tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9866194.post112952425966484229..comments2024-01-15T15:09:57.893-08:00Comments on Skye Puppy: Undecided No More On Harriet MiersSkyePuppyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01571489259897997518noreply@blogger.comBlogger56125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9866194.post-1129741147945156522005-10-19T09:59:00.000-07:002005-10-19T09:59:00.000-07:00Skyepuppy, here's my answer to your questions to m...Skyepuppy, here's my answer to your questions to me about Miers And Affirmative Action.<BR/><BR/>First, pardon me for not being HTML-savvy enough to make the following URLs appear as hotlinks. I'm an oldster (volunteered and served as a Goldwater campaign-worker in back high school in 1964, been a conservative ever since).<BR/><BR/>The blog-posts I saw about Miers & Affirmative Action were posted on Oct. 9 & 10 ...so they're no longer on main-pages. Therefore I had to do a web-search to find them. Here are some URLs I found, and quotes from them.<BR/><BR/>The Oct. 9 Powerline article (titled "Affirmative Betrayal?") is at:<BR/>http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011909.php<BR/><BR/>The ProteinWisdom article (titled "Miers and Affirmative Action") is at:<BR/>http://www.proteinwisdom.com/index.php/weblog/entry/19159/<BR/><BR/>Knight-Ridder Newspapers:<BR/>http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/12836996.htm<BR/>which begins with:<BR/>"In what appear to be some of her only public statements about a constitutional issue, Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers testified in a 1990 voting rights lawsuit that the Dallas City Council had too few black and Hispanic members, and that increasing minority representation should be a goal of any change in the city's political structure."<BR/><BR/>At pointoflaw.com/supremecourt:<BR/>http://www.pointoflaw.com/supremecourt/<BR/>which is titled ("Miers on affirmative action) and says:<BR/>Don't expect her to line up with the Scalia/Thomas wing on that one.<BR/><BR/>For the most-significant info, go to:<BR/>http://www.professorbainbridge.com/2005/10/miers_and_prefe.html<BR/>for the article titled "Miers And Preferences" - which says:<BR/>"Powerline's Paul Mirengoff admits that there is evidence Harriet Miers favors the use of preferences as part of affirmative action for women and minorities, but says that's okay because so does Bush:<BR/><BR/>"Unlike most of Miers' other views, the evidence here doesn't come primarily from 15 years ago. Miers apparently supported, and perhaps helped the influence, the administration's position in the University of Michigan affirmative actions, which we strongly criticized at the time. <BR/><BR/>"It's important to remember, however, that President Bush also supports preferential affirmative action to the extent reflected in the University of Michigan briefs. In fact, the briefs tout the approach to preferences used by the Texas university system when Bush was governor (a less overt form of preference than the one the O'Connor-led Court embraced in the Michigan cases).<BR/><BR/>"Conservatives should be unhappy that Bush nominated someone who comes out on the wrong side of the affirmative action debate. But it's difficult to argue that the nomination of someone who agrees with the president's position on this issue constitutes an outrage or a betrayal. Bush never promised a nominee who agrees with every important conservative position. He promised a nominee who approaches the job the way Justices Scalia and Thomas do (and these two Justices don't agree on every substantive issue). There's no reason to believe that Bush didn't attempt to appoint such a nominee. <BR/><BR/>"This is surprisingly specious coming from the typically thoughtful Powerline folks. Where to begin? Okay, how about with the basic fact that Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the Grutter opinion, while Scalia and Thomas both dissented? With one stone Paul proves that, at least on this issue, Miers is likely to be an O'Connor clone (a point I've been making for a while now) AND that, at least on this issue, Bush broke his promise to appoint judges in the Scalia and Thomas mold.<BR/><BR/>"Second, why should Bush's support for preferences justify giving any deference to his nomination of Miers? The 2004 GOP platform expressly stated:<BR/><BR/>"... because we are opposed to discrimination, we reject preferences, quotas, and set-asides based on skin color, ethnicity, or gender, which perpetuate divisions and can lead people to question the accomplishments of successful minorities and women.<BR/><BR/>"Bush betrayed that position in Grutter. Hence, contra Paul, it is quite easy "to argue that the nomination of someone who agrees with the president's position on this issue" also constitutes "a betrayal." Indeed, as Mike Rappaport observes:<BR/><BR/>"Now it appears we have the smoking gun. ... Bush is (mis)representing her as a solid conservative, but the Administration's position on Gruter is not a conservative (or libertarian) position. ... This is very disturbing. It does appear that we are now once again facing a nomination of a David Souter or a Sandra Day O'Connor."