Bork v. Bork (Full of Sound and Fury, Signifying Nothing)

hughhewitt.com ^ | October 19, 2005 | Hugh Hewett

[PjhCPA]

Best to ignore them.

Ohhhh, it's getting very difficult to do that. Is it just me or is the number of non-conservative posters (or imposters) increasing exponentially?

[Ditto]

So now the process goes on, and a number of people are urging their Senators to REJECT the nominee, if inadequate information is provided to make a more reliable subjective judgement of where on the specturm of tradtionalist - modernist her juducial inclinations fall.. Absent that data, the only prudent decsion is REJECTION.

Step two in the process is the hearings where the Senate gets to ask questions to inform themselves and you, on the desirability of this nominee. But Bork and others obviously, see no need for that constitutionally prescribed step since they have already made up your minds.

I suppose that is what the Rats have been doing since "Bork" so why not us too? Lets all send basic fairness and constitutional tradition down the dran together.

[Cboldt]

Maybe she will be so competant that we will even get our floor fight AND someone the President knows he can trust.

Her answers to the Senate's questions do not lead me to confidence that she can handle a floor fight. Plus, I see no evidence that she's a judicial conservative, or traditionalist. She's uttering the right catch phrases, but too conveniently her answers straddle the fence.

[vrwc1]

Did you not feel comfortable with the Roberts nomination after hearing him speak?

I was comfortable that Roberts was a brilliant and able thinker, but to be honest, I am still not yet comfortable with how he will rule on the important Constitutional issues of today. Only time will tell, and in that case it will be too late to do anything about it if he turns out not to be what conservatives hope he is.

We(conservatives) have bitched and screamed for 5 years that judicial nominees ALL deserved a fair hearing and an up or down vote on the floor.

That was because what were known to be highly qualified nominees were being un-Constitutionally held up by a minority of Senators. That is not the case in this instance. We now have a total unknown proferred for a seat (which by the way is orders of magnitude more important than other Federal court appointments) on the Supreme Court, and are being asked to "trust Bush". Well, he got fooled by Putin...how do we know he didn't get fooled by Miers? In my opinion this is a nomination that never should have been made, and I think people have every right to tell the President they think so. That is completely different than the Democrat obstruction of highly qualified nominees that you compare it to.

[Cboldt]

Miers's critics, at least those allegedly on the right (e.g. Brooks, Frum, Buchanan), have portrayed her as such a knuckle-dragging moron that almost ANYTHING coherent that comes out of her mouth will impress me!

That's part of the strategery - the lowering of expectations part.

[gondramB]

"Did you not feel comfortable with the Roberts nomination after hearing him speak?
---
"I was comfortable that Roberts was a brilliant and able thinker, but to be honest, I am still not yet comfortable with how he will rule on the important Constitutional issues of today. Only time will tell, and in that case it will be too late to do anything about it if he turns out not to be what conservatives hope he is. "


The main thing I got from the Robert's hearings was that he was much smarter than any of the senators.

[vrwc1]

suppose that is what the Rats have been doing since "Bork" so why not us too? Lets all send basic fairness and constitutional tradition down the dran together.

This isn't a "Borking". Everybody knew what Judge Bork thought and how he reasoned before the hearings ever started. The problem with Miers is that no one knows how she thinks or reasons about Constitutional issues. That's why she isn't a suitable nominee - we haven't a clue about her! And given the way these hearings are conducted nowadays, we're unlikely to learn much new from them either. So we're just supposed to "trust Bush" that Miers is who we want sitting on the Supreme Court? For a seat on a lesser court I'd give Miers the benefit of the doubt. But for a seat on the Supreme Court, President Bush has got to do better than that.

[vrwc1]

The main thing I got from the Robert's hearings was that he was much smarter than any of the senators.

Which probably isn't a very high hurdle to clear. ;o)

[Cboldt]

Step two in the process is the hearings where the Senate gets to ask questions to inform themselves and you, on the desirability of this nominee.

Hearings will inform us of her intelligence and ability to work well on her feet. But they will not tell us about her core judicial philosophy. Since Ginsberg, the hearings have been designed to hide those sorts of inquiries.

But Bork and others obviously, see no need for that constitutionally prescribed step since they have already made up your minds.

The step is necessary for getting to the court, but the President can withdraw a nomination if he wants. His call. As I said, I am pressuring my Senators to reject the nominee on grounds of insufficient evidence. Not aht she's "bad" or "good," but on the grounds of not enough information to make a reasoned decision. My Senators can ignore me too.

