Gravitating Towards Opposition: A Rant
Now, I don’t want to get off on a rant here, but: I’m feeling myself being driven into the full-on anti-Miers camp, in part by the unconvincing arguments of people who seem bound to support her.
For instance, here’s Captain Ed:
The choice has already been made, by the man we elected to make it. We have demanded deference to presidential prerogative from the Democrats for the past five years on judicial nominations, and now it’s our turn to demonstrate that we know what that means.
I love Ed, I really do. And I know he shares my passion for an excellent federal judiciary peopled by strong judicial conservatives. But this statement of his is utter nonsense.
Let’s say we vote for a President largely on the strength of his pledge not to raise taxes. If Democrats say they want to raise taxes, and the President vetoes a tax hike, we are entitled to defend that veto by saying: Sorry, Democrats! You lost the election!
Now, what if that same President decides he wants to implement a tax hike? Are you trying to tell me that, because we voted him in, we have to stand still for it?? After all, under the Constitution, any tax hike has to start in Congress, and the President — not the public — has the exclusive power to veto that tax hike. According to Ed’s logic, if the President violates his campaign promise, and signs the tax hike, we’re required to shrug our shoulders in resignation, and say: hey, the choice has been made by the guy we chose to make it.
Is that what we’re really going to do?
No way! We’ll vote the bastard out! And if we can’t (because he is term-limited out), then we’ll fight him tooth and nail.
I voted for George W. Bush in large part because I expected him to nominate genuine judicial conservatives to the federal bench — especially the Supreme Court. Last election season, he said he favored Justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas.
As far as I’m concerned, that’s as important as “Read my lips.” Maybe judges aren’t that important to you — and that’s fine. But to me, it’s a top issue.
And if you’re talking judges in the mold of Scalia and Thomas, Michael Luttig fits the bill. I have no idea whether Miers does.
It’s a double question of 1) qualifications and 2) commitment to judicial conservatism. And these two are connected. Judicial conservatism means knowing the law, inside and out. It’s easy to simply choose a result and build an opinion around it. But to come to the right decision, based on rigorous legal knowledge and backed by a powerful intellect capable of authoring irrefutable judicial opinions — that’s hard.
It’s not enough to be “plenty smart.” It’s not enough to be a solid B+ pick. You have to be at the top of the game, or you will inevitably turn into someone like Lewis Powell, or Harry Blackmun, or Sandra Day O’Connor — in other words, someone who issues decisions that split the baby. And in the abortion context, that’s not just figurative language. O’Connor’s decisions didn’t just split the baby — they stabbed the baby’s skull with a pair of scissors, and sucked out its brains with a suction catheter.
So: George Bush made a promise, and we don’t know whether he has kept it — and by the time we find out, it will be too late.
That’s unacceptable.
Now: I no longer have to make the decision whether to vote for George W. Bush in the next election. But I can choose whether to support his Supreme Court nomination. And I have every right to make up my mind, and speak out — and the more some Gang of 14 turncoat like Lindsey Graham tells people like me to “shut up,” the more I want to speak out.
And guess what, Ed Gillespie? Calling people like me elitist and sexist doesn’t help either.
Nor do I find myself persuaded by Beldar — and that, more than anything else, suggests to me that I will never be persuaded. Because if a guy as articulate and persuasive as Beldar can’t draw me in, I doubt anyone can. I have criticized Beldar’s position over the past few days, and here is what he says today:
Mere weeks after major elements of Dubya’s base were soiling their knickers in nervousness over this “cypher” and this “unknown with only two years on the bench,” history has already been rewritten to paint John G. Roberts, Jr. as the uber-Nominee — the nominee who was such an obvious and compelling choice that Dubya basically gets no credit for picking him.
You’re not talking about me, Beldar. My instant reaction upon hearing of the Roberts nomination was: “Good choice.” When Ann Coulter questioned Roberts, I mocked her. Was Roberts my ideal nominee? No. But no sane person could question either his qualifications or his commitment to the rule of law, as opposed to the rule of judges. And I never did. And I’m proud to have John Roberts as the Chief Justice of the United States.
Based on what I know now, I can’t say I’d be proud to have Harriet Miers as an Associate Justice.
Beldar continues:
And by October 2015, whether the Miers nomination annoyed or sparked rejoicing among the conservative base way back in October 2005 will be the kind of thing relegated to a middle of the day “remember when” post in The Corner, a cute footnote to whatever Supreme Court nomination debate we’re all having then.
Yeah, well, it was ages ago when Ronald Reagan chose Sandra Day O’Connor instead of Robert Bork. 1981, to be exact — 24 years ago. That’s much further in the past than 2015 is in the future. Yet Reagan’s decision to forego Bork for O’Connor still stings even today.
As I have already explained, O’Connor was nominated at a time when Republicans controlled the Senate, and arguably could have pushed Bork through despite the presence of a few weak Republicans in the Senate. But because Reagan instead nominated a relatively undistinguished woman with a poor track record of judicial conservatism, we had to wait on the Bork nomination until after 1986, when the Democrats won control of the Senate and managed to engineer his defeat. The Casey decision upholding Roe, and numerous other ridiculous decisions since, are directly attributable to Reagan’s disastrous misstep in nominating O’Connor instead of the best-qualified judicial conservative around.
This is why defenses of capitulation, like this nonsensical post about “MOOSEMUSS,” remind me of the pride Neville Chamberlain felt in announcing peace in our time. These decisions have real consequences, and they last for decades. Forget 2015. We could still be smarting over this in 2055.
Guys, if you want Miers critics to refrain from declaring their open opposition to her nomination, you’re going to have to do a lot better than this.
Of course, that’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.
UPDATE: Bork was nominated in 1987. The post originally said that we had to wait until 1986 for his nomination; what I meant was that we had to wait until after the 1986 elections. But I did not make that clear. I have clarified this; thanks to Fritz for pointing it out.
I have also been analyzing this and coming more to a certain conclusion: Miers is not pro-life in the sense that we expect a conservative jurist to be faithful to the natural rights based Constitution.