<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/>ObserverAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9866194.post-1129732303890581662005-10-19T07:31:00.000-07:002005-10-19T07:31:00.000-07:00Observer,I didn't find a mention of Affirmative Ac...Observer,<BR/><BR/>I didn't find a mention of Affirmative Action on Powerline's main page either, so I don't know what the context is. <BR/><BR/>You said, "Miers has made statements in favor of Affirmative Action." What kind of statements were they? Personal ones that someone remembers her saying? Were they her answers to the Senate Judiciary Committee questions (I haven't had a chance to read that document yet)? Did she indicate she favors it as a voluntary policy by individual corporations and universities? Or did she favor it as an imposed legal requirement?<BR/><BR/>Just saying she favors Affirmative Action is not enough for me to take a stand against her nomination. <BR/><BR/>I'm not sure I said I support her sitting on the Supreme Court (I may have, but I've gotta scram soon, so I don't have time to check right now). What I DO support is letting the nomination process continue, letting this question come out in the Committee hearings, and letting the Senators decide whether or not her position on things like Affirmative Action are alarming enough to vote against her sitting on the Court.SkyePuppyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01571489259897997518noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9866194.post-1129730561574952622005-10-19T07:02:00.000-07:002005-10-19T07:02:00.000-07:00A search of this page for the phrase "Affirmative ...A search of this page for the phrase "Affirmative Action" returned no result.<BR/><BR/>The top-level conservative blogs I read are Powerline, LittleGreenFootballs, Instapundit, Captain's Quarters, and JunkyardBlog. Several of them have reported that Miers has made statements in favor of Affirmative Action. This means Miers is NOT the "Scalia or Thomas" type Supreme Court nominee Bush promised us.<BR/><BR/>The total lack of a mention of Affirmative Action on this page indicates that no-one here is aware that Miers favors it. Now that you do know Bush has nominated an Affirmative Action supporter, do you still support putting her on the Supreme Court?<BR/>Regards,<BR/>ObserverAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9866194.post-1129697310926079862005-10-18T21:48:00.000-07:002005-10-18T21:48:00.000-07:00agreed and well stated...even worse, i find the pi...agreed and well stated...<BR/><BR/>even worse, i find the piling on this President way over the top...<BR/><BR/>many of these pundits, like Ingraham, have grown in the wake of the President's success leading the Nation post 9-11.<BR/><BR/>in fact, many like Ingraham will state, 'we gave him (the President) the majority, and this is how he has repaid us?'<BR/><BR/>they seem to completely forget about the recent quality Conservative choices...<BR/><BR/><I>RECENT CONFIRMATIONS<BR/><BR/>Judge John Roberts was confirmed as Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court on September 29, 2005.<BR/><BR/>Thomas B. Griffith was confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on June 14, 2005.<BR/><BR/>Judge William H. Pryor Jr. was confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on June 9, 2005.<BR/><BR/>Judge Richard Allan Griffin was confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on June 9, 2005.<BR/><BR/>Judge David McKeague was confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on June 9, 2005.<BR/><BR/>Justice Janice Rogers Brown was confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on June 8, 2005.<BR/><BR/>Justice Priscilla Owen was confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on May 25, 2005.<BR/><BR/>STILL PENDING IN THE U.S. SENATE<BR/><BR/>William Gerry Myers, III<BR/>First nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on May 15, 2003</I><BR/><BR/>they also forget his intense campaigning, expense of political capital in 2002, to gain a majority in the House and Senate.<BR/><BR/>we would not be in good shape without this President... (a Kerry nomination would be a disaster) <BR/><BR/>President Bush has served Conservative interests well, (not perfect), but better than i ever imagined... i remain thankful.<BR/><BR/>boy michael<BR/>nycAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9866194.post-1129665371966292092005-10-18T12:56:00.000-07:002005-10-18T12:56:00.000-07:00Do you really want a B+ candidate for such an impo...Do you really want a B+ candidate for such an important position? That's Hewitt's assessment, not mine.<BR/><BR/>I want the best possible candidate, not one of GWB's cronies who just happens to be pretty bright.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9866194.post-1129662924080351372005-10-18T12:15:00.000-07:002005-10-18T12:15:00.000-07:00I've enjoyed reading the posts of Skye, Jeremy, De...I've enjoyed reading the posts of Skye, Jeremy, Deignan and others.