"Indeed, when the Dallas Morning News once asked Ms. Miers to finish the sentence, "Behind my back, people say . . .," she responded, ". . . they can't figure me out."

Doesn't necessarily mean she doesn't have strong core values, only that they don't all fall under one color of the political spectrum. My old TV producer boss used to say the exact same thing about me at least once a week. :)

I don't see a problem with someone in there who doesn't wear her politics on her sleeve. Maybe she'll actually rule based on constitutionality and common sense... which would be a nice change of pace.

I have no political loyalty to Bush. I find myself defending him constantly, only because the opposition to him tends to be so deranged. I'm anti-idiotarian, not pro-Bush. So the concerns about Bush's political fortunes don't mean much to me, especially since he's not able to run for re-election anyhow.

Maybe Miers is great. I don't know. But frankly, I'm sick of all this stealth business. For example, I'd like to know that a judge has a sensible opinion on the legality of Roe v Wade which is a separate issue from their opinion on the morality of abortion. For me, the ability to intelligently distinguish these separate issues is, yes, a "litmus test", that dreaded phrase. If somebody says, "I support Roe v Wade because I support abortion rights", they're out. If somebody says "I oppose Roe v Wade because I oppose abortion", they're out too.

I don't want a "liberal" or "conservative" supreme court. I want a supreme court that does its job and leaves the right-wing/left-wing stuff for congress, where it belongs.

Sigh. If only Miers was an enigma wrapped in a riddle shrouded by a mystery folded in a tortilla smothered in pepper jack cheese.

THEN I might like her.

Maybe.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Well said, Kevin. Now we are clear on where you stand.

But getting back to the Miers nomination: What is John Fund proposing we do?

Kevin brings up an excellent point. Bush's political future and popularity are less important than the conservative agenda. Especially since, as Ace points out, we are dealing with the Court that "decide[s] this country's most important cases of constitutional law."

Bush will be long gone while Miers is still casting her opinion and vote on the Court. We need a solid Constitutionalist on the Court, not another O'Connor. It's time to tell Senator Lindsay "light in the loafers" Graham to shut-up and listen to us. Reject Miers and insist that Bush nominate a better candidate for the Court.

I voted for Bush for two main reasons:
1) So John Kerry and his assholes in his cabinet wouldn't get chummy with the UN and backtrack on Iraq and terror, thus causing the deaths and maming of our soldiers to be in vain. And,
2) To allow Bush to pick 2 or possibly 3 justices for the Court and not have to live with Kerry's picks: Dershowitz, Tribe, Clinton, or whoever.

Barbwire Mike: Maybe she'll actually rule based on constitutionality and common sense... which would be a nice change of pace.

It's that first word that causes all the problems

SJK: I want a supreme court that does its job and leaves the right-wing/left-wing stuff for congress, where it belongs.

That is the right-wing position on the judiciary.

There's a difference between not knowing how a future justice will rule on a specific issue and not having any judicial philosophy we can discern. John Roberts was an experienced litigator, a judicial scholar, and a fair judge with a definable jurisprudence he could - and eventually did - defend with distinction. Even if he doesn't rule my way every time (probably a smart thing), I'm convinced he'll explain to me why he thinks I'm wrong, and in a way that won't leave me scratching my head wondering what planet he's from. Even the support for Miers suggests she has none of these qualities - we're all but told she has no opinion on anything beyond agreeing with George Bush and her evangelical church. Sorry, my support for and trust in the president goes far, but not that far. If Miers' supporters want to trust that she'll rule conservative because she's a simpleton, that's their right. I say "no".

We need a solid Constitutionalist on the Court, not another O'Connor

I don't recall, did Reagan get this kind of grief from the pundits for his O'Connor nomination? I know everyone has erased this from their memory as they bash Bush. This goes along with their other memory lapse that Reagan actually gave amnesty to illegal aliens. This is the other hammer the critics use to bash Bush while at the same time lauding Reagan as the greatest conservative ever.

"Indeed, when the Dallas Morning News once asked Ms. Miers to finish the sentence, "Behind my back, people say . . .," she responded, ". . . they can't figure me out."

Sounds like a flippant answer to a dumbass question.

How soon we forget ...

How close we came ...

Twice ...

To snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

And yet we keep trying.

This post states much more elegantly than I could write how I feel about this whole bagodonuts.

http://skymusings.blogspot.com/2005/10/misunderstimation-and-bigger-picture.html

But here we're talking about someone who decide this country's most important cases of constitutional law for 10 or 15 years.

Out of 80 cases last term, 33 dealt with con law and 25 dealt with business law, Miers area of expertise.

The stakes are huge, but that doesn't change the topography where we are fighting. Seems to me we have a threshhold question about what our options actually are. Going non-stealth ensures, IMHO, a filibuster. Worth the fight if we can ultimately win, but we don't have the votes for cloture. That means changing the rules on cloture. Sadly, as we recently saw, we have too many RINOs to pull that off too.

That leaves stealth and "trust me." Bush has made a good number of appointments. Did he betray us or does he deserve -- or at least have to get -- the moment of trust? He's not my kind of conservative, but where he's wrong (education, welfare, and other reckless nanny state spending) he's always been upfront about it.

I'll grit my teeth for now and watch the hearings.

OMG SHES A SPY FOR AL QAEDA

Well, there you go. On top of being minimally qualified, Miers is working for Al Qaeda.
What more do we need to reject this farce of a nomination? I know I'm right beacause that geriatric retard, Barbara Mikulski, supports Ms. Miers.

