I take comfort in Beldar's explications of the qualifications of Justice, err Judge, err Mrs. Harriet Meyers, Esquire.

Ms. Meyers.

Sorry.

The bloggers who have been piling on Bush and Ms. Miers have got a lot of nerve complaining about overly quick attacks on our "political brethren". How about giving her a fair hearing?

Ace,

I think there's more to the elitism argument than you're willing to grant, Ace, but it's not the usual "be off with you peasants" category usually dished out by the Left. There are many strains of political thought at play within the Miers imbroglio:

1. Ivy League conservatism. Basically, if you ain't from Harvard or Yale, you aren't fit to be on the SCOTUS. Say what you want -- the stench of Ivy League elitism wafts through a lot of the legal commentary on this issue. The arguments always say stuff like, "Well, I'm sure she's a fine lawyer, but she's not exactly a Law Review alum, is she?" It's a bullshit argument.

2. "Buckley" conservatives, "Buchanan" conservatives, and the rest of the right. Buckleyites like Ponnuru seem to object to the Miers confirmation per se -- they don't object to Miers as such (in fact they go out of their way to say that she's undoubtedly conservative), but they want someone more conservative. This seems to fly in the face of the argument that we don't want someone who "legislates from the bench"; to use political conservatism as the sole determinator for SCOTUS nomination is no different than requiring a liberal outlook for the SCOTUS. In short, I think a lot of the Buckleyites object to Miers for political rather than legal reasons, which is bogus. The Buchananite paleoconservatives object on "purer" grounds, but still political: the paper trail is too thin to convince them that she's truly conservative.

3. Fight club. Seriously, lots of conservatives (including me, I admit) were spoiling for a fight with the Democrats over this issue. I was foursquare in favor of getting Luttig in front of the Senators and letting the Democrats bloviate themselves into a disaster. However, I think that George Bush was seeing a lot softer support among the Senators for the big names like Luttig and Brown, making confirmation of these justices a dicier bet. I think he did the calculus of trying to get a Luttig past the Senate and all the political dirty laundry that would entail, and just didn't think he had the Senate support to push it through. It sucks, but it's reality: too many RINOs (including the Gang of Seven) are "what if" votes on the more conservative judges.

4. The ideological divide within the "conservative coalition". Most of the (Republican) voting public trusts W to do the right thing, and that includes picking SCOTUS justices. It's the pundit class (and I include bloggers here) who are up in arms. There is a lot of fear amongs the opinionators that we will get "Soutered", but this fear seems profoundly unwarranted. Miers might not be my favored pick, but she's certainly not another David Souter.

The elitism I see here is implicit: the pundits all moan about "judicial activism" when it's liberal activism, but they complain now that Miers might not be conservative enough, when they ought be asking (as Bork has said) how she interprets the constitution. "Conservatism" is politics, and I don't want SCOTUS mucking around in partisan politics; "strict constructionism" is a constitutional approach, and is (in my view) the way the SCOTUS needs to go.

Bloggers stay in, uh, "business" because they get readers. Or at least, that's how they gain visibility which allows them to appear on pseudo-polls such as this.

In other words, a poll of right-wing bloggers is really an indirect measure of what right-wing heavy internet users think. And blog readers are not a typical cross-section at all.

I don't really have a point. An argument stands or falls on its own merit. Some of the opposition to Miers is no doubt based on elitism. Much of it just isn't, and those arguments should be addressed, not dismissed.

Still, watching the right tear itself apart (Schiavo part deux!) is kinduv funny. It wouldn't be funny if the democrats had any chance of picking up the pieces and actually winning. But, you know, given that they don't (lacking any actual ideas or, you know, popular appeal)... have at it, wingnuts! Purge the traitors in your midst!!!

(Now pass the popcorn. I've already taken care of the beer, thanks.)

Sigh. I just read over what I wrote and it's just as big a pile of shit as I expected it would be. I should stick to the Zombie and poetry threads; political commentary isn't my strength. Feel free to disregard the whole stupid rant.

Huh. Strange that in the comments of your last two posts on Miers: Bloggers Overwhelmingly Against Miers and The Miers Cipher -- Conservatives Are Right To Be Wary -- no one mentioned elitism or even implied it. People did find it strange that 79 bloggers (Or was it even less than 79?) have been described as “overwhelming.”

Really, I am so goddamned tired of this phony elites-vs.-the-commoners argument.

Then stop making it.

"I don't really have a point."

Then stop talking until you do.

It's tough to be a conservative in a culture dominated by liberals. I don't know if Miers is a conservative at all.

I don't know if you are a conservative at all. You say you are. But, who knows the real AoS? Hell, how many people here could pick you out of a lineup?

Certainly I know that, if she is a conservative at all, she's been too ashamed to say so in public.

Well, Ace, being the president's right hand woman for 10 years does seem to be an outward manifestation of one's political beliefs.

I know, I know, you'll try to argue the fact that appearances aren't everything, that even though you occassionally partake in man-love does not mean you're gay. But, really, ace, who you kidding?

Which makes me less than optimistic she will resist the blandishments of super-liberal DC dinner-party culture.

Okay, you're spinning what someone else said. It was silly when they said it, it's silly when you say it, too.

While I would have preffered a Luttig, Brown or Jones
nomination, people are overlooking the fact that
there is absoulutly no guidline in the constitution for the selection of a SC justice. Bush could have selected a cashier from keyfood grocery store. While people keep on muttering about her not having been a jurist or not having witten extensively about thorny constitutional issues, the main thing to keep in mind is that this is the presidents pick, I trust him he has not been wrong in his lower court picks. She will get a hearing in the Judiciary committee and we will hopefully get a feeling for what she is made of.

Well, I made, or rather agreed with, the
"elitist pigs!" argument; but not on Ace's site, unless pointing out that (as no-name at 9:17pm said) a handful of bloggers among all the millions in existence isn't exactly "overwhelming" and that all it shows is how full of ourselves we can get ("Look ma! I'm on the internet!" "The what?" "The internet." "Oh. That's nice dear.") is accusation of elitism. Delusions of elitism? Maybe. Delusions of grandeur? Closer. The sting of the actual experience of feeling your ego deflate as it becomes obvious that if the president or his advisors read rightwing blogs they apparently decided to discount all our helpful suggestions as to how to run the country? That sounds more like it.

"I don't really have a point."

Then stop talking until you do.

I'd feel better about trusting the president's pick if Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer weren't so damned gleeful about it. (The pick itself, not the Conservative reaction.)

I still think Bush only picked her because he didn't feel like fighting for a real conservative.

What I do find interesting about this whole episode is that it's taking place almost exclusively within the conservative ranks. I think Mark Steyn already said it: the Democrats aren't even contributing to the debate anymore. The conservatives -- paleocons, neocons, libertarians, fiscal hawks, warhawks -- represent the whole spectrum and argue (in a healthy way, I think) amongst themselves. The Leftist-infected democratic party can only stand to the side and glare. No one's asking the Dems what they think because they know that they'll hate whomever W. picks; it's as inevitable as the tides. But the center-right political spectrum, previously united by the war and the effort to get W. a second term, is showing some fault-lines.

I guess I don't get angry at this SCOTUS thing because ultimately I think it's a hopeful sign. It means that conservatives are paying attention, and that it's not all just lip service. It is still about ethics and ideals as well as realpolitik, and that gladdens my shriveled cynical soul.

What's with the wierd colon invasion of late?

V the K: That, plus cronyism.

I'd feel better about trusting the president's pick if Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer weren't so damned gleeful about it. (The pick itself, not the Conservative reaction.)

But, the only reason the dems *appear* to be so damn gleeful is because of the conservative reaction.

Andrea,

How the hell do you get that bloggers are deflated that Bush isn't listening to us? Who the hell thought he would?

It's not like bloggers are alone on this. Let's see: Most conservative pundits, including Rush Limbaugh, Wm. Kristol. Ann Coulter, Charles Krauthammer, George Will, etc., plus, oh, half the Republicans in the Senate and a high percentage of actual Republican voters.

You're making this into some kind of elite opinion makers vs. the voters-- which is absurd. You think the GOP base is happy about this? Polls suggest otherwise.

For what it's worth, I think Ace has a pretty good read on the situation. The elitist charge was b/s to begin with. Conservatives want a proven quantity. We've been burned too many times in the past. "Stealth" nominee? Thanks, send 'em to the farm team. We're talking the Supreme f'n Court! Give us a tried and true conservative nominee (that means "strict constructionist" to those in cheap seats).

(see, that's elitist)

I'm most upset about the fact that this whole "stealth" b/s has set the conservative (or strict constructionist) movement back more than if Schumer et al. had defeated three frickin' nominees in a row. In essence, young, intelligent conservative legal minds will now keep their head down, keep their real views secret because you never know what will happen down the road.

Obviously, no Republican President is gonna ask you to serve on the S. Ct. Hell, he might just send you to the minors in order to pad his record so he can get his buddies on the really important court.

Miers may be the end all, be all of conservative jurisprudence. NOBODY KNOWS. But like Ace says, she's never had the spine (or character) to come out of the closet and make even make a conservative legal argument... ever. EVER!!!

Sorry, but we don't need that kind of help. We been burned too many times. I could see a "stealth" nominee if the Senate was infiltrated with 60 frickin' Democrats, but now? When it matters? The Supreme Court? With 55 R's in the Senate. Beam me up!
/rant>

As a run-of-the-mill litigator, I do think that it doesn't take an ivory tower jurist to figure out what the Constitution says, but I also think that this elitist claim is nonsense. I don't like the Miers nomination because everything I learn about her record as a lawyer tells me that she isn't the one to stand in the breach and do the right thing when it's called for.

For what it's worth, I think Ace has a pretty good read on the situation. The elitist charge was b/s to begin with.

Really? I think he's hallucinating. A couple of days ago there were comments as to elitism in response to people saying “she didn't go to Harvard” therefore she's not qualified. That *is* elitist.

But ace is alleging that the negative responses to his blogger's poll post were based on some charge of elitism. That is pure b.s. Talk about setting up a fk'n strawman. Jeesh.

I don't think that Ace ever said that Miers shouldn't be confirmed cause she didn't go the right school, run in the right circles, etc...

If he did, I will concede that's b/s.

However, most people were saying that Miers hadn't proven herself AS A CONSERVATIVE (not as some brain surgeon). Miers defenders came back with the elitist charge, I believe intended in the sense that the people complaining are insulated elitists (columnists at NR, Rush, Kristol et al.) not the run of the mill average joe.

Nobody that I'm aware of said that Miers sucks cause she went to SMU. That charge was fabricated by her defenders to make those of us that questioned Bush's judgment look bad.

I think the good news is that nobody is buying the elitist argument, regardless of the peddler.

For the record, I am elite.

Also, I HAVE A THOUSAND YEARS OF POWER!!!

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

P.S. You're right, Ace. These whiners should just grow up. We're just having ourselves good, healthy discussion.

It just seems to me that those bitching and moaning about her nomination are doing the exact same thing that they complained the Lib's were doing not too long ago ... making judgements about a nominee before hearing from him/her. How about if we wait and see what she says before we start denigrating? Don't you see that we're doing EXACTLY what the Libs want us to do? We're fighting amongst ourselves! It's times like these when the Libs see a pocket of opportunity and try to needle themselves in ... and we CAN'T let that happen.

I Trust George W.

Not to beat a dead horse, but as I recall, most people that brought up the "she didn't go to Harvard" argument weren't those opposing Miers, but those DEFENDING her.

The argument was (as I recall):

Look at those elitists over there at National Review! They don't like Miers cause she didn't go to Harvard!!! eek! ELITIST PIGS!!!

"Indicia?" "Aggregate nontrivial influencer?" Who is this egghead, and what have you done with Ace?

I don't think that Ace ever said that Miers shouldn't be confirmed cause she didn't go the right school, run in the right circles, etc... If he did, I will concede that's b/s.

And I didn't say he did. I did say several days ago, his anti-Miers post invoked several comments about her not being qualified because she didn't go to Harvard, etc., which people labeled elititst.

However, most people were saying that Miers hadn't proven herself AS A CONSERVATIVE (not as some brain surgeon).

DO NOT MISSTATE MY COMMENTS. See, I can use all caps, too.

Ace is claiming that people are charging elitism in response to his post on the blogger poll. For the 3rd or 4th time, that is not true. How many fk'n times do I have to say it? It's a strawman argument and it's pure b.s.

Well, Ace, being the president's right hand woman for 10 years does seem to be an outward manifestation of one's political beliefs.

Philby looked great too - until he defected.

I want to see come real creds, not something with a $100 Earl Schieb paint job that might be full of rust and 50 gallons of bondo underneath.

Lets face it - Bush has been less than stellar on domestic issues so far. Other than oval office blow jobs, its pretty hard to tell him apart from Clinton. For all we know he might be getting jiggy with an intern of his own.

> as any other somewhat-successful lawyer would be

So... former head of the Texas Bar Association and current White House Counsel, and she rates "somewhat-successful." Now I see the problem with Miers as Supreme Court Justice -- then you'd have to describe her as "promising" or even "influential."

(BTW, I understand your reservations, though I lean toward the Beldar/Anchoress/Hewitt/InstaPunk camp. Just giving you a hard time.)

Let's not confuse high standards and expectations with snobbery and elitism.

We're talking about the Supreme fecking Court, here.
Lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. Yeah, I wanted more. I wanted my reward for defending W's policies on campus and at the workplace since the spring of 2000.

Who did we get? Harriet Miers. Harriet Who!
I don't want a "fine lawyer." I want Brilliant.
I want John Ashcroft.
I want Ann Coulter (wink wink).
I want Scalia's clone.

Instead, I get Harriet.
Ms. Miers will demonstrate, at her hearing, how much of a lightweight she is. Then we will really silly.

Let's not confuse high standards and expectations with snobbery and elitism.

We're talking about the Supreme fecking Court, here.
Lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. Yeah, I wanted more. I wanted my reward for defending W's policies on campus and at the workplace since the spring of 2000.

Who did we get? Harriet Miers. Harriet Who!
I don't want a "fine lawyer." I want Brilliant.
I want John Ashcroft.
I want Ann Coulter (wink wink).
I want Scalia's clone.

Instead, I get Harriet.
Ms. Miers will demonstrate, at her hearing, how much of a lightweight she is. Then we will look really silly.

