Redstate

Great post, concerning the POSITIVE reaction of most conservatives to Miers' nomination.

I should add that at RasmussenReports.com (which was the most accurate poll in calling the 2004 elections) President Bush's job approval went from 46% on October 3 (before the nomination) to 47% on October 5 (2/3 of interviews after the Miers nomination).

This is probably within the margin of error, but so far the Miers nomination has not hurt Bush.

If the public is (at worst) ambivalent about this, why are those who should be favoring Ms. Miers bashing her so viciously? Shouldn't we all cool our jets and give Ms. Miers a chance to prove herself before the Senate?

Harriet Miers is a great unknown to most bloggers, but she just might be "Scalia in skirts" whom President Bush wants to slip onto the bench with the blessing of Minority Leader Harry Reid, just in time for two abortion cases before SCOTUS. She could be a GREAT pick for conservatives, who might pass right under the Democrats' noses, if some of the purists would stop bashing her lack of judicial experience long enough to let her have her say.

Some of the "uber conservatives" here are gunning for a knock-down, drag-out fight complete with filibuster and nuclear option over a better-known judge, but as one poster on another thread put it, why mount a frontal assault when you can win by outflanking the opposition?

About a decade ago, a French author described divided French conservatives as "the stupidest right-wing in the world". Right now, the American right-wing seems to be rivaling the French. Someone please tell these guys, BUSH ISN'T STUPID!

Cooler heads NEED to prevail!

And you are, obviously, the smartest of us all to have it all figured out so well. Or not.

Climb down off your high horse and think about what kind of conservative supporter you must be to jumpt to the worst conclusions about Bush

And here you are conflating conservatism with defense of Bush. If the inherent silliness of that doesn't strike you, then perhaps you aren't the smartest of us after all.

Climb down off your high horse

Given the tone of this post, that is the most hilarious thing of all.

You don't get booted from RedState just for auto-discrediting.

Pot. Kettle.

Those of us who support Bush and Miers are not indifferent, we are just not panicking.

What made his tone inappropriate was not that it was strident. What made his tone inappropriate is that he climbed right up on his high horse and told us all to get off our high horses.

I know you think I'm fighting the wrong battle here, but I gotta tell ya, the margin for error is painfully thin here, and I'm just not gonna roll the dice and hope it all turns out okay, based on the word of a President I don't really trust. Not when there's dozens of solid people out there. So yeah, I am gonna fight this battle, and yeah, I am irked and I don't have a way really of dealing with this another way.

Which is just yet another reason for me to be ticked off at Bush. Have you ever in your life seen Hugh Hewitt and Professor Bainbridge at each other's throats like this? Ditto Ramesh Ponnuru? It's freakin' terrible and I admit that, and it makes me wonder why no one in the White House saw this coming, and if they did see it coming, why didn't they care?

Not impressed.  Nice try but I stopped falling for the "I know you are, but what am I" taunt in 3rd grade.

And then talk about horses.

Pick any concern you got and see if you pass.

here.

Surprised, huh? Thought you'd neatly pigeonholed every opposition argument into two categories, which you then asserted (not argued) through your "test" were so ridiculous that anyone believing them "needed help."

Ah, that we could all define the terms of our world so easily.

Not disagreeing with you at all here. There is a large part of me that is right there with you wanting to put a stop to this nomination right now. That said, If you want to derail this nomination, take a step back and calm down a little bit.

Forgive The Godfather reference: Be Michael, not Sonny.

I say that because your argument against having stealth nominees is the best, but your emotion is running high.

the trolls that would run me off of this site.

After all the whining, gnashing of teeth and feasting on our own we have done over the past two days, I am beginning to think this nomination will run me off of here.

Day one, I was bitterly disappointed.  I wanted a Luttig or Estrada.  Not an unknown.

Day two, I started to chill and open my mind to the possibilities and reasons behind this nomination.

Day three, I have had enough of the infighting.  It is time for everyone to just GET OVER YOURSELVES and calm down.  

Aside from a strong military, judicial appointments is my next critical issue I look at when choosing a candidate.  IOW, this matters to me A LOT!!!  But I refuse to yank the support pole out of my tent at this time because I simply didn't get my way.  Cooler heads have got to prevail and we have to get back on the rails.  Please.