<BR/><BR/>From another perspective, think about this administration. While many disagree with what this administration has done, very few can successfully argue that haven't executed what they wanted to do successfully.<BR/><BR/>There is more to the Miers nomination than meets the eye I think. What that is, when it will be revealed, when hindsight becomes 20/20 is any ones guess... but my challenge to all of you is look at it in context over the past 5 years of this administration. <BR/><BR/>In short, it's too early to make a judgment on this nomination. <BR/><BR/>Another thing that has been bothering me with all of this are the talking heads of the conservative talk radio waves and the likes of NRO to be instantly spewing their opinion; it reminds me of an election about 5 years ago when the moonbats on network television were waiting hours to call states that were obviously red and instantly declaring states blue when there was still significant doubt. Back then, I was proud to hold my tongue and know that others who thought the same as me were holding theirs with the understanding that with some time and a bit of patience, the truth would be known; the questions would be answered and we wouldn't look like idiots.<BR/><BR/>Where did that go? Our great trait of patience, of proof, which was once so prevelant within the conservative movement? Let's not substitute our stability and our record of being right over having the first insta-opinion, be it right or wrong.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9866194.post-1129653828959075842005-10-18T09:43:00.000-07:002005-10-18T09:43:00.000-07:00When I first heard of Miers' nomination, I was lik...When I first heard of Miers' nomination, I was like Syke and even after a week or so, did not have a firm opinion of support or dissent. Listening to everyone from Hugh to Rush to Laura to Hannity, reading numerous blogs, NRO, WSJ, and following discussion threads like this one, I was drawn back and forth from one side to the other, sometimes seemingly switching sides several times a day. <BR/><BR/>I think there may be more to the Miers pick than is being discussed in the MSM or even here. I think it highly likely that the President probably approached one or more of the other candidates on the short list, whether it be Luttig, McConnell, Rogers Brown, etc, (who are all said to be cut from the finest cloth,) and they simply rejected the President's request for nomination. <BR/><BR/>Think about it. <BR/><BR/>Look at what John Roberts and just about every other high profile nominee for any court or AG nomination has had to endure. As soon as your name is listed, the machine on the left systematically goes through every aspect of your life w/ sole intent of finding "dirt" on you. They delve into your personal life, the life of your spouse, family, co-workers, etc, leaving nothing untouched. <BR/><BR/>Being nominated for the SCOTUS is indeed the dream job for many of these other candidates, but at what personal cost?<BR/><BR/>Being the class acts that they are, the President and whichever candidate turned down the nomination would remain mum on the entire issue.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9866194.post-1129647732846170442005-10-18T08:02:00.000-07:002005-10-18T08:02:00.000-07:00And I don't really care if Miers is confirmed. I j...And I don't really care if Miers is confirmed. I just think the president has the right to nominate her and the Senate should advise and consent. If they vote to not confirm and Bush nominates someone like Brown I will not cry and pout.terryehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16609746018265953069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9866194.post-1129646740780751202005-10-18T07:45:00.000-07:002005-10-18T07:45:00.000-07:00And Jeremy people who treat other people who disag...And Jeremy people who treat other people who disagree with them as if they were stupid do not help themselves, they only reinforce the idea that they are fanatical elitists so enamored with the idea of a thing that they have lost understanding of real life consequences.terryehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16609746018265953069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9866194.post-1129646359493568052005-10-18T07:39:00.000-07:002005-10-18T07:39:00.000-07:00jeremy:You call me stupid and then you complain ab...jeremy:<BR/><BR/>You call me stupid and then you complain about how people treat you.<BR/><BR/><BR/>I do not want activist judges, left or right. I think this is where we disagree. It seems to me that certain people want activist judges, just so long as they are the right kind of activists.<BR/><BR/>Griswold v Conneticut was about birth control. In fact it was about birth control in marriage.<BR/><BR/>First there was an attempt to turn over the state law in Poe v Ullman claiming the law deprived the plaintiff of due process. The case failed on the grounds that the law had not been enforced in years.<BR/><BR/>Then Estelle Griswold opened a birth control clinic and began to dispense birth control. She was arrested and convicted under that state law.