Not to beat a dead horse,

Not only will you beat a dead horse, you will beat an imaginary dead horse.

No where in the comments in Ace's post Bloggers Overwhelmingly Against Miers did any one charge elitism. There were valid objections to the poll on other grounds. Claiming that he is tired of the charges of elitism to his Blogger's Poll post is a strawman.

Also, bizarre in Ace's whine, is that he states he posted the poll b/c he thought it was informative and interesting. It wasn't. He goes on to state, I won't get into whether bloggers are good barometer of public opinion or are, in aggregate, a nontrivial influencer of public opinion. However, that was exactly what he was doing.

"half the Republicans in the Senate"

Have said they're reserving judgement. Which they should.

Shock: these hearings will actually be eventful. We don't know much about this nominee, so all of us - and not just us D&D geeks, but everyone from Jethro V. Public to Joe "Regular Guy" Biden - will have to ask questions (Biden and pals) and listen to answers (everyone), and then make up our minds. Y'all are jumping the gun here, big-time.

In these fast-faster-fastest days, I know this is difficult, but SLOW DOWN. Good things come ...

One last thing - I'm glad the "she donated to Gore!" line has been abandoned. Because that was bullshit. I voted for *Nader* in 2000, for crying out loud, and I doubt I'm the only one here who can say that. (in my defense, I was in college, and I was high. Two great tastes that go great together). A lot's changed in 5 years - and a TRUCKLOAD has changed in 17 years.

If you want to get all Beria on us, purging anyone who hasn't been STR8 EDGE GOP SINCE BIRTH FOOL!, you will drive us right back out of the party again. Jerks.

And that's all I have to say about that.

"Ms. Miers will demonstrate, at her hearing, how much of a lightweight she is. Then we will look really silly."

Can I borrow your crystal ball for a minute? I want to know if it's going to rain this weekend.

though I lean toward the Beldar/Anchoress/Hewitt/InstaPunk camp

The Anchoress has, frankly, completely lost it.

though I lean toward the Beldar/Anchoress/Hewitt/InstaPunk camp

The Anchoress has, frankly, completely lost it.

Knemes, nowadays one doesn't need a crystal ball to forecast the weather five days in advance. The meteorologists track weather patterns and compare them to models and then make fairly accurate forecasts.

I don't need to be a 12th level wizard, like Ace, to estiamte Miers' gravitase based on her past track record. As thin as her record is, it indicates what we can expect from Miers. And we can expect little in the way of brilliance because her record is so thin. See where I'm going with this?

Forget Harvard or Yale, how about a clerkship? How about appearing before the SCOTUS at least once?

I was a little surprised to see the Anchoress getting all Exorcist ... maybe she was tired, or drunk, or something?

I think a lot of you are being ridiculous, but I don't think you're possessed by The Prince Of Lies. Just so you know.

I think a lot of you are being ridiculous, but I don't think you're possessed by The Prince Of Lies. Just so you know.

Heh heh. That's exactly what we want you to think...

Oh, a few are possessed by The Prince of Fudging.

Maybe Rove has pictures of her with ummm ahhh some hot farm animals?

If her vote could reliably be extorted, that would be fine with me as long as they gave Scalia or Thomas the negatives.

As Ace said, a moron chicken would be fine as long as its YOUR moron chicken.

"Forget Harvard or Yale, how about a clerkship? How about appearing before the SCOTUS at least once?"

We can get into the statistics of past Justices if you want ...

Most of the sitting J's are on record saying they want colleagues from outside the academic/theoretical/appeals court/ConLaw axis.

That doesn't mean Miers is the right choice, of course. I'm trying to be skeptical - but there's a big difference between "skeptical" and "howling with rage."

Wait till the hearings. If she's incompetent, it'll be obvious. Unlike Roberts, she's not going to be able to get away with the "Ginsburg defense." If she doesn't know what she's talking about, all your fears will be justified, I'll look like a fool (and since no one gives a rat's ass what I think, more importantly, Hewitt - and Bush himself - will look like a fool), and she won't make it out of committee.

"The Prince of Fudging."

mmmm .... the Land of Chocolate .....

Hewitt has been critical of the outlandish charges against Miers. Again, he interviewed Beldar and Fund on his radio show this afternoon. Medved also has criticized the same people. Miers was neither Hewitt's or Medved's first choice. However, they are above acting like spoiled brats because they didn't get the choice they wanted and they certainly haven't resorted to telling lies about the nominee.

I'm still making up my mind about Miers.

On the one hand, we know so little about her. What will we find in the box when we pull off the ribbon and rip off the wrapping paper? I haven't a clue, which is deeply worrying.

On the other hand, this woman is no pushover: she's a litigator who's thrived in Texas for 30 years. And her few referenced opinions, particularly the 12th Amendment case she argued up to the Supreme Court, shows that she's got a brain in her head. She's may not be a Scalia, but she's no Carswell either.

I can't help but think that this is a classic Dubya rope-a-dope. So here's my prediction: the incompetence of Schumer, Durbin, and Biden will rescue Miers. In the hearings, they will treat her with contempt and condescension, and Miers will hand them their lunch: politely, but as unmistakably as a fist in the breadbasket. When the hearing are over, Schumer will being wondering what hit him, and we will know exactly who Harriet Miers is.

Brown Line, from your lips ...

I'm willing to give Harriet the crony the benefit of the doubt. But she better sound like a constructionist at the hearings (or as much as a nominee can get away with), or all bets are off.

Major, major blunder by Bush on this one.
The lesson is: what do you get when you don't proudly and confidently and openly espouse conservatism when you are a republican president?

Grief. Nothing but grief. Mc Cain and Giuliani should take note. I guess George didn't learn all that much from Dad's mistakes.

I'm a bit sick of the Theory of the Day. Powerline's got some happy horseshit about how Miers is a "Cowboy Conservative", meaning they don't speak their conservatism, they live it, like Reagan.

Well, what the fuck ever.

Nominate a good SC nominee. That's all we (the naysayers) really want. A good nominee. Is Miers a good nominee? Who knows? I don't Bush doesn't. Nobody does. Is Roberts a good nominee? Yes. He's got experience, he's got chops, he's got a good legal mind.

Nobody has any reason to believe that Miers is a good nominee. They have supposition, conjecture and a steady hum of bullshit. That's not compelling.

Can the President nominate whoever he wants? Damn straight. The Senate can un-nominate them, too, if they're just not up to snuff. Miers is not up to snuff. Send her back to the bullpen.

Note: I'm not calling for a fillibuster, just a regular committee/floor vote. And Republicans, if they know what's good for them and the country--remember us?--will give Bush the signal that they're willing and able to fight the good fight. We've got 22 Dems who will vote against anybody to the right of Che--all we need is 29 conservative leaning Republicans with spines and we can get a do-over on this nomination.

I guess George didn't learn all that much from Dad's mistakes.

Or maybe he did. George Sr. never had the opportunity to ask Souter how he would vote on certain cases because he was already on the bench and he did not personally know him before his nomitation. To do so wd be an ethics violation. George Jr. did know Miers and there was never a restriction on him asking her if she were a judge how would she rule.

I like Harriet.....she's got those Far-away Eyes.

"But she better sound like a constructionist at the hearings (or as much as a nominee can get away with), or all bets are off."

Well, sure. However, lots of people, from Frum to scum (aaay, I only consider you a-scum a-compared to KRUSty!), have already staked out the perplexing position that NO MATTER WHAT, even if she comes off like the Second Coming of Bork at the hearings, this nomination is a BETRAYAL and a TRAVESTY of a MOCKERY of a SHAM ...

This strikes me as odd.

"Giuliani should take note."

I'd bet he has. Rudy's going to have to run to the right in the primaries, if only to undo the damage those pictures of him in a dress are gonna do.

But then, he's going to have to tack back to the center, at least rhetorically, to win. What self-styled "conservatives" fail to realize is that the country only leans their way by default, because the opposition is usually so feckless, but the creamy nougaty electoral center is apt to get scared away by someone too far to the right.

The last time someone ran on a genuiniely conservative platform, as opposed to taming the governmental beast and putting it to good use, he didn't just lose, he set a new standard for losing. Even Dole looks like a jukebox hero compared to Goldwater. He may have been right, but he was a capital-L Loser.

P.S.
Rudy Can't Fail

Hey colon: get a name, you gutless coward.

The Yankees lose! Phew, now the bandwagoners go home for six months.

Knemon: Without Goldwater, there would have been no Reagan.

Sometimes you have to lose to win.

someone, by the standards lots of folk have been setting on these threads, Regan was also a wussy sell-out.

Sometimes you have to lose to win, sure. This isn't one of those times. Three years from now, either the world will be much further along the road to Completely Falling Apart - in which case Rudy will be more necessary than ever, and (most) Democrats more dangerous ...

... or things wil *seem* to be getting better. In which case it'll be even more important for us to stay alert. These whackos we're up against have long, loooong memories.

For those hating on Rudy (see how I hijack the thread? always bringing it back to Topic R?), who's the alternative? Allen? Huckabee? Meh and double-meh.

I nominate THIS DUDE for SCOTUS.

He's a slam dunk to get Ted Kennedy's vote. He collected two DWI's within the span of three hours. I don't think even Teddy has ever approached that level of production.

In other news, they're bombing UCLA now. *yawn* just another day in the jihad.

PA, I'm scared now.

Why? I live in Berkeley. The MSA (Muslim Students' Association) is large and active here.

Racial profiling? Sure. Are most of these students harmless as bunny rabbits? Probably. Still ... unless they know not to bite the hand that feeds them, this could be Real Bad.

Knemon: Mitt. Another NE Repub with better social-con credentials (his battle v. activist anti-marriage judges). Has said some good things about Islamic extremism of late.

I like Rudy more -- *despite* his semi-liberalism -- but I don't see how he can win over enough twitchy social/judicial conservatives after Bush screwed us over so badly.

Make me, fruitcake.

I don't want a "fine lawyer." I want Brilliant. I want John Ashcroft. I want Ann Coulter (wink wink). I want Scalia's clone.

And I want a silver unicorn to come down out of the sky bearing baskets of chocolate eggs. Instead I have to walk to work. Boohoo.

As to this from ace:

How the hell do you get that bloggers are deflated that Bush isn't listening to us? Who the hell thought he would?

Oh I dunno. The way you're all throwing like this huge tantrum, complete with heels drumming on the floor and "I'm going to hold my breath until I turn blue unless you un-nominate the Miers woman!" shit fits? That goes for the magazine writers too.

Or maybe my other theory is closer to the mark: you all bet big money on one of the other names. Now you've lost your shirts. Shoulda stuck to the horses.

I live in Berkeley.

Where they're holding you? I'll organize a heavily armed rescue mission.

someone - hmm. I'll have to look at Romney more seriously.

Rudy was the nation's top cop under Reagan. That's gotta give him some kinda cred.

PA - hah, that's okay. We're moving to VA, nice and red, in two months. Thanks for the offer, though.

Blogging . . . an embarrassing hobby? You don't seem like someone who would be embarrassed of his blog.

Now, those of us who enjoy it and get our measly >100 hits per week (savoring every last one) . . . we can feel a little embarrassment. But you? No way, dude.

And I want a silver unicorn to come down out of the sky bearing baskets of chocolate eggs. Instead I have to walk to work. Boohoo.

Damn. That had me giggling for about 15 minutes.
Thanks, Andrea.

I'm a bit sick of the Theory of the Day. Powerline's got some happy horseshit about how Miers is a "Cowboy Conservative", meaning they don't speak their conservatism, they live it, like Reagan.

Well, what the fuck ever.

ROFL! Hear hear!

What a STUPID theory.

Later,
bbeck

Andrea, you're being an idiot. I made no predictions.

I'm sorry that some of us remember Bush's promise to nominate justices like Scalia and Thomas.

I guess we're really bad and egotistical for expecting a man to carry through on his promises.

Give Bush and Rove credit for having the tactical genius to split a united party in half.

Yeahp. Great call.

(Oh, wait, that's the fault of half of all Republicans for being petulant children about losing the big-money office Judicial Nominee Pool.)

"promise to nominate justices like Scalia and Thomas"

Does that mean "with a CV similar to that of ...", or just "will tend to vote with ..."?

Because if it's the second, and if Bush is sure that Miers will indeed vote that way, then in his mind, he's fulfilling his promise.

And, ace, you've already said that's fine with you. Retarded chicken and all.

Plus, I think Bush had his fingers crossed behind his back.

*

Sigh. At least you agree that Rudy Can't Fail. Good enough.

I have no idea why you guys are so sure she's conservative. It's like you've completely forgotten about David Souter-- also guaranteed (without much evidence, apart from personal vouchers) to be a rock-ribbed conservative.

It will be interesting to see how far ace shoves his foot down his mouth on the show tomorrow.

Actually, two close friends have compared her to O'Connor, and other evidence about her seems to back that up.

So -- not a logorrheic liberal like Souter. But, of course, nowhere near Scalia and Thomas.

(Perhaps Bush's idea of being like Scalia and Thomas is being a judge conservatives like. Thus, if he could force us to like her... Heh.)

Give Bush and Rove credit for having the tactical genius to split a united party in half.

Coulter's column is the best example of rank elitism I have seen. But I agree most of the criticism is not of that variety.

An appointment to the Supreme Court is necessarily an "elite" thing. We want jurists who have distinguished themselves as sound thinkers who are well-versed in constitutional law--that means a lot of lawyers, everday lawyers who are very intelligent and very accomplished, are not fit to serve. I don't think that is the same kind of indefensible elitism that Coulter displays when she moans about SMU's US News Ranking.

A lot of judges, academics and others on the "short list" graduated from law schools that are not considered "elite" by most lawyers--Tulane, Baylor, et al. They have, however, proven themselves to be committed originalists who are capable of writing persuasive opinions.

Moreover, the principal benefit of having an articulated judicial philosophy, other than writing interesting, cogent, and consistent opinions, is that it makes one resistant to the siren song of activism that so many justices fall victim to. It's so easy to go with what feels like the"right" outcome, instead of what the Constitution commands, especially when it isn't all that obvious what the Framers intended.

