Posted on 10/15/2005 2:37:57 AM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
Supreme Court confirmation battles usually involve excavations of the nominee's judicial opinions, legal briefs and decades-old government memos. Harriet Miers is the first nominee to hit trouble because of thank-you letters.
Miers's paper trail may be relatively short, but it makes plain that her climb through Texas legal circles and into George W. Bush's inner circle was aided by a penchant for cheerful personal notes. Years later, even some of her supporters are cringing -- and her opponents are viciously making merry -- at the public disclosure of this correspondence and other writings from the 1990s.
Bush may have enjoyed being told by Miers in 1997, "You are the best governor ever -- deserving of great respect." But in 2005 such fawning remarks are contributing to suspicion among Bush's conservative allies and others that she was selected more for personal loyalty than her legal heft.
Combined with columns she wrote for an in-house publication while president of the Texas Bar Association -- critics have called them clumsily worded and empty of content -- Miers may be at risk of flunking the writing portion of the Supreme Court confirmation test, according to some opponents.
"The tipping point in Washington is when you go from being a subject of caricature to the subject of laughter," said Bruce Fein, a Miers critic who served in the Reagan administration's Justice Department and who often speaks on constitutional law. "She's in danger of becoming the subject of laughter."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
One does not advance by AVOIDING the conflict. I know the DEMs and Libs are lying scum that aim to subvert everything I believe is good about this country under the Constitution. And the GOP is trying to AVOID the issue by stealth, like having the President and Senate leadership collaborate so as to prearrange an "accceptable" nominee that won't trigger the DEM to erect the 60 vote hurdle.
If you think one can advance a position by avoiding a debate on the merits, you and I have wildly incompatible personalities.
Trickery is unethical. Put it in the open, debate it, vote, move on. It is the American way.
We need not only a reliable vote, but someone with the rhetorical ability to persuade other justices to vote rightly, and to convince the populace at large of the truth of conservative principles.
Sorry, but in an environment where Dems will filibuster any nominee who they believe will overturn Roe, the deck is stacked. I'd rather win ugly than lose pretty. Plus, I see absolutely nothing unethical about using their own rules against them. They're going to rely on ideology rather than ability, we give them someone whose ideology they can't pin down.
One does not advance by AVOIDING the conflict.
Its certainly possible. You act as though this was just a debate, with nothing more at stake than who scores better rhetorical points. But what is at stake is an incredibly powerful seat on the Supreme Court. Two years from now, no one will remember the debate. Probably because there wouldn't be a real debate anyway. They'll just remember who won, and who lost. I'd rather win.
And the GOP is trying to AVOID the issue by stealth....
"Stealth"? Hardly. Don't you think the Dems know what we're trying to do? It's no secret. What this really involves is whether they can muster enough votes to maintain a filibuster. That is a political rather than moral question. It's entirely proper to beat them at their own political game by giving them a nominee who will not let them muster those votes.
You seem to think that we can nominate someone more controversial, and thereby trigger some sort of enlightening debate that will educate the citizenry. But that's not what will happen. It would be a joke, and nothing would be learned because it would be demagogued and covered unfairly by the media.
If you think one can advance a position by avoiding a debate on the merits, you and I have wildly incompatible personalities.
Do I think we can advance our rhetorical position by stealth? Of course not. But confirmation is not primarily a rhetorical endeavor. It has a specific political purpose -- confirmation or rejection. All the wonderful words in the world won't matter if we lose, because the vast majoriyt of the citizenry will never hear an unbiased reporting of those words. A wonderful show for CSPAN and internat junkies, and a non-event to everyone else.
I agree, "moral" is a bit of a heavy label for the quality of the issue. But "cloture abuse" is not mere "issue advocay politcs" either.
I see you accept the filibuster as some sort of political reality. Well, the DEMs have beaten you sire. You are a loser. You lost. You got over it.
I didn't. And in my judgement, this fight is worth it, becuase it represents a CORE or pivotal Constitutional balance-of-power issue.
You seem to think that we can nominate someone more controversial, and thereby trigger some sort of enlightening debate that will educate the citizenry.
