Redstate

This is not a monarchy.  George Bush is owed zero LOYALTY from anyone.  A good citizen can and should evaluate every single decision on its'merits and come to a conclusion on their own to determine support/opposition.  Obviously, on many issues members of his party will support him because they share common values, but it is not loyalty to a man, but to a cause/belief structure that we should ideally adhere to.  

I concur with most of the 22 part response, but am interested in simplicity and refinement.  Especially in the art of persuasion.  My personal opposition to the current candidate hinges of the philosophical approach which is evidently missing in the current administration.  

What I want, and what I believe most conservatives want, is a open substantial debate.  I want a candidate that brings to that debate a history of wisdom and experience in waging that battle.  So irregardless of the candidates stance on the issues that concern us, she is disqualified from consideration before we even get started.  

That is why many conservatives, who make no attempt at being intellectuals, and vote with their conscience primarily, have a sick feeling in the gut.  Now if that feeling is overcome by warm fuzziness for Bush, fine.  But the real question here is how did we end up in a place where we have an administration thats purposefully avoids the very debate that is necessary?  We will have the debate anyhow, but it looks like we will have it outside of the GOP.  Sad.

I fully agree that this is not a monarchy and that Bush not be blindly followed.  Constructive debate over the nominee should certainly occur.  As someone who has limited legal knowledge my  position is that I am focusing on the thoughtful analyses and waiting to see what happens at the hearings before I determine whether Miers was a good choice or not.  I believe the 9 questions posed by Hugh and the 22 above should lead to an informative dialogue.

What has bothered me and perhaps many on the anti-anti-Miers group has been the venom and tactics directed at Miers before the hearings have even occurred.  NRO, Ingraham, etc went ballistic 5 minutes after the announcement and haven't come down since.  You have John Fund dumpster diving  to get dirt on Miers.  You have bloggers and pundits pulling 1 sentence or phrase out of articles/speeches over 10 years old and claiming this proves that Miers is pro-abortion, pro-affirmative action, whatever.  You have bloggers touting anonymous sourced qoutes with no verification to damage Miers.  You have bloggers/pundits with little or no legal background flatly declaring Miers is incompetent.  You have bloggers/pundits with no knowledge of the internal Senate politics flatly declaring that Luttig/Brown/etc would have sailed through the Senate without prompting a filibuster.  In sum, the conservative cry over the past 5 years has been that every nominee deserves an up or down vote - why has this standard been thrown out for Miers?

I stand fully ready to call on a no vote against Miers if her hearings prove nothing or that the suspicions about her potential voting are correct.  But let's at least give her the opportunity to present her case.

There has been some seriously overheated rhetoric on both sides here.  Your mileage may vary as to who (although I think Fund has been pretty fair and level-headed).  End of the day, though, you have to make your own call - pro, con, or you are waiting for something you expect to learn between now and the vote.

The proper response to saying Miers is quoted out of context is to give us context.  I'm not seeing it.  And in particular, I'm not seeing evidence she is even a minimally competent writer.

Carlos - valid points.  But your post touches on another theme - that some conservatives are upset because they wanted a knockdown drag out brawl with the Senate Dems and it doesn't look like they are going to get it.

I would love to see the Dems put in their place on judicial issues but Bush's goal is to get a nominee (who he believes is conservative) on the court.  What good does a big fight over a judicial nominee do if the judge doesn't get on the bench.  The judicial fight would tie up the Senate and prevent action on other items.  As I posted before what if Bush was told by Specter, Frist, etc that the Dems were going to filibuster Luttig, Brown, etc and that they didn't have the votes to stop the filibuster?  This is speculation on my part but as I posted above the makeup of the Senate, the RINOs, and the Gang of 14 all must have factored into the decision.

Think of it as the Peyton Manning theory - great stats (i.e. a big philosophical debate) are nice but if you don't win the championship (i.e. get the judge confirmed) it doesn't mean anything.

The suggestion that people shouldn't oppose Miers before seeing how she does in the hearing has a superficial appeal, but it's wrong. In Miers case, her record is bad enough (lacking in some places, damning in others), there's nothing that could happen in her Senate hearing which would negate the disqualifying information we already have about her.

