Don't you have several Meirs-related posts a-ragin' already?

J/K. It p*sses me off to no end as well, and I have been unable to focus on much else this past week either.

The storm will pass when the inevitable withdrawing occurs.

Ace,

For the love of god, please make it stop.

Log Cabin,

I keep hearing that. Too much Miers, etc.

I don't make up the news, you know. This IS one of the biggest stories out there. The only story competing in importance are the Iraq elections-- not sure how much I can write about them. We'll see what happens.

Or I could write about Judith Miller and Valerie Plame and whether or not Rove and Libby will be indicted. Once again, nothing really to say there. Either they will or they won't.

I don't get it. I don't understand why so many want this story to go away, as if it's an inconsequential snoozer.

As far as I'm concerned, this is the second biggest thing in the Bush presidency, and yes, I put it above cutting tax rates.

This blog is about three things, mainly. Conservative justices, media bias, and the war on terror. I can't help it; those are my main interests.

Well, that and stuff about boobs and dicks. But I covered those today too.

Krugman will only support a horse's ass.

Log Cabin, go start up a topic in the Open Thread. :)

Sean: Yeah, but look at the size of those threads... We're hitting lgf length here (in part because lgf veers pretty much WOT-only).

MDS: Miers Derangment Syndrome

Good post, Ace. Right on the money.

You can understand Bush a little. After all, pandering had served him so well up to this point (and I say that as a supporter).

He probably got to where his brain was hurting (whose wouldn't?) over all the politics of pushing a legitimate nominee through the senate past the gang of 14, etc., and finally just had an "aha" moment when he figured Harriet was the perfect answer, no controversial background and the base would love her because of her religious background. In his mind, it was perfect. He could reward a longtime loyalist and solve his supreme court problem in a single move. It just didn't work out that way.

The frustrating thing (okay, one frustrating thing) about the Miers story is that there’s so little to work with—a bad thing all by itself, IMHO, and the little there is I like even less. But when discussing an issue that’s so important and yet so skimpy, it’s much too easy for the arguments to degenerate into ad hominem slamfests.

Somebody over at Goldstein’s pointed out that the argument that’s going on between the pro- and anti-Miers camps on the importance of judicial philosophy is exactly the discussion conservatives had hoped to have with the general public over a more serious conservative nominee. Good point, and yet another reason she was a lousy pick.

Hey gang, I'm just joking. I realize it's important.
It was just acting out of frustration. I wish Bush had never done it.

But I bet that no one's going to change their minds discussing this. The whole situation just sucks.

Micky Kaus made the same suggestion, and it makes sense to me. The main complaint about Miers is that she has no judicial track record, so let her build one. And hope that another of the Supremes drops off the twig... uh, retires, in the next three years.

Ace is right that the "elitist and sexist" charge is petty name-calling and it's bullshit. Serious critics shouldn't have a knee-jerkedly defensive charge like that thrown at them.
On the other hand, several well known conservatives got pretty nasty right away once the nomination was announced (George Will, the NRO guys, and Ann Coulter come to mind). The President didn't deserve that, either. I don't really like this nomination, and I don't like some other decisions the man has made either. He's allowed some real twits to be placed in some important national security positions. But I'm also not ready to turn on him yet. He's taken more unfair abuse than any President I can remember, and yet he's continued to do the right thing when it comes to putting boot to terrorist ass. I still think history will judge him by that, and I don't think that makes me an apologist.

Miers Position On Don't Ask-Don't Tell???

Ace,can you direct your readers to any references to Miers involvement in the continued policy on the Military “don’t ask-don’t tell”.

I’m hearing some things that concerns me however I want to read up on this before I comment.

Perhaps this has already been brought up (and I apologize if it has), but isn't it possible that there aren't any confirm-able (this is key given the whole Gang of 14 non-sense) nominees out there in the "mold of Scalia and Thomas?" I know and understand there are other conservative possibilities; but I don't understand how that would make them fit the "mold of Scalia and Thomas."

I'm not pleased (nor outraged) by the nomination; nor do I think Meirs is the one who best fits this supposed mold-but I don't know who else would. I'm just openly wondering that possibility. Again, I apologize for the L.S. if this has been addressed before.

On the other hand, several well known conservatives got pretty nasty right away once the nomination was announced (George Will, the NRO guys, and Ann Coulter come to mind).

Pretty nasty in that Coulter et al made offensive and elitist remarks from the get go, you mean. So, don't tell me the elitist charge was bullshit or petty name calling.

