The Fallacy of the 'Trust Me' Nominee (Weyrich)

Townhall.com ^ | 10-10-2005 | Paul Weyrich

[22cal]

Bork does not think the 2nd amendment is an individual right to keep and bear arms.

That among other of his views would have made him a mixed bag pick as well.

[A.Hun]

Bookmark

[MEG33]

I think it is fair to wait until after the hearings to approve or not.

[A.Hun]

Please add me to your ping list.

Thank you!

[deadrock]

Here's a refresher....

He didn't have to.

I wouldn't call John Roberts, Pricilla Owens, Janice Rogers Brown, Michael McConnell, Edith Brown Clement and Bill Pryor trust me picks.

So if W didn't call them 'trust me' picks and I didn't call them 'trust me' picks, why did you insinuate that in your first post to me?

Which has a greater bearing on the future of this country? Scotus or a lower court appointment? Which can afford a mere 'trust me' and which can't?

These are "the facts of this issue" that you are callously avoiding.

Are you sticking with "Bottomline, it's a done deal," as your response or can you lift your head out of the vat of KoolAid long enough to string a few words together in your defense?

[Reagan Man]

>>>>And you base this on.....?

Obviously you're not paying attention.

Lorlee Bartos managed Miers first and only campaign for elected office to the Dallas City Council in 1989. Bartos says that Miers is pro-life. Miers good friend Judge Nathan Hecht also says that she is pro-life.

[TheHound]

She is pro-life and believes in interpreting the Constitution per the FF`s idea of original intent. Miers will be solid conservative justice.

You do not know that, you believe that and why? Because you trust GWB - I trust him too, but he is not an ideologue, he is not a Ronald Reagan, he more like a CEO, he runs things and looks for the path of least resistance, he runs things and 9/11 brought out the best in him.

In a little over two years from now he will be retired and I will live with his SCOTUS picks for the rest of my life. He promised bona fides and he is delivering ghosts.

[Stellar Dendrite]

"I think it is fair to wait until after the hearings to approve or not."

This nomination *will* go through.

The hearings wont tell us much, she will likely invoke the ginsburg rule on matters that will come before the court. Even still, regardless of what she answers or not-- we simply cant tell if she will drift leftward within 5-10 years.

[MEG33]

Such is life.

[deadrock]

Be back at 11am pst.

[BushMeister]

Of what value are Bush's excellent selections to lower courts if he screws up and appoints a closet liberal to the Supreme Court, which will continue to overturn decisions made by those very same conservative judges in lower courts, and refuse to revisit decisions made by *liberal* lower courts?

The other issue of not using our "bench strength" also has validity. Bush should have sent a clear message by nominating a known conservative. I don't care if it would take 3-4 nominations to get a real conservative approved-- do it! This sets a precedent that conservatives deserve to nominate conservatives, and see them approved. When Stevens or Ginsburg retires, we want to have the media and liberals *expecting* a hard-core conservative like Luttig or Owens to be nominated to replace them. They need to be shown that the right to govern is won in elections, not by engaging in hysterical rhetoric and media manipulation.

Liberals are *still* the largest voting block on the Supreme Court, with 4 reliable votes (Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer-- though Breyer has actually made a few surprisingly conservative decisions in recent years). Kennedy is a "moderate", who has voted liberal on several crucial cases. We've lost Rehnquist, and no one is sure that John Roberts will be as conservative as he was. Therefore, it's crucial that we get another proven conservative on the court.

If Roberts turns out to be a true conservative, we will still only have 3 conservatives on the Court. Kennedy will never be reliable. The slot opened up by O'Connor won't give us a reliable majority even if Miers (or her possible replacement) makes us all happy. But a mistake with Miers' nomination will set us back 15 years.

[Cicero]

The president says, "She knows what I want in a federal judge."

Some Freepers seem to think this is enough to guarantee that Miers is a good pick. I don't.

There's two ways to read it. But the most probable way to read it is that Miers KNOWS WHAT THE PRESIDENT WANTS, is a good servant and team player, and therefore comes up with the candidates that fit the bill. That does NOT mean that Miers necessarily approves of those particular candidates herself. She is merely doing the job of turning up people who fit the job description she was given.

