David Frum's Diary for October 24, 2005: NEXT STEP

National Review ^ | October 24, 2005 | David Frum

[Cautor]

The campaign to urge the withdrawal of Harriet Miers has moved to the next level. Two new groups have stepped forward: WithdrawMiers.org (http://www.withdrawmiers.org/) is a consortium of social conservative groups that will encourage members to write directly to their representatives in Congress.

Some friends of mine and I meanwhile have organized Americans for Better Justice (http://www.betterjustice.com/default.php?page_id=1) which has raised money for a national television and radio advertising campaign to urge the withdrawal of the nomination of Harriet Miers. You will be able to see our spots very shortly on the site. They will be airing this week on "Special Report with Brit Hume," "Fox and Friends," the Rush Limbaugh program, the Laura Ingraham program, among other places.

[snip]

There is a very great deal at stake. The seat to which the president has nominated Harriet Miers has been the court's swing seat on a range of issues from same-sex marriage to racial gerrymandering, from religious liberty to federalism. It is too important to be shrugged off - and it is reckless to suggest (as some of my email correspondents are suggesting) that this is a job that can be done by pretty much anybody with a tablespoon of common sense. On the contrary, reversing 4 decades of bad jurisprudence will take very uncommon levels of courage, ability, integrity, and independence. Conservatives have worked too hard for too long to settle for anything less than our very best on the Supreme Court. Please join me and BetterJustice.com in pressing the president to reconsider and do better.

[Cautor]

"No. You and your sycophants are uber-conservatives.
Unappeaseables.

"My-way-or-the-highway".

Now don't get testy. We're simply asking Bush to do what he promised us he would do when he asked for our votes. He told us he would appoint judges in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. Instead, he gives us Miers of the Dallas city council, head of the TX bar, and so on. If you think that makes us unappeasable my-way-or-the-highway uber-conservatives, then so be it. I won't lose any sleep because you think that's the case.

[Sam the Sham]

You said you believed them because you consider them Christian.

Wrong. I said it was more likely they were telling the truth because they were persons of faith. Not that I believe them because they're christian.

Well, EZ, you said...

It's EZ for me. Bush said he would only appoint originalists to the court, Miers says she'll rule as an originalist. I'm taking these two Christians at their word.

And as I said, whether they are Christians or not has nothing to do with anything. We do not have nor should have religion tests for public office. If she were an originialist I don't care if she sacrifices to Baal Peor in her backyard.

[Cautor]

"Bush had the final decision"

Indeed, so I've been told countless times by other posters like yourself. BTW, if Bush picked his aunt Edna for the post, would you still say that Bush has the final decision?

Regardless, I still have the right to oppose his decision and to petition my Senators and others to oppose Miers.

[Cautor]

Thank you sir.

[ez]

I also said this

It's not faith, it's logic. Do I believe that Miers and Bush are lying about her intentions to rule as an originalist, or the hysterical contentions of pundits that don't know the woman because they are not being given a guarantee, and who only claim that WE DON"T KNOW if she'll rule is an originalist?

In addition, I think that two people whose faith is important to them are less likely to be lying about their intentions.

[Cautor]

meema, thank you. If Miers has a judicial philosophy then it has eluded most everyone outside the White House's inner sanctum.

[Cautor]

"Are you prepared to apply Federalist #76 to Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton ?"

Ouch! What if Clinton had picked Vince Foster or Lanny Davis. Should our side have said, hey, it's his pick. That's what the Constitution says.

[Sam the Sham]

There is nothing the least bit logical about assuming that Christians can't be wrong.

[curiosity]

Funny how Miers supporters talk like royalists.

I noticed that too.

[ez]

Regardless, I still have the right to oppose his decision and to petition my Senators and others to oppose Miers.

You do. But working to effect her withdrawal without a hearing is wrong. The president deserves an up-or-down vote on his nominee.

I have no problem with anyone who works to petition Senators to vote no. That is Constitutional.

A veto without a vote is not.

[phelanw]

I think Chucky likes those politics. I find them distasteful. Thanks for the ad hominem, though. Makes it all worthwhile.

[trubluolyguy]

There was a time in history when conservatives believed one should be judged on their judicial philosophy, that each candidate deserved a fair hearing and a fair up or down vote. She hasn't had either one

---

Any of the three to be truthful.

[ez]

There is nothing the least bit logical about assuming that Christians can't be wrong.

You have a reading comprehension issue. I didn't say they can't be wrong, I said they were less likely to lie.

[Sam the Sham]

People can lie in lots of ways. Willful deceit is only one. Believing what you want to believe is another. Thinking yourself indispensible and infallible is another. These are the kinds of lies that leaders often tell and actually believe to be true.

[Cautor]

"And as I said, whether they are Christians or not has nothing to do with anything. We do not have nor should have religion tests for public office."

I'm afraid the original effort by the White House to seel Miers traded on her religious views. Boy did that open a can of worms and let jerks like turbin Durbin off the hook for his views. No wonder they got off that tack as soon as they realized they screwed up big time.

[trubluolyguy]

I'm waiting for you ubers to start digging into the new Fed chair nominee's history. Maybe you'll find he goes to cocktail parties with people who voted for Kerry, and you can start demanding that Bernanke withdraw his nomination!

---

I am one who most know has railed strongly against this nomination. I can tell you in no uncertain terms, I couldn't care less who is the Fed Chairman. I couldn't care less who he drinks with. I was however, happy to see that W didn't pick his personal accountant for the job.

[Sam the Sham]

The sheer incompetence of openning that can of worms, of making the faith of a nomineee fair game, makes me think twice about the competence of this entire selection process.

[Maynerd]

There was a time in history when conservatives believed one should be judged on their judicial philosophy, that each candidate deserved a fair hearing and a fair up or down vote.

Very reasonable viewpoint. However, there is no public record of a judicial philosopohy. All we get are faith based initiatives and disturbing policy clues: warm and fuzzy support for Texas Bar Association quotas, SMU womens studies programs, dissing the Ferderalist Society as partisan and the NAACP as peachy keen. These small fragments may not truly represent Miers views but that's all we got.

Lesson to be learned: If you nominate a stealth candidate and others will paint the picture.

[Cautor]

"Bush had the final decision...you're dissembling"

I see you like that word "dissembling" but I would appreciate it if you would explain why you think I'm hiding behind a false appearance and so on. I'm quite open about the fact I think Miers was picked solely because she was an old FOB (Friend of Bush), IOW a crony from TX with no record that would make her the most qualified SCOTUS pick. In my opinion, Bush lied when he said she was.

dis·sem·ble ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-smbl)
v. dis·sem·bled, dis·sem·bling, dis·sem·bles
v. tr.
To disguise or conceal behind a false appearance. See Synonyms at disguise.
To make a false show of; feign.

v. intr.
To disguise or conceal one's real nature, motives, or feelings behind a false appearance.

[wmfights]

" He told us he would appoint judges in the mold of Scalia and Thomas."
___________________________

I believe in an earlier thread the Bush Royalists thouroughly debunked that urban myth. It is now fact that Bush never promised us judges in the mold of "Scalia and Thomas."

Proof is in the nominee he has given us.