Replies

You certainly do engage in a litany of verbosity, as I am wont to do on many ocassions. Where I see the divergence, between you and I, is you see process and issues advocacy as black and white, a solid line dividing the two that cannot be crossed. I contend that one cannot simply make such a claim because if flies in the face of reality.

My defense, as you call it, of the Miers nomination only extends to her having a hearing, it does not go any further. Hopefully you were able to gather that much. Everybody knows what they say about opinions, we only have past events and precedents to base those opinions on. You clearly put more weight on your perceived evidence from Miers past, while you know very little of her personally. I am willing to concede Bush knows her better than I do, as such, I put more weight on his past judicial nominations and ability to discern their philosophy and positions. That weight ends at the hearings, it is then that Miers must provide the substance and insights that verify Bush selecting her.

Your initial response singled out only my reference to rallying around. I merely pointed out that your analysis misrepresented the words written. Pro-life was only referred to when talking about democrats 'rallying against' her, conservatives rallying around her was tied to her performance in the hearings. Granted, there will be some close minded conservatives that will continue to denounce her no matter how well she performs. Are you one of them ?

While my own verbose initial posting that you seek to critique is an amalgam of differing thoughts and issues, you seek to intertwine it into one stew, if you will. Bush as a conservative and the Miers nomination are separate.

You continue to mix issues when referencing incrementalism to the judicial nomination process, that is simply a diversionary rebuttal. Incrementalism is a wide sweeping tactic for re-shaping society, not something nailed down to single issue orientation. It is how the democrats sent this country down the socialist path, they did not do it in one fell swoop. It will not be reversed in one fell swoop, either.

It appears that your whole response is based upon a foundational argument that process advocacy and issues advocacy are distinctly separate and diametrically opposed. Were this a debate on stage, such a position would not hold up under scrutiny nor would its supporting argument be able to be logically defended as an absolute truth. Reality has to creep into your argument somewhere, and the truth is that issues advocacy and process advocacy overlap in many more areas than they have exclusive and distinctly separate areas. Issues supercede process and process supercedes issues to varying degrees, depending on the subject and the opinion that one puts forth.

Where I see the divergence, between you and I, is you see process and issues advocacy as black and white, a solid line dividing the two that cannot be crossed. I contend that one cannot simply make such a claim because if flies in the face of reality.

You are fabricating a divergence. I know full well that process and result are intertwined. My beef is that process is given a back seat, almost ignored.

I am willing to concede Bush knows her better than I do, as such, I put more weight on his past judicial nominations and ability to discern their philosophy and positions.

All of the past nominees (except Roberts, whom I still distrust) were required to have a discernable position. See GWB's litmus test.

Granted, there will be some close minded conservatives that will continue to denounce her no matter how well she performs [in the hearings]. Are you one of them?

I see this as the heart of the argument. Everything hinges on the hearings. Pretend that she literally has no history (she does, and it leans lberal). The only information that is relevant is what emerges from the hearings. Now I can't predict how the hearings will go, she may come out and specifically assert, with rationale, why Roe and Casey and Kelo and Lawrence represent bad Con Law. But if she is true to modern form, she will not answer those questions.

I have little control over how the President and Senators play this out, but my bias is away from stealth, and toward an open battle of ideals. If the GOP dares not to assert traditional Constitutionalist jurisprudence, then I will work to discredit the GOP.

Incrementalism is a wide sweeping tactic for re-shaping society, not something nailed down to single issue orientation. It is how the democrats sent this country down the socialist path, they did not do it in one fell swoop. It will not be reversed in one fell swoop, either.

I agree. But the first step is to gut the notion that courts are empowered to have the "final say." -IF- conservaitve get a traditional SCOTUS, certain issues will be returned to the states. The battle isn't ended, it is renewed on different turf. That is a form of "incrementalism."

You continue to mix issues when referencing incrementalism to the judicial nomination process, that is simply a diversionary rebuttal.

We're just talking past each other. The relationship between process and issue is complex, and my aim is simply to cause "we the people" to shift from a focus on the issues side, to a focus on the process side.

I'm not naive. I know that what I advocate will not come to pass. That does not make me wrong. There is a deep fault in our society - "results oriented" - a willingness to compromise principles of honest, robust dialog in order to reach an end, party over principle, use of stealth to get over on the opponent. I refuse to advocate that, and I will expose it as the ethical and moral bankrupt charade that it is at every opportunity.

It appears that your whole response is based upon a foundational argument that process advocacy and issues advocacy are distinctly separate and diametrically opposed. Were this a debate on stage, such a position would not hold up under scrutiny nor would its supporting argument be able to be logically defended as an absolute truth.

You simplify my point of view, paint it as black and white, as absolute, in an effort to discredit it. "Screw you." My world view is fairly well developed, and sees the relationship between process and issue. I would eat your lunch in a debate.

Issues supercede process and process supercedes issues to varying degrees, depending on the subject and the opinion that one puts forth.

I agree with that. And I argue that in the matter of confirming SCOTUS Justices, our leaders have coppped out, subordinating matters of process to matters of issue.