I concurr with Patterico and have just that point to add for now.
Paul Deignan (d2fd7b) — 10/6/2005 @ 10:10 pmPatterico, you weren’t among those who were soiling themselves over the Roberts nomination.
But there were some. There were actually quite a few.
Nor were you among those who were pointing to Ms. Miers’ credentials from SMU undergrad and law schools as prima facie evidence that she was “third rate.”
But there were some. There were actually quite a few.
Some of them were also willing to make false statements of fact, e.g., the assertion that she hadn’t been a good student, wasn’t even on law review. Those got republished, amplified. They contributed to some people taking positions that they’re now a bit at a loss how to back down from. That’s very unfortunate, even shameful.
The new mantra is: “We’re not elitists! But there’s no indication that she’s written and thought and published about overarching issues of constitutional law throughout her career.” You haven’t said that, I think, at least not in those words.
But there have been quite a few who have.
You, I think, know that the same would almost certainly be said about any practicing lawyer other than the extremely rare John Roberts-type who’s done nothing but Supreme Court appellate litigation — a life functionally indistinguishable from law school moot court. I’m guessing that you might be among those who actually do appreciate the perspectives that an experienced courtroom lawyer might bring to the Court that are missing now.
If you do, and if you’ve made that point in Ms. Miers’ defense, I may have missed it.
I’m not among those who say that conservatives ought to lie back and thing of England. Of course you, Prof. Bainbridge, Charles Krauthammer, the Cornerites, whoever — you all have the right to form your own opinions and then try to persuade others to them, including trying to persuade Dubya to withdraw this nominee, or senators to vote against it.
But surely we can agree that the debate ought to be based on factually correct premises, for instance. The latest thing that’s got my dander up is a hit piece by Jerome Corsi, claiming that Ms. Miers was “at the center” of some sort of massive fraud. Surely everyone who has the common sense and the informed perspective to recognize that as a bogus bit of hatchett work — whether they’re supporting or opposing this nomination, or still undecided — ought to speak out against that sort of tactic, that sort of misinformation.
Presidents always go over the top; they have to say, for instance, “I think Nominee X is the very best person and most qualified person for the job.” Well, that’s probably literally true — i.e., that that’s indeed what they think, and their definitions of “best” and “most qualified” take into consideration all sorts of practical and political considerations. But those of us who’re trying to advance the debate ought to stay away from overbroad statements, I think. When Mr. Krauthammer repeats today the sort of statement that I’ve been hearing all week — “There are 1,084,504 lawyers in the United States. What distinguishes Harriet Miers from any of them, other than her connection with the president?” — and presents it like it’s a self-evident rhetorical truth without drawing a breath or actually considering the answer to that question, it’s not helpful.
You write of the need for “rigorous legal knowledge . . . backed by a powerful intellect capable of authoring irrefutable judicial opinions.” Hard to disagree that those are good things. But Larry Tribe has those things. Arguably, Stephen Breyer and John Paul Stevens do too. Certainly Anton Scalia does. But for some reason, Scalia’s brilliance doesn’t win over Breyer very much; it doesn’t even win over Souter and Kennedy very much. I’m inclined to think it would be useful to add someone to the Court whos legal knowledge and intellect and persuasive skills have been developed in different settings that the current Justices’. Not dumb; not mediocre. But different.
You’ve mentioned some of the potential nominees who you’d prefer Dubya had picked. I think they’re mostly Circuit Judges, aren’t they? Well, if you can indulge for a moment in a contrarian premise — the premise that we ought to have a nominee whose background has been mostly from a private civil litigation practice, with some time in the trial court, with some time running a business and representing businesses, and with some indicia of leadership among his/her peers and service to his/her profession — who would you have picked?
Beldar (c4af44) — 10/6/2005 @ 10:26 pmWell, if you can indulge for a moment in a contrarian premise — the premise that we ought to have a nominee whose background has been mostly from a private civil litigation practice, with some time in the trial court, with some time running a business and representing businesses, and with some indicia of leadership among his/her peers and service to his/her profession — who would you have picked?
You.
Patterico (4e4b70) — 10/6/2005 @ 10:37 pmLOL, thank you … even with my typos. It’s late, my eyes are blurry, and I needed a good belly laugh.
Beldar (c4af44) — 10/6/2005 @ 10:42 pmThe new mantra is: “We’re not elitists! But there’s no indication that she’s written and thought and published about overarching issues of constitutional law throughout her career.” You haven’t said that, I think, at least not in those words.
Not in those words, exactly . . . but close — and I agree with the sentiment. And I explain why in this post.
Patterico (4e4b70) — 10/6/2005 @ 11:17 pmI think you should follow your heart and oppose Miers. This is the kind of thing that can tear the Republican Party into pieces and allow another Clinton to win with less than 50%. The Republicans have shown that they do not have the stomach for leadership. Being the minority whiners suits their style, and the style of most pundits. Maybe the country would be better off with the Dems in power since it would allow us Conservatives to stand in the shadows and talk about how much better we could do it.
Now, don’t think that I am a blind supporter of the President and the Party. I am as angered as anyone over the budget, immigration, “Homeland Security”, and more but I don’t believe for an instant that the Dems would be any better. What are we going to do? All vote Libertarian? Have we all forgotten about 1992? Bush the Elder losing to Clinton because Perot cannibalized the votes? Momentum is a tricky thing. Perot’s ego tripped us up and put Clinton in for 8 years. To use a golf analogy, the pundits are screaming for us to go for the green from 250 out when laying up is the smarter move and we can still win the entire tournament. As much as we are all spoiling for a righteous fight, the best battle is the one never fought. Just remember, if we cut off our noses, we could end up with President Hillary appointing Lawrence Tribe. Ponder that before you call for defeating Miers.
Mike A (1ee4ee) — 10/7/2005 @ 1:14 amPatterico:
I have a simple question for you. Any battlefield commander — a role you appear to have embraced — should be able to answer it.
