an engineer.
spamword: “court”. Ok Jeff, this spam thing is really starting to freak me out.
I’m just a simple unfrozen cave man lawyer, unfamilar with all your new-fangled terms like conlaw and originalist, but I DO know one thing: I oppose Miers’ nomination precisely because some Democrats on the Senate JC are in favor. Hello!?
SeanH:
Then, within the context of professional critque, you’ve just proven my point.
And the context of Miers’ professional expertise has everything to do with the criticism.
One cannot say she is constitutionally not qualified. She is.
So what exactly else is left to criticize?
FTR, I am not wearing a Miers team jersey. I just think the ad hominems of the anti-Miers and anti-anti-Miers people is self-defeating.
And if I hear the word ‘elitist’ one more time. Well. I’ll be forced to open another Guiness.
-cheers
OK ed:
But your analogy is anappropriate.
How, as a blind man, would you read the measure?
Your argument seems to be that Miers is unsuitable for the post, not because of who she is, but because of who she isn’t.
If he had, yes.
James OK, the point I picked up was he’s saying you can’t make comments on a subject unless
you’re trained in that subject.
As a photographer (and salesman),
I can comment on whether a car mechanic is fixing my car.Must of it may be hunch, but there you go.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that along with Meirs there are probably……100 million or so other people in this country that are constitutionally qualified.
harrison:
That is, indeed, a chickenhawk argument, and I would be cursed for making such. Are you arguing that SCOTUS would cease to function properly should Miers be confirmed?
I am trying to figure out what exactly all the hub-bub is about. Seriously.
rls:
You are correct. Shall I add your name on the list next to mine?
Dario: The phrase is properly “pass muster”, referring to arriving at a military muster (meeting point for assembling troops) prepared for war with all required equipment. From back in the days before conscription, when a volunteer might well be required, as part of his contract, to have his own equipment.
Knowing is half the battle. (The other half, GI Joe, is being able to actually kill the enemy, which you never once frickin’ managed, did you? No wonder COBRA always came back!)
On Topic: Isn’t Judge Bork a lawyer? He can’t be an exception to the non-lawyers rule if he is, can he? Hewitt’s not doing too well on this one.
Would I have to quit my day job?
tw: job – I shit you not.
James OK,
Lord, no. SCOTUS might not make the decisions that some think it should if she’s put there.
Once again it’s a hunch thing but I don’t think she’s the BEST for the job.
rls-
Thanks for the laugh.
Guiness shot from the nose burns.
No shit.
I have to say that I’m annoyed that pundits like Hugh and Jeralyn Merritt from TalkLeft claim ConLaw is easy and thus Miers (or anyone for that matter) can do it. The trickiest cases in the entire legal system are adjudicated there. The best minds in the country struggle and clash over such things as right-to-life, abortion, free speech limitations, demarcation between church and state, pornography questions, states rights, and a thousand other heinously thorny issues that we face as a nation.
Miers has precious little background for us to understand not only HOW she’d rule, but whether she’s got the basic ability to function at this level. However, Hugh makes plain that I’m not qualified to have this opinion and Jeralyn – like Bush – wants me to take it on faith that Miers is OK, so I’ll just sit down and shut up now.
OK harrison-
I respect your opinion and appreciate your clairvoyant abilities.
Some would argue, BLT, that basic ability is all that’s required.
James,I’m a salesman. I made you want to buy my opinions.
Hmmm.
@ James
“Your argument seems to be that Miers is unsuitable for the post, not because of who she is, but because of who she isn’t.”
Ok this one I understand.
The comment about being a “blind man” is frankly completely over my head. Where did that come from? But what the hell, I’ll play along. If I’m a blind man and I need to read a tape measure I *hire* someone to do it that isn’t the engineer in question.
My argument is that Miers doesn’t have anything that makes me think she’s appropriate for the Supreme Court.
harrison-
heh, that explains the bridge in my backyard.
James, why then did Bush have Miers help him select Roberts as the previous nominee? I mean, if anyone can do it, what’s the difficulty? Since judicial experience and a background in constitutional law aren’t required, why not just post a listing on Monster.com?
Hmmmm.
“BLT”
Now that’s a capital suggestion.
Heavenly smoked hearty thick bacon with that crunchy-salty sting. The chilled slices of tomato dripping their firm bounty. The crisp lettuce blanketing the bacon, snuggled into the mayonnaise. And, heathen! Infidel!, a thin slice of sharp white onion. A benediction from a vegetable god.
All ensconced on lightly toasted bread.