If someone applies for any job, just being able to give a dazzling performance in a job interview is not sufficient. Before scheduling a job interview, you look at what's on the record of the job candidate, and look at examples of his/her performance. We've seen that Miers has a pretty thin record for a potential Supreme Court Justice (so thin, they think being head of the Texas bar associtation is worth bragging about). And the examples of what she's written or said haven't included anything very impressive, but have included somethings indicating a leftist activist interpretation of the Constitution, in other cases ignorance of the Constitution, and even sheer stupidity.

Some job candidates aren't worth scheduling a job interview with, because their record (or lack thereof) already disqualifies them.  You know that if you did interview them and they performed spectacularly in the interview, you would still reject them for the job.  Miers record is that bad, so even if Bush insists on her "job interview", she's still unfit for the job no matter what happens in the Senate hearing.

You have bloggers and pundits pulling 1 sentence or phrase out of articles/speeches over 10 years old and claiming this proves that Miers is pro-abortion, pro-affirmative action, whatever.

Wasn't Miers already supposed to be a mature adult when she said those things?  And if you think those writings and speeches misrepresent her views, then there should be other writings and speeches that demonstrate that, right? So please tell me what those exculpatory writings/speeches are.

The problem is that Bush deliberately nominated someone who apparently spent her entire life trying to avoid thinking about Constitutional issues, so has said or written very little on the subject.  The few places she has said anything on the topic, she's demonstrated her unfitness for the office. We have to use the evidence that's available.

and the gratuitous slams bother me as well.

However, one has only to read the speech in its entirety to draw a conclusion of Miers' suitability.

Most questions weren't written to solicit information, but to be argumentative. Selected answers:

Is the GOP worse off because John Tower's nomination for Defense Secretary failed and he had to be replaced with Dick Cheney?

The GOP was worse off. A party is always worse off when a good person is smeared with rumors and innuendo. It was worse off when Bork was smeared, and Thomas, and the same with Harriet Miers. Fortunately the Democrats did 3/4 of the examples.

Does it matter if a Supreme Court Justice does not write clear and logical opinions?

A silly personal attack to make Miers look bad. I'll take the writing of a lawyer who rose to the top of a large firm everytime over the Washington types who spend their lives going to the right meetings and dinners to keep their name alive for a possible nomination. Refreshing to see someone nominated for the court who has not been preparing for this day for 3 decades.

Does it matter if a Supreme Court Justice does not know constitutional law well enough to avoid writing opinions in one case that will have unexpected bad consequences in other cases?

Who is more likely to understand how bad opinions impact people -- someone who has lived in the cloistered confines of a federal judgeship or someone who has been a leading lawyer in a large state, a city councilwoman, and the administrator of a state and federal government. I'll take the practical experience every time. Dirt under the fingernails gives a viewpoint that is sorely missing today.

How important is it that Roe v. Wade or Casey be reversed?

Does it matter? Not gonna happen. Americans don't give up rights, no matter how dubious their foundation. If this foundation crumbles, another will be formed. Taking away rights is not for the faint hearted. If you're looking for this from the Supreme Court, your wait will be a long one.

Would you be satisfied with another Justice just like Lewis Powell? Potter Stewart? Warren Burger? Anthony Kennedy? Sandra Day O'Connor?

I don't spend a lot of time pondering judges before my time. However Kennedy and O'Connor have been roundly and unfairly maligned over the past few years. O'Connor and Kennedy were closer to Rehnquist than any other voting block, and Rehnquist was closer to them than to Scalia and Thomas. That 3 person moderate-conservative block has been an important one in advancing a lot of conservative issues over the last 10 years. To throw out their contribution because they're not sufficiently idealogically pure is very short sited.

Do you believe that a significant portion of the GOP base is unhappy with the Miers nomination?

Yep, that sure shows. However the polls are showing that by roughly 2-1 the conservative base is pretty happy about it, with another 30% or so waiting to see what happens in the hearings.

The interesting thing will be to see how the middle of the senate goes on this. The far right and far right will oppose her, but that's less than 25 votes. It'll be interesting to see how the roughly Feinstein to Lindsay Graham faction, the other 75 votes go.

