[Lazamataz]

But I do know enough about Mr. Bush's judicial appointments over the past five years to give three cheers for his record on picking judges. Almost to a man and a woman, they are judicial conservatives who are already shifting the ideological balance of the federal judiciary to the right.

It's a good point, and it's a hell of a lot better an argument than "Trust me."

[The Red Zone]

Dobson was making the same point weeks ago. If Miers is a dud she would be very atypical of Bush's picks.

[MEG33]

Bush's record on judicial appointments is part of my trust..
I am withholding final judgement until after I have heard her.

[Rudder]

Almost to a man and a woman, they are judicial conservatives who are already shifting the ideological balance of the federal judiciary to the right.

Easy for her to say. How about some concrete examples that prove her point?

[maica]

My response to Opinion Journal:



That President Bush keeps his campaign promises should be a strong argument in favor of Harriet Miers - at least for the hand-wringers in the conservative punditry to hold their fire until she has her hearings. That only 43 judges have been placed on the Appeals Courts in the past 5 years - an average of 8 per year - is an argument against moving one of them again to fill a slot on the Supreme Court.

We do not know if any of the prized-by-the-pundits' names want to go through another trial by Senate again so soon. We do know that they will be doing valuable work where they are.

Perhaps issues will not even reach the Supreme Court because they are settled incontrovertably in the Appellate system by these "top-tier" judges.

[RobFromGa]

It's a good point, and it's a hell of a lot better an argument than "Trust me."

I'll assume you are being sarcastic. Bush's record on picking judges is the reason why "Trust Me" has any meaning.

Of course, Bush's loyalty is also well-known and proven, yet people who claim to have liked him before are clamoring for him to "Throw Miers From the Train". Even though he won't do that, and if he did it would greatly hurt him with those of us who do trust him.

[Guenevere]

Your point is well made, but essentially....that's what he meant by 'trust me'...

[RGSpincich]

It's a good point, and it's a hell of a lot better an argument than "Trust me."

Perhaps the president expected to be judged on his record and expected conservatives to be familiar with his judicial appointments. I expect that he is alot more disappointed in conservatives than they are in him at this point.

[I got the rope]

We need rebirth of the American tradition of leadership at every level of government and in private life as well. The United States of America is unique in world history because it has a genius for leaders–many leaders–on many levels. But, back in 1976, Mr. Carter said, “Trust me.” And a lot of people did. Now, many of those people are out of work. Many have seen their savings eaten away by inflation. Many others on fixed incomes, especially the elderly, have watched helplessly as the cruel tax of inflation wasted away their purchasing power. And, today, a great many who trusted Mr. Carter wonder if we can survive the Carter policies of national defense.

“Trust me” government asks that we concentrate our hopes and dreams on one man; that we trust him to do what’s best for us. My view of government places trust not in one person or one party, but in those values that transcend persons and parties. The trust is where it belongs–in the people. The responsibility to live up to that trust is where it belongs, in their elected leaders. That kind of relationship, between the people and their elected leaders, is a special kind of compact.

Ronald Wilson Reagan