Bork was different. The DEMs shot him down BECAUSE he had a transparent judicial philosophy. I'm not "Borking" Harriet Miers. I'm saying I don't know what she is, I don't know if the shoe fits, I don't know if the color matches my carpet -- so I need to keep shopping.

[shhrubbery!]

I think you're exaggerating what her critics have said about her.

After David Brooks's hit piece a couple of days ago (in which Brooks published "writings" of Miers, presenting his carefully selected samples in such a way as to make her look as banal and pedestrian as possible), I can't count the number of critics who jumped on the bandwagon to proclaim Miers "pathetic," "incoherent," and "lack[ing] the basic skills of persuasive argument and clear writing."

(That last quote is from Robert Bork -- unworthy of him, IMO. He could've at least waited to see selections of her writings from an unbiased source; or waited for the hearings to see how well Miers expresses herself extemporaneously).

[inquest]

Even if those guys are wrong about her communication abilities, it still will tell us next to nothing about the kind of judge she'd be.

[shhrubbery!]

Even if those guys are wrong about her communication abilities, it still will tell us next to nothing about the kind of judge she'd be.

I agree with you on that. We don't know for sure what kind of a justice the highly praised John Roberts will turn out to be, either.

But so far, everything I've heard about Miers (everything that has borne out to be true, that is), I like. I'm convinced the president knows her well enough that he knows she will not be another Souter -- or Kennedy or O'Connor. Or Blackmun.

[inquest]

We don't know for sure what kind of a justice the highly praised John Roberts will turn out to be, either.

True, we don't. He never had much of a record to go on. In fact, I remember quite a few Bush supporters on this board tacitly acknowledging that he wasn't the greatest pick, and assuring skeptics that he was just a prelude for a more solid nominee to come. Then Bush nominated Harriet Miers.

I'm convinced the president knows her well enough that he knows she will not be another Souter -- or Kennedy or O'Connor. Or Blackmun.

I imagine he knows whether or not she'd be another Souter. But the question still remains as to his intent. Yes, he's nominated conservatives to the lower courts when the base was watching him - that is, when they could check his work by looking over candidates with verifiable records. That doesn't mean he'll be inclined to do the same when the base can't check his work. What's his genuine interest? Probably he wants someone who won't interfere overmuch with the conduct of the executive branch. Other than that, he seems intent on avoiding a fight with the Dems. Is there room for constitutional principle in there? I'd hope so, but I'm not going to assume it.

[Huck]

This is the same as arguing that "Except for opposing Hitler and later warning of the descent of the Iron Curtain, Churchill did not govern as a conservative."

And it would be true. Just like this would be true:

This is the same as arguing that "Except for opposing Hitler, Franklin Delano Roosevelt did not govern as a conservative."

What is this Hewitt guy saying? Foreign policy trumps all else? I think not.

[Huck]

But even rep/cons recognized a singular truth. When you’re elected president, you get your choice of Judges. You can comment on a judge’s education, experience, knowledge, and judicial demeanor, but if you disagree with their political views that’s just hard cheese.

This is PURE BULLSHIRT!!! Show me ANYTHING in the Constitution which says the Senate cannot consider political views. It AINT THERE!

[George W. Bush]

This is the same as arguing that "Except for opposing Hitler and later warning of the descent of the Iron Curtain, Churchill did not govern as a conservative."

Hewitt has made a fool of himself over this. Bork's terse assessment exactly reflects the consensus of the conservative wing. We've been relatively quiet until now. But on borders, the Court and the budget, we haven't rolled over for Lyndon Redivivus.

[George W. Bush]

Further explanation, in the poem the anti christ is born and the poem asks "What rough beast is this that slouches toward Gommorrah?" The slouching has nothing to do with stealthiness or lazinesss leading to a bad result. It's just part of the description of the ugly beast slouching toward the depraved biblical city...

Not wanting to get into some literary crapshoot here but I think you might want to review your Yeats:

And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

The Second Coming -- W. B. Yeats

[nopardons]

Wonderful article and post. THANKS for a common sense, calm article.

[RobbyS]

It is offensive, because the original reference--from Yeats-- "what rude beast soluches toward Bethlehem...."

[syriacus]

We(conservatives) have bitched and screamed for 5 years that judicial nominees ALL deserved a fair hearing and an up or down vote on the floor. Lest we be hypocrites, Miers deserves nothing less.

Yes.