If not, do you believe that the pundits/bloggers who are openly critical of the nomination - including Rush Limbaugh, National Review, The Wall Street Journal, Bill Kristol, Laura Ingraham, Charles Krauthammer and George Will - are important parts of the GOP's ability to win public issue debates and elections?

But...where will they go. It's not a bad thing to go against the committed every now and then. Rush will not endorse either Clinton or Kerry in 2008, and neither will Kristol. The bigger question is how this will play in the suburbs, with the "soccer moms" and NASCAR dads. And I'm not seeing any uprising at the PTA over nominating a woman that George Will doesn't like.

Do you believe that the GOP is currently heading for a successful 2006 election cycle if it keeps doing the things it has done in 2005, or is a change of course needed to motivate the base and persuade swing voters?

Too early to say. Any political party has to appeal across a wide spectrum to get things done. Bush's numbers are down right now, partially because of Miers, but more so because of hurricaines, gas prices, Iraq, and the fact that he's been in office over 5 years. It'll be interesting to see what happens in the next year. But the evangelical base provides the foot soldiers that are important in an off year election.  They like Miers. A lot.

Do you believe that a defeat for Miers would make it less likely that candidates with no paper trail will be nominated in the future, just as Bork's defeat make it less likely that candidates with extensive paper trails and well-known public positions would be nominated?  Would that be a good thing?

Republicans with paper trails need not apply.  That's been the rule since Thomas, and I don't see that changing in the near future, no matter what happens with Miers.

I have been opposed to H.M. since moment one.  This is clearly a case of "Res ipsa loquitur" as her credentials "speak for themself."

However, I do believe that given the media's desire to stir up problems for conservatives, Rep. Senators might be waiting until after the hearings to state their opposition so they are not accused of failing to give H.M. a fair hearing.  

My position: she needs to step aside prior to the hearings.

and may go down in history as the best QB ever....even better than Marino.  I'd link Miers to a thrid rate QB from a Junior College somewhere in the middle of nowhere.  Even if a Brown or Luttig were not going to be confirmed you still fight the fight and show that you are willing to stand for your principles.  Plus, in an election year I dont believe that the Republican party [as a whole] can afford to let RINOS trump down a Supreme Court nominee because he or she is a "Conservative"....not on a election year.

And that brings me to another issue.  John Roberts.  Isnt he a Conservative? And wasnt he well received and liked by the Reps in the Senate? And arent his views and philosophical somewhat Conservatives? Then, why cant we have a Luttig or a McConnell, with both being just as talented as JGRoberts?

Miers being nominated is like Reagan nominating  Tony Kennedy and overlooking Bob Bork.

Just because this isn't a monarchy does not preclude people from being loyal to others. We didn't elect the President to take a poll and do what it says. We elected him to be a leader and make tough decisions. We may not always agree with him, but since we elected him, he is owed as much loyalty and deference by his partisans as any elected President. As a matter of fact, I'd say we owe him more because of his extensive track record of nominating extremely good judges. In fact, he nominates judges that are so good that the opposition party has to invent new ways to oppose them and defeat their nominations. That said, I still wish he would have nominated Miguel Estrada or Janice Rogers Brown and I still hope that Miers is withdrawn and one of them is nominated in her stead, however, if not, Dubya is still the President and I trust his judgement.

I agree that some partisans want a big fight.  And I am not sure one way or the other. On one hand, a big fight forces senators to spout on about their positions, and exposes their wholehearted sellout to special interests.  I don't care if we loose the first, or second, or third battle.  The whole point is that a majority of Americans want their views represented on the bench.  I don't believe it is possible to just get a confirmation anymore and satisfy the base.  Even Roberts, as brilliant as he is, is still an unknown quantity with regards to core issues.  I don't know where he will come down, but I can infer from his interpretation and apparent originalist stance that he won't stray very far.

But my point is we are stuck with political dinosaurs as far as our representation in the GOP.  They can rationalize their vote (those that were around) for Ginsberg, calling her eminently qualified.  If they understand and are originalists, Ginsberg is completely unqualified.  They don't get it, and apparently the president doesn't get it either.  Socialist liberals are not playing for fun.  As you say, the goal is to win.  And a win is not possible if you don't bring some ammunition to the fight.  Not just getting the confirmation.  That is not victory, especially if our new player brings very little armor and a small gun.

