Replies

This issue is not the Strategery of President Bush, it is about the qualifications of Harriet Miers to be a productive member of the SCOTUS.

The people writing these defensive articles need to start coming to HER defense instead of that of the President.

msnimje wrote: This issue is not the Strategery of President Bush, it is about the qualifications of Harriet Miers to be a productive member of the SCOTUS.

Quote:

MOOSEMUSS corollary ... perfect can be the enemy of good enough.

"This issue is not the Strategery of President Bush, it is about the qualifications of Harriet Miers to be a productive member of the SCOTUS.

The people writing these defensive articles need to start coming to HER defense instead of that of the President."

No, that is the job of the people who know her work (and they've written their own articles, many of which have been posted here.) It is the job of those of us defenders who do NOT personally know her work to call attention to these and to remind Miers' conservative critics that screeching moon-bat behavior is no more attractive coming from them than it is from liberals. Those who claim she is somehow "unqualified" have (so far at least) revealed nothing except their own elitism, and those who claim she is a closet liberal have (so far at least) revealed nothing except their own paranoia. Since I don't know her work very well, I am certainly willing to listen to intelligent conservative criticism of her.

Hopefully such intelligent conservative criticism will begin before too much longer. In the meantime Miers' critics would be well advised to try and appear saner than a Democrat. It shouldn't be THAT hard.

[[The people writing these defensive articles need to start coming to HER defense instead of that of the President.]]

An interesting point, but one that seems to be lacking in substantive reason when considering those entrenched will not change their minds. Plenty has been written in her defense, and the retort is always the same - they seek to demean because she is not who they wanted. They think their judgement is better than the president's. They think their crystal ball and strategy is better. Yet, they avoid that being a 'papered judge' is not the constitutional standard for a SCOTUS judicial nominee.

In the legal profession (as a lawyer), she can hardly be described as a lightweight. You do not get voted, not once, but twice, as one of the Top 100 Most Influential Lawyers in the U.S. without some serious intellectual acumen in the legal profession. Over 33% of of Supreme Court justices in our history have had no experience as judges. I have seen o serious case made against her, the sole objection is the double standard of wanting a litmus test to guarantee how she will rule. I refuse to buy into that ideological hypocrisy.

But beyond simply focusing on her, it is very relevant to focus on the big picture, the end game and the startegy employed to get there. Miers is simply one battle in the war over the direction of the Supreme Court. Miers is a half step, replacing O'Connor, who half the time voted as we wanted. Miers is unquestionably more conservative than O'Connor. My eye is on the big battle that will occur when Stevens and/or Ginsberg step down. They are the next two that figure to become open and that will be the decisive one that shapes the court for a generation or more.

It is called big picture thinking, keeping your eye on the future and not losing focus. If conservatives cannot remain focused, and instead fight amongst themselves over a non-decisive issue, when that big battle comes, we will not be prepared to fight and win. The one truism about war that definitely holds true in politics is 'divide and conquer'. Make no mistake, the democrats are rubbing their hands together in glee over this division.

You will hear some say "It is Bush's fault". I say that is garbage, take responsibility for your own actions and reactions. We each choose to act and react as we do, no one makes us do so. If the conservative spectrum can wake up to the big picture, because of the Reid and Leahy democrat foul up of suggesting her, this will be a no lose battle for the conservatives and a no win battle for the democrats. We have a chance here to strike a debilitating blow to the left, hewing the progressive left away from the centrist democrats, one that will fracture their base, if we stop attacking each other in a vitriolic manner.

I disagree. You don't have to think she'll be a poor justice in order to completely disagree with the nomination itself. A Supreme Court nomination is one of the key political events of the decade - and how the President chooses to go about selecting a justice is just as important as the actual person they select.

In this case Bush has appeared arrogant and out of touch with his base. To add insult to injury, he suggest that whiny conservatives just "trust" him - where he's done preciously little to earn that trust lately.