When you “fight him tooth and nail” over this nomination, Pat, what are your victory conditions?
What do you expect to happen? Do you think he’ll withdraw Harriet Miers from nomination? Has he ever done that before?
Or do you hope to frighten Miers into withdrawing herself?
Suppose neither of those happens. Then do you hope to persuade enough senators to vote against her that she is defeated? Given the fact that, if the Republicans line up against her, the Democrats are likely to line up on her side, that means you have to persuade 93% of Republican senators to vote against Bush, against the party, and against the nominee. Do you think that’s possible?
And suppose you succeed. You manage to smash Bush down, make the GOP look ridiculous to the voters, and maybe if you’re really successful, cause the GOP to lose two or three Senate seats in the 2006 election.
…And this will get you closer to your goal more strict constructionists on the Supreme Court how, exactly?
Other than making Pat Leahy chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, what would you consider the greatest possible victory you could derive from this “tooth and nail” war you’ve declared on the Republican Party?
Dafydd
Dafydd (f8a7be) — 10/7/2005 @ 2:16 amPatterico:
Oh, an afterthought.
If you manage to succeed in damaging the Republican Party — then how are you any different from Lindsay Graham?
Dafydd
Dafydd (f8a7be) — 10/7/2005 @ 2:19 am[…] And Patterico on the same matter: It’s a double question of 1) qualifications and 2) commitment to judicial conservatism. And these two are connected. Judicial conservatism means knowing the law, inside and out. It’s easy to simply choose a result and build an opinion around it. But to come to the right decision, based on rigorous legal knowledge and backed by a powerful intellect capable of authoring irrefutable judicial opinions — that’s hard. […]
PrestoPundit » Blog Archive » KRAUTHAMMER BOMBSHELL (d881ce) — 10/7/2005 @ 5:43 amOk, MikeA and Dafydd, perhaps we should give some thought to what the consequences for the rest of the Republican objectives if the President is persuaded to withdraw Miers or her confirmation is defeated. But that likely means giving up on the hope that this administration will take its historic opportunity to give the Court a constitutionalist majority. So, what’s left? Here’s a short list of what you might consider important issues for Republicans:
National security/terrorism
Energy policy
Illegal immigration
Fiscal responsibility
Tax policy
Judges
If we think that the huge increases in spending will threaten tax cuts, then before the Miers nomination, the President would be batting .500. If Miers turns out to be no better than O’Connor, I’ve gotta call that a strike-out on Judges. If this was baseball, batting .333 would get him on the all-star team. Is that ok, or should we expect more from a Republican President who has majorities in both the Senate and the House?
Pulling Miers now might let the President salvage this situation. If she slogs it out, whether she’s confirmed or not, I’m afraid that Republicans will stay home in droves in ’06, perhaps making it impossible to put someone like Luttig on the Court, not to mention threatening everything else. Any way you slice it, the Miers nomination was a huge mistake.
TNugent (6128b4) — 10/7/2005 @ 5:55 amOther than making Pat Leahy chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, what would you consider the greatest possible victory you could derive from this “tooth and nail” war you’ve declared on the Republican Party?
You’ve misread my post. I haven’t declared war — yet. I’m looking for a good reason why I shouldn’t.
If you manage to succeed in damaging the Republican Party — then how are you any different from Lindsay Graham?
Lindsey Graham is unwilling to fight for top-notch judges. I am. That’s one difference. Also, I’m not going around telling people to “shut up.” That’s another.
There are others.
Patterico (4e4b70) — 10/7/2005 @ 6:11 amNote: no one serious uses the term “strict constructionist” – doing so is the mark of someone unfamiliar with constitutional adjudication and conservative legal theory.
Bush uses the phrase a lot, sadly.
Angry Clam (fa7fff) — 10/7/2005 @ 6:34 amThe “read my lips” analogy can fairly be applied to the question of whether or not Miers is a genuine judicial conservative who will vote the right way. It cannot be fairly applied to your arguments about Miers’s qualifications for the job. If that’s the issue, the analogy is to the other Bush saying “read my lips, no new taxes,” not raising taxes, but then doing something else that also pisses you off.
Xrlq (428dfd) — 10/7/2005 @ 7:13 amThe “read my lips” analogy can fairly be applied to the question of whether or not Miers is a genuine judicial conservative who will vote the right way. It cannot be fairly applied to your arguments about Miers’s qualifications for the job.
Are you not persuaded by my effort to explain the relationship between those factors?
Patterico (4e4b70) — 10/7/2005 @ 7:29 amGillespie’s statement was politically stupid, but not necessarily factually wrong. Does anyone seriously believe there would have been the same level of outcry if had appointed a guy with an identical resume named “Harry Myers?” If so, why all the ranting and raving over “diversity” and “identity politics?” I’m not saying there’s any of the old-fashioned “wimmin’ shouldn’t oughta be loiers” sexism going on here – nor can there be when some of the Miers opponents’ top picks are women themselves – but at a minimum, I do think there is an element of reverse-reverse discrimination.
Xrlq (428dfd) — 10/7/2005 @ 7:33 amIf the nomination dies in committee, then I would guess that more damage has been averted than caused to the GOP as a whole.
Based on that, now would be the best time to squawk about it.
biwah (f5ca22) — 10/7/2005 @ 7:49 am[…] Ed at the Captain’s Quarters (h/t a very grumpy Patterico) argues that Republicans should defer to the President’s judgement on Miers since they voted for him. I suppose this means I’m in the clear to criticize Miers ’cause I didn’t vote. Hmm. […]
The lameness of pro-Miers talking points at matthewstinson.net » blog (88868d) — 10/7/2005 @ 8:51 amBork wasn’t nominated in 86. Scalia was. Bork was 87, the Democrats having taken formal control of that chamber in January of that year.
fritz (395674) — 10/7/2005 @ 9:54 amYes, I am not persuaded. Or no, I’m not persuaded. I’ve never known how to answer questions phrased that way. Forget Miers for the moment, whose qualifications and conservatism are presently in doubt. Suppose that instead of appointing her, Bush had gone onto the Internets, skimmed a few blogs, and appointed me to the Supreme Court. For all our disagreements over the past week, I think we can agree on two things:
I am not qualified to be a Supreme Court Justices.