GWB did not nominate some idiot flunky to sit on the SCOTUS.  He has nominated an accomplished attorney, a pioneer of sorts, that he knows and respects.  And that is his right as POTUS.  If all goes as it should, we will end up with a pro-life, pro-family, pro-Christian, pro-business justice on the SCOTUS.  She will serve probably 10-12 years and see us through the dark days of Hillary until Jeb can take over.

Get a grip and relax!

If you can't say anything nice, go have a drink or something.  But please quit poking each others eyes out with the pointy sticks.

Those are my answers to the two part test questions. Yet, I still have enormous concerns. I haven't lost "faith" in the POTUS, basically because I didn't have "faith" in him to begin with. Some confidence, respect for some hard earned credibility, and concerns about most of the conservative positions he's faltered on as expressed around RS.

Given all that, and without Leon's passion, I've still got enormous concerns. So what do I do with passionless concerns? I'm waiting, to a great extent, since we can certainly wait, but not for too long. Once the hearings start, she'll either impress us mightily, or the left will start up the "just say no" machine and really turn the screws on the GOP committee members.

I can see Harry R waffling long before any of the GOP committee members do, but it could be an ugly process getting from here to there.

The core objection, I think, comes down to this - it need not have been necessary to make this pick to avoid the confrontation the partisans on both sides planned on. There were better picks, both for a roaring fight, and for a meek consensus.

Meanwhile, we wait.

It didn't stop you from repeating it.

Leon,

I am sadly surprised.  All I did was use cold hard logic to point out the obvious.  If I was wrong then there was two easy ways out.  Either you knew for a fact there was an issue of concern, or else you have a plausible concern beyond assuming Bush is an easy mark for anyone to fool.

Maybe you should consider why you would not take the test?  Is it I am right?  I am not as passionate as you folks on the subject because I have not invested all the time an energy you have on the supreme court selections and the other federal court nominees.  But the issues are important to me.

So if you lose me, someone who as admired and watched you folks and always referred people to you as the experts in the field - what have you accomplished.

You know what is hard to do?  It is hard to admit that you may have made a mistep on a subject you hold dear and applied a lot of your life to.

I could care less if you take the test in public.  I know you can run those questions through your mind.  Your results mean nothing to my perspective on this.

I did not pidgeon hole you.

You put yourself in that box.  I simply showed you what you built.  Your assumptions are all based on not knowing and assuming the worst.  An absolutely trivial challenge you should be able to toss aside easily.  But you can't.

Am I on a high horse?  Who cares!  I am simply one person with one opinion with no real readership in the blogosphere.  I am irrelevant.  That makes me an easy target to overcome.

Not a repeat.  Glad to provide a little humor to your day!  Hope you have a good one.

I came close to giving up on politics because of all the hand wringing.  I had my choices as well.

But Bush has earned my respect to give it time.

Over and over he has stayed in there and taken on the tough issues.

I took it. I passed. Move your mouse over the red area of the post and click.

The auto-discredit continues.

If you have passion make sure it is based on something real.  That is my complaint and concern.

Your assumption is the pick was based on fear of a confrontation - all speculation.  In fact, you are a yes and yes.

(1)  Bush claims to have selected Miers because she is the best talent, temperment and experience.  For you to assume otherwise is fouded on assumptions because you do not know about Miers.  Do you have proof Miers does not represent the best pick?  Of course not.  Your issue is based on a lack of information.

(2)  You are assuming Bush buckled, which puts you in a superior position of knowing the best answer over Bush, even though you do not have all the information he had or the reasons he made his selection.  From afar, with nothing to back you up, you assume Bush made an idiotic decision only you can see.

You are a yes and a yes.

Sorry - but that is how we who are passionate and logical look at things.

And this is what I found

"I'd just like to point out that this nomination is horrible policy, for an entirely different reason: it has sent a clear warning to the lower and appellate federal judiciary that extremely qualified judges with any discernible history of conservative jurisprudence will never have a shot at the Supreme Court. "

(1) Was Miers selected to send a signal as you say?  Do you have proof?  Again, do you know if the Miers selection was based on the fear of a battle (which is the essence of your statement).  Miers may be the best qualified, most trustworthy, most aligned candidate.  Not that others may have her on qualifications, they probably lose out on trustworthiness.  Do you know Miers is not the best and was simply selected to avoid a fight?  Nope.

(2)  Are you claiming, without the benefit of all the information Bush had, you can see Bush made a mistake and he could not see it?