You put Marino behind that expensive front line, and give him four options, instead of two, and he would clean Peyton's clock.  Here are my 22 questions to refute your assertion stating why Manning is not as good as Marino.....

We, at least the conservative part of "we", elected Bush to do a variety of things.

Prosecute to War on Terror vigorously and not back down in Iraq until they can defend themselves and their democracy.  Reduce the size of the federal government (I know, I know).  Appoint officials, especially judges, with a proven track record of judicial thought that supports the idea of "judging" not "legislating from the bench".  Fight for his nominees and get them confirmed.  Protect our borders.

Bush has nominated "extremely good judges."  So what, he let them sit in Congress for years and when finally given a majority in the Senate, he obviously had no plan in place to get them confirmed.  We end up throwing some under a bus to get a few confirmed.  And there is no precident set from that process that will lead to other conservative appellate judges being confirmed.  Bush has presided over a complete spending debacle.  He has yet to veto a bill.  Need I say Medicare Prescription Drug benefit.  Or any of a hundred other things that have done nothing to make us safer (Homeland Security) or get government spending under control.

Bush, with the possible exception of success in the Middle East - and he needs to make his case to the public on a routine basis, this presidency is a disaster.  "We" owe Bush NOTHING!  Last time I looked at the constitution, elected officials serve the people not the other way around.  And, with respect to domestic programs and the size of the federal government, I absolutely do not trust Bush.  While we're at it, his record on appointments and on not firing people who really needed go (Tenent) isn't so great either.

so you are equating getting someone who is arguably, patently unqualified for the position with "winning the championship".  Please.

Peyton Manning and Marino at his best playing for the AZ Cardinals (I live in Phoenix) would still finish next to last.

I don't care what Bush believes about his nominee.  I care what qualifications she can demonstrate.  I have yet to see anything that qualifies her for a seat on the SCOTUS.  Partner in a law firm maybe, but not SCOTUS.

Well, certainly. The Crank has insulted him. Plus, he's participating in a modern-day borking. And also, he's got his facts all wrong. He hopes that President Bush never takes the Crank seriously again.

In fact, screw it. He's done with this site.

Is he even in this thread?  Strange comment.

The sweet mystery of life.

Because then I would have had to smack you.

You have one of the best QB's ever, and yes, it didn't help.  I would say the same for Curt, put him behind five expensive offensive linemen, and give him four real targets, and you could get a ring.  Oh, wait, somebody already did that.  Now somebody is going to start an augment about ratings...

The real championship with regard to the Supreme Court will still take us fifteen years, and thats assuming the current replacement goes right, whoever it is.  And figure in that time that Scalia or Thomas may need to be replaced.  This was a very shortsighted pick for nomination.

On both counts.  In the case of AZ, the only thing that will turn their fortune is a change in ownership.  I beginning to think that the comparison with the Republican Party might be apt...

seems to be bringing a knife to a tank battle.

on Madeline Khan, singing, "OH SWEET MYSTERY OF LIFE AT LAST I'VE FOUND YOU!" while in flagrante delicto with Doctor Frankenstein's (that's pronounced FRONK-en-steen) monster.

Miers deserves a fair up or down vote in the Senate regardless of how she performs in the hearings....  Afterall she is the President's nominee, Right?

1.  How do you think that the choice of a new associate justice will be in affecting the retirement decision of Stevens?
   
   
2. Would replacing O'Connor with a justice of similar legal views be a defeat, if it helped persuade Stevens or Ginsburg to retire?
   
   
3. Since the Civil War, the only twice has a candidate from the same party as a sitting, two-full term president been elected (Bush the Elder and Rutherford B. Hayes).  Does the potential loss of the White House in 2008 give added weight to convincing the most liberal justices to leave?

Please don't kill the messenger-I am throwing this out there because it has been presented as a positive for the Myers nomination.  I've gone from pro-Myers to on the fence, and am interested in thoughts on this angle.