I don't think it is fair to hang elitist arguments (few though they were) around the neck of every person that is making anti-Miers arguments. It is bullshit that Ace (or almost anyone) on his blog made those arguments.

That being said, as Ace has pointed out before, Coulter made her "elitist" points in the context of arguing that a conservative that has been through an ivy league school must have a backbone. Otherwise, they would have already succumbed to the liberal mindwipe that is constantly advanced in those institutions. In other words, it's arguable that even Coulter's over the top statements were actually elitist.

Regarding the comments about voting for Bush because of his campaign promise on SCOTUS appointments. Well, I voted for Bush for many reasons, that being one of them. However, I also voted for him thinking that he would have a Republican Senate backing up his choices. He doesn't. We can no longer expect him to fight that fight without a decent army behind him. We don't have it. We have RINO's and democrats emboldened by conservative wannabe's and knee-jerk pundints.

I don't think it is fair to hang elitist arguments (few though they were) around the neck of every person that is making anti-Miers arguments. It is bullshit that Ace (or almost anyone) on his blog made those arguments.

Oh, yeah? And I don't think it's fair that Ace is claiming that he was accused by people of making those arguments because he was not. He is not a victim and I wish he would stop acting like one. And I'm not sure what you mean by few because there were a number of shitty comments made by shitty elitists all over the damn place.

That being said, as Ace has pointed out before, Coulter made her "elitist" points in the context of arguing that a conservative that has been through an ivy league school must have a backbone. Otherwise, they would have already succumbed to the liberal mindwipe that is constantly advanced in those institutions.

One, I never heard her make that argument. I did hear her and others make shittty little comments about only someone who has gone to an ivy league law school has the intellect to sit on the ussc, etc. I heard her and others for days make these shit comments. I just kept changing stations. But, she was making the rounds big time and it was almost impossible to get away from the woman.

Even Laura Ingraham, who I adore, disappointed me by making similar shit comments. At least she wasn't too far gone and back peddled in a day or two. But don't tell me those comments weren't made because I know they were. And to twist it around to make the shits who were talking that way into victims, and for them and others to continue spinning that lie makes me want to puke.

Two, give me a break that going to a ivy league school must mean you have a backbone. There are a number of things that indicate character. Attending an Ivy league school is not one of them.

In other words, it's arguable that even Coulter's over the top statements were actually elitist.

Argueable, no. IT'S A FKN FACT THEY WERE ELITIST.

There are a number of things that indicate character. Attending an Ivy league school is not one of them.

But getting into one is. And let's be frank, SMU is not ranked as a top 10, top 20, or even top 50 law school. As an academic credential for a Supreme Court spot it is adequate, not outstanding.

There are a number of things that indicate character. Attending an Ivy league school is not one of them.

But getting into one is.

No, it's not.

And let's be frank, SMU is not ranked as a top 10, top 20, or even top 50 law school. As an academic credential for a Supreme Court spot it is adequate, not outstanding.

Yeah, let's be frank. Implying that getting into an Ivy League school is an indicator of “character” and getting into SMU somehow less, or none at all, is just the type of shitty little elitist comments I was referring to.

Implying that getting into an Ivy League school is an indicator of “character” and getting into SMU somehow less, or none at all, is just the type of shitty little elitist comments I was referring to.

I'm simply stating the obvious: meeting the more rigorous admission criteria of top-ranked schools means demonstrating commitment, talent and intelligence. That's what the admission committees are screening for. So I'd say that yes, admission to an Ivy League school is a key indicator of character.

The chip on your shoulder says that I was implying that people who go to SMU have less character. That's certainly nothing like what I said.

But what I'm really after is for you to tell me where evaluation of credentials stops and elitism begins.

Hey, none of this debate matters, because:

"Conservatives are deeply split, though the pro-Miers camp is gaining, and the steadiness of the president assures her eventual confirmation."

Hugh said it.
I believe it.
That settles it.

Anon:

I probably wasn't as clear as I should have been. Coulter's column (my only exposure to her comments) made the point that if you graduated from an ivy league school and remained a conservative, it showed that you had a spine. The point being, at elitist schools, one is browbeated with the liberal worldview day in and day out. The pressure there is enormous to conform.

I think her main point was that she wanted a conservative that had stood up to the liberal pressures of elitist schools and remained steadfast (as an indication of their willingness to stick to principles).