MMMMM. Bacon.
sw: “square”. Yes. The toasted bread is square.
Hmmm.
The Constitutional qualifications include having a pulse and respiration, all else is optional.
This does not instill confidence in nominees that meet the minimum.
Hmmmm.
I always wondered what Joe did with that Kung-Fu Grip when he was in the toy box.
And there the toy box lies, lid closed and dark.
Oh the days of dread are upon us!
allrightythen.
This reminds me of the time I wore an OK State shirt to the OU game.
ed: The point is, given the stealthiness of Miers, the conclusion that she is unsuitable is completely unqualified.
Though, I will concede stealth, in and of itself, is a point of contention.
BLT: I have no idea how the current system came to be, why a senate judiciary committee was ever formed, or why, after doing laundry, I always find I am missing a sock.
Perhaps, had I attended an ivy league school, I could find the other sock.
ed: In response to your menu: sometimes a liquid lunch is good for the constitution. And in response to minimum qualification, though the approach to an SC justice as a political nominee seems be a given in today’s climate, doesn’t it beg the question ‘why’?
Nobody’s saying that she’s constitutionally unqualified, James, she’s underqualified. I didn’t prove your point, your point is just completely unrelated to Jeff’s post or what was being discussed. The hub bub is:
1. She is much, much less qualified for the job than the other possible nominees that were being considered.
2. Picking your personal lawyer over candidates with more merit is the type of cronyism that conservatives are supposed to be against.
3. Conservatives have been burned by little known Justices jumping to the left when confirmed in the past and there is no record on her legal positions.
4. What conservatives and many of us independents want is an originalist/intentionalist on the court who will rule based on what the constitution says and what the framers meant when they said it and there is nothing concrete to assure us that Miers would be that type of Justice.
5. Having been White House counsel Miers would have to sit out pretty much every case involving the executive branch for years to come.
6. Hewitt’s an ass.
Number 1, 2, 4, and 5 are my beefs with the nomination. I want someone to make decisions based on what the framers of the constitution intended, not what some of us would like it to mean.
Here’s Alexander Hamilton on the reasons that they were putting the Congressional check on Presidential nominations in the Constitution in the first place:
Bush is nominating a Justice who’s a political ally and personal friend from Texas with less experience than anyone else who was being considered and that’s clearly contrary to the framer’s intent. At the same time he’s asking you and I take it on faith that she would make decisions based on the intent of the framers. I don’t need hearings, questionaires, or a law degree to know what this nomination looks like and smells like.
Those are great points, SeanH, and I appreciate them for my own understanding.
The cronyism charge is understandable, and not without merit. However, the point of Hamilton’s sentences in your argument has been missed, specifically “prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice…”
There is nothing in the evidence to suggest she is unfit.
As I said above, I am not on the Miers bandwagon. Hell, I even agree the President could have picked a better nominee.
But the basis of criticism on ‘qualification’ instead of ‘conservative suitability’ is the rub.
She is qualified, but it is the unknown which makes her unsuitable.
James, we basically disagree on her fitness for office then. I agree that she’s not constitutionally unqualified, but neither am I and I’m just some damn boob. I don’t see how that makes her fit for the office.
Unfit can mean underqualified or less desireable than the available alternatives as well as unqualified. There were dozens of people much, much better suited. She has never worked in ConLaw, never engaged in serious study of it, and never rendered a legal jugdement. Due to conflict of interest she’ll also have to sit out on cases involving the executive for who knows how long. There is nothing in the evidence to demonstrate that she’s fit for the job either. That, in and of itself, makes her appear unfit for the job to me.
I’d submit that the burden shouldn’t be on others to prove a negative and demonstrate that she’s unfit. The burden should be on Bush and his supporters to prove that his crony is fit to hold the office. When you or I interview for a job the burden’s not on the interviewer to prove that we aren’t able to do it. It’s up to you and I to prove to the interviewer that he’ll have a difficult time finding someone that can do it substantially better.
If the interviewer could dismiss me, pick any one of the other applicants at random, and be certain to have someone much better qualified then how I could honestly say I wasn’t unfit for the job?
Hmmm.
@ James OK
The point is, given the stealhiness of Miers, the conclusion that she is qualified is completely unsuitable.
Sorry but I don’t have to prove she’s not suitable. You have to prove she is.
Actually I prefer very thin slices of crisp chilled vegetables, sliced on a mandolin by preference, with an assortment of vinegar and oil based dips when I’m drinking. It’s tasty, helps coat the stomach and counterpoints the various alcohols.
