Comments On Miers

Up to this point I have not really had to much of an opinion on Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers to the US Supreme Court. I have been listening and absorbing. I am still somewhat undecided on Miers, but I have learned much about the conservatives, the Republicans and the politically aware.

Marty and I talked about Miers on our radio show. I mentioned that almost all of the contentions with Miers was not really about Miers but more with hopes for others being dashed. Marty (who claimed to be on the fence on this) said that what the Right wanted was a nominee with a track record to be certain that Miers would not be another Souter.

"How would you get that?"
"By having a record of her judicial philosophy."
"And how did that work for Souter? Or Kennedy? How much did it help us with O'Connoor?"

Both on and off the air I challenged Marty to find some reliable predictive method to prevent turncoats like O'Connor, Stevens, Kennedy and Souter.

Off he went to prove me wrong...or at least get some answers to unanswered questions.

In the meantime I continued to listen. I told Marty last week off the air that the ONLY real reason there is so much opposition from the Right is that we wanted that big, drag-down, bloddy fight with the Democrats. Since we are not going to get it we are all disappointed. Some of us have taken the Democrat road of hypocrisy and double standard.

When Roberts was nominated I heard some complaining about how little we know about him, how we may have another Souter within Roberts, etc. The Right did not give wide support until Roberts made Schumer & company look like Democrats the idiots that they are during the confirmation hearings.

I have heard stupidity on both sides; intolerance on both sides; smart people being ignorant on both sides. Some people I respect very much fall into this...Doug of Bogus Gold being a prime example. Some who I do not repsect much like Hugh Hewitt and KvM have also preached intolerance of differing sides.

Hewitt's insipidness:

If you’re anti-Miers, you’re anti-the President. If you’re anti-the President, you’re anti-the GOP. If you’re anti-the GOP, you’re pro-Hillary. If you’re pro-Hillary, you might as well just appoint nine Ginsburgs to the Supreme Court. That’s where you’re headed. Does that make it simple enough for you? Hmmm? Do you want to give the Senate back?

(transcription courtesy of Speed Gibson)

To Hewitt: no you intolerant moron, people just simply disagree. They are not Pro-Hillary just because they disagree with the President. While you are willing to do lap dances for Bush whenever he beckons not all of us on the Right think he is, well, conservative. I have said it over and over...on 9/10/2001 I was anti-Bush. I support Bush's foreign policy (outside of North America that is) and the rest of his platform I believe is more crap than good. But I am in no sense pro-Hillary. Hugh, you're so smart (according to your adoring fans) why not explain why people who are anti-Miers are pro-Hillary...other than the vacuous over-generalization that anything not pro-Bush is pro-Hillary. Connect the dots for the rest of us, as you put it, knuckleheads.

But wait, the anti-Meirs people are just as bad. They do not give REAL or SOLID reasons why to be against Miers. To be sure, they do not give reasons that (a) hold true with previous nominees, (b) were not said about Roberts, and (c) don't contradict their (now meaningless) rhetoric about judicial appointments.

Doug states:

For example, we've been told Miers opposes abortion. And I have little trouble believing this to be true. But would she oppose Roe v. Wade out of a proper understanding of interpreting the constitution, or because she just personally doesn't like it? This makes a HUGE difference when it comes to my support. And so far I've seen nothing addressing this distinction.

So, why does having no information on explicitly saying "Miers will overturn Roe v Wade" mean she should be opposed? After all, was it not the defense of Roberts that these litmus tests were wrong? Was it not the case of conservatives that the Democrats were out of line for wanting these answers of any Bush nominee?

Ah, the ol' Good-enough-for-you-but-not-good-enough-for-me standard...also known as a double standard.

Remember when nominees were being filibustered because, well for any reason that the Democrats created. The Republicans kept saying that Bush won the election and therefore had won the perrogative to appoint anyone he damn well pleased. So why has that standard disappeared? I expected better from the conservatives who so often chastise the Left for their deficiency in intellectual honesty or holding standards.

We do not know much about Miers yet. For that reason I can say I'm disappointed, but I cannot say I oppose her. We have been saying for years that the President's perrogative is to appoint judges as he sees fit, not as we the blogosphere and stuffy pundits see fit.

Are there other people qualified? Sure, there is always someone who is better than anyone in some aspect. If that is the standard then (1) who determines "the best qualified" and (2) how is anyone capable of being the best all around perfect candidate?

People want a judicial history. Why? What good does that do? What would you have seen in Souter history that would have given cause to say, "Don't approve her."

People want to know Miers position on Roe v Wade, but were so hell bent to make certain that Roberts was justified in not 'tipping his hand' on his Roe v Wade beliefs. Hypocrites is all they are.

Remember when the defense of previous Bush appointees was (and I still hold this position, unlike my "Conservative" colleagues) that confirmation was not to be about ideology. My how quickly the standards become doubled.

People have NO REASON to oppose Miers. They are strictly in opposition because they were not consulted.

At this point the only intellectually honest reason for the Right to have an opinion at this point is that Bush won the election and gets to appoint whomever he chooses and that the nomination process is not about ideology. Is she competent? Difficult to say without having been a judge, but she is competent in her related field: law. (Oh, whoops, that is the same field.)

Bring me some honest answers. Otherwise please silence your hypocritical double standard.