FRUM: A SINKING NOMINATION

NRO ^ | October 11, 2005 | David Frum

[Miss Marple]

You make a good point, but I fear it will be ignored.

What I don't understand is Frum's obsession on getting this nomination derailed before she even comes up for a vote. It smacks of fear, and for the life of me I can't understand why they are afraid of her. If she is so incompetent, then she will flub in the hearings. If she is a stellar candidate like Roberts, then what's the problem?

What are they so afraid of? I just don't get it.

[rodguy911]

It's a terrible way to have to appoint a scotus but, it is the world we live in.

[rodguy911]

It's beginning to appear that some conservatives are just big cry babies. If they cant have their way...

[Capriole]

The difficulty in withdrawing the nomination is that there may not be anybody else with whom to replace her. I read elsewhere that 80% of the potential nominees decline a nomination because they can't face the increasingly vicious confirmation process. A nominee might be a great jurists, great legal mind, and a great legal writer, but not have it in her to speak brilliantly ex tempore when facing a blistering attack from the sluts on the Senate Judiciary Committee; nor would many a fine jurist be able to present a career and personal history that cannot in any way be faulted by the savage liberal press. John Roberts is a one-in-a-million, unflawed judge so they attacked his children. Who can face that kind of thing?

[LibLieSlayer]

frum... a "sinking", unemployed wordsmith".

LLS

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

The hearings will be a pro forma exercise in evasion and pomposity.

The senators will preen, she will dodge-or attempt to doge-questions, and we will have gained no insight into her broader judicial philosophy.

Demanding that the hearings take place is tantamount to demanding that she be confirmed.

That's a risk that we just cannot afford to take.

[dmw]

"Oh come now, surely you're not suggesting that we should all just STFU when we think our President is wrong?"


Sadly, that is exactly what the Mier's supporters on this board think we should do. And if you don't stfu (as you say), or agree with them, then get ready to be trashed.

Your post is 100% right on Proud_texan!

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

Six.

[RobFromGa]

Just a reminder for those who hadn't seen Frum's July 4,2005 blog entry:

JUL. 4, 2005: DARK HORSE ... ... in the Supreme Court sweepstakes: Keep an eye on Harriet Miers, White House counsel. Miers was the first woman president of the Texas Bar Association, a co-managing partner of a 400-lawyer firm in Texas, a one-time Dallas city councilor, and by the by, the personal lawyer to one George W. Bush. She joined his staff as governor, served as staff secretary (Richard Darman's old job) in the first administration, and now oversees the White House's legal work. She is quiet, discreet, intensely loyal to Bush personally, and - though not ideologically conservative - nonetheless firmly pro-life. Plus she's a woman. Double plus - she'd be a huge surprise, and the president loves springing surprises on Washington and those pundits who think they know it all.

There are minuses too of course, beginning with that same discretion that recommended Miers as counsel: Supreme Court justices are often expected to have achieved a certain public profile before their appointment, while Miers has gone out of her way to avoid it.

But if the nomination process bogs down - or if President Bush's first choice of nominee should somehow stall or fail - then Miers might well be his back-up nominee. Scoff if you like. But if it happens, please remember that you read it here first.

11:38 PM

[LibLieSlayer]

Rass has him at 48%. You believe CBS if you wish!

LLS

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

Sorry, your initial number was correct.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Ginsburg.html

[baystaterebel]

"Too many true conservatives, whose intellect and advice I respect, are saying Miers should not be confirmed."

These are the same people mind you who are tellings us emphatically that Miers is not qualified, and then in the same breath scream they don't know enough about her.

Well, thats what we have hearings for.

In the hearings we all will get to make a judgment as to whether Miers is qualified or not.
But it seems, as another has posted above, that those who have been crying the most of lack of information now want to stop the nomination before they have a chance to be proven right, which is not what they are fearful of. Its being proven wrong that scares them.

Many Conservative pundits have risked their reputation by loudly pooh-poohing this nomination. To be proven wrong will leave them in position of looking like lunatic reactionaries who for some reason have chosen to remain "stuck on stupid".

While many claim those who defend President Bush's choice of Miers have "drank the kool-aid" it seems that they themselves can not fathom the chance that maybe it is Will, Frum, Malkin, and Coulter who are wrong.

After all, they in fact admit that they know little of Ms. Miers. Yet still feel they have enough information to oppose the man who spent years working with her.

This same man, President Bush, also happens to be the man who was elected to be the one to make this decision.

Let the confirmation process begin.

After all, what are you scared of?
The truth?

[sauropod]

Uh, no N00b. The President and his supporters declared war on the conservative base back when he signed CFR and the Farm Bill without so much as even a threat of a veto.

And stop crapping all over the forum swiping at conservatives.

[dmw]

If that's the case, then I am proud to be "stuck on stupid". My loyalties are not with any one person, not even Bush. The conservative principles I believe in are what is more important to me than supporting a Republican who makes decisions that I can't support.

[Miss Marple]

I understand that you are tired of hearing that, but to my mind it is the truth. Here are the troops you want to take into battle:

NORTHEAST RINOS WHO WON'T VOTE FOR A CONSERVATIVE

Susan Colllins
Olympia Snowe
Arlen Specter
Lincoln Chaffee

COWARDLY GOP WHO BOW TO THE PRESS

George Voinovich
Michael DeWine
John Warner

PEOPLE WHO ARE MAD THAT THEY AREN'T PRESIDENT

John McCain
Richard Lugar
Chuck Hagel

That's 10 names of people who are doubtful pro-paper-trail votes. You can't pick a fight when you have this many squishy votes. It would be political suicide.

This is not something I made up out of whole cloth. Thomas Sowell detailed this situation in his column last week.

[rodguy911]

Exactly. The confirmation process is not important it's "everything' now a days. Rumors are GW either poled or contacted close to 80 senators before he made the choice of Miers.
It's a whole new world out there and we are stuck with a political party, the demoncrats, that stands for nothing but bringing us down at any cost. They have no platform and stand for nothing.It pays to remember that.

[sauropod]

Shhhhh.... Don't disturb the 'bots. They're sleeping.

[oblomov]

No offense intended, but what "brand" of conservative are you? I'm not sure how one could defend the Miers' nomination on conservative principles alone (assuming that, like other "brands" of conservatism, the composition of the federal judiciary is of great importance to you).

What trashy comments have I made? I don't think I've made any trashy comments on FR, ever.

[sauropod]

"You want fries with that?"