I suppose I will mute my opposition to Miers, as Bush seems psychologically incapable of reversing himself at this point. He will press on with the nomination, and, as Hugh Hewitt observed, attempting to thwart him will only damage his political powers.

"You don't have to fall in love. You just have to fall in line."

Has Ace developed cankles?

The main problem is that Bush isn't a lawyer, and has no reason to know what he's supposed to even find out about Miers that would make her a good Justice. The person who was supposed to be his go-between and legal interpreter was the one he picked! Horrible idea.

Incidentally, I think you're chickening out at exactly the wrong time. Today's NYT story about Senate staff is a very obvious sign that not only staff but many Republican Senators are pissed off. There's a good chance the nomination is toast.

Wait, Allah is right. One side does have to give up, but it's not the side that is fighting for principle.

Oh, and fuck Hewitt. His attacks on the Senate staffers are beyond contemptible. And his citation of foreign authority (David Warren)? He's jumped the shark.

Dammit, wrote a long comment and it gets deleted because I mentioned p*k*r to build on Ace's g*mbl*ng analogy.

So to sum up: he's aware of the mistakes and hits his dad took. No way he's going to be the guy who appoints another Souter.

As opposed to the argument about chasing lost money, I think he knows that this is a big hand and he's got some risks going, but he's pretty sure his hand is solid. And I can't think of another president I would less like to face across the H*ld '*M table.

I also hope that this is the right move because I've undergone very painful political deprogramming over the last few years to have even been able to think about pulling an (R) lever in 2004, and I'm afraid of backsliding into my old ways out of disillusionment with my new home.

You don't have to make any decision until after you've heard her testify. Great post though.

If the Right ever did give this woman the benefit of the doubt the Left might notice she's a Jeebus freak and stern pro-lifer. Where's the outrage?

100% right, someone. They fed us a bucket of shit here and now they're asking us to smile like good boys and girls lest the party fracture and the Dems take over Congress next year.

I repeat: anyone who buys the Hewitt line has no right whatsoever to criticize Hillary for her "fall in line" marching orders to the robots on the left.

He's not going to back down, so we better? I don't think so. That seat on the court will potentially have more impact than his presidency.

I wasn't thrilled with Rogers, because nobody's quite sure of him politically. But his credentials couldn't be more impressive, so what could I say? Cross my fingers and hope for the best.

But this woman? She better show me something mind-blowing in the hearings. And evangelical Christianity ain't it...

The main problem is that Bush isn't a lawyer, and has no reason to know what he's supposed to even find out about Miers that would make her a good Justice.

Me just President. Me no want to know nothing. Me no like lawyers.

Your thoughts are just a cheap rip off of George Will's "no inclination or ability...." put down.

I highly doubt that Miers will be defeated, someone. Look at the issue this way. 22 Democratic Senators voted to confirm Justice Roberts. Do you think that that number will be larger or smaller for Miers? I'm almost sure that number will be larger (unless Miers proves terribly unqualified in which case all bets are off) because any Democrat with any amount of sense (insert punchline) will realize that if this nominee is defeated, the alternative will be an even more conservative Justice. This is the best case scenario for them - splitting the conservative coalition and hoping for the best. I'd say 30 Dems will vote for her.

Now assuming that is the case, then Miers needs votes from only 20 of the 55 Republican Senators to be confirmed (there will of course be no filibuster). Do you think that RINOS like Specter, Chafee, Collins, et al. will stand up for a more conservative nominee? Not likely. The only ones that would vote against Miers would be someone like Lott who has nothing to lost politically and perhaps a Brownback or one of the other very conservative senators. Even then, I don't suspect that more than a handful of Republican Senators will break ranks to defeat a nomination that is going to pass with or without their help.

I don't think that Republicans should bite the bullett and support Miers necessarily. I'm unsure about where I stand right now. But the die is cast - there's no going back now. What will continued shrill opposition do other than weaken the party? And if the party is weakened and it turns out that Bush gave us the strict constructionist he promised in the past, what will be the point then, other than to show that even the conservative base thinks the President is a bumbling fool who can't be trusted to do anything without Karl Rove or whomever else pulling the strings and telling him exactly what to do?

I'm way more with Hewitt (and, more importantly, with Bush) than most of what I've seen from the other side. OK, granted, Republicans shouldn't have to reflexively "fall in line" with everything a Republican president wants, but isn't he at least entitled to a *little* bit of deference? For the love of Benji, couldn't folks at least wait until her hearing before shrilly declaring her to be doubleplusungoodsouterrific?

I'm embarrassed for my party on a whole bunch of levels, from the knee-jerk preference to be a minority party that consistently makes the perfect the implacable, sworn enemy of the good, to the people who seem to think the only job of being a Supreme Court justice is merely equivalent to Secretary of Deciding Who Gets to Have Abortions and When.

If pressure can cause Miers to withdraw, that's my preference.

But I don't think we can cause a withdrawal. I think Bush has his heels dug in deep and he's not giving up. Making most of this futile.

As for chickening out-- well, I'm not endorsing her, just provisionally acquiescing with the threat/promise that if Bush is wrong, his presidency is over as far as almost all of his conservative supporters are concerned.

Seriously, the only charitable interpretation of this post is link-whoring. Hewitt is grasping at every straw...

I'm not going to trust Bush. If he's wrong ideologically (and it's irrelevant, since he's still wrong for picking a stealth underqualified crony), he's never up for election again -- and we probably won't even find out until he's out of office. So there's no downside for him, no reason for him to have worried. We, however, will have to live with this for the rest of Miers' natural life.

The merits of the Miers pick aside, can we not agree that the administration's tactic of telling its critics to shut up and support the president, and attacking critics as "sexist," or "elitist" for merely suggesting that there were better choices --- has made things worse rather than better? Is it ever a good idea for a president with approval ratings that look like an LA Clippers score to attack his base?

If Miers has merits, let the administration tell us what they are. Let's have some facts, let's see some evidence, not just this "shut up and trust us, you sexist elitists" and "she's pretty smart for a girl" crap.

I've already walked away. The Bushies are incompetent.

Your lawyer . . . adopts your views of the law, . . .

News to me.

Little wonder why Bush has found Miers so agreeable. It was her job to agree with him, generally. To advise him, certainly, to warn him of illegality, of course. But in all the gray areas, all the debatable issues, she was on Bush's side because she was paid to be.

Really? Now you're saying she did it for the money? Considering she is paid but a fraction she would make in the private sector, this seems like more sour grapes.

If Miers is a good justice, he'll look smarter than all of his Ivy League critics, and he'll be owed many apologies. (I of course will offer one, despite not being Ivy League.)

I doubt it. You've become too emotionally invested in this. If she is confirmed and turns out to be God's gift to conservatism, I fear you'll twist it to be a complete negative. I think “we” (hey, you used "we," therefore, so can I) need to do an intervention on you.

Where has this sexist and elitist garbage come from?

I've heard no Bush supporters make the argument that those opposed to them are sexist. The elitist argument has been used by some, to be sure, but there was quite a bit of elitism early on. I remember people pointing out that she "only" graduated from SMU as if to scoff at that credential. Certainly not all of Miers critics are elitists. In fact, most are not. But there was certainly some amount of elitism at play early in the process.

Ace, when are we going to find out that she's "wrong" (as you put it)? I think Frum -- and that disgusting comment by Land about "deep personal betrayal" -- is correct that she'll vote with Bush as long as he's in office. Afterwards, sure, we'll curse his name, but what does Bush care at that point?

Steve: it's not the opposition to Miers that's shrill, it's the advocacy. Look -- we've been calling for signs of a (conservative, but really ANY) jurisprudential philosophy since day 1. What has the administration offered? Absolutely nothing but "trust me" and "she's a Christian". Now they're wheeling out Laura to accuse us of being sexist and elitist? Get outta town.

They picked this destructive form of fight. And we're not going to knuckle under when they're wrong.

"You've become too emotionally invested in this."

Clang! Seriously. Get a hobby or something.

I don't agree bush will lose any followers on the right no matter how bad this nominee is. You're either with him or against him.

They will all fall in line, including you.

OK, granted, Republicans shouldn't have to reflexively "fall in line" with everything a Republican president wants, but isn't he at least entitled to a *little* bit of deference?

We've waited ten fucking years for this, and this is what he throws at us? The Texas lottery commissioner?

We stuck with him despite the spending. We stuck with him despite the setbacks in Iraq. We stuck with him despite his support for affirmative action in the Grutter case. We stuck with him despite his appointing cronies for important cabinet positions. And why did we stick with him? Because on the big stuff -- most notably the war -- he's right.

Until now. The Supreme Court is "the big stuff." And he let us down, hard. He owes us a superstar. We gave the GOP the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. And what do we get for our trouble? Harriet Miers. Not good enough by a long shot.

I wasn't thrilled with Rogers, because nobody's quite sure of him politically. But his credentials couldn't be more impressive, so what could I say?

Oh, please tell me you aren't referring to Justice Janice Rogers Brown.

despite his support for affirmative action in the Grutter case

Dude, when a lawyer takes a case, he usually becomes a genuine personal advocate. It's a natural thing. Suddenly winning some minor point of law becomes very important to you.

And yes, lawyers are paid to do your bidding. They are not neutral arbiters. They are PAID ADVOCATES FOR YOUR LEGAL INTERESTS. A neutral arbiter is a judge. A lawyer is on your side, and paid to be so. This isn't to say Miers is mercenary; it is just to say she's a lawyer, and this is what lawyers do.

Look it up. The legal code of ethics states that a lawyer will be a zealous advocate for his client's interests and desires to the extent the law permits.

As far as "twisting a Bush vindication into a negative" -- this is again one of those uncalled for ad hominem attacks showing the bankruptcy of your position. You have little to say, except to accuse me of some vague "bad motives."

I would love to be proven wrong. If I'm wrong, I will gladly offer a "Bush outsmarted his opponents, and some of his allies (like me), once again" mea culpa. I would like it if Miers were a real conservative, getting through the confirmation process with a bit of stealth. I'm just not convinced she is.

It really does get old, though, that the pro-Miers camp can usually offer so little by way of actual recommendation for her confirmation and instead resorts to silly "elitist" put-downs and claims that we're against her just because... well, just because we're so "personally invested" in defeating her.

I want a conservative in the mold of Scalia or Thomas on the court. That is what I was promised. Miers appears not to be; at best, she seems to be in the mold of O'Connor or Kennedy.

If I'm wrong, terrific, and an apology to Bush would be a gladly written one.

Not sure why all the pro-Miers folks have to so frequently attack their opponents rather than simply laying out the pro-Miers case. Kind of suggests there isn't much of one.

Isn't he (the president) at least entitled to a *little* bit of deference?

If he hadn't signed McCain-Feingold

If he hadn't signed the prescription drug boondoggle

If he hadn't gone crazy with the spending

If he had held out for including vouchers in NCLB

If he hadn't helped Arlen Specter get re-elected

If he hadn't signed the porktacular highway bill

If he didn't show a complete disregard for border security, and hadn't called the Minutemen "vigilantes."

Then, we might be able to give him some 'deference.' But you know the saying, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me seven times... and I'll be reluctant to trust you on the eighth.

But in all the gray areas, all the debatable issues, she was on Bush's side because she was paid to be.

Really? Now you're saying she did it for the money? Considering she is paid but a fraction she would make in the private sector, this seems like more sour grapes.

Oh, that's right, he did push for affirmative action in Grutter. That makes eight.

How about you stuck with Bush because:

1. Tax cuts
2. Withdrawal from ABM treaties
3. Refusal to sign Kyoto
3. Puntative enviromental restriction reversals
4. Social Security debate
5. Appointment of conservative justices
6. John Bolton and UN slapdown
7. 13 straight qtrs of positive growth
8. tort reform
9. North Korea
10. 9/11

Oh, and as far as "link-whoring"? Fuck you. I write what I think.

It doesn't even make sense. There are enough big-guns on both sides of this to get links whatever my position, if that was my intent.

If you want to start up with the ad hominems, then maybe we can both join in and I can start noting that some on the right are in puppydog unrequited love with Bush as those on the left were with Clinton.

I haven't said shit like that before, but if you want to start making everything about putative "bad motives," how about you stop sucking Bush's asshole for five minutes and consider the woman's actual record?

I would love to be proven wrong. If I'm wrong, I will gladly offer a "Bush outsmarted his opponents, and some of his allies (like me),

Funny you should state that and I take you at your word but I've come to the opinion that many (certainly not all) of Mier's critics are similar to the anti war left in that I believe they hope that Mier falls on her face to prove their point. Just like the leftists hope we fail in Iraq. Of course neither would ever admit it.

DMan --- Fair Enough, but I think, on balance, his record is mixed at best, and it's reasonable to subject his pick to scrutiny. (Don't forget David Souter.) Or, at least to ask the reasonable and legitimate question why so many arguably superior people were passed over. I think we're entitled to a better answer then "Shut up, and trust me." If Bush can lay out a case for Iraq, he should be able to lay out a case for Miers.

[snip lecture on the law]

Thanks, but I've been in practice for 21 years.

As far as "twisting a Bush vindication into a negative" -- this is again one of those uncalled for ad hominem attacks showing the bankruptcy of your position. You have little to say, except to accuse me of some vague "bad motives."

Ad hominem? Not at all. It's an observation. You've entered the cognitive dissonance zone on anything Miers. I've said a lot on Miers which you, obviously, disagree with or have chosen to ignore. And for the record, I think you are a kind, intelligent, and talented man, Ace. I just think you're off base and unfair as to your and others' criticisms of Miers.

It really does get old, though, that the pro-Miers camp can usually offer so little by way of actual recommendation for her confirmation and instead resorts to silly "elitist" put-downs and claims that we're against her just because... well, just because we're so "personally invested" in defeating her.

I'm not pro-Miers. My first choice would have been Rogers-Brown, with the caveat that after probably reading more of her cases then anyone here, I would not even call a sure thing. My gripe with you Miers bashers are that you're arguments are frankly, mostly bashing. You can call it “silly "elitist" put-downs” but you can't erase the howling about her not being Ivy league.