I do not think the citizenry give a hoot one way or the other. They are interested in what the MSM and the ruling calss elites feed them for entertainment and news. They are manipulable, and manipulated. Doesn't make it right.
My comment about reasoned dialog relates to inside the halls of Congress, where the people's work is done. That needs to be transparent, or the government becomes illegitimate. I will resist that.
All the wonderful words in the world won't matter if we lose ...
Win or lose what, exactly? Gain a roll the dice seat on SCOTUS, in exchange for burying the will to confront the DEMs? You can have it. I won't support it. I will shun it.
It was a joke, get over yourself.
I've read a great deal of Hawking's writings. He is very good at explaining very complex theory to a general audience.
But if you'd like to continue creating an argument out of nothing, toss him a pen and tell him to get to work. I didn't realize when I posted the original comment that you were one of "those people."
Enjoy being right all the time,
Gianni out.
Yeah, sure you have. LOL.
"sire"? you're not playing Dungeons and Dragons anymore, Cboldt. Anyway, the filibuster is a reality.
You are a loser. You lost. You got over it.
From Dungeons and Dragons to Drama Queen. How cute.
My comment about reasoned dialog relates to inside the halls of Congress, where the people's work is done. That needs to be transparent, or the government becomes illegitimate. I will resist that.
You can't force someone to engage in reasoned debate if they don't wish to do so. Cicero isn't going to be duking it out in the Senate on this issue. All we'll get will be ramblings of a nut like Byrd.
Gain a roll the dice seat on SCOTUS, in exchange for burying the will to confront the DEMs?
If Roe goes, it is my opinion that the selection process will become somewhat less politicized with the removal of that issue. That will help in returning some level of honest debate to the Senate for future confirmations. Because right now, the reality is that you've got too many Senators applying a pro-Roe litmus test of their own. They won't admit it, though, which is why honest debate is presently impossible.
I won't support it. I will shun it.
I still have no idea what it means in plain English when you say you will "shun it". Are you saying you'll stop voting, stop contributing money, or what?
Believe it or not, a typo. I honestly menat to type "sir" but an extra letter got in there. I'm no D&D guy, after my time, and I'm not a gamer anyway.
I still have no idea what it means in plain English when you say you will "shun it". Are you saying you'll stop voting, stop contributing money, or what?
I'll treat them as though they don't exist. No input, no money, no votes. But before you jump down my back again, you need to look at the action that would provoke me to that extreme position. You know, if the GOP acts like the DEM party? Would you want a part of it?
I'm not as loony as you think.
The problem with using Justice Roberts as an example in these discussions is that we don't yet know how he's going to turn out (and won't for at least, say, five years). Scalia may be a better example of someone who supports and applies stare decisis (although personally I prefer Thomas, the staunchest originalist).
Yes, how dare we non-senators and -presidents exercise our God-given right to free speech by engaging in political discourse! The Founders would never approve of the proles daring to speak outside the voting booth! /sarcasm
Sheesh, talk about elitism!
That, my friend, is mere speculation on your part.
I agree, but I'm not a supreme court justice commenting on the most important document in our Republic. Additionally, informal (in this case, junk) writing like this is different even than business writing. If Miers apparent troubles are limited to her personal letters and emails, that's different than what is published for "official" consumption. My point was merely cautionary.
But the other judges that he chose have been vetted through normal processes, and were highly endorsed by, e.g. the Federalis Society. Ms. Miers abstained from joining the Federalist Society because she viewed it as partisan. Because of her mental accuity, however, she was able to see a certain kind of partisanship shown by the Federalist Society that was not evinced by the other groups she was silliing to join, which others of us would have viewed as equally if not more partisan.
In other words, why are you so unfirm in your outlook that you are willing to abandon everyone you had supported because of an obviously flawed process within the WH. In fact, I think that process jumped the tracks. We don't know why, but we need to stop the train, put it back on the rails and see what happens.
This is now personal. You will not insult someone who is apparently making an honest effort to teach our kids how to think for themselves. You can insult anyone you want around here, but not a teacher trying to do a good job. Talk about jumping sharks, you just did a bellyflop in the Jaw's jaws.
look it up. It gets uglier.
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.