<BR/><BR/>The conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court citing the ninth amendment: "The enumeration in the constitution of certain rights,shall not be construed to deny or desparage others retained by the people."<BR/><BR/>The court's analysis in that decision was limited to the rights of married people.<BR/><BR/>So yes, it does effect the rights of married people to obtain birth control..That was the whole point.<BR/><BR/>I am saying that by using this decision as precedent for Roe V Wade the court went too far.<BR/><BR/>Abortion is not just about privacy.<BR/><BR/>Now if you make it about privacy and claim that the state can indeed limit the ability of married people to obtain and use birth control because those people have no inherent right to privacy you will be doing your cause harm.terryehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16609746018265953069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9866194.post-1129641013055501032005-10-18T06:10:00.000-07:002005-10-18T06:10:00.000-07:00Harriet Miers also supported upholding the Texas s...Harriet Miers also supported upholding the Texas sodomy law which goes back to the whole privacy issue.<BR/><BR/>That should make Jermey happy.terryehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16609746018265953069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9866194.post-1129640276319468922005-10-18T05:57:00.000-07:002005-10-18T05:57:00.000-07:00Bush is convinced, he absolutely knows, that Harri...Bush is convinced, he absolutely knows, that Harriet Miers will cancel the vote of Ruth Bader Ginsburg until one of them departs SCOTUS. What an improvement from O'Connor!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9866194.post-1129637857790510542005-10-18T05:17:00.000-07:002005-10-18T05:17:00.000-07:00Jeremy:So do the conservatives know you are their ...Jeremy:<BR/><BR/>So do the conservatives know you are their spokeman? The the unsullied who disagree with you are not really conservative enough? Do you have a conservative litmus test to weed out the imposters such as myself.<BR/><BR/>I am center right, as far as my liberal brother is concerned I am a raving right winger. Can't win for losing.<BR/><BR/>There are conservatives from Newt Gingrich to Hugh Hewitt who support the president's decision.<BR/><BR/>But it will come as good news to Democrats to know that Republicans really want to control whether or not every day ordinary people get to buy condoms. Because after all there is not a right to buy condoms clause in the Constitution.<BR/><BR/>My step daughter has a medical conditon that makes pregnancy dangerous for her. She uses birth control rather than having herself sterilized in the hopes that someday there will be treatment for this condition. If you force her to abstain in marriage or risk her life I would think it could be argued that you were making her unsafe in her person and since you can not be sure what she does and does not do in her home without kicking in the door and sending in the sex police I I could say you were making her unsafe in her home as well.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Yep, all those Democrats out there who have been raving about a vast right wing conspiracy would just love that.terryehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16609746018265953069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9866194.post-1129610669473422802005-10-17T21:44:00.000-07:002005-10-17T21:44:00.000-07:00Here's how any SCOTUS case should go. Regardless ...Here's how any SCOTUS case should go. Regardless of case law, precedent, etc:<BR/><BR/>1) If there is a claim of a Constitutional issue, does the issue claimed actually apply? (IE, First Amendment Case: Does it deal with the GOVERNMENT restricting free speech or association? If not, certiori denied.)<BR/><BR/>2) Granted a Constitutional Issue and we decide to hear the case, does a plain-text reading of the Constitution, with no consideration to past cases, give us an answer? If so, ta-da! There's your judgement.<BR/><BR/>If not, then and only then does Precedent get considered.<BR/><BR/>3) If a Law or Treaty violates the Constitution, we tell the relevant bodies so. We do not say, "... therefore this is what you will do". We merely say, "Such-and-such actions against so-and-so were wrong. (Optional: We suggest you do such-and-such to compensate them, and) [M]ake your law compliant with the Constitution. We will not tell you how or give you a time limit."<BR/><BR/>That's the way the Court should work. A layman's reading of the Constitution would have it, I submit, that it is how the Court MUST work to, itself, be Constitutional in its actions.<BR/><BR/>If you disagree, can you give me a Constitutional reasoning as to why not?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9866194.post-1129609089888161352005-10-17T21:18:00.000-07:002005-10-17T21:18:00.000-07:00Skye, I think your right on. I hope Laura read th...Skye, I think your right on. I hope Laura read this and comments on it tomorrow. I also hope the NRO elites catch a little too.<BR/><BR/>Jeremy and deignan you've been sucked in by the elites, sorry.