First, My choice was Janice Rogers Brown, yet I also believe that there are many other practical political issues leading to Miers nomination.

"Some conservative/Republican pundits/bloggers honestly believe Harriet Miers would be, for various reasons, a bad Supreme Court Justice. Do you believe those pundits/bloggers should (a) state their concerns publicly, (b) keep their mouths shut, or (c) support her anyway?"

Actually, I belive option 1 is just fine.  Although, IMHO, you did not address what has actually happened.  Stating ones concerns is one thing, a vehiment, vitriolic, character assasination goes far beyond acceptable.  Quite frankly, it is more what I expect of Ralph Nees and Nan Aron, Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin and Chuck Schummer.

"Is the GOP worse off because Ronald Reagan ran a primary campaign in 1976 against a sitting Republican president who then lost the general election by two points?"

Probably not, yet while I liked Reagan in 1976, once the nomination of Ford was decided, I worked for Ford.  Many disappointed conservatives did not.  The result Carter.  Maybe good for the GOP, VERY BAD for the USA.  I realize that is not the point.  Ditto 1992.  GHW Bush made very bad choice, conservatives deserted and result Clinton. Good for GOP, VERY BAD for USA.

"Does it matter if a Supreme Court Justice does not write clear and logical opinions?"

The default answer is yes.  Yet, what is more important is that opinions are written so that "real people" can understand what is going on.  There are hundreds of thousands of pages of opinions written over 200+ years to disect a reasonable clear document of 4000 odd words.

"Does it matter if a Supreme Court Justice does not know constitutional law well enough to avoid writing opinions in one case that will have unexpected bad consequences in other cases?"

Don't know that history has shown that "knowing Constitutional Law well" has necessarily served the country that well.

"Of the three, which should the #1 goal in Supreme Court battles: (a) getting Justices who produce good results, (b) getting Justices who follow good legal reasoning, or (c) getting Justices whose confirmation provides political benefits to the party?"

All three would be nice.  Following good legal reasoning would be a benefit, although I cannot see the benefit of having good legal reasoning reaching a wrong result.

"How important is it that Roe v. Wade or Casey be reversed?"

Would be nice, yet not sure it will ultimately matter.  Medical technology will make it irrelevant in a short period of time.  I think restriction will be the most likely outcome.

"Do you believe that a significant portion of the GOP base is unhappy with the Miers nomination?"

Significant, meaning 50+%, I highly doubt.

"If not, do you believe that the pundits/bloggers who are openly critical of the nomination - including Rush Limbaugh, National Review, The Wall Street Journal, Bill Kristol, Laura Ingraham, Charles Krauthammer and George Will - are important parts of the GOP's ability to win public issue debates and elections?"

Can be, if they can energize the base, although I believe practical, on the ground efforts are what lead to election wins.  I think the 72 hour Get Out the Vote plan was FAR more crucial to Bush's victory in 2004 than all of the pundits combined.

"Do you believe that the GOP is currently heading for a successful 2006 election cycle if it keeps doing the things it has done in 2005, or is a change of course needed to motivate the base and persuade swing voters?"

Should be, yet the chattering class listed above have lead me to decide to follow 1976 and 1992 precident and sit out 2006.  Michael Steele could use my help, but I will leave it up to Laura, Charles, Rush, Bill, George and others to help instead. They are far more influential after all.

"Do you believe that a defeat for Miers would make it less likely that candidates with no paper trail will be nominated in the future, just as Bork's defeat make it less likely that candidates with extensive paper trails and well-known public positions would be nominated?  Would that be a good thing?"

I think practical politics matter, not paper trail or lack thereof.  Currently, it takes 60 votes rather than 50 votes to confirm.  I think this is the "real World" consideration the anti-Miers crowd ignore.  While I would have wished another nominee, NO ONE has made a convincing case that the desired fight would have resulted in confirmation.  The objective of many of the anti-Miers crowd seems to be a fight for the sake of a fight.  Sun Tzu seemed to think that foolhardy.

A question to ponder:  Does it matter whether you are shot in the back by friend or foe; either way you have been shot.  From a foe you expect and are on guard; from a friend likely not.