Most of all, however, is that a lack of record reveals a lack of concern. Miers has been publicly silent on a great many issues for a long, long time. Where her record reveals anything, it reveals someone with a liberal bent--e.g. support of affirmative action. We have been screwed too many times to "trust" Bush on this one. It's not personal. Bush joins a long list of Republican presidents who seem to make their worst decisions when it comes o the Court. His father, Reagan, Ford, Nixon and Ike all lived to regret at least one of their decisions--in some cases all of them.

Is Miers a good nominee? Who knows?

rho's got it right - the nominee's qualifications shouldn't be the subject of this much speculation. If elitism is what it takes to get a nominee with obvious qualifications, then sign me up.

Another typical right-wing ideologue/cult member, not thinking person.

Don't mind a "retarded chicked" if it follows the ideology. It's a mental illness.

Learn how to think for yourself, not simply blindly pursue an ideology you are suckered into.

What has your precious ideology gotten us? It's simply exposed what liberals have said all along, that a few crooks wrapped themselves in various flags and you slobbered all overyourselves to vote for them, duped.

What we have to show are huge amounts of corrupt spending for donors, incompetence throughout the government, the US's reputation trashed throughout the world undermining decades of building it - a corrupt political machine damaging democracy.

We have secretive, evil people acting. Congrats.

And we should care how you feel about Miers being approved why?

Dang, Craig, the scales done just fell from my duped-ass eyes. You've, like, totally convinced me that Bush=teh sux0rz!!1!

But I'm confused about one thing...is Miers one of the "secretive, evil people"?

ps - Congrats on being able to resist using the phrase "neocon" in your screed.

I have no idea why you guys are so sure she's conservative. It's like you've completely forgotten about David Souter-- also guaranteed (without much evidence, apart from personal vouchers) to be a rock-ribbed conservative.

And your proof of “without much evidence, apart from personal vouchers” is what? Sort of belies this:

Asst AG., NH, 1968-71
Deputy AG, NH, 1971-76
AG, NH, 1976-78
Judge, Superior Court, NH, 1978-83
Judge, Supreme Court, NH, 1983-90
Judge, Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, 1990
USSC 1990

Poor choice or not, it was not made solely on personal vouchers, so why misrepresent it as such?

You just don't seem to get it. Yours and others arguments against this woman are offensive, obnoxious, and mostly factually wrong. You even seem blind that you are doing that. Really, what's that about?

A lot of judges, academics and others on the "short list" graduated from law schools that are not considered "elite" by most lawyers--Tulane, Baylor, et al. They have, however, proven themselves to be committed originalists who are capable of writing persuasive opinions.

Well, not according to Ace. He says that Souter was nominated “without much evidence, apart from personal vouchers” though Souter had been on the bench for 12 years. Though I haven't personally checked, I bet in his 7 years as a state justice of the supreme court, he wrote a few persuasive opinions. Yet, I keep hearing that there was nothing to confirm Souter on but Bush Sr.'s “personal voucher.”

All of you have a short time horizon view point. If the court can be made conservative, can't it also be made very liberal? If you really want to do something about an out of control branch of the Federal Government, you've got to change the rules, not just the personnel. Give the President a veto over all U.S. Supreme court and Federal Appelate court decisions, with the proviso the the veto can be overridden by a majority vote of the house and senate. Until there are limits put on the expansion of Judicial power, it is just a matter of time before there are many more Kelo type decisions. You know there are many nut case lawyers (think Kunstler) and most of the nut cases would be easily confirmed by the Democrats were the Democrats in power. Don't be such short term tactical thinkers. Have a larger vision of what the checks and balances of the U.S. government ought to be. If you want to fight, fight over something that will really make a permanent difference. The Meirs nomination is only a skirmish that has no meaning one way or the other in the larger effort to limit the expansion of Judicial power. If she were to turn out to be the best, most consistantly conservative judge that ever existed, the Supreme Court would still be fatally flawed because there is no inherent limit on the Court except the egos and imaginations of the Judges. Unfortunately, they have humongous egos and limitless imaginations.

I Trust George W.

For the Love of God, why? He signed anti-Constitutional campaign finance reform after he said he wouldn't, he signed Kennedy's Education bill (no vouchers, but a hell of a lot of money for teacher's unions), he signed Daschle's Ag Bill, he signed that godawful porktacular Highway bill, he helped Arlen Specter get re-elected, and he doesn't give a rat's ass about securing the border.

Give him credit for getting the tax cut, the war, and social security reform right. (On that last, by the way, thank you, democrats, for ensuring that I'll spend the next several decades of my working life throwing money down the social security shithole, thank you so bloody much!). But overall, my personal approval rating of Bush is about 40% on a good day.

Why does the conservative elite hate America?

Oh, and don't forget the prescription drug giveaway. Just what we need in a time of massive deficits... another unnecessary entitlement for baby boomers.

"Andrea, you're being an idiot. I made no predictions."

Where did I say you did? I don't really believe you made bets on who Bush would pick. They say the sense of humor is the first thing to go...

But seriously. You're being a big baby. "How dare you contradict me!" Well screw you, who died and made you God? Bite me. So far you haven't presented jack for evidence that this woman is "liberal" -- you don't know anything about her so for some reason that gets you hysterical so you just make shit up. I haven't seen such crazed rumor-mongering in print since the last time I swung by, oh, Kos or Kevin Drum. I expect the idiots on the left to be irrational and prone to believe things that crazed bums on the street have discarded as "just... too out there" because that's what lefties do, but I thought that people on the right prided themselves on their grasp of logic and willingness to wait for evidence. Fool me once, I guess.

As for Bush and Rove being responsible for "splitting the party in half" -- the Republican Party is the biggest bunch of babies on the planet, probably because so many of them nowadays consist of RINOs who switched parties because of the war. Otherwise used to being coddled and stroked by the Dems, they freak out when their comfort zone is breached in any way. The president isn't our daddy, he doesn't have to hold our hand and soothe our hurts and give us toys and make us quit squabbling. There's an "R" on my voter's registration card, but I'm beginning to think it stands for "Recoil," as in "what happens when you ask a modern-day Republican to do anything that interrupts his SciFi Channel watching schedule."

being the president's right hand woman for 10 years does seem to be an outward manifestation of one's political beliefs.

I agree. The only problem is that George W. Bush is not a conservative.

No conservative would have enacted the largest expansion of entitlement spending since LBJ.

No conservative would have responded to a natural disaster with hundreds of billions of dollars of proposed new spending.

A conservative would have vetoed McCain-Feingold.

Why are you rightnutters sweating this one out?

Meiers is the ultimate Bush crony. She will vote the way she is told, i.e., she will side with Scalia and Thomas, and interpret the Constitution as if the U.S.A. were still living in the early 19th century.

What's all the fuss about?

She is no O'Connor and certainly not a Souter. She is a partisan hack with a mediocre resume. She stands for cretisnism, cronyism, and incompetence.

No to worry. She'll live up to expectations. The bar is being set soo low that she would have a hard time failing.

Yeah, well, okay...I'll wait for the hearings. But, from what I've seen so far, the woman is a lightweight and I suspect her nomination has more to do with calling Bush "cool" and "the greastest governor ever" than any other gifts she may have.

The "trust me" gambit is only reliable if it comes from someone who has never let you down.

What has your precious ideology gotten us? It's simply exposed what liberals have said all along, that a few crooks wrapped themselves in various flag

Cute troll. And from the Party of Perjury, too, it appears. From, "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is," to "Guily if accused or even rumored to be accused by a moonbat." Truly, to be a moonbat means the world is created fresh every morning. Or possibly within the memory span of a fish.

George W. Bush is not a conservative.

Agreed, of course, but he does seem fairly honest about his campaign promises and understands what he promised for the judiciary. (I know: McCain-Feingold. How many of us predicted at the time that it could possibly be upheld? An election cycle miscalculation about something I don't recall him campaigning on doesn't rate as back-stabbing in my book.)

He was clear about being a nanny stater when we elected him. He was also clear about understanding judicial conservatism and promising originalists.

Here we go again. Clinton's lying to Congress did not lead to any death, or the squandering of public money on corporate cronies, or corruption, or moral rot such as displayed by the likes of Abramoff and DeLay...

Let's recap this Administration's achievements, shall we?

Going to war on false pretense, having no plans whatsoever for the war's aftermath, having no plan or clue on how to get us out of this mess, squandering taxpayer's money on pork-laden transportation, energy, and Medicaid bills, putting incompetent cronies in charge of critical agencies...

I wish Bush had had a sordid affair and lied to Congress about it. It would have been a lot less costly both in lives and in dollars. Not to mention that we will be paying the bills for the next twenty years...

The Party of Perjury, hey?

The GOP has become the party of corruption, greed, incompetence, and theft of public money; not to mention the party that gives away taxpayer's money to the wealthy 1% while squeezing the middle-class and crushing the poor. This is the party of such profligacy that it makes Argentina look like a model of fiscal responsibility compared to the U.S.

I forgot. This is also the party that has shamed us all with its endorsement of torture.

The party that is dominated by religious extremists (our very own Taliban), who want to impose their views on everybody else.

Where are the real conservatives? Anybody left out there amidst the demented right-wing radicals?

The Democrats are no prize. But the GOP has proven such a failure at governance that the opposition is starting to look attractive.

Life was tough under Clinton, was it not? We had eight years of peace, fiscal responsibility, and robust economic growth.

Ah, there we go. You only have to nudge 'em a little with the pokey stick, and it's off to the races!

Andrea:

You might want to check out the interview Hugh Hewitt did with Professor Lino Graglia. A greate quote from Prof. Graglia:

Let me add...you know, we talk about conservative. I'm very conservative, more conservative judges, not because I want judges who will give conservatives victories, by holding things unconstitutional that conservatives don't like, like minimum wage laws or rent control. No, I think that important thing is to have a judge who believes in democracy, a judge who trusts the people more than he trusts his or his own...his or her own judgment, and is willing to let the political process operate. That has not been the Court of the last fifty years. The Court of the last fifty years doesn't trust the people. The Con law professors that support it have a very low opinion of democracy, and they feel they need the Court.

I think this was a stellar way to put it, and it was what I was trying to say initially. I don't want an activist judge; I don't care if that activism is conservative or liberal. I want a judge who interprets the law in the light of the Constitution. Now, do we have any evidence at hand that Miers will not do this? No. All we have is a bunch of conservatives complaining that Bush didn't pick who they wanted.

I think there's also the possibility that some of the candidates either did not want to make a run for the court, or felt that (for whatever reason) they couldn't get past the confirmation process (a "nanny problem"). The example of what happened to Judge Bork weighs heavily on the minds of many who want a seat on the Federal Bench, and it's clear that the Democrats will bring out the heavy artillery this time. Bush may have been taking lemons and trying to make lemonade.

Anyhow, check out the Hewitt link here.

I just wanted to say how much I love Andrea, and I love Ace for allowing Andrea to dissent.

not something with a $100 Earl Schieb paint job that might be full of rust and 50 gallons of bondo underneath.

It's $100 bucks now?

Damn.

>It's tough to be a conservative in a culture dominated by liberals. I don't know if Miers is a conservative at all.

Where? Canada or someplace?

And what is wrong with helping people you Nazi bastard, much better you get your slaves back, force your opinions on everybody else, and corporations can screw over anybody they want to. I can see why that would be attractive to a misanthropic jackass like yourself

Once again, for those of you who just plain aren't getting it...

Conservatives against Miers aren't throwing a tantrum because she wasn't who WE wanted.

We're not throwing a tantrum because we were wanting a great big fight.

We're not throwing a tantrum because she's positively liberal.

The PROBLEM is that Miers is a lousy choice. We don't know anything about the way she'd rule and her qualifications stink.

What exactly did we know about Roberts when he was nominated? Not a thing, that's true. But do you know what saved him from this sort of criticism? It wasn't the hearings --he didn't give a clue about his political leanings there -- it was the fact that he had stellar qualifications and, whether he turned out to be conservative or liberal, no one could question his standing to be on the court.

Miers doesn't have Roberts' amazing resume to save her from her detractors...and that's not elitism, that's in comparison to a number of people who were on the Short List for this nomination. She clearly is a poor choice in that respect, so what else do we have to go on? We don't have ANYTHING, not a dang thing, except for the word of a president who's let us down more than once AND who has shown that his cronyism has been getting in the way of his appointments lately. That perhaps can be tolerated for certain positions, but we're talking about the Supreme Court here. Should Bush's word not be worth the spit behind it, it will be too...dang...late to do anything about it once Miers is appointed.

This nomination should not have been a Cross Your Fingers pick. It shouldn't have been a Buddy pick. It should not have been made in the first place and she needs to go.

Evil Progressive, since you bring up the whole corrution issue, would you care to tell us how many Bush Administration officials have been convicted of breaking the law?

The party that is dominated by religious extremists (our very own Taliban), who want to impose their views on everybody else.

Why is this an insult to liberals? You guys don't even hate the real Taliban.

And "impose their views on everybody else?"

Let's see...

Speech codes = liberals
anti-smoking = liberals
anti-tasty (but fatty) food = liberals
anti-SUV = liberals
anti-religious expression = liberals

We could go on.

The fact is, W had a golden opportunity to grow some balls and follow through on his SCOTUS promise.

Instead, he backed down to the GOP pussies in the senate and to the old media.

Given his history of domestic failure, when President Junior says "trust me", that's the last fucking thing I'm going to do.

I trusted him on spending, illegal immigration, etc etc etc, and all I got was an itchy rash for my optimistic fealty. This was just the final embarrassment of a failed presidency.

He was also clear about understanding judicial conservatism

I know. That's what got him so much of the conservative support in the first place.

The entire conservative movement of the last 70 years has been defined, created and motivated by bad law emanating from the Supreme Court. It's central to what makes a conservative a conservative.

Our whole approach to law and government started as a form of opposition to FDR's SCOTUS cronies (sorry, Evil Progressive, cronyism wasn't invented by the GW Bush administration, you stone cold idiot). The 1937-38 SCOTUS opened the door to unlimited federal power, in direct violation of the Constitution. Conservatives have been fighting that unbridled Statism ever since.

See, Evil Progressive, if we wanted a Constitution that wasn't, as you put it, stuck in the 19th century, then the way to change it is through the Amendment Process. It's spelled out right there in the text. Just go out, get your votes, and change the damned thing. It's been done quite a few times.

