« Beldar on JPod on Merritt on Miers | Main | Miers' 1995 letter to Bush on Texas attorney fees ought to comfort conservatives »

Saturday, October 15, 2005

The "Trust Dubya" argument well made

Melanie Kirkpatrick, editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal, says: "Count me out [of the conservative revolt against Harriet Miers] — at least for now." And she says why, in an argument that isn't new or conclusive, but that has rarely been as eloquently made in such a prestigious publication. To those who insist that this isn't dispositive, I again agree — but I say again: It's not just nothin'.

Posted by Beldar at 03:15 AM in Law (2006 & earlier) | Permalink


Other weblog posts, if any, whose authors have linked to The "Trust Dubya" argument well made and sent a trackback ping are listed here:


(1) saveliberty made the following comment | Oct 15, 2005 4:49:49 AM | Permalink

Thanks for the link. Her editorial is meaningful as I encounter more conservatives who are fed up with the doom and gloom types.

I will add a point about persuasion skills in the context of people management.

In an office, when you say something negative about one person, there is a strategic point where you have to stop making your arguments and let the listener decide for him or herself.

Why? Because if you don't know when to back away from the negative comments, you risk undermining your credibility. And you risk creating the impression that you don't respect the opinions of others who aren't yet in your camp.

The venom of the dissenters is getting self destructive. I have read that someone suggested that W nominate his dog Barney. Oh wow, that will really bring us in line.

Disagreement is healthy. Groupthink is destructive and it creates more frustration for its members as they refuse to deal with their own bad news.

(2) D. B. Light made the following comment | Oct 15, 2005 8:35:13 AM | Permalink

What is striking is how many conservatives want to punish Dubya for his father's sins. I'm sick of hearing about Souter.

(3) V the K made the following comment | Oct 15, 2005 9:17:35 AM | Permalink

Disagreement is healthy.

Except, apparently, when it comes to critcizing the president for passing over far better qualified candidates in favor of a lowest common denominator pick that Harry Reid heartily approves.

Groupthink is destructive..

Except, of course, when it comes to telling people who disagree with you to shut up and trust the president.

(4) Patterico made the following comment | Oct 15, 2005 9:28:21 AM | Permalink

"To those who insist that this isn't dispositive, I again agree — but I say again: It's not just nothin'."

Yet, it appears to be everything.

(Well, that plus the fact that she is an evangelical Christian.)

(5) V the K made the following comment | Oct 15, 2005 9:51:31 AM | Permalink

Setting aside, for a moment, the arguments for or against Miers, can we not agree that the administration's handling of this appointment has been terrible?

Instead of responding to their critics concerns, their attitude has been "Shut up and trust the president." Accusing the people who worked to get them elected of sexism and elitism was particularly stupid and heavy-handed.

(6) Michael B made the following comment | Oct 15, 2005 12:43:17 PM | Permalink

The basic point Kirkpatrick makes, after her considerable caveat, is that what came before is (she hopes) what we're being offered now. But we're not questioning the President in general and we're not questioning his prior nominees, we're questioning this particular and singular one solely.

Beyond that Kirkpatrick makes some solid points contra the Dems' tactics as displayed during the Estrada nomination, among others. But that's not particularly condign vis-a-vis this nominee nor does it in any way forward Miers's bona fides for this singular position on SCOTUS.

Luttig or Estrada or others would have eventuated in a fight, yes. But the point is not to pick a fight, as Kirkpatrick's column acknowledges the fight has already been picked - by the Dems and Left/Dems. The point is, on solid and substantial and well justified grounds, to more simply acknowledge that fight and to carry it forward, because the stakes warrant it, not because anyone particularly desires a fight for its own sake - to the contrary.

(7) cartographer made the following comment | Oct 15, 2005 1:17:32 PM | Permalink

I’m a moderate Democrat, in unfamiliar territory here among the Bush loyalists, but like other Democrats I feel that Harriet Meiers is as good as we are going to get.

Does anyone here agree that the publication of Meiers’ obsequious letters to the Bushes could be a genuine turn of events? Up to now what we’ve had is beltway political infighting, with the President’s forces easily outweighing the outcry from “movement” conservatives. But if the broad public comes to believe that Harriet Meiers won her Supreme Court nomination by being a world class suck-up, she’s dead in the water. That’s the kind of thing that changes senators’ minds for them.

