Redstate

If Miers votes to overturn Roe v. Wade won't Harry Reid have some 'splaining to do?

Hugh Hewett said this the best: "The Miers nomination is turning into a Rorschach test dividing conservatives into the camp that understands governing for the long term and those that are so emotionally fragile or contingent in their allegiance that anything they (1) don't understand or (2) disappoints in any way becomes an occasion for panic and declarations of irreparable injury."

From this data. Polling practically compels respondents to comment about issues that they know almost nothing about. One of the common criticisms of Miers is that we don't know much about her, and that certainly seems true. Why then poll people about something that they can't possibly know?

I'm also skeptical of the Roberts polling, and for similar reasons. I wonder if there is before and after confirmation hearings data. That only 51% of those polled thought that Roberts was qualfied demonstrates either very faulty polling or profound ignorance, or maybe both.

I'm frankly afraid to see the piece of rhetorical trash you'd give a poor review.

What your liberal friends are saying now when Roe gets overturned and burning the flat becomes illegal and the court upholds it.

They will be complaining and throwing things around and you can sit back and enjoy.

I have just today started searching the Web for possible explanations for Republicans jumping ship at the first sight of an iceburg.

The Miers nomination is turning into a Rorschach test alright, but it is dividing conservatives into those who blindly pledge fealty to POTUS and those who remain committed to the underlying philosophy that makes us conservative in the first place.  The angst on the part of those in the second category is understandable because Bush has chosen to ignore an important aspect of the conservative agenda.  Just because some people are willing to stand by their captain as the ship sinks doesn't mean they are better sailors than those who work to save the ship before it sinks. The best thing for party loyalists to do is to stand by Bush even when he is wrong.  The best thing for conservatives to do is to work to fix the problem Bush has created to ensure a more qualified candidate takes her place.

I'm disapointed Rush doesn't yet see the beauty of this and the not so secure 50 votes needed.

I don't so much denigrate those that are in a funk, but I have learned a lot about Bush's wisdom and beltway elitism.

Its very intersting. At first I was disapointed because I wanted it be someone I knew of. But then, I thought of all the times I've said to myself how much talent and wisdom out in the country goes un tapped due to the ivy league bias and chattering class self contained universe.

Being a southerner, some of this elitism, not all, and even by people I love, is a bit familiar to me. But Dubya understands that world on tv and radio and washington are not the whole world. And God knows, Washington needs a good Texas woman!

I have noticed that women are much less likely to object to the nomination than men

I have observed this as well.

Even if the loyalty to the president is true - and I don't know that it is - you have no basis on which to claim those opposed to Miers are "committed to the underlying philosophy that makes us conservative in the first place."

What position has she ever taken that is opposed to conservatism?

The strongest argument you can make based on the facts that are known is that you don't "feel" that she would be conservative.

She has NOT taken any public positions to determine, one way or another?

even if they overturn roe, abortion will still be

legal in a majority of the states.i`m a moderate on

social issues and think overturning roe will bring

the democrats back to power. i think bush knows this and really deep down  doesn`t want to overturn it no matter what he says.

we are concerned.  We conservatives are also not party loyalist that will snap to attention and salute just because the leader said to do so.  

I've agreed with Bush on 90% of the issues.  That's why I've voted and supported him in the past (along with other Repbulicans).  And, yes, I've given him the benefit of the doubt on other smaller issues.  After all, not even an evangelical Christian is perfect!  But on the SCOTUS nominations, I'm less apt to give him a pass and drink the kool aid.  Sorry to tell the party loyalists out there, but I'm actually going to hold him to his promise and critically analyze his nominee(s).  God forbid!  Apparently, others out there are doing the same thing and have come to similar conclusions (see generally El Rushbo).

I'm simply not willing to take the RISK, again, on such a key nomination.  And, I suggest the party loyalists out there do the same.  Otherwise, you may get another O'Connor.  And, if the abortion issue is so important to you, you'll be stuck with it for another 15-20 years and you'll have nobody to blame but yourself.

Part of what I view as being conservative is rolling back the tide of judicial activism that gained so much momentum under the Warren Court.  In promising to name a Scalia or Thomas, Bush was, at least implicitly, promising to put forth candidates that could change the legal culture through superior intellectual power and persuasion - not just nominate a candidate that will vote the way a conservative would like.  As Frum and Will point out in their respective pieces today, Miers is not equipped to do this.  Even leaving aside the absent Ivy League credentials, Miers has never demonstrated the type of intellectual accomplishment necessary to move the legal culture (as opposed to just the SC) to the right.  I have not heard anyone suggest that she is in the same league as a Roberts, a Scalia, or a Holmes.  In terms of proof that she will not vote they way a conservative would like, we will indeed have to wait and see.  However, so many of her core values have evolved throughout her life that I am not confident that she is immune from further "growth" on the court. She has been a Democrat for longer than she has been a Republican and her approach to various societal issues appears to still be developing. This is not the type of person Bush promised and it is not descriptive of what conservatives have been working so hard to put on the SC.

nomination that is dividing conservatives, but abortion.  It seems that many of the supporters of the POTUS are not necessarily conservatives, but simply pro-life (ie single issue voters), while many of us are strong fiscal conservatives and see the POTUS as more of a "vote getter" than a true conservative.  What you see in this nomination is that both sides of the Republican encampment are worried.  The multi-issued conservatives are worried that Ms. Miers is not qualified or up to the challenges of the SCOTUS and is merely a crony pick.  The abortion foes are very worried that she may not be for overturning Roe, as she has no paper trail on the issue.  Thus, this nomination is scaring alot of Republican voters.