The problem is that your agenda sucks. Your entire philosohpy of government sucks. You can't get the votes. So, you ignore the rules, install Fellow Travelers on the court, and "interpret" your way into getting your suck-ass agenda rammed into law.

This process, first practiced by FDR's flunkies, was put into overdrive by Earl Warren. This produced Generation No. 2 of originalists.

These bad decisions created the modern conservative movement. We have developed a huge body of intellectual firepower to show why hundreds of decisions since 1938 have been flat-out wrong. In contrast, your Fellow Travelers have been stuck on stupid trying to defend indefensible crap like the FDR-court decisions and Roe v. Wade.

The Left has been trying to justify these decisions for decades, but they can't, so they end up changing their rationalizations more often than you change their underwear.

Conservatives have been waiting for an opportunity to make some real headway, and this bone-headed nomination is, at best, a wasted opportunity to do so.

The fact is, W had a golden opportunity to grow some balls and follow through on his SCOTUS promise.

Damn, I love all this macho talk. I can smell the man-sweat. I'll bet you've started drinking your coffee without half-and-half ever since news of this atrocity got out. Don't forget to do your keyboard finger exercises! You don't want to get taken out by carpal tunnel in the middle of typing up a really stinging rebuttal.

... more often than they change their underwear.

or

... more often than you change your underwear.

(I don't know how often you change other people's underwear, Evil Progressive. It could be every day, but that's beside the point.)

Monty:

I don't want an activist judge; I don't care if that activism is conservative or liberal. I want a judge who interprets the law in the light of the Constitution. Now, do we have any evidence at hand that Miers will not do this? No. All we have is a bunch of conservatives complaining that Bush didn't pick who they wanted.

We don't have any evidence one way or the other. That's the problem. There were numerous well-established candidates out there that we know would have been a great justice in the mold that Prof. Graglia was suggesting. Luttig, McConnell, Brown, et al. would not rule that the conservative viewpoint wins regardless of the Constitution. They would have been more along the lines of Scalia/Thomas.

Remember Thomas' dissent in Lawrence? Something along the lines of "it's not my job to decide if anti-sodomy laws are good policy, just to decide if the Constitution forbids them." Thomas went on to say that he personally thought that anti-sodomy laws were stupid and he'd vote to repeal them if he was in the legislature, but as a justice on the Supreme Court, that wasn't his job.

I think the people opposing Miers oppose her precisely because everyone is asking us to take their word that she is a strict constructionist along the lines of Thomas and Prof. Graglia's ideal justice. We have been down that road too many times... Souter, Kennedy, and almost every other "stealth" conservative has turned out a disaster for us.

We just wanted someone (even if it wasn't our favorite) that had an established record of interpreting the Constitution along the lines of Thomas/Scalia. Just what Bush promised us.

"I have no idea why you guys are so sure she's conservative.."

I'm not sure of that. I'm hoping the hearings will make it obvious.

Souter is not a good parallel.

"the Republican Party is the biggest bunch of babies on the planet, probably because so many of them nowadays consist of RINOs who switched parties because of the war."

Andrea, I'm about as RINO as you can get without actually being a Democrat, and I don't understand what all the fuss is about.

Andrea:

Damn, I love all this macho talk. I can smell the man-sweat.

Um...are you hitting on me? I mean, it's okay if you are...chicks dig me, and that's nothing I can't handle...but this is a discussion of high import. We can deal with your puny female glandular issues later.

Maybe that's the crux of the opposition to Miers. Some conservatives are afraid that she'll interrupt some SCOTUS deliberation by jumping up and shouting about Souter's balls and how sweaty they are. Or something.

Can't we have one conversation that doesn't end up being about Souter's testicles?

Sheesh.

Slublog, I'd find the libs claim to respect freedom slightly more believable if they weren't also cheering for dictators like Castro, Mugabe, Arafat, Chavez, and the like.

But V, don't you see, you're talking about *bourgeois* freedom. True proletarian freedom can only be realized in the loving embrace of a progressive dictator!

(I don't think the lefties are particularly down with Mugabe, though the rest of your list applies).

You know what? Maybe I am elitist, after all. The more I think about this Meiers thing, the more I think it's the sheer crassness of the pick that's bothering me. A Supreme Court justice has potentially more impact on the country than a president, and I'm so getting the feeling Bush's thought process was, "she's my friend! And she's a lawyer! And she's a girl!"

There are contexts in which I find his loyalty to his friends a charming personal attribute. This isn't one of them.

With all due respect, Sue, how is calling Andrea an idiot allowing her to dissent?

With all due respect, Sue, how is calling Andrea an idiot allowing her to dissent?

Errrr...how is it not allowing her to dissent?

Colon,

Well, he's not deleting her dissent, as would be done at DU. Or is calling someone an idiot a 'chilling' of their free speech?

Knemon, you're probably right about Mugabe. Although the average leftist seems more upset by some guy driving an Escalade than he does about Mugabe stealing land, shooting dissidents, and butchering people.

V, too true, too true.

*

This does not bode well:

"You are the best governor ever - deserving of great respect," Harriet E. Miers wrote to George W. Bush days after his 51st birthday in July 1997."

Wait till the hearings ... Krusty's coming ...

I think the people opposing Miers oppose her precisely because everyone is asking us to take their word that she is a strict constructionist . . .

Matt, most of the opposition to Miers I read is based on unfair, untrue, and offensive grounds. As I and others have noted, it's like the Kos Kids have infected people minds.

I don't know about now, Knemon, but ol' Bob Mugabe was a hero unto lefties (at least in the UK) when he first came to power. I mean, what's not to like? A socialist and a black African stickin' it to an old colonial stronghold. Out goes Rhodesia, in comes...well, eventually, a world of hurt. But he still moves freely around the West in ways that, say, Pinochet could not. And surely nobody's done anything meaningful to stop him, other than absorb the white Africans he's displacing.

Phinn, if it helps with the shorthand, I remember my Con Law I and II reasonably well. BIG contribution to my political conversion. :-)

Conservatives have been waiting for an opportunity to make some real headway, and this bone-headed nomination is, at best, a wasted opportunity to do so.

That remains to be seen. But it does provoke a lot of reasonable anxiety, that I share, that this may prove a wasted opportunity. I don't see the Senate support, or sufficient WH political capital, to give us a better option than stealth. On this issue, I'd rather have a silent victory than a glorious defeat.

Personally, I don't think the Dems could maintain 13 months of Borking stellar nominees, especially minorities, on ideological grounds. I think their obstructionism could play well for us in '06. But I also think it takes relatively few turncoats to make obstructionism a "bipartisan resistance to ideological extremists" and flip the isssue on us.

I trust the WH can count.

Bush gets the issue and told us what he was going to do. Unlike spending and immigration, where he has always been fairly clear about playing for the other team, he is with us on this one and it does come down to trust. I'm not comfortable with it in the least, but I'm also mindful of promises kept and how easy it is to misunderestimate the guy.

The problem with the retarded chicken is that the Supreme Court does not just vote, it WRITES OPINIONS that become the basis of interpreting law.

The retarded chicken can't contribute to the development of constitutional interpretation. SCOTUS needs a variety of powerful voices to make good, incisive majority and minority opinions.

A clone voter weakens the court's majority AND minority decisions.

Please tell me that you understand this basic civics concept, and didn't really mean it about merely voting in a predictable manner. You were just looking for good rhetoric, right?

The implication is that ace is being benevolent by allowing her posts to remain. That's a stretch. Why shd she be treated any differently than others?

"Pinochet could not."

I've noticed one thing: NPR, etc., refer to Castro, Hussein, Kim, etc., as "President"s or "leader"s. (As in "former" or "deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein).

But whenever Pinochet comes up, he's a (former) "dictator."

Now, Pinochet obviously *was* a dictator. That's not the side of the equation I've got a problem with.

Well, Colon, seeing as how just allowing the posts to remain on site is a heck of a lot more than some bloggers or websites do, so I'd say that's a good start.

What do you mean treated differently? We all call each other names from time to time. It's the charm of this site.

V the K said, "cheering for dictators like Castro, Mugabe, Arafat, Chavez, and the like. "

What percentage of the vote did Chavez receive in the most recent election?

WHOOSH

That sound was your credibility swirling down the toilet bowl.

We hardly knew ye. But it was still too much.

Oh, crap. I agree with tubino. Now my skull is going to implode like the house at the end of Poltergeist, isn't it?

Look, when you nominate a personal friend to a high post, the appearance of impropriety is so great that his or her qualifications have to be stellar to overcome it. If his or her qualifications are dodgy, well...she's going to have to turn in an Oscar winning performance at the hearings, or wear that retarded chicken around her neck for the rest of her career.

What do you mean treated differently? We all call each other names from time to time. It's the charm of this site.

I was, of course, agreeing with tubino's earlier post about Miers, not the distasteful WHOOSH one with the toilet.

tubino, if Bush is a dictator - not saying I've seen you claim that, but my Berkeley friends and neighbors sure seem to think he is - how is Chavez *not* one?

"Now my skull is going to implode like the house at the end of Poltergeist, isn't it?"

Two points for avoiding the "Scanners" reference in favor of something new!

Have all you anti-elitists pondered that perhaps we who object to the nomination are objecting to a perceived resurgence of Bush's elite roots? He's trying so hard to not be his father, he's pulled the exact same play from his Dad's playbook and it just running the route to the strong side instead of the weak side. I don't want a political conservative on the bench any more than I want a liberal - I want a judicial conservative. And were it not for the fact that I was specifically promised one in return for my vote, I would be wholly willing to lump it. Bush broke faith with me, so I most assuredly will NOT "trust him". It's all about the ideology, not the man.

A clone voter weakens the court's majority AND minority decisions.

But a judicial activist weakens the foundation of our republic even more than a clone voter. Which I believe was the point.

BTW, what is a "minority decision?" Maybe granting cert?

That cock-knocking shitbird made a good point.

Thanks, you moronic crapweasel, you!

I want a judicial conservative.

Which is a distinction Bush has shown he understands. (See, Scalia/Thomas -- but not Rhenquist.)

And were it not for the fact that I was specifically promised one in return for my vote, I would be wholly willing to lump it. Bush broke faith with me

How do you know this?

i wouldn't be quite so flip, ace. Miers is part of a pattern. Perhaps we could call it Joe Sixpacks Revenge. The Bush adminstration is consistantly anti-science and anti-scholarship on social engineering. Think about the "bioethics" council, presidential advice on science from non-scientists, or the weekend passage of the absolutely horrific Terri's Law (everyone's a neurologist now!), Bush pushing his version of Lysenkoism (ID) into schools, stating on National television that ASCR and ESCR can deliver identical results, distancing himself from Bennet's statistics....This adminstration disdains scientists and scholars.

What percentage of the vote did Chavez receive in the most recent election?

Well, the final results were the precise inverse of the opinion polls leading up to the voting, and since the votes were counted by Chavez's appointed functionaries, I guess we'll never know.

And, we'll just set aside that pesky issue of Chavez changing the Constitution to give himself absolute power for life.

Black Republican:

Bush broke faith with me, so I most assuredly will NOT "trust him". It's all about the ideology, not the man.

I am uncomfortable coming to bat for Miers, mainly because she's not my favorite either. I would vastly have preferred Luttig, or failing that, Janice Rogers Brown. But I am not a lawyer (I don't even play one on TV), and I have to winkle what clues I can from people who know more than I do. And what I have read so far convinces me that Miers is indeed a conservative. It seems that she does not seem to be conservative enough to please many folks. But the key word here is seem -- we just don't know enough yet to be sure.

If during the hearings it comes out that she's a weeble-wobbler on important issues (something John Fund seems to think likely), then I'll kick her to the curb with no regrets. But a wait-and-see attitude is a prudent thing.

V -

Diebold!
Halliburton!

/smugly folding arms and bobbing ponytail

it does provoke a lot of reasonable anxiety, that I share, that this may prove a wasted opportunity. I don't see the Senate support, or sufficient WH political capital, to give us a better option than stealth. On this issue, I'd rather have a silent victory than a glorious defeat.

I'm sorry, but this is not the time to roll the dice.

SCOTUS nominees only need to take a stealth approach for two reasons:

1. The nominee's true opinions are inherently unpopular, and therefore have to be hidden (e.g., Ginsberg), or

2. The nominee's opinions are unpopular with the media and therfore have to be hidden from Ted Kennedy (e.g., Bork).

This is a new era. We have a new media. The Bork Scenario cannot happen again, ever!

Personally, I don't think the Dems could maintain 13 months of Borking stellar nominees, especially minorities, on ideological grounds.

This is my point exactly. To the extent that we need to horse-trade for votes, popular support counts. But it's a new day. We have talk radio. We have cable news. But most importantly, we have INTERNET!!!

None of these things existed when Bork got the shaft.

This is what the GOP just doesn't get (or they don't care): to a large extent, the conservative movement (especially regarding SCOTUS picks) was created in response to the trashing of Bork. The left-wing media did such a hatchet job on him, it's disgraceful. The media circled the wagons for Kennedy on that one. It was orchestrated.

The generation of conservatives that grew up listening to the media fellate Kennedy weren't just spoiling for a fight. We were ready to do what we came to the party for.

We could have won a seat for a Luttig or a Brown. We really could have.

The cronyism thing bothers me for another reason . Usually the problem is that the appointed crony is an incompetent, but I worry that Miers is simply too close to Bush not to be influenced by him, even after he ceases to be president. Many have pointed out that she's never raised her head out of the foxhole to look around, she's never gone out on a limb or taken a risk, and they mean things like not joining the Federalist Society and boldly standing up as a conservative. I'd like to know if she has ever in her life taken a position opposing George W. Bush? Is this going to become 'the Bush court' for decades to come? I worry that 20 years from now, voters who weren't even alive when Bush was president will nevertheless be living in a country where a wrinkly Harriet Miers speed-dials George Bush for directions on every vote.

VRWC:

We don't know that Bush broke faith with his judicial conservative voters. What we do know is that it was unreasonable for Bush to expect us to "trust" him with a stealth candidate when almost every stealth candidate in the past has burned us.