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9866194.post-1129608903813444242005-10-17T21:15:00.000-07:002005-10-17T21:15:00.000-07:00Keep it up Skye. I think the others have gone to ...Keep it up Skye. I think the others have gone to the elites.Donhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15973154508374386651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9866194.post-1129608257852811232005-10-17T21:04:00.000-07:002005-10-17T21:04:00.000-07:00Jeremy:And while we are on the subject of who gets...Jeremy:<BR/><BR/>And while we are on the subject of who gets whose support.<BR/><BR/>I am one of the 62 million people that voted for Bush. I am not some flaming liberal either.<BR/><BR/>I resent the idea that certain people seem to think they can speak for all conservatives.<BR/><BR/>What about the rest of us? Don't we count? Are we too moderate for the pure people?<BR/><BR/>Well truth be told the pure people could not elect a president without a few heathen centrists tagging along so I guess you guys will just have to accept the fact that if not for people such as myself you would be waiting to find out how John Kerry's nominee would fare in the hearings.terryehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16609746018265953069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9866194.post-1129607892605959532005-10-17T20:58:00.000-07:002005-10-17T20:58:00.000-07:00jeremy:I am wrong???Puhleaze...There is nothing in...jeremy:<BR/><BR/>I am wrong???<BR/><BR/>Puhleaze...<BR/><BR/>There is nothing in the Constitution which says the state has the right to decide if I can use birth control either. I do have a right to be secure in my person. I guess that is open to interpretation is it not? <BR/><BR/>Maybe I don't want you making that decision for me.<BR/><BR/>In fact there is nothing in the Constititution which says abortion is illegal for that matter. <BR/><BR/>For that matter there is nothing in the Constitution that says I can not buy and sell people but we settled that one did we not?<BR/><BR/>My point is that the justices took a leap with Roe V Wade and we have been fighting this every since.<BR/><BR/>But I can also tell you this, if the American people thought for one minute that overturning Roe V Wade would open the flood gates to all kinds of changes that would intrude on private family and health decisions the Republicans might be very sorry they ever made it an issue.<BR/><BR/>I certainly do not want my 14 year old getting an abortion without anyone notifying me, but at the same time I find the condescending and patronizing attitude of a lot of Supreme Court groupies to be very irritating.<BR/><BR/>Just let the woman speak and let the process work the way the framers of the Constitution intended.terryehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16609746018265953069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9866194.post-1129606998274406502005-10-17T20:43:00.000-07:002005-10-17T20:43:00.000-07:00CapZap,Ten years from now we'll know about both Mi...CapZap,<BR/><BR/>Ten years from now we'll know about both Miers and Roberts. It'll be interesting to compare votes and see who stayed with an originalist approach and who (if any) "grew" on the bench. <BR/><BR/>The whole nomination/confirmation process feels too much like jumping off the high dive into a pool: You know you'll hit water, but you don't know if it will hurt when you do. In the end, even a Luttig or McConnell is still a leap of faith.SkyePuppyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01571489259897997518noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9866194.post-1129606221971876842005-10-17T20:30:00.001-07:002005-10-17T20:30:00.001-07:00For years we waited for an evangelical to be nomin...For years we waited for an evangelical to be nominated to the Supreme Court. We voted for Bush because he publically announces faith in Christ. Finally, a woman with apparent strong Christian Faith is nominated. She is supported by those we trust including Dobson and Colson. They are more my voice than Laura Ingram or the talk news pundits. Isn't Harriet Miers just the person we want on the court when decisions on school prayer, ten commandment displays, right to life, etc, etc cases are heard?Geochemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11846522857203866672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9866194.post-1129595848643259082005-10-17T17:37:00.000-07:002005-10-17T17:37:00.000-07:00BTW the Griswold decision that was used as a basis...BTW the Griswold decision that was used as a basis for Roe V Wade was a sound decision.<BR/><BR/>How dare I say that?<BR/><BR/>Because the case was not about abortion. It was about the right of married people in Conneticutt to use birth control.<BR/><BR/>This is where common sense got thrown out and the scholars took over. <BR/><BR/>The intellectuals on the court used that as a basis for deciding the right to privacy.<BR/><BR/>Now, does any of us want to see people restricted by the state in regards to the use of birth control in marriage?terryehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16609746018265953069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9866194.post-1129595310403580522005-10-17T17:28:00.000-07:002005-10-17T17:28:00.000-07:00Jeremy:My side???That is the whole damn point. The...Jeremy:<BR/><BR/>My side???