The most interesting number there is that 72% of Republicans think the nomination is a excellent or good idea. Obviously some really vocal ones think it's bad both nationally and on the internet. But in the beginning they seem to be in the minority.

The other interesting piece of information would have been whether the opinion of Roberts gained or fell among Democrats as the process continued. My guess is that Miers has more room to advance in that column then he did.

I'm still taking the over against Roberts 78 confirmation votes.

So, all these people freaking out about how Miers is a horrible, terrible, no good very bad candidate, and what do you have to show for it?

7% of the population who thought Roberts was great now thinks that Miers is only fair.  

Is it too much to ask that we actually know what her views are?

Sorry, but "trust me" has gotten us some horrible nominees in the past.

With 55 Republican seats in the Senate, this is not the time to nominate a stealth nominee.

Reid is, supposedly, pro-life.  Obviously he values a lot of things more than that, but I doubt he'd be broken up to see Roe overturned.

fair enough?

55 of which 7 are more loyal to a cabal with 7 dems, and with some that voted agianst bork and thomas!!!

Maybe we need to fight this out in senate races first and even primaries gainst incumbent lib repubs.

Or maybe the next nominee

I just think that the BEST evidence is Bush's close relationship and appointment. Better than writings, court decisions or testimony.

I know many people with paper trails that share similar views with those that have no paper trail who i would choose based on personal knowledge that causes me to trust them more and seein g the emotion and powewr of their views in the advocacy in a group.

many great conservatives don;'t have paper trails

I think Liberals are flummoxed on Miers, but on a certain level have made the following calculus:

They assume Bush is going to put a conservative on the court, and if Bush is smart about it they can't stop him (a la Roberts).  At least with Miers they can content themselves with her mediocrity and point to her as an embarassment to the court if she does turn out to be a "reliable" conservative vote.  The upside, is she may not be a "reliable" conservative vote.  Further, she is at best thinly qualified, and the cronyism charge has merit.  In short they can have fun with this nomination today and tomorrow, and still hold out hope that it won't have the devastating effect that they feared.

Now the Republican loyalist are seeking comfort in poll numbers?  This from an administration that doesn't govern by polls!  On top of that, CNN poll numbers?  Ha!  That's funny!

For arguments sake, I'll join you in this fantasy and play along that these poll numbers are accurate.  29% of conservatives think its a fair or POOR choice.  How much did Bush win the last election by?  What would happen if 29% or even 5% of the conservatives don't show up in '06?  

A true reflection of the discontent is not to be found in a CNN poll number.  Look at Rush.  Look at Kristol.  Look at Will.  Look at Coulter.  Look at Buchannan.  Look at Weyrich.  Look at Brownback.  Look at Operation Rescue.  Did you see this with Roberts?

Harry followe his heart this week. He truly likes this woman. I suspect he will be spoken to by the money people soon for the anti christian attack. Its so sad to see otherwise good people sell their soul to that party.

Why show your cards so early? If you're still miffed after more research, the committee hearings, etc. then let it rip. But in the mean time doesn't it make sense to let the Dems make the next move?

If Miers had any sense of loyalty to the party, she would withdrawal her name from consideration now.  There are two important cases pending at the end of November (parental notification and partial birth abortion), and the last thing we need is O'Connor still on the bench when those decisions are handed down.  Waiting for the confirmations hearings to opine that Miers is not qualified means starting from scratch with a new nominee during the holiday season and not getting someone on the bench to replace O'Connor until late February or early March -- which is when some of these early decisions begin getting handed down. The best case scenario is that the decision in these cases has not been published by then, meaning that O'Connor's vote would not count and they could rehear the oral arguments before rendering a new decision.  Either way, it places conservatives in an untenable position with some hugely important cases on the line. I still can't believe that Bush put us in this position. Normally he gets the important decisions right -- not this time.

By that time, I'll be too late, don't you think?  Here's going to be her response in committee:  "I can't comment on a case that might come before the court."

The only two things in her favor at this point is this:  (1) Bush knows her and (2) she carried a gun.  Other than that, everything is a question mark.

I'm not willing to settle for a question mark.  So, I hope that the Republican Senators step up and hold Bush accountable.  