This is the big leagues and Bush misoverestimated the amount of faith his base has in his judgment. Bush got a free pass on Roberts because he was so well qualified (even if he wasn't particularly established as a judicial conservative). This time Bush has the burden of proof, and he doesn't even realize it.

and I have to winkle what clues I can

Takes brains and artistry to use a word like winkle it does. That's my word for the day! Sir Monty the Winkler! lol

Knemon --- ;-)

Seriously, what Chavez did in Venezuela was the equivalent of Bush abolishing the Supreme Court, throwing out the two-term limit, and setting it up so that the House and Senate would always be two-thirds Republican.

But the left is all like, "Hey, it's okay because Chavez is a Marxist dictator who promises literacy and universal health care."

I'm wondering why there's not more anger at these extra-constitutional assholes for considering themselves a legitimate and nearly necessary step in the nomination process.

Where in the nominating process does a gang of media whores enter in?

C'mon Monty! *poke poke* Ya big girl!

The second coming of Christ is at hand! Floods! Hurricanes! Earthquakes! Tsunamis! Impending Avian Flu epidemic! We're all gonna die and be judged based upon how we chose to live our lives!

You don't want to have to stand before your god and have him (or her, it, et al)winkle your head out of your arse!

All of this political intercourse is only going to result in an impacted colon and Rorschach Test looking sheets. Interpretation is left up to the individual leming.

Morning everyone!

It's noon. We've been at it for hours in Cubicleland.

Cubicle?

Hah.

I have an office. With a door.

No window, though.

S. Weasel:

Get back at it, you dog! Row! Row! Bend those oars or I'll lay this cat across your back!

I had an office. With a door. I lost it in the last shuffle. I'm now number 2 of 8 in a cube cluster. How the mighty have fallen :(

The cafeteria over here is excellent, though.

I have premium floor space, the largest cube (style G), in the corner of the west side, surrounded by windows that give me a terrific view of the surrounding central Texas countryside... panoramic almost, overlooking a little valley.

Sometimes it's all I can do to tear away from looking at it just to pop in here and yell at you morons.

Sometimes it's all I can do to tear away from looking at it just to pop in here and yell at you morons.

So between staring out the window and waving a the morons, how much work would you say you get done in an average day?

Well it's still morning here cubicle boy!

I simply have chosen not to interact with you lot because I don't give one single shit about this Miers woman and whether or not she finds plants her wrinkled ass in a Supreme Court chair.

I was amused, however, by the use of the word winkle. Thought I'd throw a few jabs at Monty before the antichrist arrives.

Oh lots of work. I get paid mostly to think.

I get paid mostly to think.

Christ! You poor bastard! Migrant fruit pickers must make more than you then.

I just bought a new fridge, in case you'd like to upgrade your home and move into the box. It's quite spacious and I'm just going to throw it away.

compos:

Your mockery of winkle only shows your lamentable lack of literary depth. (I deliberately used alliteration there just to humble you and inculcate in you a respect for the gravity and power of my sublime -- if somewhat prolix -- musings.) Even if the apocalypse pends, even if God himself shall show Himself and judge both the quick and the dead, I shall continue to sport with the King's English.

We have a new media. The Bork Scenario cannot happen again, ever!

Phinn, I take your point that the monopoly is broken but I don't think the age of media demogoguery is by any stretch over. C.f. Iraq, ANWR, FEMA in N.O, etc. In the end, though, I don't think it can be sustained if we have a concerted counterattack, so our differences probably only go to the political capital it takes to win.

(I don't think our small share of cable and large share of talk radio/internet by any means balances the old media deathgrip on print/broadcast, but I don't take you as going so far as to disagree.)

to a large extent, the conservative movement (especially regarding SCOTUS picks) was created in response to the trashing of Bork.

That outrage was certainly a wake up call. But I think this is more about Senate support among squishes and an off year election with low WH approval ratings.

We could have won a seat for a Luttig or a Brown. We really could have.

It's possible, but it would take a GOP Senate caucus willing to risk its majority on its weakest members holding firm for something they, and at least a big chunk of their constituents, don't really want.

Just my opinion, but I think the issue is driven by a WH head count and, however uneasy I am about a "trust me" justice, I certainly do trust them to count.

For some reason Monty spurteth:

Um...are you hitting on me? I mean, it's okay if you are...chicks dig me, and that's nothing I can't handle...but this is a discussion of high import. We can deal with your puny female glandular issues later.

Hey, man, I wasn't talking to you; I even helpfully quoted the person I was mocking and everything. Try reading with your big head not the little one.

ummm, Monty, I think it's currently the Queen's English.

More like sublimated you commodious haversack of flatulated effluvium!

En garde! I fart in your general direction!

Typical right-wing cult members responding to the liberals without any substance - just the sort of empty, rhetorical fluffiness you would expect from those for whom politics is something you assume, not something you analyze. Empty sarcasm, empty name-calling, etc.

On Miers: the liberals and the right may have some common ground for a change: both appear to have concerns over her lack of qualifications, and to the right's credit, they may have found one of the few times they care about the issue of excessive cronyism.

They're hardly strange bedfellows, though - the right simply wants a guaranteed radical.

Yes, the right's definition of who they want - 'just someone who follows the constitution' is about as falsely disengenuous as when they say all they want in economic policy is responsibility, and in foreign policy, good over evil. It is pablum for the masses.

"George W. Bush is not a conservative."

Welcome to the liberal's long-held view. It's not that we agree with conservatism - which has been so corrupted from what it once was, to be the hijacked ideology of the few now, with descredited mythology such as supply-side economics. It's that we see Bush for what he is, an incompetent figurehead of a group of crooks and misguided ideologues hiding behind the buzzwords of conservatism.

While we may not agree on policies, the right is far behind in seeing Bush for what he is.

"Agreed, of course, but he does seem fairly honest about his campaign promises and understands what he promised for the judiciary. (I know: McCain-Feingold."

Why have conservatives forgotten the value of democracy - the *people* having a voice and the power - and become so unconcerned with the threat that concentrated wealth poses to the spirit of our founding fathers' intent?

Concentrated wealth is the new Nobility - the thing our founding fathers did not create.

Of *course* there should be *some* concentration and inequity of wealth; but when it goes too far, it's bad, something that seems incomprehensible to today's right, spoon-fed nightmares of liberal excesses teaching them only to hate liberals.

As far as Bush's campaign promises - right, his promises to make "humility" a foundation of his foreign policy, to support the protection of the environment such as his pledge on carbon monoxide, his position that he'd expand the surplus and the job growth was his top priority, that he was an enemy of nation building, that he was a 'man of the people' who would hold an especially high number of press conferences as his style...

His commitment to 'restore honor' to government, to not tolerate even any appearance of impropriety, as he has countless corruption issues on his hands, as he moves from saying Rove was not involved in the Plame situation to 'no comment'...

Not mentioning a word about his plans, which existed from early on as proven by his appointment to top positions of the 'PNAC' crowd who had committed themselves to war with Iraq, to that war, not a word about the planned huge increases in government secrecy and government power (e.g., the new doctrines allowing the president to secretly arrest American citizens and deny them basic legal rights)...

He can heardly be said to have stuck to his campaign messages.

The right is a miguided cult today in the nation, in the same way that the middle east has its misguided radicals from the Wahabis to the Taliban, that Germany has its neo-nazis, that England has its skinheads.

They have forgotten the real issues of the nation, and have simply bought into the cultish myths that are fed to them by the leaders of the cult for far different purposes. They are like the duped followers of a corrupt religious leader who pockets the money.

Man, all of our employers must be losing productivity today.

Man, all of our employers must be losing productivity today.

Possibly, with the obvious exception of Dave with the panoramic view who gets paid to think. I can almost hear his cranium humming like a burned out electrical motor.

Slu:

Especially Craig's employer.

"The Bork Scenario cannot happen again, ever!"

Here's how to avoid it: stop appointing such bad nominees.

Thank goodness, since that wasn't done with Bork, the country was protected from him.

"I've noticed one thing: NPR, etc., refer to Castro, Hussein, Kim, etc., as "President"s or "leader"s. (As in "former" or "deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein).

But whenever Pinochet comes up, he's a (former) "dictator."

Now, Pinochet obviously *was* a dictator. That's not the side of the equation I've got a problem with."

As a liberal: Castro, Kim, and Hussein are/were dictators. Most liberals agree.

Sorry, you can't base your opposition to liberals on this red herring.

"What percentage of the vote did Chavez receive in the most recent election?

Well, the final results were the precise inverse of the opinion polls leading up to the voting, and since the votes were counted by Chavez's appointed functionaries, I guess we'll never know.

And, we'll just set aside that pesky issue of Chavez changing the Constitution to give himself absolute power for life. "

Chavez is the first ever non-white president of Venezuela, and he faces a strong opposition, consisting not only of the very few ultra wealthy in an extremely concentrated wealth, a small group who control 90% of the media and are viciously trying to undermine any Chvez efforts to help the poor in the country from the abuse of the media to the broad economic shutdown which had a terrible impact on the economy to plotting a coup, but the US conspiring with and supporting the opposition.

What *haven't* they tried? They've tried the propaganda route. They've tried - with US support - a flat out coup at gunpoint. They've tried ruining the economy. They've tried using the very recall system that Chavez created, to support democracy, against him.

The election results were broadly supported by international observers - as opposed to the falsehood above that there was good evidence they were falsified - more than you can say for Bush's 2000 win, which later analysis proved Gore had actually won.

I've seen a report of one main thing Chavez has done which was inconsistent with a very open democracy, restricting the abuse of the media controlled by the 'elite' in Venezuela. Not a lot considering the enormous anti-democratic pressures against him..

What's with the bastards here who can't say a word that's positive about his results for the poor people? Since when is helping the poor a bad thing? It's a bad thing when it's claimed, but phony, such as with communism - not when it really happens.

The circumstances in Venezuela are extreme and very different than in the US. The 'radical' land reforms Chavez implements are the same ones that JFK recommended for Venezuela. There's a lot of garbage from the right on this.

Craig's employed?

Matt,

it was unreasonable for Bush to expect us to "trust" him with a stealth candidate when almost every stealth candidate in the past has burned us.

Yes. Souter comes to mind in particular. But Bush I was famously willing to break pledges and didn't seem to get the judicial issue at all. Bush II differs in both respects.

Bush misoverestimated the amount of faith his base has in his judgment.

To be honest, I'm not sure it factors into his thinking as much as we would want. From watching his handling of the war, I'm judging W to be a results oriented guy who dedicates himself to carrying out what he set out to do. Even if it costs him support. I'm not at all comfortable, but I'm trusting this judgment of mine as a prereq for trusting his. He committed himself to do this and he generally seems out and out bullheaded once that happens, base and opponents be damned alike. As with the war, it works for me so I'm not going nuts until he steps wrong on substance.

What's with the bastards here who can't say a word that's positive about his results for the poor people?

So it's okay to limit civil liberties if you're helping poor people?

Craig's employed?

How much does being a PR flak for the Socialist Workers Party pay, anyway?

It's always amusing when lefties point to the Carter Center "certifying" an election as a sign of legitimacy. As though Jimmy Carter ever met a Marxist dictator he didn't like.

,i>So it's okay to limit civil liberties if you're helping poor people?

Hey, no matter how many people a Marxist dictator murders or imprisons, no matter how many media outlets he shuts down, no matter how much land he confiscates at gunpoint... it's okay so long as everybody else gets free health care.

Good to know. I'll be sure to keep that in mind when I'm in charge.

Typical right-wing cult members responding to the liberals without any substance - just the sort of empty, rhetorical fluffiness you would expect from those for whom politics is something you assume, not something you analyze.

Oh, Irony! Thy name be ... well ... irony. But I'm sure Craig's picture is next to the definition.

Not enough time away from campus would be my guess.

The election results were broadly supported by international observers - as opposed to the falsehood above that there was good evidence they were falsified - more than you can say for Bush's 2000 win, which later analysis proved Gore had actually won.

Man, even the NY Times is willing to admit error here. Paul Krugman has more intellectual honesty than you, Craig.

Paul Frickin' Krugman.

"And I want a silver unicorn to come down out of the sky bearing baskets of chocolate eggs."

Andrea, actually that can easily be arranged.

Christ! You poor bastard! Migrant fruit pickers must make more than you then.

Maybe so, be we got dental.

If you don't think too good, don't think too much!

But I think this is more about Senate support among squishes and an off year election with low WH approval ratings.

This represents precisely what the party doesn't get: it's initiatives like appointing and fighting for great judges that changes the opinion of the country and, thus, the Senate.

You (and the party) are acting as though the popularity of a nomination is some passive, objectively measurable thing, and we just have to respond to it.

Taking bold steps (like, say, reversing all the Left-liberal stupidity that has forced on us by the SCOTUS to the cheers of mouth-breathers like Craig, above) is what would cause the head-count in the Senate to change.

As the last of the decent Democrats, Grover Cleveland, once said, "What is the use of being elected or re-elected unless you stand for something?" If GWB could show that he stands for something real, by nominating an iron-clad, avowed conservative, then his poll numbers would go up.

Andrea giveth vent to the following:

Try reading with your big head not the little one.

The big head has been nothing but trouble. It convinved me to marry my (now ex) wife; it convinced me that investing in telecom was a good idea; and that posting my stupid poetry to this blog was a good idea. Little Man could have told Big Man that it would only lead to tears, but no; Big Man was all smart and stuff.

Pfft. Little Man can run the rest of my life for all I care.

To the anonymous poster who cited Souter's resume:

Yes, I know he had a long career. If you read my words, instead of making up your own, you would have seen that I said his CONSERVATISM was evidenced only by personal vouchers. Which it was. There was no evidence of it in is record. Sununu and others claimed he was a conservative.

Sununu and others were wrong.

Coulter's column is the best example of rank elitism I have seen.

Seriously - Coulter produces propaganda designed to inflame liberals. She admitted this herself in a post election interview in Time or NEwsWeek (I've forgotten which one). The more moonbats get cranked up and foaming at the mouth, the more republicans win.

That is Ann Coulter in a nutshell. To read any more into her would be a mistake.

I don't see her as an indicator of anything.

"And I want a silver unicorn to come down out of the sky bearing baskets of chocolate eggs."

Andrea, actually that can easily be arranged.

Um -- no, no it can't. That's why I wrote that.

I mean, really.

What's the world coming to, except for its demise, when I can't even pick a proper fight with you lot?

I'd much prefer to argue bourbon vs. scotch, breasts vs. bottoms, brunettes vs. red heads than politics.