Not sure why all the pro-Miers folks have to so frequently attack their opponents rather than simply laying out the pro-Miers case. Kind of suggests there isn't much of one.

What arguments? She's not ivy league? That she will need to buy conlaw in a nutshell? That she has no judicial experience? I don't have time to list them all but they have all been bullshit. Granted you don't know much about her, but you haven't had the decency to at least wait for the hearings.

Oh, and as far as "link-whoring"? Fuck you. I write what I think.

Yeah! Besides, I'm a link whore, and Ace never comes to any of the meetings.

If you want to start up with the ad hominems, then maybe we can both join in and I can start noting that some on the right are in puppydog unrequited love with Bush as those on the left were with Clinton.

My comment was probably out of line, though. Sorry.

Riiiiiiight. I care so much about my precious "precognitive abilites" that I WANT a liberal on the court, just so I can say "In yo face."

Asshole. How about, for five fucking minutes, taking someone's STATED reasons for dissent as their actual ones?

You and your ilk seem incapable of debating on these grounds. The substance cannot be argued, only the bad faith and bad motives of your opponents.

Ace,

Consider this a heartfelt request from one of the Morlocks who haunt the subterranean comment sewers of this site. Please, please, no more Miers links. Zombies, bad movies, sucky poetry, pop culture, Margaret Cho hitjobs, O'Brien mashups, anything but Miers. I am so completely sick and tired of this topic, it's hard to express.

It's your site, Ace, and I certainly don't want to tell you what you can and cannot post. But I find it hard to piss away hours of my life posting trenchant commentary on this topic; it's generated lots of harsh language and bad blood even among the AoS tribe of misfits, and I find that sad.

I love every twisted one of you guys, and it pains me to see us at odds in this way. (Yeah, even you, von Kreedon.)

I pine for the days of cowbell and Kim Richards cheesecake. *Sniff*.

That last was from ace to Dman. Not from dman.

Someone,

I'm not giving up per se. The piece isn't exactly an endorsement. It's a warning that Bush had better fucking be right if he's going to the mattresses for Miers.

Uh, Monty, did you miss the Schiavo wars?

Ace, I'm not sure you realize just how desperate Hewitt is. We'll see, I guess.

Now it's AGAG calling us sexist. Could this get any more comical?

he'll be a crippled president

This would only be true if Miers got on the Court and then sucked. If she were voted down, there would be very little long-term political damage.

Failed nominations have a way of falling by the wayside. If she doesn't make it on (although i expect she will), the Bush would just appoint another, and another, as many as it takes.

Losing the Miers nomination would have little to no impact on his ability to pass, say SS reform, or any other measure. His "here comes the money train" response to Katrina has had 1000 times as much political significance to his presidency as losing any given nomination fight possibly could.

Presidents are judged by the nominees that actually make it to the Court, not by the ones that don't.

someone:

No, I didn't miss it. I avoided it like I'd avoid a rabid dog. And it took some work, let me tell you.

I happen to think that this issue, like many others, is one upon which men of goodwill may disagree.

Funny you should state that and I take you at your word but I've come to the opinion that many (certainly not all) of Mier's critics are similar to the anti war left in that I believe they hope that Mier falls on her face to prove their point. Just like the leftists hope we fail in Iraq. Of course neither would ever admit it.

Not at all. Most of us want desperately to be wrong about Miers, but the White House hasn't given us any idea what this woman believes or how she will rule from the bench.

I hope she's a strict constructionist who doesn't look for "penumbras and emanations" in the Constitution. But my problem is we just don't know, and we shouldn't have to wait until the hearings to find out, since hearings are so much political theater.

Oh, and I'm slowly entering the "Screw Hewitt" camp, as well. The guy's hiding a shitload of nastiness behind a nice guy demeanor and it's getting old.

Sound reasoning from both sides of the argument on this site. Refreshing after hearing so much bullshit lately. Miers's defenders that resorted to the "sexist" crack are dead wrong, but Ann Coulter's cheap shot about Bush's drinking was way out of line, and makes one think she might really be crazy. Conservatives can debate the nomination without getting nasty; it's a shame that they haven't.

I understand the critics concerns and have not questioned their reasoning only the timing and the inconsistency of their opposition. Thomas and O'Connor were certainly not the most qualified at the time of their nominations and both were certainly an affirmative action pick but neither President received the bashing Bush is now getting. The other thing that bugs me is using this issue to question Bush's conservative credentials by raising other issues such as immigration or the deficit or affirmative action. I said everytime I see someone bring up these issues I would remind them that Reagan actually gave amnesty to illegal aliens, never addressed affirmative action so it progressed to where it is today, had a larger deficit compared to GNP and gave the terrorists their first big victory when he withdrew us from Lebannon. I consider Reagan one of the greatest Presidents but I understand the reality of the position.

That's just crap. The argument has been consistently put forward all over the Web--the woman may be conservative. She probably is a thumbs-down on Roe. Wonderful.

But the Court is where you advance your arguments with principle, not expediency. I have no doubt the Left would jump at the chance to nominate and approve a complete spectre if they knew the ghost were pro-choice. They couldn't give a shit about the principles involved.

But we ought to require better of ourselves. We ought to know that she opposes Roe because it's crap lawyering, not just because it's baby-killing. Those priciples will apply to every issue she faces, and we won't end up with a No vote on a question she may never face and an enigma on drug laws, takings, and commerce.

Why is this so much to ask? Why is asking it such an affront?

That last post was addressed to someone way the hell up the thread.

I guess stating that I take your word that you are not looking for Mier's to fail was not sufficient.

Dman,

Bush is out LBJing LBJ, and now we get an Abe Fortas nomination, too. And I would disagree with many of your points as well. For example, the judges. The judges that have gone through have been from grassroots pressure, not the WH. He hasn't pushed hard at all. And if you think the economy is actually a positive, you're seeing a different part of the country than me. Once heating prices skyrocket this winter, his poll numbers will really be lousy.

Nothing personal in this, it's just that I don't see how a Goldwater or Reagan supporter could be remotely satisfied with this administration. An LBJ or Nelson Rockefeller supporter might be fine with things, though.

DMan --- The heart of my criticism is simply that there were better choices available, and I'm not satisfied with the Bush defense of their nominee.

FWIW, I don't think the comparisons to Reagan really apply. The political landscape was quite different. Reagan didn't have the depth of conservative judges to choose from that Bush does. Reagan had to compromise with a Democrat majority in Congress. And illegal immigration was maybe a tenth of the scale that is happening today... let alone, without a terrorist threat. Reagan also lacked a conservative media infrastructure to counteract the bias of the left-wing media. With those assets at his disposal, Bush could have made a better choice. I don't think it's wrong to ask why Bush thinks Miers is better than Owen, Rogers-Brown, Jones, Clement, Williams, or Callahan, to name a few?

The judges that have gone through have been from grassroots pressure, not the WH.

Damned if you do , damned if you don't.

The comparisons to Reagan apply because those are the facts of his administration. If you what to make excuses for why they happened I suppose you can find just as many excuses for the positions that Bush has taken.

Oh, and I'm slowly entering the "Screw Hewitt" camp, as well. The guy's hiding a shitload of nastiness behind a nice guy demeanor and it's getting old.

Precisely, Slu. He's the master of the bad-faith accusation. He accused Frum the other day of having some sort of secret vendetta against Miers. Today he's accusing Judiciary Committee staffers of being hacks who are unqualified to pronounce on Miers's fitness. And remember back when the Thornburgh report on the CBS memos came out? Bill from INDC dared to write on his blog that the report wasn't a complete whitewash. So Hewitt invited him on his show and began by asking him when was it, precisely, that CBS had put him on its payroll.

Yeah, it was a "joke," but in light of all the other stuff, it's not so amusing. I keep wondering when he's going to turn around and accuse Patterico, who's been relentless in criticizing Miers, of trying to advance his career in the left-wing L.A. District Attorney's office. Any second now. Tick tock.

Dman’s mistaken, I think, in equating those who oppose Miers with the anti-war left. I really, really, hope that Miers (if confirmed) surprises the hell out of me and turns out to be a serious conservative Justice, someone who writes opinions that actually help to move the Court away from the last fifty years of social engineering.

But even if she does that, the next time a president with a spotty track record tries to hand me a pig in a poke and tells me to “trust him” that it contains a Supreme Court justice, I’ll still raise a stink. Good, bad or indifferent, this nomination has been very poorly handled, and no way am I applying stare decisis to this cruddy precedent.

V the K: Dead right on Reagan. Incidentally, conservative voices at the time wanted Bork... If only, if only...

But Callahan is 'better' than Miers only in the sense that she's minimally qualified. After this, there's no chance she's a conservative. In fact, a href="http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200305/051603a.html">Leahy loves her. She's proof that Bush has made some poor lower-court choices too.

Sorry, messed up the second link. Leahy loves Callahan.

Well, Dman, that's kind of a recursive argument, isn't it? The facts of Reagan's Administration made it harder for him to appoint conservative justices and pursue a full range of conservative policies. The conditions of Bush's administration arguably should have made it easier. (Except that Reagan never had to deal with John McCain. Oy!)

Anyway, I hope Miers's strict constructionist bona fides are better than her fashion sense.

I'd also note (tongue firmly in cheek) that two of the court's most liberal justices --- Souter and Ginsburg --- are also the two worst dressers.

Look, people. I agree with a lot of the objections to Miers and I was rooting for Janice Rogers Brown, personally - but you make it fucking tough to agree with your side when you go after the President in the obscene and utterly disrespectful way that you have. "Stop sucking on Bush's asshole," Ace? That's your reasoned argument, is it? That's what you'd like to discuss instead of the (equally ridiculous) charge of sexism?

When did you all contract rabid moonbat disease?

Argue the issues, fine. Disagree with the party, fine. That's what makes us different from the Dems. But attacking the party in this manner, in this tone? Turning on our President like this? What the hell is wrong with everyone?

I... see. Only the pro-Miers people are allowed to degenerate every debate into ad hominem attacks.

I said that only after putting up with a week's worth of ad hominem attacks by anonymous posters and Andrea Harris and such. I have refrained from saying anything nasty about Miers' supporters.

But at some point-- if that's the way the game is being played -- I get to play by the same rules too.

If you excluded me from the slur, I apologize, I didn't see it.

Still, I am getting angry that every fucking objection by the anti-Miers camp is being met with mere name-calling.

Maybe you excluded me. Why make that attack on ANYONE? Is it so difficult for you to believe that we oppose Miers because, as a City Councilman who worked with her said, "I can't tell if she's liberal, moderate, or conservative. I would never know how she felt about an issue until she voted"?

You think that's the sort of person "in the mold of Scalia and Thomas"?

Why does the pro-Miers camp not deal with the STATED objections to her, preferring to rebut the made-up objections of elitism, sexism, deciding it's time to turn on Bush, etc.?

I think the analogy to left-wing anti-war nuts is a poor one, because it presupposes that Bush hatred is the only, or the prime, motivation for opposition to the war. The fact is that many Leftards oppose the war because they just don't like America, or at least American projection of military power. That Cindy Sheehan was willing to criticize Clinton for Somalia and the Balkans is telling. And for those more principled Lefties who only oppose the war because it's Bush, their policy goals would be vindicated by a terrorist victory because it would mean a Democrat return to power.

So given that the most shrill from the Lefty camp view non-agression as an ultimate policy goal, their "we hope Bush fails" is not at all inconsistent. But conservatives who hope Meirs is a liberal, just so they'll be vindicated? I haven't seen it. Not once; not anywhere. Who wants that kind of vindication? What policy goal would be achieved, if the Supreme Court keeps splitting 5-4 and Republicans lose the White House and Congress?

No, Ace, I'm not saying you have to put up with a damn thing. I'm just saying there's no need to attack the President. And as I've stated once in this thread and several times in other threads, I am NOT pro-Miers. I'm not anti-Miers either. I'm anti- the Miers nomination on political grounds and I have no opinion on her suitability as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. So don't attack me for defending something I'm not defending.

Question: Is Bush's record *on judicial matters* spotty, shaky, wobbly, thoughtcrime, or whatever?

If it is, I don't recall evidence (and not trying to be snarky - if there is, I would sincerely like to know about it.)

But my impression is that, while Bush has been shaky on a lot of stuff that's basically trivial in the big picture (as opposed to, you know, winning a frickin' World War that the opposition actively wants us to lose?) But my sense is that he pretty obviously gets the idea that judicial nominations are Extremely Important, and that he's not the sort of man who would make these decisions on a Chimpy McHitlerburton rationale of "Aw, I just want to reward my Texas puppet masters by nominating incompetent cronies!"

Looking at it historically, is an experienced lawyer with no judicial experience *categorically* unqualified to serve on the Supreme Court? No, there are many examples to the contrary. Now, it's true that such a nominee will, per se, not have an extensive judicial track record to pore over. And thus, her judicial philosophy will not be entirely clear. Isn't this what we have FRICKING HEARINGS for?

All I'm asking is, can't we leave the knee-jerk denunciation to the Democrats, and figure out whether Miers is worthy or not in the Senate hearings? I know there are legitimate reasons for division on our side, but do we have to start up *gratuitous* internecine warfare?

Megan:

Isn't being "anti- the Miers nomination" at the least a serious criticism of the President (if not an "attack").

"Isn't this what we have FRICKING HEARINGS for?"

That's what they should be for, but recent experience suggests that's not what really happens.

Sexism:
Laura Bush

IIRC, the "sexist"/"elistist" charges first came out at a WH conference with some of the Right wing critics. Couldn't find a link (I thought the divine Miss M would have one, but she failed me).

And on topic, I for one don't care if Bush or the repubilcans are crippled by this. I supported Bush for 3 reasons: The War on Terror,his opposition to CFR, and the Judiciary. I don't believe Hillary! will be much different in TWOT & she might actually get less spending through congress. I'm not putting up with the lesser of two evils anymore, Bush & the Republicans have failed me for the last time.