That's also, seemingly, how she got ahead in the corporate law world: Doing what her bosses needed to be done. She's very good at that. But what are her own views and convictions? We simply don't know.

[Reagan Man]

She is pro-life and believes in interpreting the Constitution per the FF`s idea of original intent. Miers will be solid conservative justice.

>>>>You do not know that, you believe that and why?

See my RE:#86.

"Lorlee Bartos managed Miers first and only campaign for elected office to the Dallas City Council in 1989. Bartos says that Miers is pro-life. Miers good friend Judge Nathan Hecht also says that she is pro-life."

"It is the responsibility of every generation to be true to the founders' vision of the proper role of the courts in our society. If confirmed, I recognize that I will have a tremendous responsibility to keep our judicial system strong, and to help ensure that the courts meet their obligations to strictly apply the laws and the Constitution."
-Harriet Miers Acceptance Speech

That's all I have to go by. And PresBush`s personal knowledge of what kind of person Harriet Miers is.

[Lexinom]

I also recall President Gerald R. Ford reassuring Senator James A. McClure that Judge John Paul Stevens was a good Republican and would vote like a good Republican. Maybe that is Ford's idea of how a good Republican would vote. It certainly is not mine.
.
.
Whatever the president was looking for was on the federal bench. There are many well-qualified scholars waiting in the wings as well.

In a way, this second paragraph is begging the question, undermining Weyrich's whole point. We've witnessed appointment after appointment go sour. Haven't they all come from the federal bench? Granted, by itself that's not sufficient, but if something keeps failing why do the same thing again?

For the record, I'm not necessarily pro-Miers, but just feel the need to stand up to the public crucifixion until we at least know a little more about her.

[jdhljc169]

http://stopmiersnow.com/

[Hendrix]

"For the record, I'm not necessarily pro-Miers, but just feel the need to stand up to the public crucifixion until we at least know a little more about her."

You people are silly. Just how do you expect to learn more about her? You will not know any more about her after the confirmation process than you do now. This is a 100% "trust me" candidate that used to be a democrat and that has zero credibility as a conservative. Every article that supports her does so on the ground that she is a good lawyer, head of a law firm, we cannot get a real conservative through the senate, etc. Her conservative credentials are nonexistent other than "trust me", she is conservative and she will be fine, etc. The problem is that we have heard this exact same thing over and over with every republican nomination that has gone south. It is like a freaking broken record. And the funny thing is that there are still conservative fools that keep on falling for it. What a joke.

[Stellar Dendrite]

freeper jdhljc169 pinged this link:

http://stopmiersnow.com/

[Lexinom]

The problem is that we have heard this exact same thing over and over with every republican nomination that has gone south. It is like a freaking broken record. And the funny thing is that there are still conservative fools that keep on falling for it. What a joke.

My point exactly - broken record, over and over, etc. So why not try something new, like nominating someone other than a judge?

[Logophile]

I'm not excited about the Miers nomination and I am not happy about the smearing that has occurred of longtime conservatives (limbaugh, weyrich, etc.) but my anger is focused directly on the despicable liberal Republicans in the Senate who set the stage for this situation----most especially McCain and Specter. . . . The WH never should have trusted Specter but that's not an excuse for the vile behavior of that man. As far as McCain goes----I will do anything in my power to prevent him from gaining the Oval Office. I'll be here waiting for him in Iowa in 08.

I agree, the squishy liberal Senate Republicans are despicable. But I am not sure they are entirely at fault.

Some are saying that the President would have preferred to choose someone other than Miers, but he could not count on the support of Senators such as McCain and Specter. But the President says that Miers is the best choice. Could it be that he means it?

Or to put it another way, perhaps George W. Bush agrees with John McCain and Arlen Specter on most, if not all issues. That would explain why the President campaigned for Senator Specter. And why the President did not veto McCain-Feingold.

Can anyone name a policy over which George W. Bush and John McCain seriously disagree?