Dave, I am happy for you that you have such a fine work space. I have my own office with door, however, they have placed me in the basement with no windows. Only my Swingline stapler is here to keep me company.

If you read my words, instead of making up your own, you would have seen that I said his CONSERVATISM was evidenced only by personal vouchers. Which it was. There was no evidence of it in is record.

Oh, but I did read your words. I even quoted them several times, remember? My posting of Souter's years as an AG and on the bench was cited to refute your claim of "without much evidence, apart from personal vouchers."

Are we to believe that you have read a representative number of his opinions and found no evidence of conservatism? Now, who is MAKING THINGS UP? (See, I have a cap key, too.) Or, are you only parroting what others have told you?

Bourbon. Breasts. Blondes.

Taking bold steps (like, say, reversing all the Left-liberal stupidity that has forced on us by the SCOTUS to the cheers of mouth-breathers like Craig, above) is what would cause the head-count in the Senate to change.

I don't see that happening in the next few months. Do you? That is what victory, not the road to victory, looks like.

If GWB could show that he stands for something real, by nominating an iron-clad, avowed conservative, then his poll numbers would go up.

And if he fails due to what will be touted as "bipartisan opposition" on grounds of "ideological extremism," they drop again and all we will have done is rally the base. Not a bad thing, but not good enough. We are a plurality, not a majority.

I think we could win even in the court of general popular opinion, but if we don't win in key squish states the votes won't come regardless and there is that much less capital for the next nominee and instance of Dem obstruction.

Just as it was an O'Connor/Kennedy Court, at the moment we have a RINO Senate that already signalled a resistance to a well pedigreed conservative pick. It's the hand we have and I want an originalist even more than I want an open victory.

Thank you sir. And to each his own. For me it is Bourbon, bottoms, and brunettes. However, all on the list of choices are fantastic in my humble opinion.

bourbon vs. scotch, breasts vs. bottoms, brunettes vs. red heads

Bourbon, false choice, blondes. Gotta problem wid dat?

Damned Phinn is slowing me down, what with being so thoughtful and all. :-P

all on the list of choices are fantastic

Except scotch. (That ought to wind the acrimony back up.)

No problem, but a question. By false choice do you mean you love them both and do not prefer one (or a pair) over the other or do you care for neither and play for the pink team? Hey, I'm just askin'!

VRWC Agent, you're analyzing Miers nomination like it's a piece of legislation.

Nominees aren't like legislation. There are several features of the legislative process that bear no similarity to the court-nomination process:

1. In legislation, you get one shot. Once it's done, it's done.

2. There are dozens of places where you can bargain and compromise. The other side is pushing for A, B and C, while you fight for X, Y and Z. You settle for X, and count it as a big win if you get Y too. If, in the process, you manage to keep A, B or C out of the law, that's just gravy. You can get creative.

Nominees are different. First, the president gets as many shots as he needs. One nominee can be dinged, sure. It happened to Bork. But then, what you do is you nominate another, and another, and another until one gets on.

Second, there is no room for compromise. The Senate really only has one option -- an up or down vote. They cannot get their own agenda in on the deal. Maybe the Senators can trade their vote for some unrelated perk, like a highway bill or something, but there's no horse-trading when it comes to SCOTUS membership per se.

A nominee for SCOTUS is a unilateral act. Nominating someone for the Court is like setting out an agenda. It pays to be bold. It's where you reach for the brass ring. A nominee is the political equivalent of a declaration of principles. It's one of the places in politics, like campaigning, where it pays to aim high.

I would no sooner support a "trust me" SCOTUS nominee than I would support a candidate in the primaries whose platform consisted of "trust me."

compos, basements are teh suck.

I have been a scotch man for a long time, however I have recently been sampling the single barrel variety bourbons, and they are quite nice.

You said: "I wouldn't mind putting a retarded chicken on the Supreme Court if I knew for a fact that that drooling moronfowl would simply vote whatever way Scalia told it to."

Thanks. You just confirmed for every Liberal who sees this that the Right wing is totally morally corrupt. You don't care about the Constitution. You don't care about good government. You don't care about anything but the POWER that another drooling moonfowl like Scalia would give you. I love it!

Keep up the good work.

compos, did you get any birthday cake?

lol doc! No! I didn't get any last time either.

I was told that I could listen to my radio at a reasonable volume...

"Sorry, you can't base your opposition to liberals on this red herring."

I don't. I have herrings of all races, colors and creeds.

*

How can conservatism simultaneously be the "ideology of a few" and "pablum for the masses?"

Oh, right, false consciousness.

This is just all so sad - your phrasebook is 50+ years out of date. Listen to Carville (your smartest strategist, for my money) when he tells you: that dog, hunting, not so much much anymore.

Thanks. You just confirmed for every Liberal who sees this that the Right wing is totally morally corrupt. You don't care about the Constitution. You don't care about good government. You don't care about anything but the POWER that another drooling moonfowl like Scalia would give you. I love it!

So the guy makes a joke about retarded chickens and it confirms your worldview?

You people are beyond parody, you know.

This discussion reminds me of a bunch of kids arguing at recess about the rules for kickball and the biggest bully stomps off with the ball because "It's mine and if you don't play by my rules, you won't play with my ball."

On the one hand you have those who could care less about government and only care about the game of politics, power and special interests: Put a rubber chicken in SCOTUS as long as it votes with Scalia. As if Scalia is the only principled jurist on the bench. This is not about principles, abilities or justice. This is about achieving specific results in the judiciary.

Do any of you actually read the opinions of the Supreme Court? If you took the time to actually read these documents you would quickly discover that the so called "originalist" doctrine is a crock of bull. And in all of its forms this philosophy of interpretation is no better or objective or produces better (or less activist) results than any other type of interpretation.

Spare the criticisms of the "left" (which I assume in this blog is a catch-all term for anyone not radically conservative) for not joining in this fray. Just a few days ago when considering Chief Justice Roberts the party line was that the President should be given deference and a candidate should not have to expose his opinions on any matters that theoretically will come before the court. SO LAY OFF. He may be a blank slate, but he's a really talented blank slate and anyway, our President should be able to spend his political capital however he wants. Isn't it a bit ironic that Miers as blank slate is not acceptable because she has not been blessed by the Federalist Society?

Can a fillibuster be in the wings? Oh the horror of it all.

Here's a more serious question to those who do care about government and do now and again read the opinions of the Supreme Court:

Justices were roundly criticized by the right for mentioning the laws of other countries in a recent decision concerning capital punishment. Will those same critics stand up and be counted whenever the Bible or other religious tracts or beliefs are used to justify an argument? If we are going to be good originalists then the first rule should be no other text except the four corners of the Constitution as amended.

So what'll it be: consistency and fealty to the consitution or single issue politics that scorns the wisdom of our founders?

Being a Liberal who doesn't believe that the entire country is ready to embrace your wingnut agenda of Government control of a woman's body, destruction of the Public Schools, eliminating Social Security and Medicare, conforming to the Evangelical Taliban, and unlimited corporate welfare for Tom Delay's cronies, I would welcome the nomination of one of your far right activist judges.

Remember, Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 and barely won in 2004. You control a bare 53% of the House and 55% of the Senate. That is not a mandate for the kind of radical agenda you envision. It's hubris to think so.

The reason Rove is unwilling to nominate someone with the track record you are drooling for (emphasis on drooling) is that it would reactivate and reinvigorate the Left and alienate much of the moderate Center.

Bush isn't bright enough to figure that out, but Rove is. And if the Dem's take control of Congress next election because of the corruption and the lying and the extremism of people like you, he knows the investigations will destroy the R's for the next generation.

So - block Meiers if you can. Demand a drooling moonfowl (your term, not mine) with a solid 100% Rush Limbaugh approved track record and we'll watch the feathers fly.

There are several features of the legislative process that bear no similarity to the court-nomination process:

1. In legislation, you get one shot. Once it's done, it's done.

With all due respect, that isn't true. Only the time frame is different.

2. There are dozens of places where you can bargain and compromise.

Which is why the WH usually consults Senators prior to forwarding nominations.

the president gets as many shots as he needs. One nominee can be dinged, sure. It happened to Bork. But then, what you do is you nominate another

But the calculus of political capital is that the loser has less muscle the next time around. Bork is a good example.

there's no horse-trading when it comes to SCOTUS membership per se.

As I understand it, the "trading" is pre-nomination rather than in committee. In the present case, Owens was rejected and Bush was looking for other options.

A nominee for SCOTUS is a unilateral act.

I'll bow to any DC experience you may have, having none of my own, but I don't believe that's how the process works in practice.

A nominee is the political equivalent of a declaration of principles. It's one of the places in politics, like campaigning, where it pays to aim high.

I think you can say precisely the same about dramatic legislative efforts, like tax reform.

I would no sooner support a "trust me" SCOTUS nominee than I would support a candidate in the primaries whose platform consisted of "trust me."

Just to keep things clear, I think we only disagree about which is the lesser evil: the stealth nominee or the guns blazing confirmation fight. You see victory in the latter or at least an endless number of future confrontations in which your ammo never runs low. I don't.

That said, I do think a confirmation is much, much closer to the legislative process than an election. "Trust me" is unacceptable for a candidacy where the people are the decision makers. It is the core of what follows once we have elected someone in a republican system.

Here, the decision maker is the Senate, not the people. Just as with a bill forwarded from the WH. Senate politics are crucial and, as much as it grates, "trust me" is not beyond the pale from someone I elected on trust.

Bush has been pretty clear that he still wants an originalist and considers Meiers to be one. He's been unusually good about following through on his committments, even to the point of clear stubborness. I'm not going to say Bush has broken trust until it's broken.

As I see it, we have some weak Repulicans we need for confirmation. They'll play ball, but they need cover. Bush is providing that and asking his base to have a little faith in him. The stakes are high but they don't change the odds. I trust Bush in war because I know he sees things as I do. I trust him here, reluctanly I admit, for the same reason.

Being a Liberal who doesn't believe that the entire country is ready to embrace your wingnut agenda of Government control of a woman's body, destruction of the Public Schools, eliminating Social Security and Medicare, conforming to the Evangelical Taliban, and unlimited corporate welfare for Tom Delay's cronies, I would welcome the nomination of one of your far right activist judges.

Remember, her at the AoS HQ, we care for our liberal moonbat confreres.

By false choice do you mean you love them both and do not prefer one (or a pair) over the other or do you care for neither and play for the pink team? Hey, I'm just askin'!

I thought the bourbon preferance made that clear. ;-) Besides, my friends on the other side would definitely favor one over the other.

If we are going to be good originalists then the first rule should be no other text except the four corners of the Constitution as amended.

Actually, you're wrong.

To be a "good originalist," you have to believe that the original meaning of the text does not change.

Our understanding of that meaning can be informed by documents outside the Constitution. Documents that are contemporary to the Constitution, or predate it, are particularly useful.

If you want to change it, then go through the Amendment process. I know you find it easier to enact your inherently unpopular agenda by simply re-writing the Constitution, but don't be surprised when we call you hypocritical, dishonest, power-hungry pretend-dictators when you do.

School time, eddie.

Put a rubber chicken in SCOTUS as long as it votes with Scalia. As if Scalia is the only principled jurist on the bench. This is not about principles, abilities or justice. This is about achieving specific results in the judiciary.

Not quite. It's about the application of specific jurisprudential principles. Scalia's are excellent. If it makes you feel better, I'm sure the original poster would also be comfortable letting the bird pick between Scalia and Thomas as it wishes.

But you strike me as the utterly humorless type of lib, so we should be careful not to throw you. Nobody would literally go for nominating even a smart chicken. The comment meant that duplicating Scalia's jurisprudence is much more inportant and desirable than the pedigree of the person doing the duplication. Although they sometimes come down on different sides of an issue, I think most of us would say the same about Thomas. (So much for only looking at results, which I take to mean policy outcomes.)

Do any of you actually read the opinions of the Supreme Court? If you took the time to actually read these documents you would quickly discover that the so called "originalist" doctrine is a crock of bull.

I think we have several self-identified practicing lawyers in the room. They don't seem to share your view. Maybe whatever you do for a living keeps you more engaged with caselaw but I don't see evidence of it.

Just a few days ago when considering Chief Justice Roberts the party line was that the President should be given deference and a candidate should not have to expose his opinions on any matters that theoretically will come before the court. SO LAY OFF.

It does smack of hypocrisy, doesn't it? But even though I'm on the "trust me side," I don't think that's true. This isn't about simple ideological litmus testing by the party out of power. Bush won election on promising to appoint originalists. Since he DID win on this promise, it isn't hypocritical for those who said he should be free to deliver on the promise also to say that he should be held to it.

Justices were roundly criticized by the right for mentioning the laws of other countries in a recent decision concerning capital punishment. Will those same critics stand up and be counted whenever the Bible or other religious tracts or beliefs are used to justify an argument? If we are going to be good originalists then the first rule should be no other text except the four corners of the Constitution as amended.

You apparently misunderstand originalism. Which originalists have you found who adopt your approach? Please cite specific cases.

Originalism is about determining what the governed consented to at the time the law was adopted. "Establishment of religion," for example, was a term of art for requiring membership in a particular church as a qualification to hold office, vote, own property or similar rights. The feds were forbidden to do this, in no small part because several states had established religions until voluntarily disestablishing them in the ninteenth century. Do you think that original meaning and the practices confirming its application matter to originalists when interpreting the phrase? Think carefully, eddie.

Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 and barely won in 2004. You control a bare 53% of the House and 55% of the Senate.

And that leaves his opponents with ...?

if the Dem's take control of Congress next election because of the corruption and the lying and the extremism of people like you, he knows the investigations will destroy the R's for the next generation.

How did that work out the last time you controlled something?

Moonbats sure are angry critters. Let me know when you guys get up the guts to state your agenda to the people plainly, as we do, and we'll talk about public approval.

It would be far more appropriate if you referred to Miers as a duck, instead of chicken. Remember, it's Scalia that likes duck hunting with special interest lobbyists.

It is all of you (you know who you are) are the Chicken (Hawks).

bok bok, Chicken Hawks

"It's tough to be a conservative in a culture dominated by liberals"

No it's not. Just talk stupidly as you normally do, that's all it takes.

I pity Percy; he has a moron for a dad.