Now the best possibilty is that some enterprising Republican Senate thing who wants the WH could try to torpedo this publicly for the publicity. While this is McCains M.O. I just don't see him opposed to Miers personally and Frist is resting his (slim) hopes on keeping the Senate in line. Still the "cronyism" and "barely qualified" charges give a good line of attack without too much need for evangelical-pro-life firebreathing. And it would endear this nonexistent hero to the base as a champion of "conservatism" a little early for the primary warmups, hopefully the memories will last.

"Question: Is Bush's record *on judicial matters* spotty, shaky, wobbly, thoughtcrime, or whatever?"

Yes. Quite frankly, I'm not convinced that Roberts is an adequately conservative replacement for Rehnquist. For O'Connor, perhaps-- maybe he's 10% more conservative than her.

But we are now gettin a less-conservative replacement for Rehnquist and a wildcard-kinda-sorta-maybe conservative replacement for O'Connor.

I trusted Bush on Roberts, sort of. I don't really think he's that conservative... which is why the liberal establishment and MSM could not rouse themselves to stridently oppose him.

This makes two in a row. One, okay, maybe you have to punt on one. But two?

What did we elect this guy for? One of the biggest reasons to elect him -- something he ran hard on not once but twice -- was his promise to make the court more humble and less eager to impose its idea of the Just Society on the country. (This is called "conservative" jurisprudence, though it's really an apolitcal constitutionalism.)

So, yes, we've gotten some decent appointments on the lower courts, but as far as the big enchilada, we get a very smart well-qualified moderate-maybe-leaning-conservative in Roberts and a perfect cipher in Miers.

That's what they should be for, but recent experience suggests that's not what really happens.

Oh, God. More 10 minute questions that aren't really questions by Senator Hairplugs.

And that was for Steve way up at the top.
Oy hit refresh before posting kiddies

And Megan:

If Miers turns out to be an O'Connor or a Souter, do we not have a right to turn on Bush?

Again-- what the hell did we vote for him for?

I'm just stating a fact. If Miers is a liberal, that's game over for Bush. That's it. Not just me talking; the bulk of the party will abandon him.

As I said, based on this fact, I would normally figure the WH knows what it's doing, but given the sketchy vetting process (done by Miers herself, and her subordinate who answers to her!), the fact that Karl Rove is distancing himself fromthis, her liberalish record on the City Council... I have to say at this point that Bush engaged in his characteristic impulse for surprising and unpredictable moves, and now he's just digging in his heels because he doesn't want to lose.

I said that only after putting up with a week's worth of ad hominem attacks by anonymous posters and Andrea Harris and such. I have refrained from saying anything nasty about Miers' supporters.

Oh, please! I ridiculed your lead to the Poll story. Maybe I shdn't have gone so far as compare it to a bds lead. I apologize. I accused you of setting up a strawman, which is exactly what you did. Andrea called you a big baby. Who hasn't Andrea called a big baby? Some of us even twice. Again, you're perceptions are off.

Ace,
Actually, I see Roberts as almost the physical embodiment of "apolitcal constitutionalism," and that a lot of the people who have qualms about him confuse judicial philosophy with political philosophy.

I think a lot of people want a justice who thinks in terms like "I will overturn Roe v. Wade because killing babies is bad! I'll stop the government from regulating stuff because that's bad policy, and I want to roll back the New Deal!" But that's the kind of thinking you want in a legislator, not a judge.

As a lawyer myself, my biggest disappointment in the politics of judicial nominations is that so many people (left, right, and everywhere else) don't seem to get the notions that:

1. Not everything that's bad, wrongheaded, or even Evil is *necessarily* unconstitutional.
2. Many things that are undeniably good, beneficial, and Right, might *be* unconstitutional.

Which is a tangent, but the Roberts nomination had the opposite effect on me, making me far *more* inclined to trust Bush and give him quite a bit of slack on Miers.

Addendum: And I don't see Roberts being "10% more conservative than O'Connor." I really see more of a night vs. day difference between the two, with O'Connor being the embodiment of "ad-hocracy," with a tendency to make random judgements based on whatever she thinks is "good policy" on a given day, with no coherent judicial philosophy beyond that.

It seems to me that the social conservatives, people like Dobson who's main conservative concerns are abortion, Christian values and the overall moral direction of the country, are the only part of the conservative coalition who have been spoken to by the administration. Those of you who are primarily economic conservatives, who's main conservative concerns are taxes, property rights and regulations, de-unionization and the overall extention of laissez-faire (pardon my French) free market economics, you have little clue about Ms. Meirs tendencies. Those of you who's main concern is that for strict constructionist interpretations of judicial matters have even less hints regarding Ms. Meirs.

I think that the Dems are also taking a risk on a lack of information if they support Ms. Meirs. If the main consideration from the administration was that she is a conservative evangelical church member, this does not at all bode well for her willingness to support the liberal position on a wide range of church/state and civil liberty issues. Indeed, those conservatives who truly wish for a strict constructionist with intellectual integrity may well find that Ms. Meir's evangelical Christian foundation does not server you well.

I'm willing to wait for the committee hearings before definitively stating that she should be defeated, but I expect that will be my stance by the end of the hearings.

I dunno, David C. What I got from Roberts is that he is very, very bright, highly qualified, with a slight Rightward tilt. But that doesn't necessarily mean he's Mister A. Strict Constructionist from Strict Constructionist Lane, Strict Constructionville. If he is, I'll be thrilled, but I didn't see it.

And OT, Ace said the following at one point:

How about, for five fucking minutes, taking someone's STATED reasons for dissent as their actual ones?

I suggest that Ace have this tatooted in day-glo ink on the insides of this eyelids. He and I would communicate much better if he took this dictum to heart.

I'm just stating a fact. If Miers is a liberal, that's game over for Bush. That's it. Not just me talking; the bulk of the party will abandon him.

There are only three court sessions before the next election. Unless Miers makes radical decisions next spring, the game is over for Bush no matter what.

Matt asked: Isn't being "anti- the Miers nomination" at the least a serious criticism of the President

Actually, what I said was that I am "anti- the Miers nomination on political grounds." (Emphasis added.) I also said that I am agnostic on her suitability - ie, on policy grounds.

You can take that as a criticism of the President if you like. Or you can believe him when he says she's suited for the SCOTUS, and that therefore the nomination is good policy - in which case it could be read as a compliment, policy before politics.

As I said, personally, I'm suspending judgement until I have more to work with. (And yes, I wish I had more right now.)

I'm just stating a fact. If Miers is a liberal, that's game over for Bush. That's it. Not just me talking; the bulk of the party will abandon him.

There is ample precedent to support that. Conservatives are true to their core beliefs, and if the current guy isn't, they will find someone else who is.

This is a great thread.

My only contribution, repeated ad nauseum here and elsewhere: why not the best? Miers is hardly the best. She may be perfectly adequate, but the best? Nobody, not even Hewett, is trying making that case.

Can the President nominate whoever he wants? Sure. You'd think he'd nominate the best though, wouldn't you? And this isn't a debate between whether Michael Jordan or Tiger Woods are better--this is Warren "Booger" Poletzki from Minneapolis who holds the darts championship from Dave's Bar.

I'm just stating a fact. If Miers is a liberal, that's game over for Bush. That's it. Not just me talking; the bulk of the party will abandon him.

I am "anti- the Miers nomination on political grounds." (Emphasis added.) I also said that I am agnostic on her suitability - ie, on policy grounds.

What she said. I'll add I wanted to duke it out over this nomination.

I meant to add, I am ambivalent on the coffee grounds.

Ace asked: If Miers turns out to be an O'Connor or a Souter, do we not have a right to turn on Bush?

Inane hypothetical. Even if she did by that time you have no idea what else he might have done, all of which any reasonable person would weigh before "turning on" anyone at all, especially (one would hope) the President of our country and the leader of our party.

"Again-- what the hell did we vote for him for?"

Different reasons, I imagine. My top pick was "So there's a smaller chance that I, my family, my friends, and my countrymen will be killed by Moslem motherfuckers." A SCOTUS that actually read the Constitution from time to time was on that list, too. As were other things.

"Not just me talking; the bulk of the party will abandon him [if Miers is a liberal]"

Good for you. Here's a tip: that's called spoiled brat entitlement politics, also known as the "I'm taking my ball and going home" ploy, and it usually succeeds only in making itself and its supporters utterly irrelevant.

Now. I don't agree with whoever it was who said that Miers opponents are hoping to see her fail, or prove herself liberal, in some way. I don't think they do. I think you're arguing in good faith (most of you) but for God's sake turn it down a notch. Some of the rhetoric coming out of Allah these days, and you, Ace, I've heard the likes of before. Only the last time it was 2004 and it was the Dems who were shrieking it.

Yeah, what rho said. That's the gist of it for me. She clearly is not the very best candidate under consideration -- and I don't believe for a moment they all opted out. So why?

Once you nominate a friend over other, better qualified applicants, you start out with a credibility deficit. Her resume isn't helpful. Her history is worrying. She is going to have to be an absolute star in the hearings. Generally speaking, those things are a farce, but this one's going to have show up and dazzle.

"Why not the best?"

Yeah, I get that - and I even suspect that Miers was probably the first choice of one single Republican, who happens to be the guy who constitutionally has the power to make it.

But what I simply don't get is why a "not the best" choice must, perforce, be grounds for an all-out declaration of full-scale war against the President until he's weakened and beaten and humiliated into acceding to your wishes?

I mean, yeah, I could see it if he nominated Laurence Tribe or Bill Clinton or something, but in this case, it seems so gratuitous, almost like a lot of people *want* to see our side destroyed by infighting.

Seriously, I feel like I must have missed the secret Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy distribution of the crazy pills because I was out of town on business last week....

I think I was on the next seat over on that flight, David. I stole your second pack of peanuts. Hey, isn't it nice that we didn't get hijacked and crashed into a fucking building by some whackjob splodeydopes?

I know there's someone we should be grateful to for that. If only I could remember his name...

Damn it, it's on the tip of my tongue! This same guy won the House, the Senate, a majority of the governorships, and a majority of the state legislatures for our party, too. Someone help me out here! I feel so stupid...

But what I simply don't get is why a "not the best" choice must, perforce, be grounds for an all-out declaration of full-scale war against the President until he's weakened and beaten and humiliated into acceding to your wishes?

I think the emotional component comes from the feeling of betrayal, the feeling that Bush is ducking a fight. A lot of conservatives who've defended this president through five years of moonbat attacks, who fought hard to get him re-elected... feel horribly let down that Bush isn't willing to fight for them in return. The Bush response --- calling its critics sexist, and elitist, defending the nominee in leftist 'she is woman, let her roar' terms --- only makes the feeling of betrayal worse, and only heightens the gut feeling that she's Souter in a tacky teal jacket and tiger-print scarf.

W doesn't care what we want, he can't run for office again. So he'll do what he feels is right, and damn the torpedos. The only way this nomination dies is if Miers bails herself. Bush doesn't cut and run on his friends.

I think I'm most against this nomination, because I wanted to have a fight over a proven conservative thinker. I don't understand the unwillingness to fight over principles. Let the libs defend thier insanity.

It seems that Bush is going for the social rather than the fiscal conservatives. I think he's going to be surprised at how much those groups overlap.

What did we elect this guy for?

After eight more years of Clinton co-presidency it will probably come back to you.

I know there's someone we should be grateful to for that. If only I could remember his name...

So when is it OK for the right to start dissenting? Bush knows he's got our support on the war, but he's either ignorant of, or ignoring, our dissatisfaction on a variety of other topics. I'm a single issue voter, but I'd like to not be disappointed with the policy on the majority of other issues.

Iblis - I'm with you all the way. I wanted that exact same fight for the exact same reasons.

But we didn't get it. What now?

Well, for a start, not this. We're not going to get the fight we want by acting like spoiled brats whining at Daddy because he didn't stop at our favorite fast food place.

Bush is ducking a fight

I like a good scrap. I duke it out with moonbats and assholes for the fun of it. I would never tell someone else what to fight over.

The guy in the arena gets to pick his battles.

I didn't want a fight. I would have been pleased if a bona-fide conservative had sailed through with as much support as Roberts.

The guy in the arena does NOT get to pick his battles when we put him in the arena for main purpose of fighting this one.

geoff asked: "So when is it OK for the right to start dissenting?"

Jesus Christ, no one's saying don't dissent. At least I'm not. I'm not saying don't argue, I'm not even saying don't oppose. I AM saying that this garbage about "sucking Bush's asshole" and so on is unproductive at best and counterproductive at worst. Like I said, I've HEARD all of that before, and with the kind of people who were saying it last y'all ought to wash your mouths out with soap if only because of the association.

we put him in the arena

So Kerry would be doing your fighting for you instead? Just exactly how would that work?

Really really curious ...

Oh, boris! You don't really expect me to take that seriously as an argument, do you?

No really ... you have an agenda you want implemented ...

You have two choices ...

Explain how you get what you want in this situation ...

I didn't want a fight.

I wanted to take on the filibuster. Just assumed that a nominee that would bring it on would not have sailed right through, but I'm happy to visualize that world.

Megan, we're in violent agreement. I took that as ace making a point, supported in other posts, that a lot of what we get from the pro-Miers side is baseless ad hominems.

What the fuck are you talking about, boris? Bush promised a judge in the mold of Thomas or Scalia. He lied. Perhaps twice. The fact that the other guy would have sucked even harder is no defense.

Weasel - I think your point would be more convincing if you noted that not only did we put him in the arena to fight this battle, but he accepted that role and promised to fight it for us.

Thing is, right now I don't know if he's fighting it or not. I don't think anyone knows. What I don't understand is how some of the same people who put him there are so eager to trip him up in the middle of what might be a simple feint, a disguised thrust, or a parry, roll, and lunge.

Y'all want to wait for a clue, see what happens? Or would you prefer to throw the fight, trip up your own man, because he's not making the moves you're insisting on from the sidelines?

