No more benefit of the doubt

The American Conservative Union ^ | October 17, 2005 | David A. Keene

[sinkspur]

Can you seriously argue that a mind unashamed to publicly write junior high school level prose is qualified to be on the most elite court of this nation ?

Certainly. Some very intelligent people don't write well, or are dyslexic or something like that.

She'll have plenty of people to help her write opinions.

But she could very well be articulate in verbal speech. I've seen that combination too many times to think that it's a rarity.

[sinkspur]

I'm talking about scientific polls.

A poll on FR is not scientific or representative of even what most people at FR think.

[wmfights]

"If we can't give the President the benefit of the doubt long enough to hear what she has to say at the hearings"....

If GWB was going to be a strong LEADER on this he would have submitted a strong conservative nominee with a long track record and been prepared to FIGHT for that nominee instead of trying to sneak another stealth nominee thru.

[gondramB]

"If GWB was going to be a strong LEADER on this he would have submitted a strong conservative nominee with a long track record and been prepared to FIGHT for that nominee instead of trying to sneak another stealth nominee thru."

Suppose he had done that. How long do you think it would have been before they were actually confirmed?

[Cicero]

Since they are doing a Do-Over on this, can we get one for some of the other things, like the failures to veto some of those gross spending pork bills? The Let's Make Friends With Fat Ted Kennedy Education Bill? The highways bill? The fat Farms bill?

Well, the reason I have always given for letting Bush get away with these questionable activities is that he needed to do it in order to get the really important things done, like making good judicial appointments. That was my bottom line.

Now that he has nominated a doubtfully conservative, undistinguished and almost unknown second-rater for the Supreme Court, it puts everything else into question too.

We all paid a lot one way or another to get to this point, and we don't appreciate getting kicked in the teeth just as the goal is within reach.

[Urbane_Guerilla]

If GWB was going to be a strong LEADER on this he would have submitted a strong conservative nominee with a long track record and been prepared to FIGHT for that nominee instead of trying to sneak another stealth nominee thru.

This is an excellent point.

Has this President ever fought, even once, for a specifically conservative position? And I mean it in the sense that he was a true leader, one who went up against the odds because of principle?

[Sam the Sham]

A good lawyer must be an EXTREMELY articulate person verbally and in writing.

[wmfights]

"If we can't give the President the benefit of the doubt long enough to hear what she has to say at the hearings"....

If GWB was going to be a strong LEADER on this he would have submitted a strong conservative nominee with a long track record and been prepared to FIGHT for that nominee instead of trying to sneak another stealth nominee thru.

[Sam the Sham]

Are we on the clock ? Another Souter would just sail through the Senate. Is that what you want ?

We wouldn't want to waste your time, now would we ?

[Cboldt]

You come after US with that rubber truncheon that's worked so well on Dems and RINOs, and you end up with no peanut gallery...and not voters...and no power. And then you go home a broken, loser politician.
And you deserve it.

And the party blames the voter after the fact. The GOP lost in 1992, not becuase of Ross Perot. Perot represents a failure on the part of the GOP to attract more votes than any other party.

Anyway, what you said was well said. Don't be surprized to be called names for it. That rubber truncheon thing, you know?

[sinkspur]

A good lawyer must be an EXTREMELY articulate person verbally and in writing.

I would agree with the first, but not with the second.

That's what "legal aids" are for.

[wmfights]

"Has this President ever fought, even once, for a specifically conservative position? And I mean it in the sense that he was a true leader, one who went up against the odds because of principle?"

The WOT is the only area I can think of. I do believe he has been terrific. I think we are winning slowly but surely. In domestic policy we have had to compromise our principals in every area waiting for the day when we could change the SCOTUS. Roberts for O'Connor was okay, but Miers for Rehinquist? Thanks alot for all the loyalty we've shown you.

[sinkspur]

Sorry.

Legal AIDES, not aids.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

That's not the point.

An empty Supreme Court seat is infinitely preferable to one filled by an awful justice.

[gondramB]

"That's not the point.

An empty Supreme Court seat is infinitely preferable to one filled by an awful justice."

How would you feel about an 8 person supreme court where the next President has an immediate chance to name a justice?

[trubluolyguy]

What is most troubling about this whole affair, however, is the way the administration has gone about trying to demonize conservatives who have raised questions about Ms. Miers. It began from day one to attack personally the motives, loyalty and judgment of anyone who questioned the wisdom of the nomination.

---

This made many of us who would otherwise be on the fence, get real damned suspiscious. You ask a simple question and get totally ripped apart? Something is NOT right here.

[trubluolyguy]

no thinking conservative really wants to be part of a team that requires marching in lock step without question or thought, even if it is headed by the president of the United States.

---

Oh I don't know, there are a few of them right here on FR.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

The point is moot if that justice will not be a strict constructionist/originalist.

Sandra Day O'Connor, whatever her faults-and they were maifold-was at the very least, committed to the concept of federalism.

That should be the de minimus requirement made of all Republican appointees to the federal judiciary at any level.

Do we even know that much about Miers?

I am certain that not only would she have been incapable of authoring the blistering dissent written by O'Connor in Kelo, but have the sneaking suspicion that she would have been on the other side, were she in the place of Sandra Day O'Connor.

Considering the fact that her only enthusiastic backers-aside from members of the Democratic Caucus-seem to be the corporate benefactors of the Bush administration, I find it hard to believe that she is irrevocably opposed to the exploitation of eminent domain.

[TeenagedConservative]

Doesn't Bush get another go if we block Miers? How does blocking her mean that he gets no more chances to nominate a judge?

[Sam the Sham]

If a legal aide did Miers writing, did it go out the door without her approval and sign off ? So obviously this is Mier's idea of good writing.