Redstate

Even if Miers is for Gay-adoption, what does that have to do with being a good conservative justice?? I guess all those gay-conservatives are just fooling themselves if they thing their is any meaningful place for them in the Republican party!!!

Even if Miers is for Gay-adoption, what does that have to do with being a good conservative justice?? I guess all those gay-conservatives are just fooling themselves if they think there is any meaningful place for them in the Republican party!!!

The report by Ryan Lizza makes an inference not supported by the actual documents.

But RedState, unfortunately, is in my mind earning itself a reputation for being a place where the word "Gay" is a synonym for "Evil."  They're going to have a tough time with Dick Cheney and his daughter, and they're also going to have a tough time with what I think is one of the people Dick Cheney helped advocate for the Supreme Court today.  I'm not happy about it, and I think they're mistaken, but I'm not one of directors.  I've said before that there are people in the Conservative/Republican movement who should support groups like the Log Cabin Republicans.

I was working on a similar diary entry to point out that what this is is TNR's attempt at "mobying" a Supreme Court nominee.  If you read the entire Lizza piece, it's clear that their primary objection to Miers is because she's a "pro-business pick" and because she would probably support the President on his assertion of executive power to prosecute the War.

Realizing that these sorts of things would probably be considered pluses amongst many conservatives, Lizza decided to plant the meme that she was somehow "socially liberal" by distorting an ABA reported the listed issues to be voted on in order to imply the Miers had recommended any of those resolutions (knowing full well that it says nothing of the sort) in an effort to turn social conservatives against this nominee.

Unfortunately the Directors at Red State and Confirm Them seem to have fallen for it and have unwittingly helped Lizza and The New Republic in smearing Bush's nominee.

I know it will knock mine off the recommended list but what Harold has done in correcting some false information put out by TNR (and unfortunately that was swallowed hook, line, and sinker by The Directors) is exactly the sort of thing that we need to be doing in the blogosphere.

I don't care whether you end up supporting or opposing Meirs' nomination but we cannot allow these sorts of smear attacks to go unchallenged and we must hold our own accountable when they buy into it.

While it was certainly blown out of proportion, on its face the report is not an impartial listing of topics for discussion.  The report specifically "recommends" and "supports" various stances-- which it would not technically have to do, were its goal to simply introduce the issues.

that it is unclear what role, if any, Miers had in determining these recommendations.  She was the Chair on the board that compiled the report, so presumably she would have had some power to determine what got in and what didn't, but for all we know the process could have been a simple rubber stamp.

If you look at the report, you'll see that the words "recommends" and "supports" along with "amends" and "recommendation" are a description of the resolutions and their effect and not a suggestion by the Select Committee.

I'm in favor of gay adoptions.

They didn't help us when we needed them most, so they along with Andrew Sullivan and the rest of the Rinos have no claim on expecting any favors now.

On the other hand, the 23 percent of Americans who happen to be gay and voted to reelect George W Bush - they deserve the same level of respect as the rest of our coalition and I'm all for finding some compromise that prevents the courts or any one State from redefining "civil marriage" for the nation which is why I favor the Hatch Amendment.  

It would leaves the definition of "civil marriage" solely up to the State legislatures and doesn't require States to recognize "civil marriages" that aren't between a man and a woman.  It also doesn't forbid civil unions nor any State from changing its definition of "civil marriage" if it wishes to so long as it's done by the democratically-elected legislature and other States are free to recognize them or not.