The fact that the other guy would have sucked even harder is no defense.

Hey, it sure works for me.

The guy in the arena does NOT get to pick his battles when we put him in the arena for main purpose of fighting this one.

How's this for seriousness: What do you mean we? That's not why I voted for Bush. Sure, I want someone conservative on the court, but I don't believe I, or anyone else, has the right to micro-manage Bush's selection.

Weasel said: "Bush promised a judge in the mold of Thomas or Scalia. He lied. Perhaps twice."

This is what I was talking about earlier.

Maybe you should call the President a "miserable failure" next. I hear that worked real well for Dick Gephardt.

Because if we wait and see, it'll be too late, Megan. We've got an iota of a chance of making her pull out or fail if we make hellatious noise and she doesn't impress in the hearings. If not, she'll coast. She'll probably coast, anyway, but it's too important not to put the pressure on, just in case.

She's going to be with us long after Bush is gone.

Bush promised a judge in the mold of Thomas or Scalia.

So, you'll only be satisfied with a black italian guy?

that a lot of what we get from the pro-Miers side is baseless ad hominems.

What do you expect on the net?

Both sides are dishing it, but one side is crying over it.

The "hellacious noise" might be a trifle more convincing if it were less hysterical and if it occurred after at least one of the hearings. Right now it's nothing more than noise, distasteful noise at that, and I'm not listening.

Bullshit, boris. Both sides are dishing it, both sides are crying over it.

On an individual level, some are performing better than others.

I took that as ace making a point, supported in other posts, that a lot of what we get from the pro-Miers side is baseless ad hominems.

Baseless ad hominems like "stop sucking Bush's asshole"? Oh, I don't think so.

I AM saying that this garbage about "sucking Bush's asshole" and so on is unproductive at best and counterproductive at worst

And like I said, I held my fire for a long while. The pro-Miers camp has been trading in little but namecalling and ad hominems for two weeks.

I'm sick of it. I held my fire for a while, because it's fellow conservatives I'm dealing with -- and unlike most of the pro-Miers camp, I actually assume their coming to this fight with good motives -- but I'm done with that shit.

If every fucking little post is going to be met by "elitist," "oh, you're just mad she graduated from SMU," "crybaby," "you're as bad as the anti-war left," then fuck it, I don't owe anyone any civility.

One reason this nomination sits so badly with me is that it suggests Bush is quite ready to disappoint his supporters in order to win points with his opponents—a tactic that, up to now, hasn’t worked for him at all. Her lack of qualifications is almost insulting, and her position as presidential counsel is, at the very least, disturbing. If Clinton had tried to put Bernard Nussbaum on the Supreme Court bench, a lot of people would have gone nuts, and not all of them would have been on the right.

For those who think critics of this nomination are somehow disloyal and ungrateful, can someone tell me at what point it’s okay to object on something like this, or how we should express it? Frankly, the typical confirmation hearing is a charade, and I’m not willing to wait for the next chance to get a non-stealth nominee. Bush is asking too much here.

Ace said: "I don't owe anyone any civility"

Not even President Bush, huh? Interesting. What exactly did he say to or about you?

but I'm done with that shit

oooooooo

bring it on you elitist sexist crybaby

Oh, give me a break already, Megan. I've been civil to Bush. I haven't called him a dummy.

Please explain to me how I can disagree with him without being "uncivil" to him. My posts have questioned his judgment on this -- but apparently that's just BEYOND THE PALE for some.

For Christ's sakes, I voted for him for President. I did not marry him or swear to him an oath of feudal allegiance.

utrongeofface asked: "For those who think critics of this nomination are somehow disloyal and ungrateful, can someone tell me at what point it’s okay to object on something like this, or how we should express it?"

Scroll up.

For me, this is a crack in my belief in Bush. And this one crack causes me to look back and re-evaluate prior decisions I've disagreed with.

As a two time Clinton voter (so grade this on a curve please) I remember that through the first term I was convinced that Clinton had the best interests of the country of paramount concern. As someone who was already 'there' on NAFTA and welfare reform, I thought Bill turned for the right reasons. As the 2nd term played out I found myself taking a 2nd look at these decisions and others. Looking through this new 'lens' changed how I looked at the previous decisions.

Bush is no Clinton so I'm not expecting many to do a complete 180 on him (as many did, like me, with Clinton). But many will consider not the opposition but a return to divided gov't instead. With divided gov't we get slightly poorer quality judges and we lose the tax cuts. But we get lower spending and two serious parties vs the one we have now. I'm not sure the 'slate' will cause me to push for divided gov't but the fact that I'm even considering it is kind of a shock to me.

If every fucking little post is going to be met by "elitist," "oh, you're just mad she graduated from SMU," "crybaby," "you're as bad as the anti-war left," then fuck it, I don't owe anyone any civility.

Well, it's hard to address things that mostly didn't happen. Maybe the crybaby comment but not every single post. And, I'm sure you've been called worse. I have. The antiwar left comment I'm too tired to search and verify exactly what was said. Again, I believe it was one comment. I don't remember anyone calling you personally an elitist. So maybe, just maybe, you're . . . do I dare say it, overreacting?

anonymous Oh, I don't think so.

ace listed them so I don't need to again. I particularly liked "anti-feminist" accusations. I'm a fan of Janice Rogers Brown.

I suppose I'm a racist in addition to my mysogyny.

Jesus. What's gotten into people? Some dipstick on FreeRepublic this morning opined that "obedience to authority" was one of the three pillars of true conservatism, and the top of my cranium almost blew off.

Tell me why she's a good choice. Stop telling me why I should quit whining and grab my ankles.

They did happen. The "substantive" defenses of Miers are--

1) Wait for the hearings, which is bullshit, because the script calls for her to say nothing at all. So it's not like she can prove her conservative bona fides there.

2) Trust Bush. Well, I'll say it: I have some amount of trust in Bush but not a lot. "Trust Bush" doesn't work like a magical talisman on me. I don't reject his judgment, but there's enough evidence out there to convince me that Miers is another O'Connor that "trust Bush" just isn't good enough.

3) We don't know. Well, yes. We don't know. So why the strident defense of her? I'd've preferred someone I was pretty damn sure about. Wouldn't you?

4) She's an evangelical Christian. THis cuts little ice with me, as 1) there are liberal evangelicals, and 2) I'm not a great fan of diversity for diversity's sake, even when it comes to a group I'm supposed to be rooting for. Yes, I suppose the fact that she's an EC makes it a little more likely she's a conservative, but it's hardly dispositive.

5) James Dobson says she's okay. Well, Dobson got second-hand information from people who don't really know her that well, either. No one knows her.

So, those are the pro-Miers defenses, endlessly repeated. Fine. (I know the anti-Miersists repeat stuff too.)

But then, when people get tired of repeating those bullet points, they resort to the "elitism" charge, the "crybaby" charge, the "disloyalty and lack of gratitude" charge, etc. It's sickening.

Ace - "My posts have questioned his judgment on this -- but apparently that's just BEYOND THE PALE for some."

Not for me. I don't know who you're referring to (apparently Andrea is getting under your skin these days - I'm sorry to have missed THAT exchange, can anyone link me to the thread?) but if you're going to argue with ME then don't ask me to defend what other people might have said to you.

I've criticized only the language you've used to refer to the President and the tone in which you've made your arguments. I've cited a specific phrase in a specific post. If you think dragging his name into your arguments with other people is terribly classy, fine. I disagree.

Also the whole overheated, hysterical, and weepy nature of the debate, for which I've said (more than once now) there's ample blame on both sides. But in fairness the "elitist" and "sexist" crap started after the "SMU? She doesn't deserve this nomination! Crony!" crap had already begun. Doesn't excuse it, no, but look at cause and effect.

ace listed them so I don't need to again.

His list is an overreaction.

I particularly liked "anti-feminist" accusations.

When and where did someone call Ace, lover of all women, an "anti-feminist"?

I'm a fan of Janice Rogers Brown. I suppose I'm a racist in addition to my mysogyny.

I believe I stated Rogers-Brown was my first choice. But, if you think you are a racist and hater of women, who am I to question you?

Megan:

There have been a lot of silly pejoratives flung about in this debate, but on the 'dissent' issue the real question is:

"Is the Mier's nomination criticism sufficiently justified that it constitutes a tipping point in the political allegiance of many conservatives?"

That was the context in which I was responding to your earlier comments.

Tell me why she's a good choice. Stop telling me why I should quit whining and grab my ankles.

Everything said is not directed at you.

It sure seems like one side IS taking everything more personally. The medium of this argument happens to be the same place many of us take on moonbats. You gotta expect a little rough play once in a while.

But in fairness the "elitist" and "sexist" crap started after the "SMU? She doesn't deserve this nomination! Crony!" crap had already begun

Bullshit. The "elitist" argument was put in the mouths of her opponents by her defenders. ONLY Ann Coulter made this point (I later referenced it), and she did so chiefly in arguing that someone who had to fight with liberals everyday (like at an Ivy League school) would have steeled themselves to the disdain of the liberal elitist chattering classes. Harriet Miers, having not been through that fire, would be open to suasion by the NYT's editorial board.

Further, it's not what school she went to. It's what she did AFTER school, which is frankly ho-hum and not at all the sort of resume one would expect of a SC nominee. I don't need a judge, as I've said before-- but how about a lawyer who's argued six or ten cases before the Supreme Court?

Lastly, and more importantly: SHE APPEARS TO BE A MODERATE-LIBERAL IN THE O'CONNOR MOLD. Do none in the Miers camp get this? THIS is the major objection.

As I've said, I would support a retarded chicken for the SC if I knew the chicken would vote the right way. I have no evidence that Miers will, and a lot of evidence that she won't.

Utron said: "For those who think critics of this nomination are somehow disloyal and ungrateful,…”

So I wasn’t really singling you out, Megan. Anyway, others on the thread have asked the same question. If you’re complaining about ad hominem attacks from either side, then sure: I’m violently agreeing with you. To be fair, though, I haven’t seen many people whose opposition can be described as “…acting like spoiled brats whining at Daddy because he didn't stop at our favorite fast food place.” Seriously: Bush has gotten some big things right. But he’s also gotten some very big things wrong, and this looks like one of them. He needs to know that on this and other issues he’s alienating a lot of his supporters, and his current lousy poll numbers are at least a start in sending that message.

I wrote the comment that it was my opinion that many of the anti Miers crowd would like to see her fail just like the leftists would like to see us fail in Iraq in order to confirm their positions. First, I should have clarified sooner that I meant fail in her confirmation hearings not fail as a SCJ if confirmed. This may not be any better to some but that is what I meant.

The "substantive" defenses of Miers are--

I believe it has been pointed out to you that most of the objections have been about the cheap shots directed at Miers and the off the wall comments on related other subjects.

FWIW, I think she will come across as embarassing in her hearings. I think she will flub fairly straightforward questions.

I'm not rooting for that. But I also know you can't become a consittutional scholar just by cramming for a couple of weeks.

Geoff -

That's a question all conservatives have to answer for themselves. I can see how it might alter someone's personal allegiance, but political? No.

And speaking for myself, it would change neither. I think this SCOTUS nomination is immensely important; I just weight the other things differently, and I haven't yet assigned this nomination to either the plus or the minus side of the ledger.

This is the problem with the intraconservative debate right now:

Supporters of the Miers nomination, opponents of the Miers nomination, and agnostics differ primarily in a matter of degree. Yet you're all yelling and screaming like it's a difference of first principles. It's disconcerting at best for the agnostics, and on occasion it can be severely off-putting.

Look. We all agree we don't want another liberal activist justice. Can we settle down a bit now?

"Is the Mier's nomination criticism sufficiently justified that it constitutes a tipping point in the political allegiance of many conservatives"

I don't think anyone is gonna go out and vote Hillary!™ but this, combined with the spineless losers in the Senate, makes me want to look at the horse's teeth. It'd be a different situation if our side didn't have a huge history of ducking tough but winnable fights.

and, once again, I would excuse that if I knew for a fact she'd just vote with Scalia most of the time.

But I don't.

So I'm put in the position of having to defend a frankly unqualified nominee who isn't even an unqualified nominee who will vote the way I like.

FWIW, I think she will come across as embarassing in her hearings.

This is the danger for the Bush administration, not whether she is an O'Connor but is she incompetent. If she does not come accross as competent THEN the Bush administration will have given the Dems such a hammer that the Dems might take control of Congress in '06. The Bush admin is already very vulnerable to the charge that it runs on incompetent cronyism, and the Meirs' nomination will nail this perception if she does not shine in the hearings.

You don't have to defend her Ace. Just reserve judgement like me until we know more.

Harriet Miers, having not been through that fire, would be open to suasion by the NYT's editorial board.

You didn't go to an ivy league school and fight with ivy league liberals everyday. Does that mean you are susceptible to influence by the NYT? It's comments like these that are so over the top, ace.

Karl Rove's evil plan: Create controversy over Miers and trick the moonbats into thinking the conservatives will sit-out the '06 election. But in reality, the turnout will be magnificent and we will win 5 more Senate seats. Pure genius.

Seriously. Let's moveon.
There's talk that there will be a third vacancy in the Court during Bush's second term. Any guesses who is going to retire or die soon? Any guesses who Bush will nominate?

Ace claimed: "The "elitist" argument was put in the mouths of her opponents by her defenders"

If you say so. What exactly do you hope to gain by perpetuating the stereotype they seem to have quite successfully forced on you?

"SHE APPEARS TO BE A MODERATE-LIBERAL IN THE O'CONNOR MOLD."

Really? Then why haven't you posted something to that effect, along with the evidence, testimony, or writings which lead you to that conclusion? Because right now that'd be breaking news.

"Do none in the Miers camp get this? THIS is the major objection."

I'm not in the Miers camp. For the umpteenth time, I'm undecided, and despite YOU, Ace, I'm still leaning towards your camp.

"I would support a retarded chicken for the SC if I knew the chicken would vote the right way."

I wouldn't. But if that's true, what kind of case do you imagine you have against the President? Maybe he does think he knows she'll vote the right way.

