Aha! Caught you again! Several have directly said she believed in judicial restraint and a strict interpretation. So, why do you leave that out (somewhat conveniently...)?
Only inferred from the "putting the ABA position to a vote" thing, IIRC.
I'm not trying to leave things out, honest. I've been sloppy and haven't kept notes that facilitate developing a rigidly defensible position. Do you recall the rationale(s) for my reaching the conclusion that she was likely to exhibit judicial restraint?
Even if you point me to a date range -- my posting history is laborious to navigate, but I'm willing to do it.
I'd ask that, given that the matter is one of subjective judgement and much speculation, the fact that parts of my position shift (sometimes with new info, sometimes with change in the phase of the moon) does not make me a liar. I strive to present my point of view and express why I hold it, and if the view changed, why it changed.
In general, when a person has a tough time holding a clear position, it's because the input data is vague, and the conclusion shifts while the analyst looks from one direction, then another, etc.
I honestly appreciate your criticism, and thank you for the civil delivery you've provided.
Ahhh .. I think I've found it. Here it is, and then I'll make my lame explanation.
Cboldt: I'm inclined to believe that Miers would render opinins that are acceptable to my sense of how SCOTUS should rule. But I am very unhappy with the pick.Okay - at this point in the development of the story, I am following my first gut reaction, which is "We are fighting the wrong battle. This nomination sucks because the nominee is a ciper." Given that overarching sense, I'm trying to steer others that way. To be honest, my comment "I'm inclined to believe that Miers would render opinins that are acceptable to my sense ..." was based on the same trust many have for the nomination as a whole. At that moment, I couldn't picture GWB picking a Justice that was NOT in the mold of Thomas or Scalia. BUt even he did, I don't like the nomination.Then I'm confused.
I prefer an open discussion of Constitutional principle; correct the overreaching by SCOTUS and other courts into hot-button social issues, the balance of powers between the Senate and the President, etc. But instead of a discussion on principle, we are having a discussion on "qualifications," "cronyism," and "stealth."
I don't like that conservaitism is reduced to stealth. It feels like being ashamed of conservatism, or being afraid that conservatism will lose in the marketplace of ideas. It comes off as "chicken" and "conflict avoidance," not just on the President's part, but also on the part of the GOP-lead Senate.
And that has pretty much been my theme all along. We're fighting the wrong battle. THe battle should be against "Uncertainty, the nominee."
Since then, having more research gone by the by, I don't think she is a strong performer, and I have serious doubts that she would render opinins that are acceptable to my sense of how SCOTUS should rule.
I reposted that 10/7 piece on the 16th .. to make the point that not everybody was piling on the nominee from the get-go. I know for a fact that I wasn't, and you caught it too.
Link -> 726 posted on 10/16/2005 2:34:14 PM EDT by Cboldt <- repost
I can see where that sequence of posts could reasonably lead a person to see me as a liar. It's no big leap, for sure.
But that's my baggage. I can't very well fix it up - except, but for you calling me out on it, I would not have bothered to explain what changed, and why.
So I am greatful for your challenge, and in your debt.