The anti-Miers crowd believe Bush shot them in the back.  The anti-anti-Miers crowd think the anti-Miers crowd shot them and Bush in the back.  I guess perceptions are everything.

Loyalty is EARNED. As a conservative, it is impossible to be loyal to a "leader" who disrespects the fundamental principles of the Constitution [since when is the Katrina aid Constitutional?...since when are the "new" poverty programmes, that have been proposed, part of the powers of the Congress under Art. 1, Sec. 8?], has aided and abetted a hidden tax increase [AMT], has watched as spending as exploded [without ONE lousy veto], has refused to increase the manpower authorisation for the US military while it fights a war, and tops all of this punching and kicking of conservatives by nominating to SCOTUS someone who, it was obvious, didn't have the first clue as to original intent.

and the only defensible, point for Miers.  However, Bush could still have nominated a qualified candidate.

are a tad fuzzy.

First, while there was some intemperate language, the bottom line is that Bush nominated a clearly unqualified candidate.  It might seem "nasty" to point out that the woman doesn't know much about ConLaw.  From the published examples of her writing and speeches, she express herself unclearly and poorly.  The few positions that anyone has been able to find indicate she is not in the mold of S&T, rather is much closer to SDO'C.  Maybe.  If the argument got hot, blame the White House for a really lousy PR job on her qualifications.

Second, with respect to 1976, JC's election had little or nothing to do with conservatives staying home.  It had more to do with a very aroused Dem base, a general disgust of all things Republican and the fact that Ford was the Harriet Miers of recent presidents.  Carter was a good candidate against Ford because Ford was a simply lousy candidate.

Third, conservatives didn't desert GHWB in 1992 because of his nomination of Souter.  By that point we didn't know much about the man.  We deserted because of "Read my lips..." and the general feeling that GHWB could not be trusted.  The "vision thing" didn't help either.  And by the way, if Perot had not been running I think most conservatives would have voted for GHWB rather than Clinton.

Practical politics and 60 votes in the Senate.  It doesn't take 60 it only takes 50.  If the Dems want to filibuster, haul out the Byrd Option and vote on it.  It is way past time for the Republican leadership - Bush and in Congress to act like the party controls the WH, the Senate and the House.  They don't call us the "Stupid Party" for nothing.  While we're on this subject, there are half a dozen extremely well qualifed candidates (Jones, Luttig, etc) who should be confirmable without a scortched earth policy by Dems.  Remember that the conventional wisdom predicted a huge fight over Roberts.  Qualifications and quality matter.

With respect to "who shot who", leaders define the strategy and the tactics that result in the direction and force of the fire.  No LCpl with an M16 designs the fight until the fight is engaged.  Battlefields are shaped in the HQ tent before the fight, not after the incoming starts.  If the battleplan is poor, expect to have a hard day.  If the battleplan is good, expect to make some changes on the fly but you can also expect to own the field when the day is done.  

Bottom line, blame Bush & Co.  It was their nominee and they had months to plan the battle, to vet the possible nominees, to understand their strengths and weaknesses.  They had the advantage of Roberts walking on water at the hearings and thru the whole process.  They had momentum.  They squandered it.  Don't blame the pundits for that, that is either gross stupidity or very poor leadership.

And nothing more.

Politics is like a pendulum.  When success swings to one side of the political spectrum (as it did with the Roberts confirmation) the pendulum inevitably swings back the other side (as it did with the Miers nomination).  Neither Miers nor Bush nor Andy Card nor anyone else in the White House is to blame for this.

Better that one woman's nomination should die than that an entire nation dwindle under leftist slavery.

The next nominee will be: (1) Every bit as conservative as Ms. Miers, (2) Most likely male, (3) supported by the same groups and individuals who supported John Roberts, and (4) someone who adds to Bush's approval ratings rather than takes away from them.

So the Dems actually wasted political capital attacking a conservative nominee who will be replaced by a conservative nominee.

Great job, Mr. Dean!  Keep smiling as your party struggles with the Green and Reform Parties for second place!

Interested in joining the Pragmatics on this site? I think that, right now, it's just Harold H and I.  But we'd love to have you join us.