I generally share the President’s judicial philosophy of strict constructionism in the mold of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
In that case, you’d have every right to be POed at the President for appointing me. Hell, I’d be POed at him myself. But it would be unfair to say he broke his promise to appoint Justices who share his judicial philosophy.
Xrlq (ffb240) — 10/7/2005 @ 10:06 amWe have two different versions of what Bush said. You suggest that Bush promised “to appoint Justices who share his judicial philosophy.” In my post, I said:
That’s not quite the same thing – are you in the mold of Scalia and Thomas?
As I type this, I’m not sure which one of us has more accurately characterized Bush’s comments. Searching my memory, it may be somewhere in the middle – I want to say that he said they were his favorite Justices. But hang tight – let me check quickly and I’ll come back with a link.
Patterico (00bfee) — 10/7/2005 @ 10:16 amAt least we know that, with this nomination, Bush has sewn up the spinster vote.
Angry Clam (fa7fff) — 10/7/2005 @ 10:23 amCan’t find a quote. Cruising stories, it’s possible that the reference was to judicial philosophy. Plus, you used the mold word in your comment . . .
But I still maintain that there is a connection between having the highest possible level of brainpower and being a staunch judicial conservative. Someone who is merely bright, as opposed to one of the best and brightest in the nation, is more likely to render middle-of-the-road decisions due to insecurity. We’ve seen it happen time and time again.
Patterico (00bfee) — 10/7/2005 @ 10:28 amSomeone once said that any organization which is not explicitly right-wing will drift leftward. Is this true of people too? See O’Connor, Souter.
Bench (7df803) — 10/7/2005 @ 11:05 amClam, the people who use “strict constructionist” are likely to be the same ones who use “hypocrasy.”
TNugent (6128b4) — 10/7/2005 @ 11:08 am“Defer To And Trust The President On Miers” is Wea
What I am saying is this: For positions such as the Supreme Court and Chairman of the Federal Reserve, if you have to ask if someone is underqualified – then they probably are underqualified. And better candidates exist.
Democracy Market (59ce3a) — 10/7/2005 @ 11:14 amPatterico:
Oh, come on, Patterico; that’s a shuck. You know what I mean: you appear willing to destroy everything the Party has gained since 1995 in order either to force the president to give you a judge you like, or else in a fit of pique that he didn’t give you a judge that you, personally, know and like.
You can’t or won’t answer what you think your victory conditions would be, assuming the president once again refuses to listen to your advice and withdraw his own nomination; I suspect it’s because you’ve never really thought about it.
You keep saying that Bush is splitting the party because he won’t do the gentlemanly thing and withdraw his nomination. This is functionally identical to a Democrat charging Bush with having “divided the country” because he won’t do the gentlemanly thing and rule from the Left.
You appear willing, if you don’t get your way, to tear down everything, including the GWOT.
You’re “looking for a good reason” why you shouldn’t do everything in your power, in a rage of revenge, to return us to those thrilling days of 1993, with Democrats in charge of the House, the Senate, and the White House. Good-bye, military response to terrorism; hello John Kerryland. Good-bye tax cuts; hello 45% income tax. Hello Hillarycare. And good-bye strict-constructionist judges (thanks for calling me an idiot, Clam), and hello three hundred Ginsburgs and Breyers.
Why? Because you’re furious that Bush didn’t appoint somebody that you know and like.
Pat, you went hammer and tong after Bainbridge for being an apologist for the Seven Dwarfs, and I supported you wholeheartedly. But why was it wrong, what they did? Because they made it harder for Bush to appoint a Luttig? Sure, that’s one major reason… but the other major reason was that they threatened to destroy the center-right coalition, not just on judges but on everything, including the GWOT — which is even more important than getting good judges, because that is an existential threat to American life as we know it.
If we began experiencing what Israel went through, I believe the nation of the United States would survive… but oh Lord, at what a price. We wouldn’t be the same; the America we grew up in would be lost, probably forever. It would cease to exist.
That, plus of course such minor advances as tax cuts, Social-Security privatization, litigation reform, and other elements of the Republican agenda would be gone. The Democrats would be cleverer this time, and we would get the Fascist Hillary health-care program a spoonful at a time.
And you would not even get your kind of judges, either. That’s the truly incomprehensible part: by openly even considering going to war against the GOP, you’re helping to bring about the scenario above — which would result in even greater losses on the judgeship issue that you claim is more important to you than everything else combined, including the global war on terrorism.
This is worse than Graham, because if Graham succeeded in bringing the Democrats to power again, at least he would be getting the liberal judges he wants. You would be getting the very judges you abhor!
That is why it’s so telling you can’t come up with a rational set of victory conditions: because everything you are doing in fact damages the very cause you claim to be fighting for.
Please stop and think, Pat. I know you’re disappointed; I’m disappointed. It was a disappointing nomination. But it’s not a catastrophe, and it’s not worth pulling the whole structure down upon our heads, like the blinded Samson destroying the Temple of Dagon.
Dafydd
Dafydd (f8a7be) — 10/7/2005 @ 12:05 pmLast I checked, we are in the middle of a war. Miers may not give you warm fuzzies, but she is plenty qualified to do the job and all signs point to her being a genuine conservative.
How is knee-capping the president as he wages war (while being hammered daily by an MSM that refuses to take the war seriously) helping our country?
Some folks need to get their priorities straight. The Chicken Little conservatives have completely lost perspective on this one.
stan (28bfc9) — 10/7/2005 @ 12:21 pmPhilosophically, sure. In terms of pedigree, not even close. On the flip side, there is no shortage of liberal law professors and appellate judges out there whose credentials rival Scalia’s at the time of his nomination and utterly clobber Thomas’s at the time of his, yet it would be more than a slight stretch to argue with a straight face that any of them are in the mold of Thomas or Scalia.