She will have to discourse now at the hearings, she won’t be able to punt. She will have to talk around the issues, of course without quite reaching ultimate conclusions, but enough to show that she’s not just the White House suck-up. And the more she does that, the greater the risk that she will fall into some silly, meaningless verbal snafu that the press will pounce on. One or two of those is all the opening that Arlen Specter needs to pronounce her not on the Supreme Court level. And that, I think, would be the ball game.

(8) Michael B made the following comment | Oct 15, 2005 2:32:01 PM | Permalink

A good deal of what is being asked is that Dems and unthinking Democratic loyalists in turn be asked to defend the tactics previously used against someone like an Estrada, eminently qualified by virtually any standard imaginable, yet rendered moot by seven(?) Democratic Senators on the judiciary committee.

It's in the face of these types of cynical, manipulative tactics that we're asked less to "trust Dubya" per se than we're asked to lay down without a fight, even when the stakes are worth it. Put an Estrada before these partisan and divisive tacticians, then, minimally, the American public across the partisan divide will be able to view what is being done and make up their own minds, individually, and based on the hearings, not the veneer of MSM and Dem and Left/Dem spin.

(9) Ironman made the following comment | Oct 15, 2005 3:15:50 PM | Permalink

V the K is spot on. By failing to focus on her professional crdentials, the White House has done Ms. Miers a dissservice.

I wanted a fight. But these guys might not be up to it. Sad

(10) BD made the following comment | Oct 15, 2005 3:30:17 PM | Permalink

No, V the K is not "spot on" - he's engaging in victimhood.

"Those supporting the nomination are making arguments which offend me."

Tough - this isn't flag football.

You ought to be thankful the argument isn't more forceful.

Those who support Miers would be better off arguing that Americans are a fundamentally fair people and those opposing Miers are trying to shut HER up, with all this pre-emptive bitter denunciation and demands for her withdrawal. At some point, the hypergolic hysteria of Miers opponents will create a backlash.

Which would be a horrible thing if she turned out to be a squish.

For now, though, I'm an agnostic on the nomination. I know little about her except that she has the President's confidence.

I need to hear what she has to say and then I'll decide.

(11) V the K made the following comment | Oct 15, 2005 3:49:16 PM | Permalink

BD, I never said
"Those supporting the nomination are making arguments which offend me" or anything of the sort. Nor, is there any hint of "victimhood" in pointing out that being disrespectful toward the base was a poor strategy for the president's people.

It seems the word "victimhood" is following the word "racism" into the realm of "things you accuse your opponents of when you have no good counter-argument."

(12) BD made the following comment | Oct 15, 2005 4:23:35 PM | Permalink


Seems to me the pissing match started with those who decided to denounce Miers from the start, followed by the incompetent reply from the White House.

That doesn't excuse the White House response - their tin ear was and is disappointing.

But those who launched the attacks are hardly in a position to complain that the White House's arguments are unfair.

(13) V the K made the following comment | Oct 15, 2005 4:45:43 PM | Permalink

I don't questioning why the president passed over many far, far better nominees to pick a woman who was an unknown quantity, who has held some questionable views in the past, and whose selection made Harry Reid jubilant constitutes launching attacks.

Even if 'the Miers-haters started it,' as is alleged, it was a grave tactical error for the White House to respond by attacking those who made the criticisms instead of coming out with some hard evidence to refute the criticisms. It's just bad medicine to attack the people who normally stick up for you.

(14) V the K made the following comment | Oct 15, 2005 4:47:21 PM | Permalink

correction. First line should read "I don't believe that questioning..."

(15) Jonathan Sadow made the following comment | Oct 15, 2005 6:52:10 PM | Permalink

Michael B wrote

A good deal of what is being asked is that Dems and unthinking Democratic loyalists in turn be asked to defend the tactics previously used against someone like an Estrada, eminently qualified by virtually any standard imaginable, yet rendered moot by seven(?) Democratic Senators on the judiciary committee.

In the event of an Estrada (or Estrada-like) nomination, I wouldn't be worried about those seven Democratic senators. I'd be worried about the seven Republican senators in the "Gang of 14".

(16) BD made the following comment | Oct 15, 2005 8:02:39 PM | Permalink


Correct that it was a huge error for the White House to wave the bloody shirt of "sexism".

Error too to say "elitism", even if they thought it true (to some extent, I suspect it IS true).