Miers must withdraw.

Dman's argument is ridiculous: O'Connor hadn't yet set her own precedent for turning (partly) to the dark side; nor had Reagan won victories in *three consecutive elections* on a promise to appoint ultra-conservative textualist judges.

Agent: at least three from the Gang of 14 promised to nuke on an ideological filibuster on SCOTUS. Your argument's a straw man.

Dman's argument is ridiculous: O'Connor hadn't yet set her own precedent for turning (partly) to the dark side; nor had Reagan won victories in *three consecutive elections* on a promise to appoint ultra-conservative textualist judges.

Mr. Someone - O'Connor's conservative credentials were no more evident than Miers. I would also kindly request you point me in the direction where I can find that quote from Bush about the promise you listed. Even if I concede that promise was made, I don't see where he has broken it absent your present opinion of Miers. Any particular judge you had in mind?

I would freakin' LOVE the Democrats to filibuster, especially if they do it to a nominee who's female and/or a minority. Come on, Crats, show the people your ugly, hypocritical, sneering face...again.

I wasn't spoiling for a fight on this, but if Bush picked Miers to avoid a fight then it shows what spineless weenies he and the Republican party have become.

Later,
bbeck

Heh.

bbeck, I was spoiling for a fight. I don't know if Bush is just avoiding a fight or avoiding one he can't win cause McCain-types would hang him out to dry.

Texas Dave, if McCain did that, then it would give the real Republicans an excuse to kick the living crap out of him and those other 6 sell-outs. Goodness knows he's been asking for it for a LOOONNNG time.

And if we lose, we lose. Until the next time.

Later,
bbeck

"Hugh Hewitt argued that opposing Miers would politically injure Bush. Maybe. But even if he winds up politically crippled, this seems too important."

The second statement seems to completely miss Hewitt's point (with which I am not necessarily in agreement). If Bush is politically crippled, where does that leave him for the next nominee? We got Anthony Kennedy because when Robert Bork got, uh, Borked, Reagan had to dial things back.

I don't care one way or the other about Bush's political capital per se, but it's that political capital that has to move a nominee through the Senate. If Meirs goes down in flames, the Hewitt argument seems to run, Bush will have no choice but to replace her with another Kennedy, Souter, O'Conner, Stevens, take your pick.

That's an argument for Bush to have nominated a strict and well-known conservative. He or she might not have made it through the Senate, but then a stealth candidate would have served as plan B. By picking the stealth candidate as plan A, he's got no fall-back position that puts a Sure Thing Conservative on the bench.

"Texas Dave, if McCain did that, then it would give the real Republicans an excuse to kick the living crap out of him and those other 6 sell-outs."

Excuse, sure, but would it actually happen? Length of tenure equals politcal clout, political clout equals more pork for your state, and more pork for your state means incumbency protection. There are Republicans in Nevada who don't want to boot Democrat Harry Reid, bad as he is, because Reid's clout can benefit Nevada regardless of his obstructionism or his ideology. How much worse if the pol who deserves to get the boot is at least nominally Republican?

Yes, you and I and other conservative bloggers think McCain needs to go, and especially if he blocks strict constructionists in the Senate in a bid to placate lunatic Democrats. But would the Republicans in Arizona mount a serious challenge to him? For now, at least, I just don't see that happening.

I'm listening to Fund on the radio whine about how Republican presidents always screw up USSC nominations. Sorry, but I think the picks were bad because they pandered to the dems and pandered to the whiners in the republican party.

No, Sobek, I don't mean kick McCain out of office (although that would be nice), I mean kick him and this Group of 14 in the teeth. Who are THEY to usurp the power of the entire Congress? Push these political traitors out into the limelight and freaking crucify them for opposing a legitimate, qualified, possibly minority nominee. Sure, it may not WORK, but these wads need to understand that their power play will not be tolerated by the rest of us, and if they're going to behave like Democrats we need to start treating them like Democrats.

Either way, Bush shouldn't be afraid of them.

Later,
bbeck

Hewitt and Beldar are kicking Fund's ass. Fund is losing it.

at least three from the Gang of 14 promised to nuke on an ideological filibuster on SCOTUS.

If you are talking about Roberts, I counted 2 1/2. (McCain straddled.) And that was for a guy who looked brilliantly well suited on on his resume but didn't have a paper trail to roast him over. Easy gig, politically. Only Graham and DeWine said they thought he would not qualify as an "exceptional circumstance."

The way I count the GOP side of the Gang of 14, we'd need Warner or DeWine to join Graham. McCain can only to be counted on to play ball if it means good press -- which it wouldn't if a well-papered Scalia II came up.

Let's say DeWine and Graham both want to play ball since they said they were willing to do it for an easier nomination. Cheney could break the tie but the White House would have toasted its remaining political capital at a time BS political indictments are in the air and the Dems are gearing up for a massive "personal destruction" campaign in hopes of not being embarassed in two consecutive off year elections. An unpopular White House spells doom for off year elections and both men know it, so playing it this way would cost them their RINO-filled margin and possibly the majority.

Bad ju-ju.

I'm also assuming that all of the 48 who didn't join the G-14 would stay on the rez. Elections are just a year away and we have enough squishes that I doubt this bears up under close inspection.

I figure Bush has a weak hand in the Senate and you play 'em the way they get dealt. I don't like it, but the realities are what they are.

"squishes"

Hate speech!

/better inside the tent pissing out ...