I also thoroughly reject the notion that there is any connection between intelligence and strict adherence to a particular judicial philosophy. Every law school faculty is chock full of the best and the brightest, and perhaps worse still, people who think they are the best and the brightest and are therefore highly unlikely to be insecure in their philosophies. Some of these really smart guys are judicial conservatives. Most aren’t.
The bottom line is that however desirable it may be to see great conservative Justices appointed to the bench, President Bush only promised to appoint conservative judges. He did not promise to appoint great ones, or even good ones.
Xrlq (6c76c4) — 10/7/2005 @ 12:22 pmSorry, Hugh, but the floodgates look like they're about to burst…
Krauthammer on Harriet Miers. From "Withdraw This Nomination":For half a century, liberals have corrupted the courts by turning them into an instrument of radical social change on questions -- school prayer, abortion, busing, the deat…
protein wisdom (c0db44) — 10/7/2005 @ 12:28 pmPatterico, I don’t believe you are accurately portraying the circumstances under which Reagan nominated O’Connor. Reagan had promised in an October 14, 1980 campaign speech to put a woman on the court. O’Connor was the only candidate he seriously considered. There was no chance of Reagan selecting Bork for this spot. Remember Bork wasn’t put on the DC court of appeals until 1982. Perhaps some people wanted Bork in Scalia’s spot and that is what you are remembering.
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 10/7/2005 @ 12:55 pmXrlq,
Considering the fact that Miers’s opponents have been begging W to appoint Brown, Gillispe’s little Nazi lie shows his racism by his own filthy illogic
Ernest Brown (b74528) — 10/7/2005 @ 1:06 pmDafydd,
You say:
. . .assuming the president once again refuses to listen to your advice and withdraw his own nomination . . .
and:
You keep saying that Bush is splitting the party because he won’t do the gentlemanly thing and withdraw his nomination.
It’s funny, though: I don’t recall advising the President to withdraw the nomination. And I don’t recall saying — even once — that Bush is splitting the party because he won’t do the gentlemanly thing and withdraw the nomination.
What I remember saying — and granted, I haven’t gone back to check — is that I am very disappointed by the nomination, that I won’t support it, and that I haven’t decided whether to a) actively oppose it or b) just sit on the sidelines, appalled.
If I’m wrong about this, and I have repeatedly said what you claim, then surely you can point me to one specific instance. I’d sure like it to be specific, and not something subject to interpretation. Because any such interpretation would have to take account of my explicit statements, made multiple times, that I haven’t made up my mind whether to actively oppose the nomination.
Or are you denying that I have said that?
Patterico (ad1e4b) — 10/7/2005 @ 1:32 pmIn other words, Dafydd, I’d like to debate what I actually said, rather than what you imagine I said.
This would be easier if you were to shake your habit of characterizing my positions, and try using direct quotes instead. It gets to be quite a waste of time disputing and refuting the characterizations, and my time is limited nowadays.
Patterico (ad1e4b) — 10/7/2005 @ 1:35 pmJames,
I have a memory of reading somewhere that aides urged Reagan to appoint Bork, and he rejected the advice in favor of O’Connor. But I see and understand your criticism, and will therefore try to find a link.
Right now, I can’t — the best I can do is to find a suggestion: the 6th link down in this search. It’s an NPR story about O’Connort stepping down from the bench, and the language in the Google result seems to support my claim (“urged the president to use this first appointment to name Robert Bork”). But it’s an audio file and I can’t listen to it right now.
Patterico (ad1e4b) — 10/7/2005 @ 1:39 pmPaternico..When will you get it???. This group is not loyal to ideas or principles, they are loyal to the cult of Bush. He can send their sons and daughters off to fight and die for a false cause and that is ok! He can tell them he favors a certain type of judge but if he delivers a different kind, well you are the unpatriotic anti American traitor who pointed that out!!! Better keep your mouth shut. This is a “faith based” administration..Have faith in the almighty G Bush and ignore the facts..
Charlie (8ea405) — 10/7/2005 @ 1:40 pmI also thoroughly reject the notion that there is any connection between intelligence and strict adherence to a particular judicial philosophy. Every law school faculty is chock full of the best and the brightest, and perhaps worse still, people who think they are the best and the brightest and are therefore highly unlikely to be insecure in their philosophies. Some of these really smart guys are judicial conservatives. Most aren’t.
But that’s not my claim. I don’t say: the more intelligent, the more conservative.
What I say is that the strongest, most committed true judicial conservatives are folks like Scalia and Thomas — Justices of powerful intellects who are not intimidated by the work. Historically, other Justices who are politically conservative but lower on candlepower tend to waver in their commitment to judicial conservatism. They end up issuing or joining terrible decisions, because their poor grasp of the law leads them to make decisions based more on ad hoc policy judgments. See Harry Blackmun, Warren Burger, Lewis Powell, and Sandra Day O’Connor, just to name a few examples.
You guys gotta start responding to the arguments I’m actually making.
Patterico (ad1e4b) — 10/7/2005 @ 1:45 pmPatterico:
Here we go again with the word by word, letter by letter parsing of sentences.
I wrote:
You have chosen to interpret that as:
You keep saying that “Bush is splitting the party because he won’t do the gentlemanly thing and withdraw his nomination.”
However, it is just as logical — and in fact the way I meant it to read it as:
Because he won’t do the gentlemanly thing and withdraw the nomination, you keep saying that Bush is splitting the party.
I wrote:
You choose to read this as:
You can’t or won’t answer what you think your victory conditions would be, assuming the president once again refuses to listen to your advice where you told him to withdraw his own nomination; I suspect it’s because you’ve never really thought about it.
But it is equally reasonable to read it the way I meant it:
You can’t or won’t answer what you think your victory conditions would be, assuming the president once again refuses to listen to your advice that Miers is a catastrophic nomination and therefore withdraw his own nomination; I suspect it’s because you’ve never really thought about it.