Though I don't know how well "We believe in fundamental fairness, which means the nominee gets to speak her piece - she doesn't get shouted down by a mass of hysterical fit pitchers."

That's where I part company with the crew at NRO - even though I've subscribed for almost 30 years to the print magazine - and the rest of those trying to force a withdrawal now.

In effect, they're attempting a lynching. Miers is to get a 'trial' - the Judiciary Committee hearings.

Those who are after her seek to deny that 'day in court' to her.

I know not whether I'll support her in the end. I do know I'm ashamed that folks who I generally respect are legitimizing every dirty trick Democrats have used against Republican judicial nominees since Bork.

(17) V the K made the following comment | Oct 15, 2005 8:23:05 PM | Permalink

I think by the time the hearings start, it's a little too late to start finding out about the nominee. And since Bush had so many better alternatives to pick from --- Owens, Rogers Brown, Jones, Estrada, Williams --- he really owes it to the base to explain why he passed them over in favor of an unknown quantity.

Frankly, I think he picked what he though was the lowest common denominator between what was 'good enough' for the base and 'good enough' to get through the Senate without a fight. Harry Reid is overjoyed (not a good sign), and the base is unconvinced. The WH has not done nearly a good enough job at convincing them.

(18) Stan made the following comment | Oct 15, 2005 8:23:34 PM | Permalink

Miers does rightfully deserve her day in the hearing, and even moreso, a better explanation of her record.

Many like me, feel she is underqualified with a propensity to suddenly liberalize. I am deeply concerned about Miers' experience for she has not been part of the White House counsel that long, and has only been the President's top lawyer since February, 2005. That fact alone does not help me sleep even when the White House claims Miers has "had long experience dealing with constitutional issues while serving as White House counsel."
Harriet Miers is exceedingly qualified when dealing with issues concerning the lotto, but has no in-depth experience when dealing with Constitutional Law. Miers deserves better treatment, and a hearing, but the consistent lack of info is a bit disconcerting.

(19) saveliberty made the following comment | Oct 15, 2005 8:38:36 PM | Permalink

V the K,

As far as I can see, Beldar's blog doesn't ban you or tell you not to write here.

I have not read anyone here who says that you can't. I didn't say that you can't. Who did?

I am simply pointing out that there are those in your camp who are not helping your cause.

In fact, I started out with the NRO crowd in my opposition to Ms. Miers. Then I started to read Beldar's blog which I have to say was informative. He also got me to realize that I had some preconceptions and invalid assumptions.

There are not two sides here. There are hundreds of sides. NRO is not giving fair voice any side that can make a good argument on her behalf. And it was Beldar who corrected Rich Lowry on errors that he'd published.

At this point, it's like watching a bunch of drive bys.

That's too bad, but it is good for their business.

It goes the other way too.
Conservatives are leaving sites and dropping radio programs because they have gloom and doom fatigue.

Why are we making a new test now (i.e., prior bench experience)? As Beldar had stated in today's blogs, there have been 40% of SCOTUS nominees that did not have bench experience. Why didn't you complain about them too?

Okay, so Scalia (whom we love dearly) supports this nomination. If your tests and standards are so infallible, why does he support her? Why did he say that there are too many appellate justices on SCOTUS?

So let's try someone else who meets the criteria of a good appointment, Charles Pickering. But wait! He also supports this nomination. Why would he do that if he is a good judge (and I think that many on this blog would agree that he is)? He and Pryor are proof that the President is prepared to stick up for his nominee.

Who else? Why that would include Prof Lino Graglia who wrote the first chapter of the book that the esteemed Robert Bork (who opposes her) wrote the intro for. Prof Graglia supports her and was surprised that Bork didn't as Bork's prior positions had indicated that he would support a non traditional candidate.

But no, some conservatives want Scalia clones under the premise that by taking people with all of the same backgrounds and experience that somehow they will not be removed from reality. And better yet, that they would not have personality conflicts-- Thomas vs Thomas-esque; Scalia vs Scalia-esque; Scalia-esque vs Thomas-esque...

And it presumes that they will be able to manage effectively.

Harriet Miers has significant management experience, which even her detractors have to concede when they blast any possibility that she may have written or made any significant contribution to any brief that would support her nomination (as well as their own hindquarters, because this isn't plausible)

Sometimes a smart person values something because he or she thinks that it's hard. But something that doesn't appear to be so difficult may be of more value.