Why do conservatives keep pretending that Scalia is a strict constructionist. He is the author of the most audacious judicial activism in the Nation's history. Bush v. Gore was such an abomination that the decision itself cautions future courts NOT to use it as precident. Furthermore, the two most activist judges on the current court are Scalia and Thomas. They have written decisions which would overturn state laws more than any judges on the court. And, when will I hear a "strict constructionalist" complain about Southern Pacific v. Santa Clara? You guys are simply full of crap.

"Justices were roundly criticized by the right for mentioning the laws of other countries in a recent decision concerning capital punishment. Will those same critics stand up and be counted whenever the Bible or other religious tracts or beliefs are used to justify an argument? "

To justify a legal argument? Sure.

To justify a political argument? No. People who want to can say "God wants you to vote for candidate A" - and others can say "Candidate B understands that Europe is where it's at, so vote for her."

Neither of those should be acceptable tactics in a SC decision.

the two most activist judges on the current court are Scalia and Thomas. They have written decisions which would overturn state laws more than any judges on the court.

You might want to do a little research before you try to float the DNC's definition of "judicial activism."

If you stopped swallowing whatever Dean and Hillary decide to spit up, you would understand that "judicial activism" means something other than simply overturning state laws.

It means enforcing the Constitution as you would like it to be written, not according to what it actually says.

If enforcing the actual Constitution means state laws get stricken, then so be it. If it means federal laws get striken, so be it.

Go. Read. Learn. Think. Then speak.

It's funny to hear same liberals who adore the UN bitch about a Republican "culture of corruption." As though child sex slavery and skimming off billions from oil-for-food are not nearly as serious as using a technicality to get around an arcane campaign finance law.

Moral relativism, I guess.

Phinn --- Polling data and focus groups showed liberals that voters don't like activist judges. So, the liberals have been trying, with some success, to alter the meaning of 'judicial activism.'

Phinn: you might want to learn something about constitutional law before lecturing others. You might want to start with Marbury v. Madison, which claimed a right of judicial review which is nowhere in the constitution, Scalia is often guilty of results-based jurisprudence – having a pre-determined outcome and finding legal rationale to support it – of which Bush v. Gore is one shining example. There is no basis in the constitution for that decision, and the court admitted as much in the majority opinion.

Moreover, the idea that the constitution is an inflexible document which is not subject to interpretation and revision is wrong. A strict reading of the constitution can yield abominable results (e.g. the Dred Scott decision). The principle of stare decisis has always embedded flexibility: i.e., a decision can be overturned if it is seen to be manifestly wrong.

The right idealizes Scalia because he votes the way they would prefer him to vote. If his purported devotion of the literal reading of the constitution led to decisions which leaned towards liberalism, you would hear howls of protest from the Right. To believe otherwise is (to quote Chief Justice Marshall from Marbury) “a proposition so absurd that no thinking person ever conceived it.”

V the K: and exactly which liberals are “in love with” corruption or child prostitution? (Answer: none). Whether the campaign finance law is “arcane” or not (it isn’t) is irrelevant. You can’t violate the law because you feel that it is “arcane.” Moreover, the Republicans run all three branches of government. There are copious examples of corruption at the highest levels (extending far beyond the violation of campaign laws). This obviously doesn’t bother you. It should.

Moreover, the Republicans run all three branches of government

Please explain to us how the Republicans run the Judicial Branch.

[this should be good!]

Also, is your one eye fixed directly in the top-center of your head?

It is all of you (you know who you are) are the Chicken (Hawks).

bok bok, Chicken Hawks

The chicken hawk argument, Lars? Are you fucking serious? That argument has about as much weight as ass-crack lint. And it smells worse.

Is it too much to ask you guys to come up with some new material and stop recycling the same old shit?

Seven of nine justices were nominated by Republican Presidents.

In the kingdom of the blind, the one eyed man is King.

Why do conservatives keep pretending that Scalia is a strict constructionist. He is the author of the most audacious judicial activism in the Nation's history. Bush v. Gore was such an abomination

What's that grinding sound?

And, when will I hear a "strict constructionalist" complain about Southern Pacific v. Santa Clara?

The case was from 1886. I'm pretty sure Scalia had no hand in it. Unless you're saying he's an undead monster with eternal life nourished by drinking the blood of the living. Then you would have an argument. Insane, sure. But an argument.

Apart from implying that you are an anti-corporatist crank, was there some purpose to your post?

You guys are simply full of crap.

If you say so. Med pass should be soon. Try to be patient.

"A strict reading of the constitution can yield abominable results (e.g. the Dred Scott decision)."

Explain how Dred Scott was a result of strict construction.

No, no, take your time.

This ought to be good.

Seven of nine justices were nominated by Republican Presidents.

Thanks for the chuckle. Its been a long day. FWIW, once you dislodge your head from your ass you'll probably discover you have two eyes.

Phinn: you might want to learn something about constitutional law before lecturing others.

My Constitutional Law professors who gave me the highest grades in their classes might take offense at that. Since I, on the other hand, have no respect for you, I'm not insulted.

Scalia is often guilty of results-based jurisprudence – having a pre-determined outcome and finding legal rationale to support it

Wrong. He is often accused of that by logic-challenged Left-wing propagandists (and their brain-addled sycophantic clone army reservists like yourself) who are unable to formulate a cogent justification for their activist philosophies.

There's a guy who hangs around my parking garage with tin cans strapped to his torso who goes around accusing everyone of being in on a conspiuracy against him. I take his accusations about as seriously as I take yours.

the idea that the constitution is an inflexible document which is not subject to interpretation and revision is wrong.

Of course it is subject to interpretation. The debate, such as it is, is over what the proper mode of that interpretation is.

In the final analysis, of course, the debate really comes down to power. Your preferred mode of interpretation is simply a mechanism for expanding the power of a body that has served your interests for several decades. Since this is a nation of laws, and the Court's repeated arrogation of power to itself is contrary to law, a free people should feel free to disregard and resist such usurpations.

I read that in a Declaration somewhere.

A strict reading of the constitution can yield abominable results (e.g. the Dred Scott decision).

Ah, here we have it! Isn't it positively funny (in a sickening, repuslive sort of way) that you spent the first few lines of your mental diarrhea complaining about (how did you put it?) "results-based jurisprudence." Then not one paragraph later, we see a paean to judicial decision-making that lovingly embraces "results-based jurisprudence" when it suits your political agenda.

Bravo!

If his purported devotion of the literal reading of the constitution led to decisions which leaned towards liberalism, you would hear howls of protest from the Right.

Yeah, see, except that both Scalia and the Constitution do "lean toward liberalism" when, for example, there is an issue of whether private property owners have the right not to have the government seize their property so that this very same government can install a more robust taxpayer on that plot of land.

That's pretty "liberal" to me (in the ordinary sense of the word). But in this Alice-in-Wonderland world we live in, it has become the "conservative" position in modern American politics. The justices that are routinely applauded by the Democratic Party/Left Wing of this country were the ones to author that atrocious little piece of statist Constitutional "interpretation."

The Dred Scott decision revolved around whether a slave had legal standing to sue. The consitution, as originally written, classified slaves as property with no legal standing. See Justice Taney's majority opnion.

If it helps, here's the decision in the Dred Scott case.

Enjoy.

Ah, my HTML skills are lacking.

Try this one instead.

Man, Ace needs better trolls.

Phinn: I really don’t care what your grades were in school, nor do I want to hear about the guy who hangs out in your garage. When you get through the diatribe (I’m a “brain-addled sycophantic clone army reservist?” that’s news to me), there is almost an argument there.

I’m not sure how the Court “arrogated power” to itself. If you are referring to Marbury v. Madison, that decision is over 200 years old and has been the basis of judicial review ever since. If you believe that the Court’s decisions are wrong, that is something else. For example, I believe that Roe v. Wade is an excellent example of results-based jurisprudence. I happen to agree with the outcome, but it is horrible case law. There are plenty of other examples as well. However, I don’t think that this is a usurpation of power – I think it is a bad decision, that’s all. The Court has ruled that the federal government has the right to ban the use of medical marijuana because, among other reasons, it purportedly violates the commerce clause (even though the substance never crossed a state line). I believe Scalia voted for the majority on that one. So bad case law is not limited to either liberal or conservative judges.

The Connecticut case which used eminent domain to seize private property was, in my opinion, dead wrong. Why you think the outcome is something liberals would want is beyond me. It seems to me that everybody hated this decision, on both sides of the divide.

You are also missing the mark when you accuse me of inconsistency (favoring results-based jurisprudence for Dred Scott but not Bush v. Gore). I believe that there should be flexibility in interpreting the constitution when there are moral imperatives involved (as with Dred Scott). Fidelity to “original meaning” is only one element of good jurisprudence – having a wise and just decision is, I believe, much more important. There are no moral imperatives involved in Bush v. Gore – this is a clear example of Republican-appointed judges halting the Florida recount because it would put a Republican in the White House.

There are copious examples of corruption at the highest levels (extending far beyond the violation of campaign laws).

Like what? And I mean, genuine gross violations of the law with demonstrable evidence, not moonbat rants about "no-bid contracts" (there is no such thing) or outing secret CIA agents who weren't outed and whose identities were not secret. Come on, if there are copious examples of Republican behavior that's as bad as oil-for-food or the UN child prostitution rings, I'd be most interested to see them listed.

Tom DeLay indicted on multiple counts. His friend Jack Abromowitz indicted on multiple counts. David Safavian indicted on multiple counts. The Fitzgerald grand jury likely to issue indictments later this week.

Each of the above is, of course, entitled to a presumption of innocence. If they are found innocent, I will kiss your ass in Macy's store window during the Thanksgiving day parade. There have been lots of instances in the past of the highest levels of Republican government being found corrupt (Spiro Agnew taking money in envelopes, anyone?). However, when this is all said and done, I think you will find a pattern of corruption unmatched since at least the Nixon administration.

In other words, no convictions, just two (that's what you mean by multiple, I take it) indictments on an arcane campaign finance violation that even the liberal Austin American-Statesman and Washington Post think are rathey gamey, an indictment of a lobbyist who has no position in the Bush Admin, and a feeling about corruption you just know is there because there are Republicans involved.

Gee, you're right, child prostitution and skimming billions from illegal deals with Saddam Hussein just pale by comparison.

Jack Abromowitz...David Safavian

Yup. The highest levels.

And, hey, DeLay will probably be acquitted when all is said and done. After all, there's "no controlling legal authority."

I never said that child prostitution and skimming money are anything but abhorrent. My point was that we have control over the US government, whereas we do not have control over the UN. It does not shame us if the UN is corrupt. It is shameful if our government is corrupt.

Safavian is at a high level: he was the top official in government purchasing until he was indicted a few weeks ago. Abromowitz is a lobbyist whose influence was due only to his extensive relationships throughout the GOP establishment.

Let me be clear: I don't think that Bush, Cheney, Rice, etc., are corrupt or on the take. Nor do I think that Democrats are any more or less corrupt than Republicans -- there aren't a lot of politicians of any stripe who deserve a place in the pantheon of saints. However, I think there is something inherently corrupting about power, and when one party is in control of the government, there is a laxity which tends to be absent in a divided government. I have no doubt that if Democrats held all of the levers of power, that you would see similar events. However, this does not excuse those at the top who abuse the public trust.

Yes, a retarded chicken supreme court justice would be a perfect match for your retarded chicken president and the whole flock of retarded chicken right wing bloggers! The GOP is nothing if not a party of retarded chickens who know how to take orders.

one eyed man:

Ronnie Earle will be doing a perp walk long before Tom DeLay does. Earle's reputation even in Travis County is plummeting. I wouldn't hang my hopes on his stupid indictments, if I were you -- they are very unlikely to go anywhere, and could lead Mr. Earle into some legal trouble of his own (misuse of public office, anyone?).

That old saying that you can indict a ham sandwich didn't come out of thin air, you know. Those indictments aren't worth a cup of warm spit.

However, this does not excuse those at the top who abuse the public trust.

Um, yeah, but you haven't given examples of anyone 'at the top' who has abused the public trust, despite your previous assertion of 'copious' examples of corruption throughout the Bush administration. Unless, like 'multiple' meaning two, you define 'copious' as meaning three.

Interesting. Contrast:

Fidelity to “original meaning” is only one element of good jurisprudence – having a wise and just decision is, I believe, much more important.

But who decides what is "wise" and "just?" Should it be the policy preferences that become articulated as law by the duly elected - and accountable - political branches, or whatever the personal views of a judge happen to be? The latter, of course, has few if any checks on his power if he chooses to abuse it.

From a post less than 25 minutes later:

I think there is something inherently corrupting about power

All the more reason for judges to stick to the will of the governed rather than their own preferred outcomes, don't you think? (See Federalist 78.)

However, I think there is something inherently corrupting about power, and when one party is in control of the government, there is a laxity which tends to be absent in a divided government.

Now we agree, only I don't think a divided government helps the situation at all. Those in power who tend toward corruption will continue in their corruption no matter what checks and balances exist.

Unless, like 'multiple' meaning two, you define 'copious' as meaning three.

And "examples of corruption," meaning "accusations by partisans on the losing side." Very convincing stuff. Naturally, if they are aquitted it only shows how deep the corruption goes.

The Left lost the ability to be rational years ago. What mostly remains are raving moonbats like SFLib and the ones trying to fake it. For the most part, I don't think it's possible to actually have productive conversations with them anymore than you can rationally discuss the Jews with most Saudis. (Or Europeans, these days.) If you won't buy into their prejudices, you won't be speaking the same language.

I think the answer is that a good judge has the wisdom to know the difference. Moreover, the judiciary is established partly to enforce the constitution even against the will of the majority when necessary. A hypothetical example: if you asked a majority of Americans in the 1950's whether the government should be allowed to put people in jail if they espoused Communist beliefs, doubtless they (and their Congress) would have overwhelmingly passed laws to do that. However, the Supreme Court is entrusted with enforcing the first amendment, and in this case the right thing would be to allow Communists to read Marx and Lenin in the town square if they want to do so. Judges are supposed to be the bulwark against the passions of the day.

Regrettably, I wish I could respond to your intelligent post in more detail, but the family is screaming for dinner.