It would also be easier — and less of a waste of your time — were you to stop looking for the worst possible interpretation of anything I say… and just finally answer the issue I raise here for the third time: what are your victory conditions?
Assuming Bush doesn’t withdraw Miers and Miers doesn’t withdraw herself, what do you actually want to achieve? Do you even know?
Dafydd
Dafydd (f8a7be) — 10/7/2005 @ 1:52 pmYou appear willing, if you don’t get your way, to tear down everything, including the GWOT.
Confirm Miers or we lose the War?
I’ll take “Hyperbolic Tripe” for $200, Alex.
Christopher Cross (354863) — 10/7/2005 @ 1:56 pmChristopher: nice one.
biwah (f5ca22) — 10/7/2005 @ 1:58 pmSo what is my position, you may ask.
Well, there’s no doubt that I am bitterly, bitterly disappointed. I wish Bush had nominated someone else. Whether I would be happy to see him withdraw the nomination depends upon who he would nominate in Miers’s place — and even if it’s someone I like, he will have hurt his position by doing so. So I haven’t even decided whether to call on him to withdraw the nomination. Nor have I decided to fight it.
But I may change my mind, and it won’t necessarily take substantial new negative information about Miers for me to do so. I am taking a “wait and see” attitude, but I am highly skeptical that there is anything that will reassure me. And I’m evaluating the arguments against opposing her nomination — but, as I say in the post, I find many of them wanting.
Dafydd’s, though he mischaracterizes my position, is one argument to consider. But my response — which is not to say his argument is wrong — is: does there ever come a point where those of us who say judges are important should say, I’ve had it?
Patterico (ad1e4b) — 10/7/2005 @ 1:58 pmPatterico:
— Nina Totenberg, All Things Considered.
Dafydd
Dafydd (f8a7be) — 10/7/2005 @ 2:03 pmAssuming Bush doesn’t withdraw Miers and Miers doesn’t withdraw herself, what do you actually want to achieve? Do you even know?
I intend, quite simply, to send a message: judicial picks are important; don’t back down; don’t pick a weak nominee.
As to whether I want to achieve her defeat or not, I’ve not decided, as I said.
Even when you flip that first statement of yours around, it still reads the same to me. I now understand what you meant, and I’ll accept that — but when you write an unclear statement, you need to learn to accept the responsibility for people reading it the way it’s written.
Patterico (ad1e4b) — 10/7/2005 @ 2:04 pmThanks for bearing out my memory, Dafydd. I don’t think that’s where I saw the story, but it certainly confirms my memory of having read it somewhere.
Satisfied, James B. Shearer?
Patterico (ad1e4b) — 10/7/2005 @ 2:06 pmWhat’s the worst that happens if Miers is not confirmed?
Democrats win elections and we lose the War on Terror.
What’s the worst that happens if Miers IS confirmed?
She “grows” so much on the bench and joins every goofy Breyer opinion completely undercutting the war effort….and we lose the War on Terror.
Just can’t win, can we?
Christopher Cross (354863) — 10/7/2005 @ 2:15 pmLooking at the polls, Bush does not stand to lose anything with the Dems by withdrawing Miers as long as he puts up a woman.
He would gain by a change.
Paul Deignan (9e57a7) — 10/7/2005 @ 2:19 pmPatterico, not really. There was no “battle”. Reagan was determined to appoint a woman as he had promised regardless of the preferences of some low level staffers. See this account.
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 10/7/2005 @ 2:28 pmPatterico:
Of course there would be: when Bush starts appointing people to the bench who are worse than the judges the Democrats would appoint to those same positions. Until then, you’re exchanging King Log for King Stork.
Patterico, if your primary goal in politics is to get more conservative judges on the bench, then you should be spending every waking moment of your life thinking about how to move closer to that goal.
But if you decide to go to war with Bush and the GOP over this nomination — as you admit you haven’t decided whether or not you’ll do — you will not be moving closer to your goal. You will be working to bring about a terrible retreat from that goal, if you manage to weaken the party enough that more Democrats get elected in 2006, perhaps even taking over the Senate, or a Democrat is elected president in 2008.
Judges are important to me too; but in my heirarchy of America’s vital interests, nothing takes precedence over the war on terrorism. Christopher Cross smirks “Confirm Miers or we lose the War?” But the best answer I can give to that is “not necessarily“… and that’s just not good enough for me.
If the fight between the judicial hardliners and the mainline party weakens the alliance such that the Democrats take over again — Cross may think that’s unthinkable, but I don’t — then we have to look to the Democratic Party’s own party platform, and the statements and demands of all prominent Democrats, to decide how they would fight the war.
They would pull the troops home. Maybe not instantly, but precipitously nonetheless. They want a “timetable;” their dearest goal is to find an “exit strategy.” This is defeatism, and defeatism begets defeat. If you’re dubious about that, look at 1973-1975.
There is no question in my mind that the Democrats, were they in charge, would “fight” the war on terrorism exactly the way Bill Clinton did: as a law-enforcement problem punctuated by occasional missile strikes that blow up a $10 tent and hit a camel in the butt.
I suppose it’s possible Chris Cross thinks that’s the most effective way to fight worldwide Islamic jihad. I think it would be a catastrophe… and it would result in the intifada right here in the heartland — just exactly as we saw in the most recent al-Qaeda plot to be shattered by our military actions in Iraq.
There is no upside to turning this nomination into a civil war within the party. As aggrieved as you may feel yourself, there is no upside. It will not get you closer to your goal; it will drive you farther away from it. It will not lead to more Luttigs but more O’Connors and Kennedys instead. It will hurt the country in many ways beyond the judge issue.
Linsay Graham is a jerk. Ed Gillespie is another. They’re being counterproductive and “unhelpful,” and Graham is a bloody hypocrite, as well. But that doesn’t mean their core argument is wrong, galling as that is for you and for me to accept. (Dude, it’s easier to take being opposed to a jerk than to have a jerk on one’s own side!)
