OK, let's count the ways:
...the experience and advice of his father, whose most lasting political mistake was the nomination of David Souter.
Bush Sr. never expressed regret over nominating Souter. Lifson assumes he regrets it, and advised his son accordingly, based on what?
The nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court shows that he has learned his lessons well.
Begging the question. That's the question under debate.
Regrettably, a large contingent of conservative commentators does not yet grasp the strategy and tactics at work in this excellent nomination.
Special pleading. "If you doubt Miers' constitutional convictions, you aren't one of the savvy conservatives in the know..."
...stuck in the decades-long tragic phase of conservative politics, when country club Republicans inevitably sold out the faith...
Right! We're living in the past, when those Rockefeller Republicans would do things like: create massive new drug entitlements; levy protectionist tariffs on steel and other trade goods; refuse to properly defend our borders; sign every single bill congress sends their way; spend more money even than loose-spending dems; etc. We should catch up with the times--those days are over. Why, the last president to do such things was... George W. Bush.
Many on the right already are upset with the President already over his deficit spending...
"...some conservatives are so short-sighted that they get upset over a few hundred billion dollars here and there..."
Having seen that a brilliant conservative legal thinker with impeccable elite credentials can humble the most officious voices of the Judiciary Committee, they deamnd a replay.
Lifson is insane. We still don't know whether Roberts is a conservative. All we saw was a brilliant display of bobbing and weaving that left liberals and conservatives alike wondering, "So is he a conservative, or isn't he?" We want a replay of that?
We hear conservatives bemoaning a lack of judicial experience, and not a single law review article in the last decade as evidence of a second rate mind.
Expecting one of the highest judges in the land to have, oh, a few days of judicial experience isn't exactly snobbish. But this is really a pre-emptive strike: Miers has never given any evidence of a strong understanding of constitutional law, but now any questions in this area to be dismissed as "elitism".
or does the Supreme Court ideally consist of the nine greatest legal scholars of an era. Like any small group, it is better off being able to draw on abilities of more than one type of personality.
"Even though there are candidates that we know for sure believe in original intent, and that we know to be superb legal minds, nominating one of them would be pure snobbery. We have a genius (Roberts, supposedly), so a mediocre mind provides needed diversity."
Ms. Miers has actually managed a business, a substantial one with hundreds of employees, and has had to meet a payroll and conform to tax, affirmative action, and other regulatory demands of the state.
So has my plumber.
Other conservatives are dismayed that the President is playing politics (!), rather than simply choosing the “best” candidate. But the President understands that confirmation is nothing but a political game, ever since Robert Bork, truly one of the finest legal minds of his era, was demonized and defeated.
"Why bother picking the best candidate? He might not be confirmed anyway! Let's go straight for mediocre."
The President’s smashing victory in obtaining 78 votes for the confirmation of John Roberts did not confirm these conservative critics in their understanding of the President’s formidable abilities as a nominator of Justices. Au contraire, this taste of Democrat defeat whetted their blood lust
Au contraire, we still conder whether he's a conservative. 22 democrat "yes" votes say we should wonder.
I think these conservatives have unwittingly adopted the Democrats’ playbook, seeing bombast and ‘gotcha’ verbal games as the essence of political combat.
Red herring. This theme dominates his essay, but he never proves that conservatives want a less-qualified candidate and a good fight. We actually doubt she is the most qualified, and we want the best person, fight or no fight. You'll see shortly that Lifson doesn't believe she's most qualified, either.
Rather than extend any benefit of the doubt to the President’s White House lawyer and counselor...
Here he cleverly turns cronyism into a virtue, and asks us to "trust Mr. Bush." How can we trust him, when he has consistently let us down so far? Lifson seems to think the "benefit of the doubt" is on par with believing in fairies.
They implicitly believe that the President is not adhering to his promise of nominating Justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas.
Darn those conservatives! Blow a few hundred billion dollars, and suddenly they don't want to buy a pig in a poke from you!
The obvious differences between Souter, a man personally unknown to Bush 41, and Miers, a woman who has known Bush 43 for decades...
Would be worth a darn, if we trusted Bush. We want proof up front.
Yes, he is playing politics by nominating a female...
The conservative favorite is a black female, and she happens to be qualified. The runner-up is hispanic. How does picking an unqualified female crony beat those two choices?
Speculation on her being a lesbian has already started.
No opinion, but let's go back to that trust thing. Would any of us be shocked off our chairs if she turned out to be a pro-gay-marriage lesbian? Unlikely, but we wouldn't bet our lives on it.
The President must also prepare himself for a possible third nominee to the Court.
Hooray. "Nan may be old, but I've known her since she became my governess when I was 5, and she's a real stickler. Don't you worry!"
Perhaps this is because he was educated at Harvard Business School in a legendary course then-called Human Behavior in Organizations.
Special pleading. "If you can't understand Bush's brilliance, it's because he posesses ancient, secret knowledge of the Shaolin!"
The new Chief Justice is a man of unquestioned brilliance, as well as cordial disposition. He will be able to lead the other Justices through his intellect and knowledge of the law.
"Honest! Watching his confirmation hearings, I could tell that Scalia and Thomas would follow him into hell and back." This man is delirious.
...taught children in Sunday School, made coffee, brought donuts: "Nothing she's asked to do in church is beneath her."
Look, buddy, I don't care if she's Mary-freaking-Poppins. I care whether she will interpret the Constitution narrowly according to its original intent.
As the court’s new junior member, the 60 year old lady Harriet Miers will finally give a break to Stephen Breyer, who has been relegated to closing and opening the door of the conference room, and fetching beverages for his more senior Justices.
Completely irrelevant. But telling! Lifson himself believes she's completely incompetent--that her contribution to the SC will be fresh, hot coffee.
Ms. Miers embodies the work ethic as few married people ever could. She reportedly often shows up for work at the White House at 5 AM, and doesn’t leave until 9 or 10 PM.
Her work ethic is only a plus if she'll use it for good. Will she? Meanwhile, it never even occurred to me to wonder whether she was a lesbian, until this guy started spinning her unmarried status so feverishly.
The members of the Supreme Court all see themselves as serving the public and the law to the best of their abilities. Their self-regard depends on their belief in the righteousness and fairness of their deliberations.
In other words, even Ginsburg and Souter can sleep at night, because they think they're doing the Lord's work. Be very afraid.
Having proven herself capable of charming the likes of Harry Reid, leader of the Senate Democrats, is there much room for doubt that Harriet Miers is capable of opening up opponents emotionally...
Wait, I'm confused--is she supposed to be a judge, or a geisha?
George Bush has already succeeded in having confirmed a spectacularly-qualified intellectual leader of the Court in Chief Justice Roberts.
Once more with feeling! The more you beg the question, the more right you become!
If conservatives don’t sabotage his choice, Harriet Miers could make an enormous contribution toward building Court majorities...
Just damn. Lifson does think she's an idiot--otherwise why does he insist she'll be such an excellent hostess/geisha/waitress?
In short, every word of the article is fallacious, irrelevant and asinine.
You are purposely, cantankerously misunderstanding Tom's use of these matters in his column.
Out of curiosity, "Shalom Israel".. who would yOU have nominated?