More management experience, such as that of Harriet Miers, would be a welcome addition to SCOTUS-- much though we love Thomas, Scalia and Roberts.

(20) George Turner made the following comment | Oct 15, 2005 8:55:55 PM | Permalink


But no, some conservatives want Scalia clones under the premise that by taking people with all of the same backgrounds and experience that somehow they will not be removed from reality.

Well we'd have lots of Scalia clones if not for Bush's opposition to stem cell research!

Just had to say it... :)

Now please excuse me while I opine from a coffee house with Wifi, where my caffeine level has just exceeded medical guidelines.

Ten score and eighteen years ago, we founded a new type of government, framing it around considered principles and the bitter experience of other forms. One of the fundamental principles was to split the power and responsibilities between separate branches while giving each of those branches the ability and duty to meddle in each other's affairs, to prevent any of them from efficiently functioning as a completely independent department.

Just as important as the seperation of powers, is transparency, interoperability, and the faith that a wise and honorable person, proven competent in the law and the government through service in one branch, is good enough to serve in any other branch. A person of proven ability at the state level can serve at the federal level, and a keen federal legislator is qualified to serve as a governor, or even as President. Our branches don't form cloistered priesthoods, and don't have shop stewards who can set a long in-house apprenticeship as a requirement of service.

Our government is divided into branches, not fields of competency. The branches are split among the making of laws, the enforcement of laws, and the application of cases at law, along with the weighing of laws. If our government were divided into engineering, medicine, linguistics, and law, it would make sense that people couldn't easily shift between branches, but that's not the way governments are structured, as government is all about the law. In engineering terms, the government functions would translate as design, design review, construction, and operation. In medical terms, it would be research, diagnosis, treatment, and follow up. In linguistic terms, it would translate as an English, French, and Latin pidgin, creole, or just plain legalistic goobledygook.

Our government's checks and balances can't work if the people enpowered with those checks are not competent to judge, much less understand, the functions of the other branches. Yet the "strict constructionists" are taking exactly this position regarding Miers. Since she has not already served as a judge, they judge her incompetent and unqualified in this role. Yet the Constitution, whether strictly interpretted, loosely interpretted, read backwards, or translated into Klingon, says the Congress shall set the rules governing the operation of the Supreme Court. It says the other branches are tasked to determine the qualifications needed to serve on the Supreme Court, and are indeed tasked with selecting the very membership of all federal courts. It requires an extremely strained reading of the Constitution to conclude that the founders judged themselves incompetent to serve in one of the three fundamental branches of government. It requires further mind-bending Constitutional gymnastics to maintain that their own kind (elected legislators, governors, and the like) would rule themselves unable to interpret and apply the laws of the government they had just created, the very laws that legislators are writing and the executive branch is approving and enforcing.

Strictly put, the arguments advanced by the strict constuctionists are outside the realm of the Constitution, as is the concept of an "editorial branch of government", or a Constitutional role for the pundocracy in confirming judges. If the founders had wished the membership of the Supreme Court to be hastily determined by a mob, they would've assigned the confirmation process to the House, not the Senate, or left the choice to popular vote or a referendum of journalists. They manifestly did not do this. They set no requirements for a minimum term of service on the bench, or a minimum number of years as dean of a law school, or a requirement for a stack of legal opinions thick enough to make a Federalist piñata.

If the strict constructionists want to maintain their opposition to Miers, then well and good, but they should quit pretending to be strict constructionists and call themselves Eleventh Hour Easter Bunnyists, waiting till the last minute to go hunt for the magic jurist who's richly decorated with ornate and beautiful decisions, surely hiding out in the grass somewhere.

(21) V the K made the following comment | Oct 15, 2005 9:04:01 PM | Permalink

As far as I can see, Beldar's blog doesn't ban you or tell you not to write here. I have not read anyone here who says that you can't. I didn't say that you can't. Who did?

I don't believe I have asserted that anyone did so.

And, nothing that follows that atribution to me of something I never said answers the points I actually did raise.

(22) Rob made the following comment | Oct 15, 2005 9:23:38 PM | Permalink

The "shutup and trust the President" refrain was in fact one concocted by Laura Ingraham on her nationally syndicated radio show whereby for 3 hrs/night Monday to Friday over the past 2 weeks her rants and on the air hissy-fits have grown increasingly shrill.