You need the center-right alliance just as much as Bush does. Please don’t cut off your head to spite your nose.
Dafydd
Dafydd (f8a7be) — 10/7/2005 @ 2:30 pmPatterico:
And to forestall another time-wasting go-round, I will parse this sentence for you now:
…means:
All right?
Dafydd
Dafydd (f8a7be) — 10/7/2005 @ 2:36 pmPatterico, if your primary goal in politics is to get more conservative judges on the bench, then you should be spending every waking moment of your life thinking about how to move closer to that goal.
One would think obtaining a majority in the House, the Senate, and reelecting a President who has made a stated commitment to appoint judges of a specific stripe would be sufficient.
But hey, I wanna win the War too–guess I have to settle for Miers.
But hey, a’member when you argued for invading and bombing the p!$$ out of every single country that might possibly hold Islamic terrorists EXCEPT for Saudi Arabia, following a nuclear attack on American soil?
‘member how you argued that invading everyone BUT S.A. would somehow NOT enrage Muslims?
‘member how you argued that any of those that disagreed with you peculiar brand of “military strategy” was a blithering racist who just wanted to kill de mOOslaMs?
That was fun. Gold star for you.
Christopher Cross (354863) — 10/7/2005 @ 3:15 pmWHOA WHOA WHOA – I’m still tripped up on the revelation that you “love Ed, (you) really do!”
Bill from INDC (e178d9) — 10/7/2005 @ 4:01 pmChristopher Cross:
Nope.
Still no.
Drawing a blank.
And a gold star for Chris Cross for most creative fabrication out of whole cloth of the year.
I do, however, recall arguing that threatening to bomb Mecca in response to a nuclear attack by other Moslems elsewhere was every bit as homicidal as the terrorists themselves. Were you one of those Tancredo tomatoes arguing that one Moslem is the same as any other, so that if Jemaah Islamiyah from Indonesia were to nuke Chicago, it’s perfectly rational to kill 350,000 people in Mecca?
Much makes sense now; alas, you’re not one of the things that makes sense. I’m glad you’re on Patterico’s side: I may have to defend Lindsay Graham, but at least, thank God, I don’t have to defend you.
Dafydd
Dafydd (f8a7be) — 10/7/2005 @ 4:33 pmPatterico, not really. There was no “battle”. Reagan was determined to appoint a woman as he had promised regardless of the preferences of some low level staffers. See this account.
I didn’t use the word “battle,” James. Nina Totenberg did. You guys have to start reading what I wrote before you criticize me.
Let’s review my statement again:
Correct, no? Yet you responded:
James, if Reagan aides urged him to appoint Bork, but he was determined to appoint O’Connor regardless, then my comment accurately portrayed the circumstances under which Reagan nominated O’Connor. Correct?
Again, are you satisfied that I did not inaccurately portray the facts?
Patterico (4e4b70) — 10/7/2005 @ 4:43 pmWHOA WHOA WHOA – I’m still tripped up on the revelation that you “love Ed, (you) really do!”
Settle down, Beavis.
(Why do I find myself having to say that so often lately here?)
Patterico (4e4b70) — 10/7/2005 @ 4:43 pmReally? Ya don’t remember? I got a link and everything.
Go nuts.
You, from that thread:
That covers the “blithering racist” charge.
As for the “invade everybody except…”
That you don’t recall making such statements is understandable–we try to forget the stupid things we say in life.
Christopher Cross (766d8f) — 10/7/2005 @ 4:48 pmChris,
I often hear “troll” defined as a guy who comes in with an unrelated topic, trying to hijack the thread and start a fight on the unrelated topic.
Don’t your comments sound like they meet that definition?
I think you should cut it out. Stick to the topic.
Patterico (4e4b70) — 10/7/2005 @ 4:57 pmThe Anti-Miers Snowball
This is hard to believe. Conservative bloggers and commentators are up in arms about the Miers’ nomination. Here’s a linked list, with a relevant snippet from each:
The Politburo Diktat (4aa448) — 10/7/2005 @ 5:00 pmFirst, Patterico: I’m feeling myself being driven into the full-on an…
Patterico–I took Dayfdd’s line:
As being a reference to that previous discussion b/w he and I.
Christopher Cross (354863) — 10/7/2005 @ 5:02 pmRegardless, I did stay on the topic at hand in my first line of my reply, to which Dayfdd did not respond to:
But whatever, not like I wrote it down or anything…
Christopher Cross (354863) — 10/7/2005 @ 5:04 pmPatterico, in your first post you said:
One argument I have heard in favor of Miers is that there will be time for the Luttig and McConnell appointments down the road.
To that I say: learn your history.
That argument is very similar to the one Ronald Reagan accepted when he nominated Sandra Day O’Connor, at a time when the Senate was controlled by Republicans and numerous aides were urging him to nominate Robert Bork. Instead, Reagan bowed to diversity politics and selected O’Connor. By the time Reagan finally nominated Bork, the Democrats had retaken the Senate, and Bork was defeated.
This is simply wrong. As described in my earlier link, Reagan was determined to use his first pick to fulfill his campaign promise to put a woman on the court because he knew he might not get another pick. And I doubt numerous aides were urging him to nominate Bork since he had made it perfectly clear he was going to nominate a woman. And Reagan was not “bowing” to diversity politics since he clearly thought putting a woman on the court was a good idea.
In this post you said:
Yeah, well, it was ages ago when Ronald Reagan chose Sandra Day O’Connor instead of Robert Bork. 1981, to be exact — 24 years ago. That’s much further in the past than 2015 is in the future. Yet Reagan’s decision to forego Bork for O’Connor still stings even today.
This is misleading as it suggests Reagan made a choice between Bork and O’Connor. But that is not what happened. Bork was never in the running as far as Reagan was concerned, if for some reason he had not picked O’Connor he would have picked a different woman.
