My point was that if Miers is forced out by conservatives because they don't trust the President that she is good, and she is replaced as the nominee by the "chosen candidate" of the conservatives that forced her out, and than THAT candidate turns out to be a Souter, then the conservatives will feel a backlash from people who exchanged a trust in Bush for a trust in Them and found that THEY were the untrustworthy ones.
My point being that nobody here would bet their house on what any of our "dream" candidates will be doing in 10 years, because none of us really know those candidates.
For example, I've seen some express concerns that Janice Rogers Brown is so libertarian that she would oppose the White House on the war on terror (something that some here would support, and others would oppose).
It may be that Bush figured that out during her vetting, and that would disqualify her, because he isn't going to send up a nominee that would overturn the DC circuit ruling about detainees. I bet that's more important to him than abortion.
When Owens was first floated (for appeals) there were some who weren't sure that she would vote to overturn Roe. I doubt anybody here would bet the farm on her not turning into a O'Conner after being up here for 10 years -- we don't have a record of her rulings in a federal bench, and while we are relatively comfortable with what she did in Texas, we can't be certain that would translate to the supreme court where nobody is looking over her shoulder.
I see this as a pre/post nomination question. Before the nominee, if "all these" conservatives (and I note that the true opposition is mostly pundits, not people who would have been on the advisory list to the president) had strongly stirred up the base against Miers, probably the President wouldn't have picked her. They did so against Gonzalez which probably stopped him. It she was never nominated, the failure of our "dream pick' 10 years later wouldn't have been a big negative because nobody would think about what we could have had.
But now that she is nominated, and the president and several other powerhouse movers have said she is exactly what we wanted, if we reject her and get OUR candidate and OUR candidate turns into a dud, we rightly deserve the emnity of the wider conservative movement.
The reason "anti-miers" folks don't worry about this is because they "trust" their own judgment on these other nominees (or they trust other people's judgment), more than they trust the President, and Leo, and Cornyn, and Hecht, and Jay Sekulo, and Beldar. (I decided to stop there).
I don't blame people for trusting others. I'm just saying we are all trusting something, and given the problems we had in the past with using prior rulings as predictors of future action, I don't put my complete confidence in them.
Remember though that I am uncomfortable with having to have faith, and hope that we find more information which strengthens the case for Miers. I think there were justices that would be easier to trust, although I have no idea how many of them may have declined, or have been rejected by the white house because THEY didn't trust them.
Yes, they will. In fact, there is going to be a backlash in any event. It is irrational, but it will exist, and IMO, based on the character of their dialog now, the backlash will be viscious.
Do you agree that the uncertainty regarding the nominee's projected future persfomance on the bench has, of its own right, created division in the party? And the uncertainty, of it's own right, creates a "spin the wheel of judiciary fortune" situation? THose "artifact" form the basis for my objection to this pick. The degree of uncertainty embodied in this nominee is divisive. Who then caused this? And the person who caused it - is to be blindly trusted? I mean, I hear you, but it just doesn't make sense.
Aand add to that the likely fact that GWB and the pro-Miers camp have grudgingly, and somewhat quietly acquiesed to the 60 vote hurdle erected by the Senate. "It's a political reality," is the justification. Political reality it is, but it is also an imbalance of powers against the President, and I am willing to go to the mat to fix it, for the benefit of the Office of the President and restoration of Constitutional balance of powers. If our founders were "political realists," we'd still be subjects of the King of England.
I see this as a pre/post nomination question. Before the nominee, if "all these" conservatives (and I note that the true opposition is mostly pundits, not people who would have been on the advisory list to the president) had strongly stirred up the base against Miers ...
This is about Miers, to some extent. Sure, her bona fides, projected future performance, the question of cronyism, the possibility of ruling with an eye towarrd pleasing GWB instead of following the law , those are all valid points of discussion. But raising those points is met with epithets and scorn instead of reasoned debate. At the same time, see above, this is not just about Miers, but is also about the ramifications of this degree of uncertainty, for its own sake, regardless of who the nominee is. Raise that objection, and the pro-Miers camp takes it as a personal attack against Miers and GWB. Pure defensive reaction.
I don't blame people for trusting others. I'm just saying we are all trusting something, and given the problems we had in the past with using prior rulings as predictors of future action ...
Two points: the trust, and the reliability in predicting performance. Given that the "nominee in the mold of Thomas or Scalia" is not met, and the facts of division created by the degree of uncertainty about the nominee (on all fronts), you ask all your detractors to "just trust." That is irrational, and to be frank, unprincipled. I do blame the pro Miers camp for relying on "trust" and for shirking the responsibility to hold up their end of the debate in a substantive way. Not a "count the pundits" or "we have more in number" argument - an argument on the substantive reasoning why THIS is an acceptable pick.
With regard to the uncertainty in performance of past pick, the deviation from perceived and actual ... I believe those deviations are also the result of "trust" and a failure to probe the judicial philosophy. Our leaders have been, perhaps accidentaly, perhaps by human frailty, been playing the stealth and/or deception game for some time.
In closing, let me assert once again, as if it isn;'t clear, I stand up for principle over politics. This is important. Do I want an internal battle with the GOP? Of course not. I don't want a battle with the LIBs, socialists and communists either, but there they are.