Her book in fact was called "Shutup and sing"

Her most recent show began with her grand pronouncement in which she declared "the issue is now decided, Miers must resign" and to prove support she let listeners call in volume, each one to be allowed about 10 second calls and vote up or down, and a bell would ring for each caller agreeing with her.

Of course most supported her so the bell rang over and over all night, and the few that opposed her were basically trashed by a process of arguing on a unilateral basis (radio style) wherein the host responds, cuts off caller's line, pauses, and caller is unable to respond because they are off the air, however it often makes it appear as they were unable in substance to respond.

The "trust me" statement of President Bush never meant BLIND TRUST, it clearly meant in the context of the entire nomination process, the discovery process innate to being nominated to the position where the background, beliefs, and experience of Ms Miers would put on the record

(23) saveliberty made the following comment | Oct 15, 2005 9:38:08 PM | Permalink

George Turner,

I am chuckling over the Scalia quip that you'd made. Sadly, the experience I have with identical twins indicates that biological similarity would not guarantee that which we seek most. :-)

And an overconsumption of caffeine is not possible, as it promotes a sense of well being and thereby should be seen as a health food.

Great post, thanks.

(24) saveliberty made the following comment | Oct 15, 2005 9:53:42 PM | Permalink

Hello V the K,

Glad to hear from you :-)

I believe I did respond to your comments but I guess I can try again.
You did in fact infer that we were disallowing the comment that in your view Harriet Miers is not qualified.
I did in fact illustrate that far from disallowing contrary comments, that I originated there and came over to support her. I further indicated that Beldar, not the President and some blind trust in him persuaded me.
If you don't agree with the arguments made on her behalf, why does that mean that I am taking the pro arguments on trust?
We disagree on the assumptions about her.
I also indicated that I read NRO. If I were part of Groupthink, I would not read those who oppose her.
I don't write NRO to tell them to stop. I just don't agree with them.
I also indicated that there are hundreds of sides of any issue and in particular this nomination.
You responded that I or someone wearing a coat like mine is running around telling dissenters to stop.

This is very funny, because I live in a very liberal state and if I required the level of agreement that you infer that I require, I should call a lot of people up and tell them that they are not my friends after all. But I think that I will keep them anyway ;-)

(25) V the K made the following comment | Oct 15, 2005 10:14:30 PM | Permalink

You did in fact infer that we were disallowing the comment that in your view Harriet Miers is not qualified.

Never said it.

I only pointed out that there were better candidates and that the administration had mishandled the response to critcism.

(26) Al made the following comment | Oct 15, 2005 10:26:10 PM | Permalink

All the better candidates I know of are _Judges_.

If the very first requirement President Bush had was to replace Renquist with with someone with a similar background, who else should we (or I, whatever) be reading about?

The trial lawyers I know of are: Beldar, Boies, Preston, Gates, Ellis, and the Blake lawyer. Of that list, I pick Beldar. But who else _is_ there? Oh, and Cochran. Er, and Edwards and Kerry. Glenn and Bainbridge are Profs, right?

(27) Rob made the following comment | Oct 16, 2005 12:11:51 AM | Permalink

The plan of attack is shifting now, with the big legal brains being brought in to create clever reasons to oppose Ms Miers.

REASON #157 why Miers must withdraw now: she is being laughed at.

As noted Constitutional lawyer and scholar Bruce Fein stated in the Washington Post on Saturday: "The tipping point in Washington is when you go from being a subject of caricature to the subject of laughter,"

"She's in danger of becoming the subject of laughter"

Sorry Bruce, people have laughed at you for years and you are still around.


(28) kma made the following comment | Oct 16, 2005 12:29:30 AM | Permalink

Never said it.

No? It sure sounds like what you are saying at other blogs:

The funny part about the Beldar post is after he finishes name-calling and insulting people at NRO for voicing their criticisms, he ends it with a plea for civility.

Granted, it's the "Shut up and trust the president, you sexist, elitist morons" kind of civility those of us who question the Miers nom have come to expect from the other side.

Posted by V the K at October 15, 2005 10:24 AM

And it sure looks like you're engaging in victimhood to me.