<BR/><BR/>That is the whole damn point. There should not be sides.<BR/><BR/>The constitution makes it plain that the president makes this call.<BR/><BR/>The founding fathers did not make this a decision to be made by ballot box, not directly anyway. So there is nothing vacuous about noting your lack of respect for the system.<BR/><BR/>As far as "attacks" are concerned, within one day of this nomination Harriet Miers was attacked with some of the most vicious and unjustified malice I have ever seen directed at a anominee. I was ashamed of and for a lot of people.<BR/><BR/>In truth some consevatives sound hysterical and their willingness to prejudge this candidate just because she wasn't on their list of dream nominees is unfair to her and disrepectful of the system.<BR/><BR/><BR/>As for whether or not there were better candidates, that remains to be seen.<BR/><BR/>I say let the woman speak. If she is as unqualified as her attackers say she is, that will be evident.<BR/><BR/> I guess some people don't want to give her that oppurtunity. As far as they are concerned the president is supposed to do their bidding and to hell with his own judgment.terryehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16609746018265953069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9866194.post-1129585259735566272005-10-17T14:40:00.001-07:002005-10-17T14:40:00.001-07:00BTW, congrats on the Hewittlanche.BTW, congrats on the Hewittlanche.The Sanity Inspectorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04808433661634318393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9866194.post-1129585231535693282005-10-17T14:40:00.000-07:002005-10-17T14:40:00.000-07:00Bush didn't have to nominate a stealth candidate. ...Bush didn't have to nominate a stealth candidate. He could have picked one of the many excellent conservative judges out there. There's no way Miers is the best available candidate, and I don't appreciate being called a sexist elitist for demanding someone with proven ability.The Sanity Inspectorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04808433661634318393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9866194.post-1129575832604517442005-10-17T12:03:00.000-07:002005-10-17T12:03:00.000-07:00Like nearly everyone else I was disappointed when ...Like nearly everyone else I was disappointed when I heard Harriet Miers' name announced for SCOTUS. I would have preferred Luttig, McConnell, Rogers Brown, Alito in the first tier, Karen Williams or Diane Sykes in the second tier. <BR/><BR/>But my wishes also took into account the weakness of the Gang of 14, the unlikelihood of breaking a filibuster, the odious necessity of a gender pick, and the fact that Harry Reid was basically conceding the pot to the President. This last point was similar to Senator Hatch conceding the pot to President Clinton on Ginzburg. <BR/><BR/>Having followed the pre-selection debate on many conservative blogs I also noted that there was SOMEONE who objected to EVERY potential nominee for one reason or other. Luttig was not a declared anti-Roe Judge. McConnell was too academic and might favor bigamy and same sex marriage. Rogers Brown was too libertarian. Williams was too unknown. Sykes had been divorced. <BR/><BR/>In other words, there was someone on the conservative side who had reason to oppose each and every one of the candidates whom they now prefer to Miers.<BR/><BR/>What are we doing to ourselves. Many previously reasonable and well-reasoned conservative blog sites are looking more and more like conservative versions of The Daily Kos. <BR/><BR/>Yes, I wish a great scholar/judge like Luttig had been nominated. I agree that a Supreme Court Justice can provice more than just a reliable vote -- they can provide the underlying reasoning and argumentation to change the minds of other Justices, of a generation of young law students, and of the American people. <BR/><BR/>But I do not buy the argument that a non-judge background disqualifies someone for SCOTUS. In fact, I am persuaded that experience in the practical world would be helpful on a court that lives in the zone of theoretical rather than practical thinking. <BR/><BR/>But most of all I don't want us to morph into the mirror image of dKos. <BR/><BR/>Yes, I do think that President Bush deserves to be trusted on this matter. Mindful of the Souters and Kennedys (and to some extent O'Connors) of the past, people are understandably allergic to someone as stealthy as Miers. But Bush 43 is not Bush 41. <BR/><BR/>Two more points. First, Roe is not the only important issue that SCOTUS will address. Kelo, the fate of the internet, other aspects of privacy, the GWOT, and others are no less important. <BR/><BR/>Second, vigorous respectful differences of opinion strengthen the Republican Party and conservatism in general. But the Miers case is verging toward crossing into fratricidal territory.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com