Yes and yes, for what it is worth.  The point of the test is to determine if you are basing this on speculation or fact.  You have a plausible, but not probable, theory - nothing more.

(1) Was Miers selected to send a signal as you say?  Do you have proof?

Well, here we have the fallacy that a something cannot be the consequence of a person's action if the person did not intend for it to be a consequence of their action. Which makes you wonder why we have manslaughter statutes at all.

Whether Bush intended to send this signal or not, he has. Journey back with me over the last 24 years, AJ. Democrat Presidents nominate liberal ideologues with wide paper trails, and they get easily confirmed. Republicans nominate stealth nominees with no paper trials. The last guy with a conservative paper trail who got sent up there was Scalia, and that was 1986. That's 19 years ago, and the only reason Reagan did it was because he figured the Donks had used all their powder on fighting the elevation of Rehnquist.

So, if you're a federal judge, and you watch all of this happening, the signal is clear. If you create any sort of paper trail at all - if you give any indication in your judicial opinions that you are a (gasp) conservative judge, don't expect to get nominated. In other words, keep your head down and be a liberal. The fact that two Presidents have passed over Edith Jones, and now Luttig, Alito, et al. in favor of a nearly blank slate (Roberts) and a total blank slate (Miers) has sent that message and make no mistake.

Again, do you know if the Miers selection was based on the fear of a battle (which is the essence of your statement).

No, it isn't the essence of my statement at all. The essence of my statement is that you're sending a message to the lower federal judiciary that conservative judging will bar further advancement. I don't know how much plainer I can make it.

Miers may be the best qualified

Come now, that's laughable. Even if you grant she's qualified, surely you wouldn't say she's the "Best qualified." Even Hugh "B+" Hewitt isn't going that far.

most trustworthy, most aligned candidate.  Not that others may have her on qualifications, they probably lose out on trustworthiness.

Again to the point - that sends a message that the most important job qualification you can acquire is to have some person who might potentially become President trust you. (Psst, that's called cronyism). I'd rather send a message that outstanding conservative judges have a shot at the Supreme Court, thanks.

Do you know Miers is not the best and was simply selected to avoid a fight?  Nope.

No, and I didn't say that. Frankly, I find it incredible that the Bush administration didn't see the fight they've already got coming.

(2)  Are you claiming, without the benefit of all the information Bush had, you can see Bush made a mistake and he could not see it?

Yes. And that mistake is factual, not speculative. Hi, my name is Leon and I'm a law student, and I'm receiving the message loud and clear.

That's putting words in my mouth and taking them right out again.

I suppose a reply is an unnecessary formality, but this pigeon hole has some interesting features, so here goes anyway.

1 - If I don't have a "pet issue" how can I answer #1 as "yes"? Do you have proof Miers is the best pick? Is the sky blue?

2 - Bush's familiarity and knowledge of Miers is far superior to mine, infinitely superior, but my thoughts hardly control whether she turns into another Souter or not. I haven't a clue. Do you? Does the POTUS? Does anyone?

Your certainty is impressive even if your logic comes from a dimension of reason with which I am unfamiliar.

Bush only sent a signal in your mind.  He may have only decided she was the one he knew would not adjust her positions once in office.

Speculating here, but if that was the case maybe he was sending the signal to persevere because the he felt he could trust her bona fides more than anyone else despite their paper trail.

All your history is simply your excuse for assuming the worst case scenario.  I have no interest in following in your fears.

Checkmate.  Care to play again?

Not mine

"The core objection, I think, comes down to this - it need not have been necessary to make this pick to avoid the confrontation the partisans on both sides planned on."

That is what I posted on.  Did I put those words in your mouth?

to understand the point I am making. This has nothing to do with Harriet Miers and what she will or will not do. There's no point in continuing this discussion until you can get your head around that.

To add this:

"There were better picks, both for a roaring fight, and for a meek consensus."

I also disagree completely.  I will let you in on some backbground Leon - because even though I am giving you a well deserved hard time, I respect the hell out of you.

My sister is a judge, her husband a lawyer.  My dad did law, my grandfather did law and US congress.  You are throwing up a strawman here.

What you will not admit is, given all that Bush knew and sitting in his shoes you too could have easily selected Miers.  Go down that path and try it on.  He was not sending any signals.  He was not telling you to stop what you are doing and stop being a conservative lawyer or jurist.

All he did was decide that the best option to make conservative jurist prudence the norm for the next half century was select Harriet Miers.