(29) Rob made the following comment | Oct 16, 2005 3:09:39 AM | Permalink


Think of the scene in BACK TO THE FUTURE 2 when Doc Brown draws on the chalkboard explaining The 1985 ALTERNATIVE REALITY B where Biff instead of shining cars in 1985, now controls a worldwide gambling empire centered in Hill Valley, California, now overrun by bikers, whores and teen drive-by shooters, shooting at their ex-principal with automatic weapons, a principal from a high school burned down long ago -

.. all because in yr 2015 a time travelling Marty McFly, against the advice of Doc Brown and at risk of destroying the entire universe, purchased a copy of GRAYS SPORTS -20th century stats, which McFly then negligently misplaced which then permitted Older Biff in 2015 to steal the digest and return to 1955 enabling Young Biff a few yrs later to know the outcome of and subsequently bet on every major sports event

David Frum's ALTERNATE REALITY B as quoted from his "diary" on NRO on Oct 14th, 2005:

"Throughout this debate, critics of the nomination have raised important and valid points about the record of this nominee, her qualifications, and the political dangers post-Katrina of offering up high-profile nominees to important jobs solely on the basis of their personal closeness to the president.

Defenders by contrast have offered ... nothing much. They urge us to trust the president rather than the evidence. And when we hesitate, they produce not arguments but insults....."

(30) George Turner made the following comment | Oct 16, 2005 4:38:33 AM | Permalink

Good point Rob. Perhaps Frum is developing a personality disorder. When people talk about themselves in the third person, there's not much farther to go before the men in white coats arrive.

Meanwhile, my caffeine levels have dropped, but not before penning another remake of my earlier AlGore at the Courts, itself a parody of Casey at the Bat. This is my prediction for the confirmation hearings.

Mier Gets the Nod

The position wasn't brilliant at the National Review
The nomination o'er, soon the confirmation, too.
With their writers penning gossip, giving vent to oozing spleens,
A pall was cast upon poor Miers, now thrust upon the scene.

Their vaunted editorial crew threw up in deep despair. Twas best
Miers would take a bow, withdraw from this big test.
They coughed, "Give us someone else, instead of this dim wench,
We demand a Federalist, another Scalia on the bench."

The big dogs all were barking, begging Miers to take a dive.
But Miers was no dummy, she knew that sled dogs do not drive.
They bark and pull and pull and bark, yet must go just where they're led
The course is set, the goal is too, by the driver of the sled.

The Review let fly more articles, to the puzzlement of all,
Challenging the musher, questioning the judgement of his call.
Fed up with floods in New Orleans, fed up with grief o'er hurricanes,
They'd had enough, the team must hear, the master's deaf in his right ear.

So from some hundred pundits, there rose a husky yell.
It zipped across the internet, it danced across the dell.
They rounded on the nominee. They pounded her to hell,
Overreached and overdone, a stampede no one could quell.

They want the dream, they want it now, reality be damned.
They want the certain jurist, the courts sitting in their hand.
They want the perfect justice, who'll spread peace across the land.
They want unquestioned rulings, as preached in the Qu'ran.

But there was an ease in Mier's manner, as she put them in their place.
There was pride in Mier's bearing, as a smile flit across her face.
And when, responding to the Senate, she gave a reasoned take
No one in the crowd could doubt, t'was a seasoned lawyer at the plate.

Ten million eyes were on her as she called the bruhah sad.
Five million hands applauded when she laughed about the cads;
So Harriet Miers stood her ground, her gaze filling up the room,
Defiance flashed in Harriet's eyes, as she laughed about their gloom.

And now the first questions come, hurtling toward the nom
And Harriet quick answers them, in perfect grandeur there.
Hard at the mighty nominee, the blooming minefield sped--
"That's a loaded question," said she. "Well done!" the public said.

The Senators hurl their spinning booby traps, one, two, and three.
She answers them with studied ease, hitting them left, right, and deep.
A pall spreads across the pundit class, enraged she will not cave.
Their inchoate plans for another judge slowly sink beneath the waves.

From the bench, black with robes, there goes up a muffled "whew".
"Down her! Give us closure!" shouts a wog from National Review.
With a smile of Christian charity, Harriet Miers' demeanor shone;
She made her case, and that of all the Republicans they don't own.

"Fraud!" cried the maddened pundits, "She's not our nominee!"
But with a scornful looks from Miers, America was peeved.
They saw her face grow stern and cold, they saw her growing bold,
"Go to hell you sex starved whiners." How they wish those words had flowed.

The sneer has fled from pundit's lips, their teeth are clenched in dread;
They propound enraged defiance still, preach doom in each stark thread.
Yet nine justices still weigh each case, and upon them they still rule.
And so more pundit egos shatter, their face awash with egg and rue.