"I have no evidence that Miers will, and a lot of evidence that she won't."

Solid evidence? Please share.

I was reiterating Coulter's point, just stating what it was and what it WAS NOT.

It was NOT the "she didn't go to Harvard, so I don't like her" argument that Miers' defenders have disingenously claimed it was.

The claim goes:

You guys started with the non-Ivy League stuff.

So we have the right to engage in ad hominems.

I'm just pointing out that that's bullshit. The only people talking about Ivy League were ADMINISTRATION FLACKS and their water carriers, claiming Miers' opponents were against her only because she didn't go to Yale or Harvard, in order to set up a dishonest elites-vs.-the-common-people storyline.

Megan,

I have. I've linked stuff. I've linked John Fund quoting a fellow City Councilman saying "I don't know if she's liberal, moderate, or conservative. I never had any idea how she'd vote on any issue until the actual vote."

She voted in favor of Affirmative action and raising taxes.

She defended trial lawyers against "smears" by right-wingers.

Etc.

Do you know this woman's record at all?

Yet you're all yelling and screaming like it's a difference of first principles.

And yet it is - hiring the most qualified person for the job (where a key qualification in this case, of course, satisifies your criterion of a non-activist justice) is a key conservative principle. Doing anything less justifies all Bush's critics' charges of cronyism and incompetent hires.

I've staunchly defended his administration against many of the hyper-inflated claims marketed by the left, but this move casts a poor light on his motivations, objectivity, and competence.

I know its her style but Coulter also wrote that Miers isn't qualified to be a SCJ on West Wing. Not the pundit critics should be quoting if they are trying to avoid ad hominen attacks.

Ace you also quoted a 3rd hand Washington Post story and accepted it as accurate when on any other subject you would have been a huge skeptic. These are the things that are aggravating to the agnostics on this nomination.

Coulter has been shooting her mouth all over the place for two weeks now. She most definitely said and implied that Miers was a light weight bc she did not attend an Ivy league shcool and she most definitely disaparged SMU. And Coulter was not the only one spewing this crap, either. So, it's disengenious of you to claim that it was only brought up as a defense by admin. flacks.

And YOU have accused people of making these elitist claims in several threads where there is no evidence of it. So, who's spinning what?

Geoff. Was Clarence Thomas or O'Connor the most qualified at the time of their nomination?

Dman, we're looking at 3rd hand stories in antagonistic newspapers because that's all we got. The very fact that someone can reach sixty without anybody apparently having any idea what she thinks about anything important is not what I call an encouraging sign.

Ace:

From Fund quoting someone else as saying: "I don't know if she's liberal, moderate, or conservative. I never had any idea how she'd vote on any issue until the actual vote," the only thing you get is she's not a conservative? Huh.

Re: the things she voted for. Well, she also gave money to the DNC and Al Gore, apparently, and you don't seem to have a problem with that. How long ago were her votes for AA and tax hikes cast? How long ago was it that she defended trial lawyers?

"Etc."

That's it?

"Do you know this woman's record at all?"

No. From what I read, that's the problem: no one else does either. You seem to be the sole exception.

Coulter has been shooting her mouth all over the place for two weeks now.

Well actually she's been doing this for far longer than two weeks, really it is what her career is based on.

I know its her style but Coulter also wrote that Miers isn't qualified to be a SCJ on West Wing.

If she is qualified, she is BARELY qualified. That's a fact. You may not like that fact, but it's true. She was a lawyer, she made partner, she argued no cases in front of the SC, she was never considered one of the people (like David Boies) one needed to get when one had a big case in front of the SC. She was BUsh's PERSONAL LAWYER and campaign manager. She had a stint in low-level local politics.

This, to the Miers camp, is the mark of a well-qualified SC candidate? For the love of everything holy, who WOULDN'T be well qualified if Miers is said to be?

I swear, some of you guys seem to think just anyone can waltz in and be a constitutional scholar and SC judge.

I wonder what you'd say if I asserted that, with no experience, I would be plenty qualified to just begin doing your jobs. Just because I could "intuit" the basics of neuroscience or psychology or whatever.

Not the pundit critics should be quoting if they are trying to avoid ad hominen attacks.

No offense, but here's the deal. It is necessary to say that a poorly-qualified candidate is poorly-qualified. That's not an ad hominem attack; that's an evaluation of her resume.

Further, it's not an ad hominem attack on any of YOU. And yet some of you seem to think that an attack on Miers or Bush gives you the right to start hurling invective at people who are simply guilty of attempting to debate political issues with you.

I "insult" Miers, ergo you're free to insult me on her behalf.

That how it works?

So, when I say that Bush is less fiscally disciplined than Clinton, that invites you're calling me a traitorous crybaby, I suppose.

One question I've had that I haven't seen addressed (though I'm sure I've missed it) is the 'uniqueness' of Mier's background. If we take the salient points of Mier's resume and compare that to the entire population of US lawyers do we find dozens of similarly qualifed lawyers or hundreds or just a handful?

If anybody has any idea, scientific or unscientific, as a non-lawyer I'd be interested.

Not even President Bush, huh? Interesting. What exactly did he say to or about you?

Posted by Megan

Well I can't speak for ace, but howsabout the fact that the sonovabitch lied twice (at least) on BIG things (Big as in "these convinced me to vote for him" things)

He promised to VETO McCain-Feingold (one of the reasons I swallowed my pride in '00 and voted for the socialist prick)

And he promised to appoint constructionist judges ("Scalias and Thomases") to the SCOTUS. The reason I swallowed my pride and voted for him '04.

I honestly don't believe that Gore, Hillary! or even (God save us) Kerry would be too much different on the WoT (about the only remaining issue I agree with Bush on)

With an opposition WH we might actually get conservatism and fiscal discipline out of the Congress again.

So the only major reason left to vote for a Republican in the WH is the appointment power (and this reason has been touted for several elections), which Bush is showing no sign of using for conservative ideals which I support.

After reading Fund and several others, I don't believe that Meirs is much of conservative, more of a yellow dog democrat who's willing to blow with the wind, and certainly not a strict constructionist (look at her love of the ABA and hatred of the Federalist Society)

So why should I support, or even be polite, to Bush?
He's a liar. About the only principal of mine he agrees with is the jacksonian "kill them before they kill us", for which their are many qualified canidates in both parties.

I wish I actually gave money to the Republicans, just so I could call them up and demand it back.

Dman:

I'd give the edge to O'Connor, though both were far more qualified than Miers. As were a number of bonafide conservative candidates. None of whom would have attracted charges of cronyism.

How the nominee will vote, and how their judicial philosophy will evolve over time, are unpredictable. All we can do is nominate the most qualified candidates who currently hold the most sound judicial philosophies.

I would guess that 10% of all lawyers who stay in the profession through most of their careers make partner at a big firm.

Many of these lawyers will also have some flirtation with local politics, as law and politics seem to go together. At least lawyers seem to think so.

And I'm not sure serving on City Council or heading the Texas State Lottery is exactly legal training.

So I don't know. There are about 300,000 lawyers in the country, about 30,000 who've made partner at a large firm.

I'd guess that a lot of those have done pro bono work on con-law cases, which Miers hasn't done.

I "insult" Miers, ergo you're free to insult me on her behalf. That how it works?

No. How it works is that when you make objectionable arguments, we're free to object to them. Or, don't we? Is that how you think it works?

Or, don't we?

Make that: Or, are we?

I believe I stated Rogers-Brown was my first choice. But, if you think you are a racist and hater of women, who am I to question you?

Who the hell knows? Is there more than one anomymous commenter in this thread?

And in case you are confused, the ad hominems are coming from defenders of the nomination, or don't you read anything besides this moron blog?

I need a nap. Make that: Or, arn't we?

Yes, "crybaby" etc. is a valid objection.

Do any in the Miers camp believe she's actually well-qualified to be a SC justice?

Are any of you confident she's a constitutionalist?

Are you aware that there are dozens of highly-competent lawyers and judges that are proven conservatives according to their records?

Is it wrong to suppose it would have been better to have nominated one of those people?

Ace, I think you're having a conversation with someone else entirely. It seems to be quite lively and you and she certainly don't need me to hang around, so I'm going to take your earlier advice and "fuck off."

And in case you are confused, the ad hominems are coming from defenders of the nomination . . .

And in case you are confused, there has been specific, yet unfounded, charges ad hominem attacks on this blog.

I guess it's possible that somewhere, someone could be saying something nasty about our dear Ace, but I doubt it.

Don't drag Ann into this cat fight. I'll defend that woman with my life.

By the way, just in case anyone's wondering what Megan meant when she said this:

Some of the rhetoric coming out of Allah these days, and you, Ace, I've heard the likes of before. Only the last time it was 2004 and it was the Dems who were shrieking it.

It has to do with my crazy Chomskyan objection to the idea of blowing up random mosques across the Middle East just to show the natives we mean business. Apparently, this is a position held only by the hardest of hardcore moonbats. Oh, and also Bush.

oh right, you're the ghost who says you make 'observations'. got it.

Thanks for the 'framing' data, Ace.

So there's really just one entry on the resume that makes her a Supreme Court candidate - and that's probably the only thing that everyone can agree on.

Allow me to show y'all where Megan lost cred:

Megan wrote: [Y]ou...certainly don't need me to hang around, so I'm going to take your earlier advice and "fuck off."

But wait...this is what Megan wrote a little earlier: Good for you. Here's a tip: that's called spoiled brat entitlement politics, also known as the "I'm taking my ball and going home" ploy, and it usually succeeds only in making itself and its supporters utterly irrelevant.

Nothing personal, Megs, I like you. But you and Andrea Harris haven't got a leg to stand on in this argument. And I'm not saying Ace is the master debator, either. He has been all over the place regarding Miers since day one.

Do any in the Miers camp believe she's actually well-qualified to be a SC justice?

Are any of you confident she's a constitutionalist?

Why ??? Because that's the best play under the circumstances, it makes sense to me, and I don't have my whole pile of ego chips on the table so I don't need to "trust" anybody.

I sure as hell don't expect anybody to trust my wild ass guesses be it elitest, sexist, crybaby, or trueist of the true blue redstate conservatives.

^
That's me, BTW

is not

Wait, Megan saying she will no longer engage Ace in debate is the same as Megan's response to Ace when he said that if Miers is a liberal the bulk of the party will abandon him? I don't think so.

Allah said: "It has to do with my crazy Chomskyan objection to the idea of blowing up random mosques across the Middle East just to show the natives we mean business."

No, Allah, it just has to do with the fact that lately you've been having shrill hissyfits over damn near everything the Prez does or doesn't do at least once every other day.

We went through this the last time you accused me of this, Megan. Give me one single, solitary example.

No, Boris, you butt-nut, I was pointing to the post above yours.

I'm guessing Bart said: "Nothing personal, Megs, I like you. But you and Andrea Harris haven't got a leg to stand on in this argument."

Well, as anon already pointed out, I wasn't taking my ball and going home. I'm still reading this thread. I was simply pointing out to Ace that he had been attacking straw men all evening. It really isn't worth it to argue with him when all he wants to do is yell at (presumably) Andrea Harris, using me for a stand-in.

Speaking of Andrea, why is everyone conflating her arguments (which I haven't seen as I have no idea where she made them) with mine? I have a vague impression that she's pro-Miers, whereas I'm not.

This is all more than a little absurd. People on either side seem to just want to attack others by proxy. Doesn't matter if the proxy that's available to you actually agrees with whatever you want to attack; logic and discussion be damned, full speed ahead!

I know you knew I knew that didn't you now.

Allah demanded: "Give me one single, solitary example."

I shouldn't have to. Going by averages, you just have to wait a day.

Allah, if you think Hewitt's comments to Jeff were bad, check out what is being reported he said on the radio show the other night:

If you’re anti-Miers, you’re anti-the President. If you’re anti-the President, you’re anti-the GOP. If you’re anti-the GOP, you’re pro-Hillary. If you’re pro-Hillary, you might as well just appoint nine Ginsburgs to the Supreme Court. That’s where you’re headed. Does that make it simple enough for you? Hmmm? Do you want to give the Senate back?

What a frickin' jackass this guy is being.

By the way, I give those comments a SOLID B+!

By the way, I give those comments a SOLID B+!

Going by averages, you just have to wait a day.

Totally cheap and unfair. And totally predictable.

The only things I've criticized Bush for are the Miers nomination and his 250 billion jillion gazillion dollar plan to rebuild New Orleans. In both cases, I've knocked him because he's not behaving like a principled conservative should. Yet you accuse me of acting like a Democrat. In other words, any criticism of Bush, on any basis, is ipso facto "liberal" and dismissed out of hand as a "hissyfit."

You sound like Hewitt.

Ace and Bart should read the comments by Brent Metzler in the link Slubs posted:

"Politics is a participation sport. If you don't participate, you can't change the outcome. Parties reflect those who are involved. If conservatives leave to "retaliate" the party is going to get more moderate to reflect those who remain, not more conservative to reflect those who are left. This is why the Democrat Party is so rabid liberal, the rabid liberals are the ones who participate, even though most Democrat voters aren't so extreme."

Exactly so.

Is Andrea pro-Miers? I don't think so. But she is singing the same tune as you: Stop being judgemental, just sit on the fence with me and hope for the best and don't be a poo poo head.

I agree that Ace is being antagonistic. Although I don't know if it is intentional. I doubt Ace is that crafty or immature.
But I could be wrong.

Pre-emptive postscript: No, Ace, I don't agree with Hugh.

Slu -- Unbelievable. Until someone posts the audio, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he didn't actually say that shit. But I think we can agree, it wouldn't be out of character if he did.

Oh my. I'm throwing a hissyfit now, aren't I? RESPECT THE FUCKING PRESIDENT, SLUBLOG.

See, Allah, there you go.

Bart - only, I'm not saying don't argue, don't judge, don't oppose. So that sort of kills your "singing the same tune" line.

Slublog, you forgot the link.