You are doing what we call in the business a pathological test case or thought experiment.  It gives you some idea of the worst case scenaios, however improbable.

But with that alone you over react.  To complete the context you must include the optimal or most likely scenarios as well.

And that is what YOU resist doing. Stop playing in the fringes and run through your head the possibility everything Bush is saying is 100% accurate - then think about it compared to your highly unlikely scenario that you are more insightful than a man who won the presidency twice.

were there better picks. In Bush's mind the best pick was Miers.

How about in your mind?

And, the fact that you have laywers in your family, however suprising that may be to you, does not change that fact.

Neither does it change the fact that signals are often sent, with or without intent.

Let us suppose - and this is really my last-ditch attempt to get you to understand - let us suppose that I work in a given company, we'll call it Company X. And in Company X, there are about 25,000 people who work on a given assembly line right there alongside me. From time to time, certain workers will be promoted from the assembly line to supervisory positions.

Now let us suppose that I check the promotion history, and find that 499 of the previous 500 folks who got promoted were all, say, Catholics, whereas only about 25 per cent of all the workers total are Catholics. I'd call that sending a pretty clear signal that if you wanna get promoted, you'd better be Catholic.

And if the person in charge of promotions tries to say, "I'm not sending any signals, I'm just promoting a good employee, here," I call cowpatties all over that. Even if it might be true for that one particular promotion, all us gruntworkers on the floor have gotten the signal loud and clear about the promotion policy of this company.

Now. Pretend the "assembly line" is the federal judiciary, and the "Catholics" are judges who have never written anything conservative in their life - and voila!

And that is what YOU resist doing. Stop playing in the fringes and run through your head the possibility everything Bush is saying is 100% accurate

Hmm.. this is indeed a stretch, but I love a good thought experiment, so I'll try. Okay - so Harriet Miers really IS the most qualified person for the job, and she really is a female Scalia. It's hard, but I'm picturing it.

Nope, still doesn't address my point whatsoever.

- then think about it compared to your highly unlikely scenario that you are more insightful than a man who won the presidency twice.

Sometimes perspective is more useful than insight.

The fact you got some wires crossed unintentionally is just ridiculous. BTW, if you want a promotion do your best, don't compare yourself to others - it is a waste of time and really looked down upon.  You make your own future by convincing people to invest in you.

You are asking a lot of us to turn on this President, a man who has done more for the conservative cause than many thought possible in 1999.  A man who pulled this country together and went after our enemies in their lands.  A man who has expanded the conservative margins at all levels of government in spite of historic trends towards the opposite.

Yout want us to turn on him, risk the 2006 election cycle opportunities and 2008 to Hillary because you got some kind of SIGNAL!!!

You wonder why there is a riff?  There is a riff because you and Erik and too many talking heads from the right are calling for a revolution over nothing.  You have nothing, except hurt feelings and fears of the unknown (and signals!).

But you can do a lot of harm with nothing - as is clear on this subject.  Congrats.  Your call to arms has made you all look ridiculous, but the fact you cannot climb down off your charge (i.e., high horse) because you simply will not admit you have nothing tangible is really something to wonder at.  

We should all politically damage Bush because of some crossed wires.  Great.  What could possibly surpass this debacle?

Your view's keep distilling down to the same thing.  You don't know there were better picks, you assume they were.  And you also assume your choices are better than Bush's.

But if you want conservatives to damage this president politically, to turn on him, you better have more than speculation.  You better have a firm, air tight case that Miers will not be a great addition to the court.

I need more than speculation and fear to risk the 2006 and 2008 election cycles and all the possible conservative legislation we will be tanking if we do damage Bush over this.

You folks pulled this trigger, now I am simply asking you to prove to me it is worth losing all that over.  No hypotheticals - make your case for damaging Bush now.

I'm sorry.

I am not President so my pick means nothing/  I liked Janice Rogers Brown and Edith Jones (I definitely wanted to keep the representation of women on the bench to current levels).  But I have been convinced having a non judge who knows the private sector and a lot about the GWOT was a much superior selection since the court is critically devoid of these kinds of views.  It was the superior pick if you look at if from that perspective.

Think she would find Eminant Domain a reasonable act by government?  I pure jurist could easily get lost in the theoretical legal fantasy world.  Someone who is from the real world would never led theory override common sense.

Why would you be sorry??  Truly confused.