But yes, sometimes a liquid lunch is the right thing.
*shrug* the reason is that Congress has not used it’s Constitutional power to tell the Supreme Court to go fuck itself. Which would be a very amusing thing to see IMHO.
It would be an earthshaking event if Congress used it’s Constitutional power to limit what cases the Supreme Court may review. I think that would be the only thing that could limit the massive amounts of judicial activism.
Frankly my oppostion to Miers comes from the fact that she will not be a proficient or effective deterrent to judicial activism. It may be that the heady power of lifetime appointment and seemingly unlimited power will cause any nominee to end up as a judicial activist. Lord knows if I were on the bench I’d support a SOCTUS decision that required beautiful women to go around in nothing more than thongs and stiletto heels.
But something has to rein in these judges. If not by replacing them with solid Constitutionalists, then by impeachment and eventually a Constitutional amendment.
But the status quo cannot last for much longer. The Constitution is being perverted in increasing degrees and at a much faster pace now.
Ouch. Just ouch, Jeff.
gotcha
SeanH and ed – you both seem to be saying basically the same thing: the proof is on the President to prove she is fit, not vice versa.
I would argue, evidenced by the quality of the President’s previous judicial nominees, that the burden of proof has already been met.
I would agree, ed, the inherent amusement found in the Senate flipping the bird to the judiciary. Though, often, I find a small handgun also comes in handy, especially in traffic.
Hmmm.
@ James OK
Do you want to retract this assertion or would you prefer I rip it to shreds, stamp on it and burn it at the stake?
I retract nothing. Never, never ever.
Well, except my marriage vows.
By all means, ed, shred away.
Though, if fire is to be involved, I would like to bring marshmallows.
Hmmm.
@ James OK
“By all means, ed, shred away.”
Ok.
The issues with this point of view are as:
1. This is an assumption that Bush has not made any mistakes in his judicial appointments.
The simple fact is that it sometimes takes years or even decades to find out if a specific appointee has turned out well. Souter turned out badly almost immediately while O’Connor took a few years. A possible example of a poor appointment is District of Columbia Judge Richard J. Leon, appointed by President Bush in 2001.
This judge ruled that convicted illegal alien criminals have a right to privacy that *American* convicted criminals do not. This is in response to a newspaper that wanted a list of names of illegal alien criminals that have not been deported after they served their time. In normal circumstances any criminal’s public history is exactly that, *public*. But this judge has ruled that such public records for illegal aliens is in fact not *public*.
I.e. public records are public records only for American criminals while public records are not public records if they concern an illegal alien.
I’m sure you can visualize Gene Wilder singing this refrain in a variation of Willy Wonka and The SCOTUS Factory. Imagine the following song set to SCOTUS appointments. It definitely applies.
lyric
This judge’s ruling is idiotic, follows the definiton of “activist” and is an absolute disgrace. And if we’re to apply your standard James OK, then this one single example refutes your assertion and *requires* Miers, and every single future nomination, to be defeated simply because your assertion has been proven wrong.
If this assertion is sufficient to get Miers confirmed, then refutation of this assertion is enough to require Miers and all future nominees to be defeated, regardless of any individual qualifications.
link
2. This assumption presumes that anti-Miers critics aren’t just wrong but not aren’t able to criticise at all, and all without addressing their specific issues by implementing a strawman.
If Miers must be a good candidate because previous candidates were good, then on what possible basis can people criticise? Not just the criticism, but the very act of criticism is now verboten. Which is patently absurd. Instead of addressing the myriad and substantial arguments for the opposition you seek to bypass them by using a strawman. You propose an assertion, and then use that proposition itself as justification for itself, without ever having proven your original point. That Bush’s prior judicial picks were in fact “good”.
Even if you could prove that first point, how does that then apply to the second point made? That because prior judicial picks were “good”, that all subsequent picks must also be “good”. What possible experience in life could provide for such a viewpoint? Have you never eaten an occasionally bland meal? Opened a bottle of wine to find it more vinegar than wine?
Every act is an individual thing, perfect or not according to itself with no correlation to anything prior, or post. We can hope that a person has the skill and experience to offer greatly enhanced odds that the resulting experience will be good, but no performance is always perfect, no meal is always without disagreement, no wine is always without the occasional bad cork.
Hell sex can sometimes turn out to be a complete disappointment. A thing that I didn’t think was even possible when I first became a teenager.
…
Sorry, but your entire assertion is frankly absurd.