Meanwhile, even Hewitt's best claim for her is that she's going to be Potter f'in Stewart! He's totally given up on Scalia/Thomas, as should be obvious. What a joke.

RESPECT THE FUCKING PRESIDENT, SLUBLOG.

Sorry. Damn, I hope Rove and Hewitt don't send the flying monkeys again. I hate those little bastards.

Cripes, the reporters at MSNBC are frickin' idiots. Check this lead on the requisite "Bush is in trouble" story:

WASHINGTON - It has been weeks since Hurricane Katrina slammed into the Gulf Coast; since gas prices began spiking to record highs; and since Cindy Sheehan, whose son was killed in Iraq, held her antiwar vigil outside President Bush’s Texas ranch. But, according to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, the fortunes of the Bush administration and the Republican Party have not yet begun to recover.

I mean, is Sheehan even a frickin' player anymore, if she ever frickin' was?!?

Did Hewitt really say that? Seriously? We need to confirm it somehow.

I know he said something the other day on his blog about how opposing Miers will only help Hillary. The reason I remember is because I e-mailed Goldstein as soon as I read it to ask, "Could this guy possibly sink any fucking lower?"

Hewitt's point is not that outrageous. He's making the tactical point that opposing the President at this moment will cripple him and lead to Hillary!

I don't agree with that, necessarily, but he's not saying get in line just for the sake of getting in line. He's saying Bush may have fucked up but ripping him now could be disastrous.

It's that possibility that makes me want to retract the claws, because what I don't need is a wounded CinC fighting the war on terror.

But I do want him to correct his fucking error posthaste.

Bush fucks up an awful lot and it seems to me his supporters have had to work too hard to keep him from blowing up. I don't know how much more I have in me.

I'm not saying I'm propping up the President. I'm saying his many supporters have had to forgive him an awful lot to continue supporting him. And for me, personally, I'm kind of at the edge at this point. I think a lot of people are starting to give up on him.

Call him up and ask him. You have 25 minutes.

The Hugh Hewitt Show
Hugh Hewitt
800-520-1234

"... like Andrea Harris..."
"Andrea doesn't..."
"...Andrea Harris..."
"Andrea?"
"...what Andrea Harris..."
"...is Andrea Harris pro-Miers?"
"....Andrea Harris!"

Um, you know, switching your obsession to me isn't what I meant by "get a hobby."

Megan,

I'm not confusing you with Andrea, but then, I'm not keeping track of who is saying what exactly. In various threads the charges have been made. The pro-Miers camp deals largely in invective, because they don't have much else to offer.

When the law is on your side, pound the law. When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When neither are on your side pound the table and call your opponents crybabies and splitters.

Your advice -- "Let's just keep quiet and let things unfold" -- is duly noted and duly rejected. "Let's just let things unfold" means this woman just goes through without a peep from people who give a shit about putting a good constitutionalist on the court.

So I'm sorry, those of us against Miers can't just be nice and quiet about Bush's latest colossal fuck-up.

Good grief. Most of this thread sounds like the usual bitchy comment thread on Intelligent Design.

FWIW, I think she will come across as embarassing in her hearings. I think she will flub fairly straightforward questions.

I'm not rooting for that. But I also know you can't become a constitutional scholar just by cramming for a couple of weeks.

Indeed not. The Con Law Nutshell is not going to be enough. I share the concern that she will just embarass herself, and Bush. You can bet that lawyers on the staff of Judiciary Committee members are working overtime right now to craft questions for their members that will expose if she's not really up for this job.

And stop with the "let's wait for the hearings" and "let's wait until we know more." We're not going to learn anything from the hearings, and we're not going to know more about her record, because it's tissue thin and we've already gotten the bulk of it and it doesn't bode well.

I don't know. I think his rhetoric is a bit...heated on this one. Hewitt would have been okay if he'd said it like you did - that we don't want to hurt the president too badly right now, but to call opponents of Miers "anti-GOP" and "pro-Hillary" is just silly.

Um, you know, switching your obsession to me isn't what I meant by "get a hobby."

You haven't seen his What Would Andrea Harris Do? bumpersticker yet, have you?

A few (probably tedious) points since after a while I started to skim through posts and I need to leave the office:

Seems to me that "he did it first" doesn't do much to elevate the second person sinking to ad hominem attacks. It's a logically infirm low road no matter what. Really, it doesn't to much more than signal that passion is overtaking reason. And shrinks say that's OK. I guess. But it does cut down on the signal to noise ratio. This is more of a leftie thing, no matter who's doing it, because it's a symptom that the speaker still hasn't won and the ideas have dried up. We ridicule it elsewhere.

Second, I don't think anybody is very sanguine about having a cypher appointed. Bad history, high stakes, etc. This just boils down to trust. Most of us agree that Bush gets the issues and made the promises. He's told the base to go with him on trust and knows how important this is. He must know, as anyone would, that failure would bring very bad things all around. He asked for trust anyway. Does he deserve it?

For me, he's a guy who has come through unusually well on the things he has promised before even when the chips were down. He's also been straight about doing the things I hate and told me in advance. Finally, he's my guy in the field. He's got the negotiations, the head counts, the contact with the players. He's radioed back from the front and asked me to go with his judgment and in the same breath renewed his promise. I'll be as anxious as the next guy, but he has my personal authorization (small as it is) and I'll just white knuckle this thing through. I tend to trust reliable field people who do what he's done.

Finally, for Ace in particular, I don't think a lawyer's relationship with her client would be something that would cloud his view of her. Even great advocates I have seen tend to keep a degree of neutrality about them, something clincal mixed with the sympathy, when dealing with clients. If he says he's seen deeper, he seems like a decent judge of people and has. I also assume someone with Bush's history has a fair bit of experience having people tell him what he wants to hear. The fact that he rose this high implies that he is still able to see the world as it is.

Nobody is comfortable with trust. He's earned mine, so I'm waiting until I see something actually bad before I withdraw it.

Your mileage may, and probably does, vary.

Slu,

The rhetoric might be overheated but I think that's his point.

I guess at some point you have to decide whether to continue supporting someone who gives you nothing or (as with his father) simply reject him.

It's only the war on terror making this a complicated call.

The Con Law Nutshell is not going to be enough.

No, but reading thirty years of advance sheets hasn't hurt her, either.

It appears to me that, with a few exceptions, the commenters here taking this the hardest are those who profess to be converted liberals and/or democrats. I really don't mean this as a slam, only an observation on why it might be harder for them to trust W.

So, whaddya think? Any merit to that thought?

Until someone posts the audio, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he didn't actually say that shit

Allah, I heard it in my car while driving home from work. I linked to another guy who heard it just like me. If you're looking for audio it was in the opening five minutes of his show Monday, October 10th. He said it. There was no "I'm kidding" qualifier either.

True. He is a talk radio guy, and getting people talking is his bread and butter, so to speak.

It's only the war on terror making this a complicated call.

Yup. He's been steadfast on that, which I think may be part of the reason he's been willing to let some battles go unfought.

Forgot to say, though, that I still think Hewitt has shown some incredible jackassery through this entire debate, from his first comments on the matter ("A solid B+") to his latest statements.

Andrea,

Don't humor yourself. I'm not obsessed by you. I don't think of you terribly often, or at all.

I've been annoyed by the invective of the Bush Administration on this -- trotting out the "eltisims/they don't like her because she's not Yale" bullshit and propagating it all over FoxNews -- for a week and a half.

You're just an annoying parrot.

Hewitt's point is not that outrageous.

His point, essentially, is "If you oppose Miers then the terrorists have already won." That's not outrageous? You could use that logic to justify literally anything.

Here's a hypothetical. Bush goes on TV tomorrow night and says things are looking bad in Iraq, and, well, it's about time we cut our losses and pulled everyone out. Query: how does Hewitt respond the next day? Is it okay to criticize Bush then? Or should we bite our tongues there too lest the scourge of Hillary descend upon the land?

I don't understand why it's incumbent upon us to salvage the right-wing coalition by falling in line. We're not the ones who broke it by passing over Luttig and McConnell and Jones and Brown and Owen and Prior to nominate the lottery commissioner. Hewitt could just as easily have demanded that Bush withdraw the nomination ASAP and instead nominate a superstar. It would have looked bad for 48 hours, then everyone would have forgotten about it. As it is, we ended up with a fiasco.

Hewitt is saying, rather explicitly, that we should be prepared to sacrifice the principles our party is charged with defending for the sake of the party itself. Where's the logic in that? Does he stand for anything anymore?

So we have the right to engage in ad hominems.

Well, maybe the right, but not the duty if you want to be bigger than the trolls. "Ad hominem" comes from the field of logic, and refers to a fallacy. This is not a flame thread; why sink to that level? Well, because you're getting emotional, I suppose.

If she is qualified, she is BARELY qualified. That's a fact. You may not like that fact, but it's true. She was a lawyer, she made partner, she argued no cases in front of the SC, she was never considered one of the people (like David Boies) one needed to get when one had a big case in front of the SC. She was BUsh's PERSONAL LAWYER and campaign manager. She had a stint in low-level local politics.

First of all, the Supreme Court has many cases pending that are not constitutional, but are extremely important. Cases involving antitrust law, environmental law, and so forth. Bork was primarily beloved by the right for his expertise and common-sense approach to antitrust law.

No one can be an expert on all the cases that are presented to the Supreme Court. The justices themselves rely on hiring competent clerks. What is important is that a justice knows how the think like a lawyer, not a legislator, and uphold the rule of law.

Bush has known Miers a long time, and he thinks that he knows this about her. I'm not ready to say he's wrong.

Ace, I wasn't talking to just you. I may be a parrot, but you've become a total egomaniacal jerkoff, and a bore.

Somebody let me know when the funny, interesting "Ace of Spades" remembers how to post to his blog.

Sorry, 9:03 post was me.

Hewitt's point is not that outrageous. He's making the tactical point that opposing the President at this moment will cripple him and lead to Hillary!

It's Bush who must back down, not us. All we want is, you know, something he already promised dozens of times to do.

Hewitt is saying, rather explicitly, that we should be prepared to sacrifice the principles our party is charged with defending for the sake of the party itself.

This is an excellent point. The Dems did this with Clinton in his second term and fucked themselves.

I've been annoyed by the invective of the Bush Administration on this -- trotting out the "eltisims/they don't like her because she's not Yale" bullshit and propagating it all over FoxNews -- for a week and a half.

You insist on ignoring the fact that for approx. the same amount of time, the anti-Miers were saying she was an intellectual lightweight because she was not Harvard and bashing SMU.

You're just an annoying parrot.

That's why she's so popular with Steve H.

andrea,

Well, you've got a lot of nerve getting all offended by someone taking a shot at you now, don't ya?

That's why she's so popular with Steve H.

I meant due to his fondness for birds of the parrot persuasion.

Bush League Baseball.

Megan, since you alluded to politics being a sport, I will now indulge myself and offer this most excellent analogy. Bear with me.

(It doesn't matter what inning it is because the game of politics goes on forever.)

One out. Bases loaded. Bush is batting and McCain is on deck.
The pitch...
Bush swings and the ball is hit high and deep to Left. Miers is at third base and tags up, the fielder catches the ball, Miers runs towards home, the throw to home...Miers is safe!

*Okay, that's great; we get a runner home. But bush had the opportunity to hit a Grand Slam and he hits a sacrifice fly.

Now we have two outs and McCain is at bat. I ask you, what the heck is McCain going to do for us with the bases loaded and two outs? Yep, that's right -- nothing.

We needed a Grand Slam from Bush or at least a base hit. Instead, we trade and out for a run and have Sen. I Think I Will Meet With Cindy Sheehan, (D-dense), at the plate.

A golden opportunity to some damage to our opponents has been squandered and many of us are disappointed. We are vocalizing our disappointment in our star player.

Furthermore, the other side of the argument, I guess the pro-Miers or pro-wait and see, is saying, at this point, "Well, maybe McCain won't choke and strand the runners. Maybe he'll get a hit. Let's give him a chance."

Meanwhile, the others know we blew it and it's over because McCain's trackrecord shows us he wiffs when facing Left-handed pitchers; or Right-handed, for that matter.

Loading the Court with brilliant conservatives was our safeguard for the next two-term Dem in office. And that easily become a reality in '08-'16. Bush blew it. Plain and simple.

You insist on ignoring the fact that for approx. the same amount of time, the anti-Miers were saying she was an intellectual lightweight because she was not Harvard and bashing SMU.

Once again, bullshit. I can only say that so many times. If you want to keep saying did so, did so, fine, but I'm not eight years old and don't have the time for it.

The defense of Miers really is coming perilously close to "medicrities need to be represented on the Supereme Court, too."

For the last time:

Miers is a lightweight, as regards constitutional jurisprudence, not because she went to S-M-Fuckin'-U, but because she hasn't much experience in the field through her professional life.

Again, for those of you who think Constitutional Law is just something you can wing if your heart is pure, do you think someone without experience can just come in and do YOUR job with little relevant experience?

And once again: I would forgive that if there was SOME paper record indicating a constitutionalist approach to the law. THERE ISN'T ONE.

In fairness to Sen. Suppress 1st Amendment with Campaign Finance Reform, (B- butthead), I have to give him major props for his help with the '04 campaign and a GREAT speech at the convention. Zell Miller was a little better, but McCain was excellent, too.

*(Everyone knows that Curt Shilling won Ohio for Bush.)

We're not the ones who broke it by passing over Luttig and McConnell and Jones and Brown and Owen and Prior to nominate the lottery commissioner.

Take a deep breath. A Supreme Court nomination is not the only thing going on right now. Reality is that we have a President who is politically weakened by everything from Katrina to Social Security reform to the drumbeat of suicide bombings from Iraq.

So let's face reality. He has to pick his fights, and he chose not to fight over a blatant conservative jurist with an established record.

Allah, you and I are lawyers, and Supreme Court nominations are very important to us. But Bush really has a lot more to think about.