R

Yes, a retarded chicken supreme court justice would be a perfect match for your retarded chicken president and the whole flock of retarded chicken right wing bloggers! The GOP is nothing if not a party of retarded chickens who know how to take orders.

I'll give this the response it deserves.

Wow. That's so original. Your typing skills are exceptional and the thoughts are so...profound.

If you were in kindergarten, that is.

I'm assuming you're an adult. In that case, you should know that having your head so far up your squeakhole can cause certain medical conditions, such as asthma, to become more pronounced.

Words are inadequate in describing the level of unoriginality you have displayed in your comment. I now understand how a total dunderhead like Nancy Pelosi can be a member of Congress. Compared to you, she's a fucking rocket scientist.

a good judge has the wisdom to know the difference.

Translated, "A wise King should know when to leave his subjects to their affairs." I prefer to think a good electorate knows. Once again, it's where you put your trust.

the Supreme Court is entrusted with enforcing the first amendment, and in this case the right thing would be to allow Communists to read Marx and Lenin in the town square if they want to do so. Judges are supposed to be the bulwark against the passions of the day.

No. The Constitution is a bulwark against the passions of the day. That's why it takes so much effort to amend it. Judges are supposed to adhere to it as written rather than with regard to their personal feelings about Communism (I'm sure loads of judges thought it unwise to let that pernicious tripe spread) and without regard to "evolving standards" of decency, indecency, tolerance, intolerance, etc.

As amended, the Constitution is a contract between federal and state governments, citizens and those governments, and between the citizens themselves. We write down the words of contracts, including social contracts, precisely because we want to lock their meaning in. We need no written instruments at all if we are to be ruled simply by changing expectations, shifting standards and judicial fiat.

The judge's job in constitutional law is to ascertain and apply this agreement of the parties -- not what he thinks they should have agreed to had they only been as wise and good as he. Anything less is unacceptable.

Words are inadequate in describing the level of unoriginality you have displayed in your comment.

I'm willing to put money down that there's some post on one of the shorter short-bus blogs somewhere that says LOOK THIS ACE GUY SAYS THEY WANT A RETARDED CHICKEN, hence the influx of HAW HAW RETARDED CHICKEN comments without any context to the thread.

Give them time, these are the benchwarmers on the troll team. They don't get out much!

There are no moral imperatives involved in Bush v. Gore

I'd consider it a moral imperative not to let a losing party re-re-recount every time the result comes up as something they don't like. Gore's post-election performance was pretty embarassing, and it's only gotten worse from there.

I would place my faith in judges before popular opinion. Judges are picked because they have a legal education and background, and also because presumably they have probity and wisdom. (Are there bad judges? Of course. However, when the system works as it should, they do not get elevated to the Circuit and Supreme Courts). This is not elitism: it is a simple recognition of the fact that judges are supposed to bring certain qualities to the bench which make them capable of interpreting the law corrctly. If you need surgery, it's not elitist to pick a surgeon. If you need interpretation of the law, it's not elitist to pick lawyers and judges.

I think you missed my point regarding the 1950's. The meaning of the first amendment is locked in: Americans have the freedom of speech to promote even obnoxious beliefs. In our hypothetical case, the judges are doing exactly as you would have them do in allowing this speech. It has nothing to do with their opinions about Communism -- it has everything to do with applying the Bill of Rights.

Where judicial "activism," if that is the word. comes in is when the Constitution is unclear. Does the first amendment allow slander and libel? If you read it literally, the answer is no: if Congress shall make no laws abridging freedom of speech, then it can't prohibit slander. What about yelling fire in a crowded movie theater? How about commercial speech: can an advertiser make patently false claims about his product?

Judicial flexibility comes in applying wisdom (and, yes, the contemporary moral standards) to the Constitution. It is not a black and white issue of judges being activist or not. Maybe you want to live in a world with no libel laws, people inciting riots, and an anything-goes world of commercial speech, although I doubt it. The only reason that we do not live in this world is that judges have interpreted the Constitution in this way.

There are no moral imperatives involved in Bush v. Gore

Granting for the sake of argument everything else you might have to say about the case, who are you to question a wise and good judge's determination of what is and is not a moral imperative? When you cede them this power, they will most surely use it.

Enlightened philosopher kings occasionally pop up in history. When they pass, their excellence passes too. Only the crown remains with new heads to wear it. Our Constitution was designed to prevent such arrogations of power. The prospect of letting a judge decide when and whether he will limit himself accordingly invites only the worst possible outcomes: the good and honest man will refrain from drawing unconstitutional power to himself, but the worst will take it on hungrily.

I think it was Madison, the Father of the Constitution, who observed that if men were angels they would have no need for government. That principle applies inside as well as outside of government and the constitutional limitations on power, including judicial power, address the concern. It is emphatically not the role of judges to substitute their will for the will of the people as adopted into law. Period.

I have the same right as everybody else to question a judge's actions. I may be right or I may be wrong, but any citizen has that right.

You are correct that "It is emphatically not the role of judges to substitute their will for the will of the people as adopted into law." However, that is not what I am arguing. It is the role of judges to enforce the constitution, even if that decision overrides the will of the people (or, more precisely, the laws which are passed by the peoples' representatives). Hence if Congress passes a law which, for example, discriminates against Muslims, the Court would be absolutely correct in nullifying the law because it is a clear violation of the freedom of speech. There was a lot of anti-Muslim sentiment after 9/11 -- it's not far-fetched to imagine politicians trying to curry favor with the public by passing silly laws -- and it would be quite proper for the court to deny them, regardless of how the majority of people felt at the time.

You can argue that the Court doesn't have the right of judicial review -- after all, it's not in the Constitution -- but you would be arguing against the last 200 years of American jurisprudence, dating from Marbury v. Madison.

This is not an issue of judges over-reaching their authority -- rather, it is a question of whether the judges are interpreting the Constitution and subsequent Court rulings correctly.

sorry, meant to write "freedom of religion," not freedon of speech

I really don’t care what your grades were in school

Then, ass munch, don't lead your pathetic mumblings with sentiments like "you might want to learn something about constitutional law before lecturing others."

In addition to being a victim of Leftist propaganda and stunningly egotistical (what, the name "I am the king!" was taken?), you have a short-term memory impariment as well?

I’m not sure how the Court “arrogated power” to itself.

Then you're not paying attention.

By appointing itself as:

1. the forger of new rights (perhaps they're lurking in the "penumbras and emanations" of other phrases!);

2. the writer of new meanings of otherwise simple, well-established phrases (maybe "public use" means "private use"!; maybe prohibiting Congress from establishing or disestablishing a religion means that a state judge can't hang the 10 Commandments in his courtroom, since he's obviously "Congress," and hanging an 8x10 piece of paper is the "establishment of a religion"; maybe regulating commerce between States means the federal gov't can pass any law on anything touching on or affecting commerce, which is everything!); and

3. originator of wholly meaningless adjectival so-called standards ("We'll decide what an 'undue' burden is ... and don't ask us what that means. We'll know it when we see it!"),

the Court is no longer in the business of interpreting law. It is making new law. It is writing new meanings for provisions whose meanings have already been established. More importantly, it is assuming federal control over areas of law committed to the States.

Can you really not see that all of these bad decisions, regardless of whether you agree with the particular outcome, consistently put the Court in the position of having an ever-expanding scope of authority?

If you are referring to Marbury v. Madison, that decision is over 200 years old and has been the basis of judicial review ever since.

What is it with you and Marbury? Sheesh! The Court in Marbury spent about 75% of its time conducting a textual and contextual analysis. And the rest of the time, the Court discussed the meaning of various parts of the Constitution, which Marshall was able to do because he was there. He knew the people who wrote it. The meaning of various elements and other structural questions about the new government was basically a matter of current events, not long-forgotten history.

These are all originalist analysis tools, in case you were wondering.

If you believe that the Court’s decisions are wrong, that is something else. For example, I believe that Roe v. Wade is an excellent example of results-based jurisprudence. I happen to agree with the outcome, but it is horrible case law. There are plenty of other examples as well. However, I don’t think that this is a usurpation of power – I think it is a bad decision, that’s all.

See, there are some people out there who not only can say that they think some decisions are wrong, we can also say why they are wrong.

The Court has ruled that the federal government has the right to ban the use of medical marijuana because, among other reasons, it purportedly violates the commerce clause (even though the substance never crossed a state line). I believe Scalia voted for the majority on that one. So bad case law is not limited to either liberal or conservative judges.

You Lefties have a real hard on for Scalia, don't you? He was wrong on that one. Fortunately, Thomas gave us an appropriate dissent.

The Connecticut case which used eminent domain to seize private property was, in my opinion, dead wrong. Why you think the outcome is something liberals would want is beyond me. It seems to me that everybody hated this decision, on both sides of the divide.

First, the Left overwhelmingly nodded or yawned in response to Kelo. God forbid they criticize the Gang of Five.

Second, have you noticed a pattern to these "outcomes"? Have you ever thought that maybe they get these things wrong all the time because of some fundamental misunderstanding about how the law and/or government is supposed to work?

Or is each of these SCOTUS decisions just another instance of political rivalry to you, in which you hope for an "outcome" that suits your political leanings?

So far, all you have managed to say is that judges should be "good" and "wise" and that their rulings should be "just."

Well, hoo-fucking-ray. Call Miers. Tell her that she's out and some random loser calling himself the One Eyed Man is so damned brilliant, we can't wait another minute to have him make pronouncements from the bench about what is "good."

I really don’t care what your grades were in school

Then, ass munch, don't lead your pathetic mumblings with sentiments like "you might want to learn something about constitutional law before lecturing others."

In addition to being a victim of Leftist propaganda and stunningly egotistical (what, the name "I am the king!" was taken?), you have a short-term memory impariment as well?

I’m not sure how the Court “arrogated power” to itself.

Then you're not paying attention.

By appointing itself as:

1. the forger of new rights (perhaps they're lurking in the "penumbras and emanations" of other phrases!) (Griswold);

2. the writer of new meanings of otherwise simple, well-established phrases (maybe "public use" means "private use"! (Kelo); maybe prohibiting Congress from establishing or disestablishing a religion means that a state judge can't hang the 10 Commandments in his courtroom, since he's obviously "Congress," and hanging an 8x10 piece of paper is the "establishment of a religion" (McCreary County); maybe regulating commerce between States means the federal gov't can pass any law on anything touching on or affecting commerce, which is everything! (Schecter Poultry)); and

3. originator of wholly meaningless adjectival so-called standards ("We'll decide what an 'undue' burden is ... and don't ask us what that means. We'll know it when we see it!") (Casey),

the Court is no longer in the business of interpreting law. It is making new law. It is writing new meanings for provisions whose meanings have already been established. More importantly, it is assuming federal control over areas of law committed to the States.

Can you really not see that all of these bad decisions, regardless of whether you agree with the particular outcome, consistently put the Court in the position of having an ever-expanding scope of authority?

If you are referring to Marbury v. Madison, that decision is over 200 years old and has been the basis of judicial review ever since.

What is it with you and Marbury? Sheesh! The Court in Marbury spent about 75% of its time conducting a textual and contextual analysis. And the rest of the time, the Court discussed the meaning of various parts of the Constitution, which Marshall was able to do because he was there. He knew the people who wrote it. The meaning of various elements and other structural questions about the new government was basically a matter of current events, not long-forgotten history.

These are all originalist analysis tools, in case you were wondering.

If you believe that the Court’s decisions are wrong, that is something else. For example, I believe that Roe v. Wade is an excellent example of results-based jurisprudence. I happen to agree with the outcome, but it is horrible case law. There are plenty of other examples as well. However, I don’t think that this is a usurpation of power – I think it is a bad decision, that’s all.

See, there are some people out there who not only can say that they think some decisions are wrong, we can also say why they are wrong.

The Court has ruled that the federal government has the right to ban the use of medical marijuana because, among other reasons, it purportedly violates the commerce clause (even though the substance never crossed a state line). I believe Scalia voted for the majority on that one. So bad case law is not limited to either liberal or conservative judges.

You Lefties have a real hard on for Scalia, don't you? He was wrong on that one. Fortunately, Thomas gave us an appropriate dissent.

The Connecticut case which used eminent domain to seize private property was, in my opinion, dead wrong. Why you think the outcome is something liberals would want is beyond me. It seems to me that everybody hated this decision, on both sides of the divide.

First, the Left overwhelmingly nodded or yawned in response to Kelo. God forbid they criticize the Gang of Five.

Second, have you noticed a pattern to these "outcomes"? Have you ever thought that maybe they get these things wrong all the time because of some fundamental misunderstanding about how the law and/or government is supposed to work?

Or is each of these SCOTUS decisions just another instance of political rivalry to you, in which you hope for an "outcome" that suits your political leanings?

So far, all you have managed to say is that judges should be "good" and "wise" and that their rulings should be "just."

Well, hoo-fucking-ray. Call Miers. Tell her that she's out and some random loser calling himself the One Eyed Man is so damned brilliant, we can't wait another minute to have him make pronouncements from the bench about what is "good."

Phinn,

Those last two posts are creeping up on moonbat length ;->

Sorry. I'm being infected with moonbatism.

"Beware that, when fighting moonbats, you yourself do not become a moonbat...for when
you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - -Friedrich Nietzsche

"The Dred Scott decision revolved around whether a slave had legal standing to sue. The consitution, as originally written, classified slaves as property with no legal standing. "

No, it didn't.
This was itself a radical reinterpretation.

It certainly didn't in a way that should have bound a state or territory which had chosen otherwise. In a sense, the decision opened the door to an expansion of federal power.

We can grant for the sake of argument that the majority thought it was going by original intent. That's the problem - when you abstract general rules, instead of going by a text-and-test-based approach, you start finding penumbrae of emanations, and suddenly the 'right to property' includes human chattel. Over and above the right of a state to define otherwise.

Or?

"Craig: The election results were broadly supported by international observers - as opposed to the falsehood above that there was good evidence they were falsified - more than you can say for Bush's 2000 win, which later analysis proved Gore had actually won.

Response: Man, even the NY Times is willing to admit error here. Paul Krugman has more intellectual honesty than you, Craig.

Paul Frickin' Krugman."

I don't continue interaction with people who post slanderous lies as you do, but I do invite you for one last point to say what evidence you have for error on my part including this NY Times correction, which I may or may not agree with.

And considering the source - you - use links as much as possible for any evidence.