To me, that isn't the same as saying that she thinks anyone that hasn't been to ivy league schools is not qualified to be on the bench (even if she'd prefer it for the reasons above).

So you are right, ivy league alone does not give one a backbone, and I don't think anyone said it did. As for Coulter commenting elsewhere, I guess you heard what you heard.

My point was that you can't take the most obnoxious arguments from one side and condemn everyone on that side for those arguments. Especially, when everyone (at least on this blog) has condemned the elitist argument!

Furthermore, as I said, you could credibly argue that coulter's argument wasn't actually elitist (I think Ace made that point, but she's probably not upset that people to took it that way). On the other hand, I think most people criticizing the nomination probably said something vague about "questioning her qualifications" as a polite way of saying "you gotta be shitting me that he just nominated his personal lawyer... that's cronyism!"

I look at people who shout charges of "Elitist!" the same way I do those who shout "Racist!" or "Sexist!" They usually have an agenda, and are hypersensitive to perceived affronts. If Ann Coulter or anybody else wants to say that she thinks that Ivy League education is a minimum requirement for a Supreme Court justice, then she should be criticized, but not vilified.

This is why I've been kind of punchy with our inherently rude anonymous poster - she's arguing for suppression of speech based on her second-tier school prejudices.

But getting into one is. And let's be frank, SMU is not ranked as a top 10, top 20, or even top 50 law school. As an academic credential for a Supreme Court spot it is adequate, not outstanding.

Barely adequate. In Texas, the rep of SMU is that it's the fallback school that rich kids apply to (it's expensive) if they can't get into a top tier university, and it's a well known party school.

Wait a minute.

Well known party school.

I would now like to publicly reaffirm my support for Harriet Miers.

I mean, think about it folks. Do you really care if every Associate Justice has expertise in constitutional jurisprudence?

Hell no.

We need at least one Associate Justice who has expertise in the areas of drinking and fucking, and who therefore can appreciate the Ace O Spades Lifestyle™.

Someone like us. A justice who can identify with the morons who frequent this blog.

Oh yeah!

having been thrown out of two of the finer schools in the state of Texas, I feel unqualified to comment on this topic

D in TX:

But you got into two of them, thus affirming your character.

Dave:

Pleeeeeeeease tell me you did not get thrown out of A&M.

Accepted at A&M. Did not attend.

Thrown out of BU in 79. I like to think it was a big misunderstanding. Thrown out of NTSU in 80 and 81. Just grades. I was so lazy.

Completed my BS in 88 at East Texas State. On the eleven year plan.

much lower character stds.

Cuz, y'know, A&M expels a few cow-tippers and chicken rapers every year, and that's pretty much it for their disciplinary policy.

although in 1991, East Texas State became Texas A&M, Commerce Texas

so the aggies got me after the fact

Isn't NTSU the one with the kick ass jazz band?

geoff, yeah, they have had the shiznit for years.. Lyle Mays came outta that program, to name a name. they do kick jazz ass.

Geoff: Every time you open your mouth, you prove my point. Thanks!

I'm simply stating the obvious: meeting the more rigorous admission criteria of top-ranked schools means demonstrating commitment, talent and intelligence.

Which is not the definition of character and not necessarily true, either.

The chip on your shoulder says that I was implying that people who go to SMU have less character. That's certainly nothing like what I said.

Surprise! The chip is on your shoulder because that is pretty much what you implied if not said.

But what I'm really after is for you to tell me where evaluation of credentials stops and elitism begins.

Making a statement that it takes character to attend an ivy league school and then stating that it is easier to attend a school like SMU with the obvious implication that it takes less character to attend SMU, is indicative of a lack of character.

Geoff: Every time you open your mouth, you prove my point. Thanks!

Likewise, I'm sure.

Making a statement that it takes character to attend an ivy league school and then stating that it is easier to attend a school like SMU with the obvious implication that it takes less character to attend SMU, is indicative of a lack of character.

And this is why your argument is senseless. Ivy League Schools have more rigorous standards for character and character indicators- if you get in you've convinced them that you meet those standards. SMU has less rigorous standards, so if you get in you may or may not meet Ivy League standards.

I revise my estimate - it was a third tier school.

I probably wasn't as clear as I should have been..

Yes, you were clear. I have no doubt she made that statement. And frankly, I only see her saying it as a way to extract her foot, that she went way out of the way to shove down her own mouth. Look, I never had a problem with Coulter before, though I can't say I went out of my way to read or listen to her. I have met many people who have had to face true adversity in their lives. Coulter's example I find extremely shallow and trite. And even if you disagree, it does not erase all the other comments she made.