Ms. Meirs is worse than a lightweight, she's a crony lightweight. Simply nominating a lightweight might be embarasing, but nominating a lightweight crony starts to look corrupt. Yet worse, she's a lighweight crony who the non-evangelical conservative base has no evidence to really support that she is at least a strict constructionist retarded chicken.

This nomination was so politically tone deaf to make me think that Karl Rove is profoundly distracted at this point in time.

so we've given up on fiscal restraint and now we're expected to give up on a conservative judiciary...

Miers is a lightweight, as regards constitutional jurisprudence, not because she went to S-M-Fuckin'-U, but because she hasn't much experience in the field through her professional life.

Plus she went to SMU. (nyuk, nyuk)

Once again, bullshit. I can only say that so many times. If you want to keep saying did so, did so, fine, but I'm not eight years old and don't have the time for it.

No matter how many times you say it, won't make it untrue. I feel this is akin to you asking me, Are you going to believe me, or your own lying eyes? Well, guess what . . .

Allah, you and I are lawyers, and Supreme Court nominations are very important to us. But Bush really has a lot more to think about.

I don't think the importance of SC nominations is lost on non-lawyers. This is major, major stuff, Michael. If he wants to bend on other things, like Social Security, I can grit my teeth and bear that. But not this. Aside from the war, this is the issue.

Like I said up above, we've been waiting ten years for this. Unacceptable.

Well, if we're going to discuss it, please elucidate on this constitutional heavyweight's scary-impressive qualifications.

Go!

Shouldn't take you too long.

I know that if a case comes up involving Powerball, she's got it covered.

I know that if a case comes up involving Powerball, she's got it covered.

Classic.

Allah, you and I are lawyers, and Supreme Court nominations are very important to us. But Bush really has a lot more to think about.

I...jeez...what!?!

Dammit! How many lawyers do we have commenting on this site? Am I the only guy who makes an honest living around here?

Aw, ace...

Whoops!

Here.

Don't say I never gave you nuthin'.

For the last time:

I doubt it.

Miers is a lightweight, as regards constitutional jurisprudence, not because she went to S-M-Fuckin'-U, but because she hasn't much experience in the field through her professional life.

And that refutes the fact that so many people made disparaging remarks about her school and said because she attended SMU she was not qualified to be nominated as a supreme court justice how?

Again, for those of you who think Constitutional Law is just something you can wing if your heart is pure, do you think someone without experience can just come in and do YOUR job with little relevant experience?

Why should any one listen to a guy who makes over the top accusations that Miers is going to “wing” Constitutional Law? And for the record, as an appellate attorney with US constitutional issues in every argument in every brief, I'm not worried about Miers.

It's a good picture. But I'm not crying, I'm criticizing.

And, again, you've got some nerve throwing a hissyfit after casting first stones.

Aside from the war, this is the issue.

You're entitled to that perspective. From my perspective, aside from the war, the abolition of the alternative minimum tax is the issue.

Of course, that's because I have to pay it.

Cite these people rejecting her on the express basis that she attended SMU, anonymous.

I keep hearing how "everyone was saying it." Shoudln't be hard for you to come up with a wealth of quotes, then.

You know where I heard it? On FoxNews, with Miers defenders accusing Miers opponents of rejecting her on such elitist grounds. And yet no one was actually quoted disparaging her in this manner.

Funny that they didn't have any quotes, and rather discussed it as a supposition.

"And, again, you've got some nerve throwing a hissyfit after casting first stones."

Good lord. It's a wonder you can type through the tears.

Oh, andrea, don't go away mad, just go away.

You're imputing to me a lot of emotion regarding you I just don't have. I care less about you than the cigarette I just stubbed out.

The evangelical business has done me in on this nomination. Which seems like a strange thing to have done it, given I tend to agree with Ace and Allah's "no experience in constitutional law" on this one.

I have always, always detested it when the Left brought up the Catholicism of Scalia, or more recently, Roberts. I'm fine with Catholics, I'm fine with evangelicals. I don't want religion to be any part of the nominating process.

This "She's evangelical, she's one of us, she'll vote our way," *wink wink* is one of the most disgusting things I've seen this administration pull.

I swallowed the blatantly unconstitutional McCain-Feingold because I believe the War on Terror is vital to America's security and the future of classically liberal Western culture. But if the president thinks we should stand by while he coyly wipes his ass with the Constitution on this one, he is sorely mistaken.

The spending, the drug benefit, the Katrina treasury loot fest, immigration, the refusal to veto anything at all.

I'm sorry, this is my line in the sand. I'm a centrist who has defended this president to the hilt. Being gay, I lost tons of friends during the last election cycle as I defending him with that whole FMA crap. I have given this man just about everything I can give.

The President may not care what I think. He doesn't have to face another election. Fine.

But if the Republican Congress does not get this shit under control immediately, I will not be voting for them next fall, and I will try to convince everyone I know to withdraw their support.

I'm sorry. I've had it. The nomination is bad enough, but this borderline unconstiutional evangelical crap is his big ole "Fuck you," to people like me.

No, fuck you, Mr. President.

Miers is a lightweight, as regards constitutional jurisprudence, not because she went to S-M-Fuckin'-U, but because she hasn't much experience in the field through her professional life.

Again, constitutional jurisprudence is a tiny fraction of the work of the Supreme Court. They also deal with criminal law, antitrust law, tax law, environmental law, telecommunications law, and on and on. And guess what? Most of that stuff is just as important as constitutional law. And guess what again? Most of the justices are novices regarding the cases they are considering.

What's important is intellectual acuity, the ability to think like a lawyer, and a philosophical commitment to the rule of law.

Bush apparently thinks he sees this in Miers, and he knows her well. There is nothing about her pedigree which would suggest he is wrong.

Am I the only guy who makes an honest living around here?

Slub:

No, I think Dave in Texas also makes an honest living. He's some kind of Dilbert. I'm not sure about anyone else.

With all due respect, Michael, we haven't been fighting thirty fucking years to get a judge on the bench who really understands ERISA.

They also deal with criminal law, antitrust law, tax law, environmental law, telecommunications law, and on and on.

Perhaps I misapprehended, but I thought that the Supreme Court dealt with all those subject with reference to the consititution.

the ability to think like a lawyer

Is that as important as the ability to think like a judge or a constitutional scholar?

These are by the way, genuine questions posed to you as legal professional.

Thank goodness.

I want someone who believes in a LIMITED role for judges. I want someone with that express ideology.

If someone doesn't have that ideology, they'll just do ad-hoc analysis of what they think "seems right and fair," which is what O'Connor did.

And from what I understand, Miers doesn't have any sort of coherent constitutional philosophy.

Asked to name her favorite justice, she said "Warren." Warren!

I keep hearing how "everyone was saying it." Shoudln't be hard for you to come up with a wealth of quotes, then.

Yeah it would. You look them up. And even if it weren't, I wouldn't waste my time trying to convince you of anything -- not in the state you're in.

You know where I heard it? On FoxNews, with Miers defenders . . .

I wouldn't know since I do not listen to Fox News. I listen to radio all day and all night. I don't listen to Limbaugh. I listen to Praeger, Medved, Bennett, Elder, Ziegler, Handel. I hear some of the hosts, I hear the callers, I hear the pundit guests.

It's a good picture.

It is. You were a cute baby.

But I'm not crying, I'm criticizing.

And I'm criticizing your manner of criticizing.

Ace ranted: "Your advice -- "Let's just keep quiet and let things unfold" -- is duly noted and duly rejected."

Take your meds, darling. Then remind me when I told you to do that.

Perhaps I misapprehended, but I thought that the Supreme Court dealt with all those subject with reference to the consititution.

No. Most cases involve statutory interpretation, in accordance with well settled rules, and the Constitution is not involved. The task is usually to divine legislative intent in cases of ambiguity.

Is that as important as the ability to think like a judge or a constitutional scholar?

It's the same thing. The task of lawyering is a set of mental disciplines that are independant of your employer. It doesn't matter if you are in private practice, work for a corporation, work for the government, work as a law school professor, or work as a judge.

At the end of the day, what matters is that you have an intellectual commitment to a process for dispute resolution. That's why lawyers are referred to as hired guns. We are, in fact, the alternative to guns.

Perhaps I misapprehended, but I thought that the Supreme Court dealt with all those subject with reference to the consititution.

But they present the same problem: will she follow the text that's written, or make stuff up as she goes along for touchy-feely results? The latter isn't law.

"I care less about you than the cigarette I just stubbed out."

Did you type that with a straight face? Seriously.

Personally, I don't smoke, but I don't mind if anybody else does. And if they do it in a room lit only by the fitful neon lights coming through the slats in the dusty blinds, while wearing a fedora and a rumpled (yet well-cut) suit... sigh!

What were we talking about?

Personally, I don't smoke, but I don't mind if anybody else does. And if they do it in a room lit only by the fitful neon lights coming through the slats in the dusty blinds, while wearing a fedora and a rumpled (yet well-cut) suit... sigh!

Well, if you can include a pile of empty Val-U-Rite Vodka bottles in the corner and gravy stains on the suit then Ace is your man.

Oh, and the cockroaches from next door, you don't mind those do you?

Personally, I don't smoke, but I don't mind if anybody else does. And if they do it in a room lit only by the fitful neon lights coming through the slats in the dusty blinds, while wearing a fedora and a rumpled (yet well-cut) suit... sigh!

Oh, geez. Can we declare this a fantasy-free zone?

I'm afraid that if we don't, someone is going to get drunk and start making comments like this about Miers.

Asked to name her favorite justice, she said "Warren." Warren!

Dude, I thought I heard that "Warren" thing was her being interrupted, then going on to explain she liked Warren Burger for his administrative skills w/r/t to the federal judiciary (for which he was supposedly widely acknowledged as a great).

Least that's what I heard someone say. And I oray it's true. She can't be so stupid as to idolize Eart Warren, can she?

andrea,

yes, straight face, but it's an old line, so it was easy to keep the deadpan.

With all due respect, Michael, we haven't been fighting thirty fucking years to get a judge on the bench who really understands ERISA.

Really? I don't necessarily want a judge that understands ERISA, but I do want a judge that will study it and fairly interpret the law in accordance with the record of legislative intent, and not to promote some social agenda.

Is this more important than constitutional expertise? Depends. It is for me. The cash value of my pension plan is now about half a million.

Ray: correct.

Ray is smart.

Michael said: "I do want a judge that will study it and fairly interpret the law in accordance with the record of legislative intent"

You are aware that that particular procedure is one Justice Scalia absolutely loathes?

FWIW, I'm with Ace and Allah on this one. Bush has bungled this very badly.

One of my concerns (not often mentioned here), is that Bush's two nominations (remember, Roberts isn't an established judicial conservative either) will have the effect of discouraging some of the brightest young legal minds from publicly advnancing any originalist/constructionist arguments that just might change the legal culture in the U.S. Perhaps more importantly, the SCOTUS is one of the most prestigious and influential podiums from where a persuasive originalist can make the case. (who really thinks the nation at large would know who the hell Scalia/Thomas are if they were on the 8th Cir.?) So Bush has made it clear that Republicans won't go to bat for you when it counts.

However, contra Ace's qualifications argument, the only qualifications necessary for SCOTUS is getting 51 of 100 of the most self-loving peacocks in the world to vote to confirm you. That comes from a strict constructionist perspective BTW.

Rob wailed: "Being gay, I lost tons of friends during the last election cycle as I defending him with that whole FMA crap."

Get thee behind me, Andrew Sullivan... no, wait, I take that back! I TAKE THAT BACK

But I think Ace concedes my last point with his retarded chicken suggestion.

Rob. Frankly, if your friends dump you over your politics, they must be some of the lamest friends around. Although, I'm sure they are upset at your narrow-minded hate-filled bigotry.

Get thee behind me, Andrew Sullivan... no, wait, I take that back! I TAKE THAT BACK

Megan, I am gob-smacked you could think so low of me!

I'm no Sullivan on that issue. I voted for Bush in November and think Sullivan lost it last summer/fall.

I'm just saying, it was not easy for me to support this president on a very personal level, so his refusal to go to bat on this issue, and then try to pretty it up with religion is infuriating on a variety of levels.

As Ace and others have said, this was a big one, one the core reasons for voting for this president. That he has pulled something like this, after so many of us have stuck with him when perhaps we should not have, is beyond belief.

The newest argument: Bush had to pick Miers because he's politically weakened and can't take a fight. So, Bush is the new Jimmy Carter, who won't do difficult things simply because they're difficult. Not impossible, difficult. Not even gonna TRY those difficult things. We Americans are just going to have to tighten our belts a bit and get used to Bush's 1970s mindset, I guess.

You are aware that that particular procedure is one Justice Scalia absolutely loathes?

Yeah, and I well understand the process of larding the Congressional Record with bullshit commentary designed to influence future judicial decisions. The antidote to this is the various rules of statutory interpretation that lawyers use to divine legislative intent based upon the text of the statute. In any event, the evil we need to avoid is judges with a prediliction towards twisting statutory language to advance their social agenda.

The overriding point is that we don't necessarily need a judge who is an expert in any particular area of law, constitutional or otherwise. We need a judge that is committed to the rule of law, and not a social agenda.

That's what I'll be looking for when the Miers hearings commence.

Rob, I can understand the discontent about Miers. To a degree I even share it. But I don't know why you dragged in the FMA; that's a defense of the Constitution, not a neglect.

Michael said: "We need a judge that is committed to the rule of law, and not a social agenda. That's what I'll be looking for when the Miers hearings commence."

Ditto.

this was a big one, one the core reasons for voting for this president.

Wow. You mean that people voted for Bush mainly in the expectation that he would nominate their personal favorites for the Supreme Court? Wasn't there some other, overriding reason people voted Bush in for a second term despite his well-known flaws? (Like not being barely more conservative than Clinton, not being able to orate like Charlton Heston playing Moses on the Mount, having a dog that can best be described as "small, yappy," etc.) Something... it's name escapes me, it begins with "w" and rhymes with "GWAR." What is it? Help me out here.

Okay, Ace, so Andrea and I wax sarcastic in comparable ways. Still.