It be great if she came out before hand and would say that Roe is not good law, that affimative action has run its course, that taking property for business use is absurd, etc. You know who have done these things?  Brown, Luttig, and Owens.

My goal is not political.  I could care less about Dems and Republicans.  I want justices who are originalists.  I want a debate on issues.  If Bush made a mistake, I'm going to let him know about it.  And, I'm going to ask my Senators to step up and take the lead if he is unwilling to do so as a lame duck.  

 

Hmmm.

Or it could be a way of discerning the difference between those that will swallow anything the GOP decides to pour down their throats and those that won't blindly follow whatever nonsense the GOP throws at them.

Or perhaps it's the difference between those that are permanently on their knees and those that are willing to stand on their feet.

Or perhaps it's some other idiotic platitude.

I hope that the Republican Senators step up and hold Bush accountable?

The fact that Republican senators won't stand up for your position is the problem in the first place. If we had 50 Republican senators with cajones Bush could pick the person of your dreams and ram that person down their thoats. But we don't have those senators. Who are you going to complain to, Arlen Specter? Susan Collins?

She not going to tell you what you want to hear in the hearings.  If you listen to her carefully, I can almost guarantee that she will not say whether she'll overturn Roe.  She'll say more or less the same thing Roberts did, which is "I can't tell you how I'll vote on it, but I respect precedent generally, blah blah blah."  

She'd be nuts to tell the Senators anything different.  Doing so would trigger a surefire filibuster and the probable defection of some pro-abortion (sorry, "pro-choice") Republican Senators to vote against her.

The problem with a nominee who hasn't been a leading conservative lawyer is that almost no one knows what she really thinks.  With Roberts, and with a bunch of other candidates like Luttig and McConnell, a lot of conservatives know them, they have a track record, and we pretty much know what to expect.  It's unlikely they will switch course.  

Here, we're relying on the say-so of a handful of people... the last time we relied on the say-so of a handful of close Bush advisers, we ended up with a Souter.

Now, I personally don't think she's a Souter.  She's a born-again Christian from Texas.  She worked for Bush.  These are signals that she's OK.  But signals aren't enough.  Souter was also a Republican, from a liberarian-Republican state which has given us some fine Republicans in the past (and continues to do so with its two excellent Senators, the only non-RINOs from that region).

All I'm saying is that I'm nervous.  With 55 votes in the Senate, this is not the time to take a risk.  

It wouldn't be the first time...

I don't pay attention to people who can't put together a real argument.

and appelate court judges follow precedent.

So the only acceptable nominee is on e that says he will overturn roe?

Your criteria "leading conservative lawyer" contradicts your fear of a filibuster. Since that person would have already said what you don't want miers to say?

reagan and 41 did not know their betrayers

reagan knew meese

43 knows miers and so do others that vouch for her

this is precisely the least risky nomination since bork

Based on whether or not she says Roe should be overturned.  I want to hear a clear and convincing statement as to what she believes the job of a judge is and how she will weigh the arguments in front of her.

If she persuades me that she is comfortable and confident in the rightful role of the judicial branch, I'm on her side.

The cases will change through the years, the job of the judicial branch will not.

All I want or need from GWB's appointees is a respect for the rights of the people to elect their representatives.

Supposedly, those of us who believe that Americans are competent to rule themselves call ourselves Rs.  I've always thought of the Ds as the Ivory Tower Elitists.

Bush was, at least implicitly, promising to put forth candidates that could change the legal culture through superior intellectual power and persuasion

I think not.  He didn't implicitly say anything.  He said he wanted people who would not legislate from the bench and used Scalia and Thomas as examples.  He didn't mention "intellectual power".

Miers is not equipped to do this.

This is just flat out presumptuous.  She seems perfectly intelligent to me and many others.  SMU or not.

However, so many of her core values have evolved throughout her life that I am not confident that she is immune from further "growth" on the court.

As near as I can tell, your only evidence of any "growth" relates to her conversion to Christianity (which, as a Christian, I won't hold against her) and some contributions to Texas Ds years ago (which may or may not have been due to her position in the real world as a skid greaser).  If you have more evidence, let me know.  If not, I think it is unfair to paint her as a moral squish because of this.

former dem who converted at a mature age. She is her evolved self. Pretty normal to grow into conservatism. It does cause me to look back in awe of those that were so enlightened at earlier stages!

Insightful post. Being a former elitist leftist in my own eyes and being disgusted post epiphany, it has been amazing to see elitism rear its head in my new party. And even by my icons like Rush to a certain extent, but more by others and to see that they don't even realize it!! Its study in human nature.

In fairness, conservative elitists are no where nean as bad as aflicted liberals, except for the faint whiff of dare I say, could I be right...sectional bigotry?? I don't know. I just was amazed at some posts last week that flatly stated that a significant percentage of the midwest US are bigoted against the particular accent of haley barbour. wow

I guess a lot of Americans got a complex back when the South went thru our growth. Maybe we passed a lot of Americans thru growth from suffering!