@ ed
From your closing paragraph, you make the case that ‘every act is an individual thing’, yet the entire thesis of your argument re: 1 is based upon one ruling by one of Bush’s appointees. Hardly summa evidence of Judge Leon, much less Bush’s track record of quality nominees.
Re: 2, the case would have been a strawman, had it, indeed, been my case.
My contention has never been than any nominee is, or should be, immune to criticism, but only a) gratuitous criticism based upon an ambiguous supra constitutional standard, and b) criticism that is based upon disappointment and then arranges evidence to make its case.
Philosophical suitability is a whole other matter; and one, I dare say, necessarily requires further investigation before any judgement can be made.
Hmmmm.
1. “From your closing paragraph, you make the case that ‘every act is an individual thing’, yet the entire thesis of your argument re: 1 is based upon one ruling by one of Bush’s appointees. Hardly summa evidence of Judge Leon, much less Bush’s track record of quality nominees.”
This is a refutation of YOUR assertion. I.e. if your assertion were acceptable, then this idiotic ruling would require Miers to be not confirmed because Bush’s performance in picking judges would have been proven to be bad.
Remember? This is YOUR position, not mine.
2. “My contention has never been than any nominee is, or should be, immune to criticism, but only a) gratuitous criticism based upon an ambiguous supra constitutional standard, and b) criticism that is based upon disappointment and then arranges evidence to make its case.”
Completely false.
You made the assertion that, due to Bush’s past in selecting judges, there could be no dissent. That Bush’s performance in picking judges automatically made Miers acceptable.
Remember? This is YOUR position, not mine.
3. “Philosophical suitability is a whole other matter; and one, I dare say, necessarily requires further investigation before any judgement can be made.”
And so now you’re dissenting from your own assertion.
Remember?
<blockquote>SeanH and ed – you both seem to be saying basically the same thing: the proof is on the President to prove she is fit, not vice versa.
I would argue, evidenced by the quality of the President’s previous judicial nominees, that the burden of proof has already been met. /blockquote>
A deconstruction of your assertion is that Miers’s suitability has been proven because of Bush’s past performance in picking judges.
Your assertion included nothing about philosophical suitability or anything else. In fact your assertion precludes such discussions since you explicitly state that Miers’s is already proven suitable in all respects.
…
spamword: “poor”
hogwash
1. My position is that burden of proof has been met by Bush’s past nominations. One ruling by one judge is hardly an argument against.
2. I never said no dissent, I said critique of qualifications. Because no such qualifications are listed in the Constitution, any list you or I could make would be ambiguous at best.
3. You haven’t even come close. If you consider one ruling to be a slam dunk, that speaks more of your ideology than objectivity.
Miers should be given the benefit of the doubt. If she bombs at the hearings, then we can properly judge her suitability to assume the post.
Hmmm.
<blockquote1. My position is that burden of proof has been met by Bush’s past nominations. One ruling by one judge is hardly an argument against.</blockquote>
Did you actually look at that ruling?
This Bush appointed judge ruled that illegal aliens have rights that Americans do not.
This Bush appointed judge ruled that public records are not public records when the motive is to cover a bureaucrats ass.
This Bush appointed judge ruled that the public criminal records and court documents are only public criminal records and court documents when the FBI doesn’t give a crap.
This isn’t a problem for you eh?
What part of this judge finding privacy rights that don’t exist not trouble you? Go tany penumbras?
And this “burden of proof”, what is the purpose of it? Isn’t it to force the confirmation of Miers? Doesn’t that preclude debate since such debate would be utterly worthless since it could not, by definition, affect the confirmation of a candidate that, by YOUR assertion, should be confirmed based entirely on Bush’s prior performance in picking judges?
How is any of that logical or even reasonable?
If this isn’t the case, then what purpose is there a “burden of proof” met?
And what purpose is “dissent” or “critique” worth then it, by your assertion, Miers must be confirmed based, not on her own merits, but on Bush’s? If we’re to confirm Miers based on Bush’s performance, then Mier’s own positives and negatives have no bearing at all. And if they have any bearing then we cannot confirm Miers base solely on Bush.
Is this logic getting through? To have one, you must preclude the other. They are mutually exclusive.
Have you really thought this through?
<objectivity.</blockquote>
So you like having this as a precendent then? A federal judge ruling that privacy rights exist where privacy rights have **NEVER** before existed?
Did you actually read that article and consider the ramifications?
Absolutely not. According to your assertion she has already passed onto confirmation solely because of Bush. According to your theory Bush could appoint his daughter to the post since Bush has, according to your opinion, been so great at picking judges.
Ridiculous doesn’t even begin to describe this nonsense.