She is trying to create the impression that there is an identity there which there is not. Neither of those presidents had any personal knowledge of their candidates. It makes a gigantic difference. Sufficient to invalidate the point she tries to establish. Those Presidents relied upon the judgments of others not their own THAT was the problem. A problem that does not exist wrt Bush and Miers.
Thomas did not have the experience that Miers has and certainly had no overwhelmingly impressive vita which resulted in much criticism of the nomination including claims that the only reason he was nominated was because he was Black. Or that he could only get approved because the RATS would be afraid to defeat him being Black. This is the similiarity between Miers and Thomas which is most applicable.
How does this mechanism of approval by the base which you believe was bound to obtain work? Who speaks for this base?
The Antis? or the other 70% of the primer conservative site on the web?
There has been no infallibility claimed asking one to trust the President in no way implies he is infallible that is just silly but you are claiming the same infallibility for a base opinion which is so vague as to be undefinable.
The main talking point of the anti-Antis is to let the process go forward into the Hearings. Most of us believe Miers will show there is no problem. But I suspect there are some who won't be happy no matter what.
Thomas was on the DC Circuit Court for 19 months before his nomination. He was a graduate of Yale Law school and had held several different positions within the Reagan administration including head of EEOC. He had also written and spoken publically on constitutional issues. To claim Miers has more experience is ludicrous.
It does make some difference, I agree, but not much. The collective judgement of a large number of people will usually be more accurate than that of a small number. Miers would not have been included in the pool of candidates selected by any large group of conservatives. Bush selected her by himself. In the case of the Reagan and Bush Sr. “trust me” nominations, I’ll guess (no time to research it) that the number of people involved in deciding the nominees was pretty low, too.
Thomas did not have the experience that Miers has and certainly had no overwhelmingly impressive vita which resulted in much criticism of the nomination including claims that the only reason he was nominated was because he was Black. Or that he could only get approved because the RATS would be afraid to defeat him being Black. This is the similiarity between Miers and Thomas which is most applicable.
Thomas’s personal story is, to me, far more impressive than Miers’s. It is that personal story, demonstrating his own personal excellence, that (to me, anyway) helped qualify him to sit on the court. Certainly, he was nominated in part because he was black, but it was far from the only reason.
How does this mechanism of approval by the base which you believe was bound to obtain work? Who speaks for this base? The Antis? or the other 70% of the primer conservative site on the web?
The base speaks for itself, here on FR and many other forums. It includes antis, pros, and wait & sees. A different nominee could have kept these groups united. The Miers nomination divided them.
There has been no infallibility claimed asking one to trust the President in no way implies he is infallible that is just silly but you are claiming the same infallibility for a base opinion which is so vague as to be undefinable.
Of course my Doctrine of Presidential Infallibility is silly. So is Bush’s notion that his personal judgment about a long time pal should outweigh the collective judgements of conservatives who would never have counted Miers in the pool of qualified candidates. I made no claim that the judgments of the group are infallible, just that they are as good as it is likely to get. As for “so vague as to be undefinable,” I think that Miers current weakness in the polls as compared to Roberts is defining the problem fairly well.
As for the hearings…
I don’t trust the hearings to tell us enough about the candidate. Both sides have too many reasons to throw her softballs. A solid resume would be MUCH more convincint than a good set of confirmation hearings.
If she shines, that will be certainly be better than the alternative, which would probably include the revolting experience of having to listen to Teddy Kennedy say things that I agree with. The press would be vicious, and it would damage the party. All for no good reason.
Besides, putting so much weight on the hearings puts an unreasonable amount of pressure on the candidate. If she does poorly, it might not reflect her ability to handle the job. I do not trust a job interview to reveal much beyond how an applicant does on handling the stress of a job interview.