To me, that isn't the same as saying that she thinks anyone that hasn't been to ivy league schools is not qualified to be on the bench (even if she'd prefer it for the reasons above).

She stated in no uncertain terms Meirs was unqualified because she did not attend an ivy league school and then belittled SMU. I heard her do this more than once. It had nothing to do with the reasons you now cite and from all appearance are just damage control by her. I would be less insulted by the whole fiasco if she and others didn't go on to blame their own bad behavior on some one else. Really, shame on her. If you screw up, at least take your knocks and move on instead of trying to weasel out of it.

So you are right, ivy league alone does not give one a backbone, and I don't think anyone said it did.

You said it. Please don't attempt to qualify it after the fact in order to say you didn't.

As for Coulter commenting elsewhere, I guess you heard what you heard.

She said what I heard. No guessing about it.

My point was that you can't take the most obnoxious arguments from one side and condemn everyone on that side for those arguments.

You who? If you are accusing me of condemning “everyone on that side for those arguments” you are extremely out of line.

Especially, when everyone (at least on this blog) has condemned the elitist argument!

Sorry, but I have mostly seen people whine that no elitism occurred when that is a lie or complain they were called elitist when that too was a lie.

Furthermore, as I said, you could credibly argue that coulter's argument wasn't actually elitist (I think Ace made that point, but she's probably not upset that people to took it that way).

Yes, you said that. And, no, it is not a credible argument. So, since you felt the need to repeat yourself, so do I: bullshit.

On the other hand, I think most people criticizing the nomination probably said something vague about "questioning her qualifications" as a polite way of saying "you gotta be shitting me that he just nominated his personal lawyer... that's cronyism!"

I heard many comments. It is a stretch to call any but a few polite.

Ace, it's your blog, post whatever you like. LGF-length threads can't be wrong, we obviously need the fight out of our systems. But for God's sake, please tell these anons to go screw - there's no constitutional right to be a cowardly prick. If they can't even be bothered to invent a friggin' pen name, they're not worth your bandwidth.

Oh, and:

We're a nation of laws, not men, and our politics is, thankfully, of policies and philosophies, not men.

Slublog: Hewitt also said she'd be another Potter Stewart.

You happy?

I heard many comments. It is a stretch to call any but a few polite.

WARNING: MoonbatLength™ comment posting detected.

Black Republican: If it twists your panties into knots, it's a good thing.

PA: Matt takes half the blame.

Where Miss Miers went to law school DOES NOT indicate her character but her academic record.

1. Did she apply to the Ivies? I read that she went to SMU for family and financial reasons.

2. If so, was she accepted? If not, what women applicants at that time were? How did their undergraduate records compare?

3. This happened 35 years ago or so. A person's character may change, or good or ill, in that time.

If all this arguing had occurred during the committee hearings, it would have been bearable, but happening now, without having given the nominee a chance at all is not justice. Every criticism of her may be correct, but making them now, without giving her a genuine chance to respond, is beneath contempt.

Goddess, politics plays at a different speed than your simplistic ethical scenario. If you want to stop a nomination, it's usually a bad idea to wait until the last minute to start arguing. How fair is it that we're being told to wait until the hearings, by which time our Senators will have made up their minds to confirm in the absence of an argument? It's a nice catch-22 that ensures that "fairness" to one woman trumps what's good for the Republic. Sorry, I'm not buying today.

Every criticism of her may be correct, but making them now, without giving her a genuine chance to respond, is beneath contempt.

Sorry Goddess, I don't believe that Miers would have gotten where she is today if she is such a delicate little flower that she can't handle a little criticism... most of which is being directed at the guy who picked her, in any case.

Where I come from (Ozarks) SMU is a pretty darn good school. The smartest guy in my class went there. We pried him off his sister, got him some new overalls and packed him on the bus.

And for the record, I was accepted at Northwestern, Columbia and NYU. I ended up at Mizzou on a partial. I suppose it's impossible the woman wasn't in a similar financial position?

Yes, no elitism in any of the opposition:

"Ivy League Schools have more rigorous standards for character and character indicators- if you get in you've convinced them that you meet those standards. SMU has less rigorous standards, so if you get in you may or may not meet Ivy League standards. "

Give me a break. Ted Kennedy went to Harvard undergrad, Bill Clinton to Yale.