Andrea, don't be intentionally obtuse. I enjoy reading you, but maybe a lil cool down time away from the keyboard is in order.

If I had to give only one reason for voting for the President, I would say it's the global war on terror. I said supreme court justices are one of the core reasons.

He didn't have to pick a personal favorite, but he could've nominated someone with a verifiable record of constitutional law that would assuage us on some level that he is appointing who he promised he would appoint during the election.

After all the conservative principles this president has broken, he has no right to say "Trust me," and have that as answer enough to our concerns.

Supreme Court appointments have the power to swing the course of American government for decades. That he did not respect those who voted for him enough to hand us a decent pick is inexcusable.

Robbie's right. SCOTUS is very important. Second only to the war (and even then it's relatively a close call). Sorry Megan and Andrea, but the argument that we must remember that Bush is right on the war doesn't carry that much water. I think everyone agrees: Granted, the GWOT is the big issue of the day, but this is damned important too. It's not like the anti-Mier crowd wants Bush to do anything that he didn't already promise (I know, I know, maybe Miers fulfills that promise... but given "stealth" track records.. no dice).

Michael said:

Jeez, Megan, if you don't call me Butters I'm going to think you don't care anymore.

*sniff*

Michael - I call you Butters when I want to mock you. Here you're making sense.

anon -

Yes, SCOTUS is hugely important. Probably 2nd or 3rd on my list. For me, though, it isn't a deal-breaker. Again, as I was saying earlier: people are arguing this like it's a difference in kind, when it's really a difference in degree.

Megan, Bush has spent his presidency breaking principles 3 through 10. Add number 2 to the pile, and we're beginning to question the arithmetic while watching the scales tip ever so slowly to the wrong side of the balance.

It is not just this one thing. It is this one thing piled on top of everything else.

Megan:

I know that. I was just teasing, OK? Maybe the wrong thread for that.

The newest argument: Bush had to pick Miers because he's politically weakened and can't take a fight.

newest? catch up dude.

Robbie:

Remind me how the list goes. I'm assuming #1 is GWOT.

"Andrea, don't be intentionally obtuse. I enjoy reading you, but maybe a lil cool down time away from the keyboard is in order."

Someone who types up something like this Oh-My-Aunt-Hannah dramaqueen psych: "I'm just saying, it was not easy for me to support this president on a very personal level, so his refusal to go to bat on this issue, and then try to pretty it up with religion is infuriating on a variety of levels" really shouldn't be telling someone else to take "a lil cool down time away from the keyboard." Maybe you, and all the other he-men having nervous breakdowns* here, should go soak your heads in some ice water until you calm down.

*This is excepting ACE, who is an example of ROCK HARD MANLY CALM AND STEELY LOGIC that we should all admire and seek to emulate.

Andrea - I'm really glad I'm gay right now.

Megan - scroll up and read through the lists others have posted about all the conservative principles Bush has broken throughout his presidency. They're amply enumerated.

Robbie: actually, the only one I see enumerating them from 1-10 was Dman, and he was arguing for the Prez, if I'm reading it right.

Oh, and I'm really glad I'm gay right now, too. No offense - or at least no more than you tried to give Andrea.

This is excepting ACE, who is an example of ROCK HARD MANLY CALM AND STEELY LOGIC that we should all admire and seek to emulate.

Really? Cuz, my impression was, Ace was having a hissy-fit on this issue. He's justifying ad hominem attacks on the basis that someone else did it first. He's seeming to argue that proven expertise in constitutional jurisprudence is the only thing that qualifies a Supreme Court justice.

Not a good night for Ace, IMHO.

From above:

If he hadn't signed McCain-Feingold

If he hadn't signed the prescription drug boondoggle

If he hadn't gone crazy with the spending

If he had held out for including vouchers in NCLB

If he hadn't helped Arlen Specter get re-elected

If he hadn't signed the porktacular highway bill

I'll throw in his abject failure to do anything substansive about illegal immigration.

And if you don't like gender being injected into the debate, take it up with Andrea. She introduced it.

Just to keep the thread current, I will again point out that Bork was not an expert on constitutional law. He was revered by the right wing because of his interpretation of antitrust statutes. You can read his bio at Wikipedia.

The antitrust laws, BTW, are a great example of how lawmaking occurs in America.

The actual statutes (the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, the Robinson-Patman Act) are vague, self-contradictory, and difficult to understand.

So, the tough choices are left to district court judges. Human beings who are trying to do the right thing, and often make mistakes.

In the area of antitrust law, Robert Bork was a beacon of sanity in a confused world.

Robbie:

"If he hadn't signed McCain-Feingold"

No argument there. It was a bad move.

"If he hadn't signed the prescription drug boondoggle"

Yep.

"If he hadn't gone crazy with the spending"

Yep.

"If he had held out for including vouchers in NCLB"

Agreed.

"If he hadn't helped Arlen Specter get re-elected"

Sorry, but that was a necessary cost of the party-building strategy that won us the House and the Senate. Besides, Specter knows that too, and as a result he hasn't been too objectionable recently.

"If he hadn't signed the porktacular highway bill"

Agreed, once again.

"I'll throw in his abject failure to do anything substansive about illegal immigration."

Yep.

See a pattern here? You're calling us names when we, 90% or more of the time, f'n agree with you. And we don't even disagree with you on Miers. We just want you to tone it down a little. You ARE hurting the party. And whatever schadenfreude you get out of it is not equivalent to any postulated increase in influence. Do you get it yet?

"And if you don't like gender being injected into the debate, take it up with Andrea. She introduced it."

I'm not even going to bother to look it up. Assume it's true. What are you going to accomplish by continuing it?

Megan, I'm not calling anyone names. I can only speak for myself. Please don't lump me in with others.

The important bit, for me, is that I'm not a Republican. I'm a centrist with strong libertarian tendencies and an unbridaled disdain for the Left.

This isn't about party, but principle. For a lot of people, including myself, this is one principle broken too many. When principle after principle is being broken, I think people should question their party, and they should be as vocal as humanly possible when a major wrong is being committed.

The Republican majority has spent and spent and spent. No matter how much conservatives have complained, no matter how much they have criticized, no matter what they have done, the politicians have been unresponsive to the people who put them in office.

People have been toned down, and they have seen nothing come of it. Patient understanding, and waiting and seeing, and crossing our fingers and hoping for the best has never ever resulted in a positive shift by this administration.

In a situation this dire, this serious, with such far-reaching and long-lasting consequences for our constitutional form of government, now is not the time to ask people to tone it down. We tried that.

It's time to try something different.

In a situation this dire, this serious, with such far-reaching and long-lasting consequences for our constitutional form of government, now is not the time to ask people to tone it down. We tried that.

O please, give me a break. In previous comments, I've already pointed out what is "dire." And that is -- the alternative minimum tax.

You wanna know why that's dire? I'll tell you. I'm one of those guys who are the 10% of America that is paying 90% of the cost. It's because of me that Ace and Allah can publish bilious screeds against the Meirs nomination or whatever. I'm one of the guys who dutifully pay the alternative minimum tax, even though it's blatantly unfair.

Guys like me carry the rest of you. And we actually don't mind. We just don't like totally getting screwed. And the AMT does that.

Sorry, 1:20 comment was me.

Actually, no one carries me. I'm pleased to know you have my tax records sitting in front of you. I suppose you already know I do very well for myself.

If the Kelo decision hasn't convinced everyone of the crucial constitutional principles at stake in this, I don't know what to tell you.

But, hey, if the state ever demolishes your home for the good of the community, them's the breaks, eh?

I think the implications of Kelo are more dire than the AMT.

If the Kelo decision hasn't convinced everyone of the crucial constitutional principles at stake in this, I don't know what to tell you.

Point well taken. The judicial reasoning leading to the Kelo decision, in my view, might be more important than the AMT.

I was just in the mood for a rant. Forgive me.

WTF. We're at AOSHQ.

Forgiven. If it helps, I think the current tax system is utter crap and is in dire need of replacing.

I'm likely to hit the AMT this year myself. I'm hoping it doesn't turn out as badly for me as it seems to have for you.

MY GOODNESS!! All this fighting among friends!! And look how worked up
Ace and Megan are???

You think someone was arguing to take porn off the internet or something!....;-)

Now I might have missed this in the thread, but I did hear today on Rush that Bush did ask others first and they said no because of how the Demcrats have turned the nomination process into a personal witch hunt and who could blame them?? It seems he only wanted a woman and that shortened the list quite a bit.

I think I would be more angry that he succumbed to some poltically correct affirmative action program for this nomination than anything else. If a man is the right one for this job then let it be a freakin man!!

I'm serious when I say that I think Laura Bush had a lot to do with this. And that saddens me a bit.

But, on the other hand, make no mistake about it, the Democrats are loving this. They get rid of a pro-lifer without having to raise a finger. All because you lawyers think she didn't graduate from the right law school.

Now Ace, don't go off on me like you did Megan and Andrea. I'm not tough like them.

You could make me cry.....

If it helps, I think the current tax system is utter crap and is in dire need of replacing.

Thanks. It does help.

I'm actually not at the point of buying into a Forbes-style flat tax system, because (warning: this may sound liberal) the marginal utility of a dollar is just not the same for me as for somebody who is really in need.

I'm also not in favor of totally eliminating the estate tax, because at a high level the tax prevents intergenerational transfers of wealth and power from getting out of control (e.g., the Rockefellers are not going to get much further on the basis of family trusts).

Michael:

What's this liberal faig-y tripe I'm hearing?

Seriously, though, I think curing the ills and inequities of a flat tax system would be far easier than trying to work within our current system.

The estate tax is indeed a quandary.

You could make me cry.....

I didn't buy your "I'm just a simple woman" bullshit, and no one else did either. You are actually intellectually engageed and competent.

So, knock off the "emotionally vulnerable" bullshit. You are no more likely to cry than I am. Just state your opinion and see what happens.

Michael: Wouldn't you rather have rich folks' money in family hands instead of evil moonbat foundation administrators'?

Some proportion of the ultra-rich are moonbats, but the ENTIRE nonprofit class is. Well, close.

Michael: Wouldn't you rather have rich folks' money in family hands instead of evil moonbat foundation administrators'?

No. I'm OK with moonbat foundations; they actually do some good. I'm not OK with family trusts that are designed to perpetuate the unearned transfer family privilege indefinitely into the future.

This is excepting ACE, who is an example of ROCK HARD MANLY CALM AND STEELY LOGIC that we should all admire and seek to emulate.

Really? Cuz, my impression was, Ace was having a hissy-fit on this issue.

So, maybe at the moment, ACE is only ROCK HARD and MANLY. Which is not a bad thing. Not a bad thing at all. :)

Bush gave us Miers, and is ripping apart the Republican party.

If he had given us Brown, the moonbats who run the Demo party machinery would have insisted on a ruthless, racist, unrelenting attack. The career politicians in the Senate would have been caught in the middle.

The vocal Demo moonbats would have revealed themselves to be what they are (and WHERE they are), turning people off to the Democratic party.

These aren't the ignorant days of the Bork nomination, when the Republican base was caught off gaurd.

This nomination was worse than a wasted opportunity. The best Republicans hope for is someone who is not another Souter.

By drafting an evangelical leader of sorts, James Dobson, into pro-Miers advocacy, [Bush is] using Dobson.

Sure it ain't the other way around? Forget donkeys and elephants -- what exactly does it take for Americans to ask themselves for one hot second why James Dobson should be asked anything about anything by your elected leaders?

Does Dobson hold an elected office? No, he does not. He writes crappy books. He hosts a radio show for self-congratulatory wingnuts and scares the shit out them with cautionary tales about gay cartoon characters. Worst of all, he holds a straight razor to the Republican Party's naughty, tingly parts.

For Christ's sake. This is way different from Roberts, who is actually qualified. Miers has no quals -- she's just a loyalist flunkie. Supposedly vetting Roberts' religious quals was the worst sort of religious bigotry, but with Miers, apparently it's a virtue.

At some point we have to be honest with ourselves and realize that Tiberius is trying to appoint his horse to the Senate. When George Will admits she's not even in the top 10,000 qualified candidates, something's up.

Ace,

I think you've got it about right. It's a done deal, no matter how much screaming, but if Meirs does turn out to be an O'Connor or Souter, I'll be walking with you. If it wasn't for the GWOT and the lack of ANY prospect other than Bush to keep up the fight, I would be gone now. I am in an almost total rage at this nomination, but have no palatable choice but to sit back and pray that Meirs will actually pick up the ball for those of us who have waited so many years for this chance. I've got all my fingers crossed...

Ok, I have to assert my history geekness now:

At some point we have to be honest with ourselves and realize that Tiberius is trying to appoint his horse to the Senate.

This wasn't Tiberius, but rather Caligula. And it is not clear that he bothered to appoint his horse, Incatus, to the Senate, but rather, according to Suetonius, Caligula wanted to make his horse one of the two Consuls. Now it is true that technically one had to be a Senator before one could stand for election as Consul, but Incatus was of course barred from being a Senator since he was a member of the Equestrian class. [bada-boom]

[I know, a member of the Equestrian class could move up into the Senatorial class by a couple of means; e.g., elected as a magistrate or by a Censor, but really the pun was too ripe to resist.]

I am in an almost total rage at this nomination, but have no palatable choice but to sit back and pray that Meirs will actually pick up the ball for those of us who have waited so many years for this chance.

Dude, she's on record as saying Bush is the most brilliant man she's met. Either she's a total lackey or she needs to get out of the house more often. Writing him mash notes telling him how "cool" he is donesn't help the perception.

Miers is not a serious nomination, even if Bush is serious about it. He's either softening up the opposition with a head fake before nominating Luttig or Owen, or he's losing it

This is not conservatism, or even cronyism. It's just shameless lackeyism.

Total rage, huh?
Serioulsy, is your face all red?
Is steam coming out of your ears?
Are you fit to operate heavy machinery in your present state?
Does this mean you will be joining Louis Farakhan in D.C. for the Million Moon March?