Oh, in this favored land the courts have got it right;
The bands all play "Miers' Waltz", and all Federalist hearts are light,
Republicans are laughing, their little children shout;
But there is no joy at Nat Review – their barking pundits have struck out.

(31) Michael B made the following comment | Oct 16, 2005 7:51:49 AM | Permalink

Jonathan Sadow,

Yes, I concede you're right to raise the point. I wasn't explicit, but was speculating the political dynamics would be different with a SCOTUS nominee given the televised hearings and other factors.

And, while liberally limned, a tip of the hat to Mr. Turner's entertaining verse.

(32) V the K made the following comment | Oct 16, 2005 9:36:45 AM | Permalink

Uh, kma, point to anywhere where I said Miers wasn't qualified, which was the point "Never said it" was referring to.

You can't because I never said Miers wasn't qualified. Margaret Marshall and Mary Schroeder are eminently qualified to sit on the SCOTUS, but if Bush had nominated them, a lot of people in the base would be saying "What the Hell, George?" (And Harry Reid would be just as delighted as he is with Miers.)

(33) V the K made the following comment | Oct 16, 2005 10:37:53 AM | Permalink

And, I stand by my point. Are critics of the nomination being told to shut up? Yes, there are comments in this very thread saying that critics should wait until the hearings before they say anything. Are they being told to trust the president? Read the topic line.

(34) Rob made the following comment | Oct 16, 2005 11:32:46 AM | Permalink

V the K

any relation to Murray the K?

(35) derebu made the following comment | Oct 16, 2005 12:17:10 PM | Permalink

George T,
I always enjoy a good parody or verse. American Thinker regularly has some witty rhymes.

That is a good hypothetical question though. If it was deemed more important to pick a practicing lawyer over someone that only was a judge to replace the void created from Renquist(of which Scalia himself mourned losing as a voice of performing client council from the consequences of decisions) who then is in contention? Olsen's maybe the only one off the top of my head (although I do not recall if he ever was a judge) along with Miers that fit that bill. A few of our Senators might fit that bill too (Cornyn was a Tx supreme judge and done admirably in the Senate).

(36) derebu made the following comment | Oct 16, 2005 12:29:35 PM | Permalink

Why are folks like Beldar imploring NRO and Ingram and G Will to at a minimum allow Miers to have a fair process and have a hearing in the Senate? Its a one word answer.

I think Merrian-Webster helps on this one

prejudge - vb : to judge before full hearing or examination

Anyone spouting that Miers isn't my candidate or should withdraw for her own good fits this word very accurately right now. Its your choice if you wish to keep spewing out and venting on emotional arguments that have more to do with a Senate OK corrale showdown then actually getting originalists on the court. What Beldar is trying to point out is NRO is already eatting a lot of foot and standing to eat a lot of crow if Miers is recognized to be another Thomas. It is also accurate to point out that Clarence Thomas, the beacon light of strict constructionists, was not even close to being the "most qualified" candidate. Nay he was slammed as unworthy and being an affirmative action pick. Funny how he's looked to as a saint on the court among the same folks hyperventilating over Miers using the same nature arguments.

(37) V the K made the following comment | Oct 16, 2005 1:55:20 PM | Permalink

Both the pro and anti Miers sides have made some good points, but neither side has made enough good points, IMHO, to settle the debate, or justify shutting down further discussion.

(38) Crank made the following comment | Oct 17, 2005 1:50:24 PM | Permalink

What bugged me about Saturday's WSJ was, there was the Kirkpatrick editorial and a second pro- Miers op-ed . . . and both of them said almost nothing about Miers herself and her qualifications. With the (partial) exception of Beldar, the Miers defenders have almost nothing to say about the woman herself - it's all abstractions about elitism or the value of a non-judge/non-intellectual practicing litigator.

I remain in the "open-minded but deeply skeptical" stance I've had since Day One.

(39) Jeremy Pierce made the following comment | Oct 20, 2005 10:36:06 AM | Permalink

V the K, there's a big difference between arguing that an attitude is wrong (i.e. at best premature) and telling someone who has that attitude to shut up. It's the same difference as between arguing that an action is wrong and telling someone not to do it. One involves reasoning to a conclusion. The other is basically a command. Beldar has quite clearly done the former, and you've accused him of doing the latter.

The comments to this entry are closed.