Do people really mean to say that if you go to certain schools, you are automatically qualified but if you go to a "crappy" school, you have the burden of proof that you are smart? Because that is what it sounds like.

Plenty of smart and accomplished people go to state schools or "crappy" private schools for a variety of reasons. Financial for one or they want to stay near home or a hundred other good reasons. Maybe they got a mediocre SAT score or went to a rural school that didn't have AP classes.

Do people really mean to say that if you go to certain schools, you are automatically qualified but if you go to a "crappy" school, you have the burden of proof that you are smart?

No. Getting in to (and graduating from) some schools is harder than others. It is a datum. An impressive entry on a resume. I can think of dozens of line items on her resume that I would find even more impressive. Miers hasn't any of those, either.

Bein' a country boy, I've never been overly impressed with I. V. league schools.

At my 40th reunion last year I found out one of my classmates is the pres. of one of them high-falutin' jobbies.

He's a nice guy and all, but I'm even less impressed with I.V. league now.

Comes right down to it, I don't give a rat's patootie if she quit school in the third grade. I do care about whether she can read and understand English, and whether she will "find" meanings in the written words of the Constitution that 1) aren't there and 2) were never meant to be there. The Constitution isn't a "living, breathing document" that moonbats would use to gain their own brand of theocracy. It is a charter, plain and simple, written with plain and simple words, with plain and simple meanings.

At this point, there are no guarantees she understands that, and the appointment's far too important to leave it to a guess. It's time for her to stand up and be counted or to withdraw. Just like the Constitution, plain and simple.

Do people really mean to say that if you go to certain schools, you are automatically qualified but if you go to a "crappy" school, you have the burden of proof that you are smart?

You always have the burden of proof that you are smart. Or principled. And no one EVER said that "if you go to certain schools, you are automatically qualified."

My take on the character discussion was simply in the spirit of disagreeing with everything that nameless poster - with her unsourced, illogical ramblings - said. That said, do I believe that a kid who busts butt in high school to make the cut at an Ivy League school is showing more character than a kid who doesn't bother? Hell yeah.

The particular character trait that schools *don't * select for is integrity, because unfortunately it doesn't seem to correlate with academic or career success. [That seques nicely into Ace's Integrity SATs.]

Another one they don't select for, but that is evidenced through the student's performance, is conviction, and this is what Coulter was talking about. Her claim that Ivy League schools respresent a harsher environment for conservatives than other schools may be exaggerated (I can't think of any schools that offer a benign environment for conservatives), but I suspect that she's right that it's a better simulation of the Supreme Court environment than other schools would be.

My take on the character discussion was simply in the spirit of disagreeing with everything that nameless poster - with her unsourced, illogical ramblings - said.

Is that you defense? That you intentionally wanted to look like a shallow idiot in the spirit of disagreement? You exceeded beyond your wildest dreams!

Defense? No. Just telling people that my statements were specifically directed toward your hysterical, inadequately substantiated, irrational claims. You're chewing on Ace out of some unjustified sense of moral superiority, and spewing forth bile about people's 'shitty little' this and 'shitty little' that. Then you want a civil conversation.

And all the while you're waving about charges of 'elitism' as if they completely invalidate the facts or people's underlying points. The real truth is, elitism is a venal sin, especially compared to the mortal sin arguing like a vulgar libera.

should rea 'mortal sin of arguing like a vulgar liberal.'

Defending coulter's statements, are you? But, then again they reflect your own mind set. The only hysteria is yours and ace's. My criticism of ace had to do with him claiming people were attacking him and not being able to back it up. Apparently, you and he see that as an attack. So be it. You and others passed the point of civil debate a long time ago. And your so called underlying (in)valid point is that she didn't go to Hah-ward, so she lacks character, remember? Which, had to be one of the stupidest comments I have ever read.

And your so called underlying (in)valid point is that she didn't go to Hah-ward, so she lacks character, remember?

Statements like this exemplify your inability to participate in a cogent discussion. I never said this, then I explained that I never said this, then I re-explained that I never said this. Based on your obvious inability to comprehend what people here have written, I can completely discount your pathetic bleating of "I know what I heard" in the face of peoples' kind and patient explanations of what really went on.

So keep on tilting at windmills. When you decide you're ready to actually ready to address what I said instead of your mischaracterization of what I said, I'd be happy to continue. But only after you link sources and transcripts instead of relying on your obviously unreliable memory and interpretation.