Posted on 10/14/2005 7:23:47 AM PDT by new yorker 77
I was listening to the John Batchelor Program on WABC Radio in New York last night.
He commented on the process that went into nominating Miers and added that the likelyhood of her nomination withdrawn has grown.
It has grown from 5% last week, to 30% end of last week, to 50% beginning of this week, to 75% last night.
Fund was on the program to comment on his op-ed piece:
How She Slipped Through Harriet Miers's nomination resulted from a failed vetting process.
Thursday, October 13, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT Link: http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/
Proof?!
Wow, weird typos in my little excerpted post.
Trust me, the people defending Miers are just mouthing words in a misguided sense of loyalty for the President. The opponents are defending prinicple-- and it's painful to have to oppose the Presidnet, but it's necessary.
John Fund can stuff it.
And who was claiming otherwise? You were claiming that the Constitution was being violated. How is it being violated by the people instructing their servants on how to proceed?
The Founders consciously and deliberately left the decision as to any individual nominee's qualifications entirely up to the President of the United States, with the advice and consent of the Senate.
And the people aren't supposed to comment on how they exercise these powers? Under what demented theory of constitutional interpretation? In fact, there's a constitutional provision which specifically protects the people's prerogative in that regard. I'm sure you could find it if you looked hard enough.
No, I do not think that. I merely asked you if she said that. No attacks from here. ;-)
I'm just a little sick of that scrawny woman (Coulter) of late, spewing such lame crap about the president and Ms. Miers.
Maybe you may have to check the ears.
Come on. We all know that conservative Christians don't believe in the withdrawl method of court control.
I don't see the drinking part.
My point is that I don't understand how all these unelected people have some right to vet nominees. And the point of specific examples is to see whether you are talking about vetting her in terms of her legal credentials, or in terms of her political credentials. And I have no clue why people like the three you named should be involved in judicial selections.
Whether you're an elected official or not shouldn't determine IMHO whether you should be consulted on nominees---talk of "rights" is not the issue. There're people involved in electing those elected officials---people representing conservative organizations, conservative opinion---who have worked hard to elect Bush and who have supported him through thick and thin, in the expectation that they would at least be consulted on judicial nominees. Apparently many people think he had a "right" to ride roughshod over those expectations. As for the three people I named, I'm not going to go into their qualifications at length---that's not really the issue either. The point is that the nomination was an unpleasant surprise to much of the conservative community, not simply "elitist" columnists---a surprise that could have been avoided if Bush had more respect for other people's opinions in the community through consulting with more people therein first.
As the Executive VP of the Federalist Society, he's got more knowledge regarding the judiciary than the other three put together. Plus, impeccable conservative credentials without the latent nutbag factor of Keyes or Bauer. Now I'm not saying that the President is required or obligated to consult with him. But the fact that Leo is a fan of hers and consulted with the Administration on these picks makes me more comfortable with the nomination than I might have been otherwise.
Fair enough. But I also read somewhere that Mr. Leo is a consultant to the Bush WH. I'm not saying his opinion isn't honestly given---just that the WH should have reached outside its inner circle.
I do think the tone and content of what many of the conservative critics is wrong. As someone else put it, too many conservatives are trying to squeeze the toothpaste back into the tube by fooling themselves into thinking that enough foot-stamping will unravel history. It won't. And arguments like "he should have checked with Alan Keyes...." We've now got all these pundits out there basically offended that Bush didn't clear it with them first, and that strikes me as incredibly self-important.
If its a bad pick, then state the concerns publicly in rational tones. The hissy fit thrown by Coulter and her ilk are not going to make the problem any better. And venting emotionally just because you are upset....well, it looks to be like the kind of thing the NARAL gang does, and I thought we were above that.
As rationally as I can, let me give you the big picture. When the Roberts pick was announced, I was a little concerned, because he was unknown at the time. But I quickly learned what was behind the guy: Havard Law/Law Review, Supreme Court clerkship with Rehnquist, work for the Reagan WH, work for the powerhouse DC firm of Hogan and Hartson, experience as a Federal Appellate judge. Nothing in what came out later about the guy made me feel uneasy about him, and his performance at the hearings was simply magnificent. His swearing-in was a happy, hopeful day for me.
By contrast, when Miers was announced, I was again concerned, and this time the credentials did nothing to allay my concerns. In fact, the admonitions to "trust Bush" and as you call them the hissy fits on the pro-Miers side about "sexism," "elitism," and other classic liberal bullshirt made me more and more concerned. If Bush had kept faith with the base on CFR, on spending, on entitlements, on quotas, on the borders and immigration...a whole laundry list...then "trust Bush" would be a powerful argument. But the fact is, he hasn't and Supreme Court appointments were the one remaining strand that kept conservatives on the bandwagon. I didn't accept Roberts because I "trusted Bush"---I did it because the guy truly was one of the qualified picks out there. Bush has gone back to square one in the trust department with this pick. We don't trust him on this one, and he's not going to get our support on this.
A weakened Bush is going to be forced to nominate even worse people than Miers down the road. And there are some conservatives doing the "I'm finished with the GOP" routine that accomplishes nothing more than helping President Hilary get elected, and making Associate Justice Tribe more likely.
I disagree. Bush can't blackmail me into supporting this pick by threatening to put forward even worse ones if this one doesn't go through. The GOP and the conservative movement is bigger than one official or Presidential Term. It's got to get back to its true principles---not endlessly compromise on them to suit one man's whim or in the fear that otherwise someone worse will come along. That's not "rational" in my opinion.
Thanks again for making the effort to be civil.
You've been doing a fine job. I hope those on the 'other' side spend some time reading well thought out posts like yours, too.
Most of are friends, and will remain so.
Ooh I may be weary
And us old guys we do get weary
Hearing that same old Bushbot crap
But when we get weary
We gotta try a little tenderness
"While Bush was still boozing it up in the early '80s, Ed Meese, Antonin Scalia, Robert Bork and all the founders of the Federalist Society began creating a farm team of massive legal talent on the right."
That is the only comment about drinking that I have seen from Ann. Of course, there are plenty of other things to find offensive in her columns and statements, we don't need to make up stuff.
DRUGS.
I saw the video clip on a friends laptop. Call me a liar for stating what I saw? That is uncalled for. You are an ass for using that sort of technique to defend Ann.
LLS
Your premise about the 17th amendment turning the intended functional behavior on its head may have some credence. However from all of my readings from the debate that raged over this amendment, the corrupt effect on some Senators from certain political machines, as well as Senators outright "buying" of their seats, was substantive in its creation and implementation.
I can find nothing in its creation that would change the Senate's responsibilities in nominations of Federal officers.
Thought provoking post. Thanks!
LLS
I am sorry if you are offended, I honestly tried to find the link in question and couldn't find it. It seems that if Ann (whom I have little respect for) had stated that she thought President Bush was a lush, or a drunk then it would have been big news on FR. Except for your comment, I haven't seen anything about it.
So, if you can find a transcript or remember what show, and what night it was, maybe we can locate the clip you are talking about.
It seems to me that "climbing into the gutter" is not what I am doing, I am just trying to make sure that unsubstantiated claims are not passed around without being backed up by some facts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.