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 10/7/2005 @ 5:46 pmChristopher Cross:
I didn’t respond to this because, rather self-evidently, if one did think that, one would be wrong… wouldn’t one? The Gang of Fourteen made that pretty clear.
As to the resurrected argument, I simply urge anyone who is interested to compare what I wrote to what you accused me of writing.
Dafydd
Dafydd (f8a7be) — 10/7/2005 @ 6:40 pmPatterico:
I don’t think that is a good paraphrase of Nina Totenberg’s claim. She alleged:
In the first place, she didn’t say aides; she said “administrative insiders.” Second, she said they urged him to name Bork or some other conservative… which could mean one low-level flunky suggested Reagan name Bork, another suggested Smith, another suggested Jones, and a fourth suggested Wilson, and so forth. This has a very different “feel” to it than your claim that “Reagan aides urged him to appoint Bork,” which sounds like there was a solid phalanx of top people who all wanted Bork, and Reagan had to fight them off.
Besides… do you really trust either the accuracy or the veracity of Nina Totenberg?
Dafydd
Dafydd (f8a7be) — 10/7/2005 @ 6:48 pmDayfdd
Ok, oh great sage–what is the strategy then? Since having a majority in Congress and a GOP Prez isn’t sufficient–and since opposing Miers isn’t acceptable–what do we do? I don’t see you calling for opposing any of the Gang of 14. Since, well, that would “defeat the very cause you are fighting for.”
So we can’t oppose Miers because that hurts the GOP. Yet we also can’t oppose any sitting Republicans because THAT hurts the GOP too…
So we do…what? Keep electing Republicans and hope against hope that they maybe, pretty please, actually work for a conservative judiciary? But of course, we won’t get TOO angry–because I mean, after all, we won’t actually OPPOSE you or anything–because that’d be damaging to the “cause.”
BTW, what *is* the cause at this point? For you seem to think it’s a Republican majority for its own sake…
************************
Re your lying eyes: folks might as well compare your comments here to see how accurate my portrayal of your goofy position is.
or this:
I mean, if you’re going to be a dishonest ‘tard, at least don’t document it so well.
Christopher Cross (766d8f) — 10/7/2005 @ 7:42 pmIn the first place, she didn’t say aides; she said “administrative insiders.”
You’re right. That is an absolutely key distinction. Now that I realize that Nina Totenburg, who was not the original source of my post to begin with, said that the urging came from “administrative insiders” rather than “aides,” I now see that my general point (don’t wait to name your best Justice) has no validity. Thank you for providing that important insight.
James B. Shearer,
Whether Reagan ever intended to appoint Bork does not negate my point or make it misleading in the slightest. My point was that Reagan was wrong not to name Bork in 1981 — whether he ever considered accepting the advice given to him by
aidesadministrative insiders or not. He could have confirmed Bork in 1981 but couldn’t in 1987. Ergo, his decision to wait was crap.More evidence that people urged him to consider Bork for the 1981 nomination (not the Scalia nomination, which you incorrectly suggested I must be referring to):
(This point also has no validity because it says “[r]ight-wing backers” rather than “aides.”)
Here is more irrelevant support:
Is anyone here more interested in the truth than in fighting? If so, raise your hand. Then admit me that my basic point — Reagan should have nominated Bork in 1981, when he was urged to — has grounding in history. And that you shouldn’t have called my claim “misleading.”
The rest of you can go on splitting micro-hairs and drawing implausible distinctions to characterize my claims as “misleading.” Have fun!
Patterico (4e4b70) — 10/7/2005 @ 9:01 pmChristopher Cross:
I think there is a small chance you actually want a dialog. And even if you really don’t, others here may be interested in the question… so I’ll swallow my initial reaction and respond.
First of all, why would you imagine, after everything I’ve written about this — some of it even in this very comments thread! — that I support the Seven Dwarfs?
In fact, I consider them traitors to the party. They’ve hijacked it, and we definitly should be hunting for solid candidates to run against them in the primaries (in the red states — Warner in Virgina, Graham in South Carolina, and possibly DeWine in Ohio, although that’s more of a purple state).
The rest of them are either in solid blue states (Snowe and Collins in Maine, Chafee in Toad Island) — plus one egomaniac who couldn’t be controlled even with a whip… John McCain. Don’t waste your time: the best you could do would be to replace three RINOs who nevertheless give Republicans the chairmanship of all the committees with three Democrats, who would vote just as bad (or worse), and also put you that much closer to saying hello to Chairman Leahy and Majority Leader Reid.
As far as Miers, it is a done deal: Bush is not going to drop her, and she’s not going to withdraw. So you suck it up, take one for the Corps, and — like Ronald Reagan — you take your half a loaf (she’ll vote conservative) and go for the rest later.
You cut the best compromise you can. I would recommend the conservative opinion leaders getting together in a bunch and approaching the White House. “Mr. President,” they should say, “we’ll support your lousy nominee… IF you agree that if you get another crack at the Court, you nominate one of the judges on this here list.”
They won’t get it, but it will start a negotiation. Eventually, they’ll get some reasonable concession, because Bush realizes by now that he’s in hot water and he’s pretty desperate to get the base back on his side. Most of the slide in his job approval comes from Republicans growing lukewarm on him.
So they’ll get something reasonable — probably some bona-fide consultation on the next nomination. And more than likely, Bush will want to placate them in future Court and court picks anyway. So long as Republicans keep the Senate, and so long as we can get two of the Seven Dwarfs to vote for the Byrd Option, we can get any conservative onto the bench.
In fact, you needn’t even resort to the Byrd Option. At the beginning of every Congress (did you know this?), the House and Senate must actually vote whether to accept the rules from the previous Congress or change them… which (by the rules) can be done with a simple majority vote.
In other words, at the beginning of the 110th Congress in January 2007, we can vote to ban judicial filibusters (actually, I’d like to see an end to filibusters of any executive appointment, cabinet too) without having to invoke weird parliamentary procedures that freak out the Nervous Nellies on the Senate back bench.
What you do, Chris, is you take the best deal you can get, then come back and try to get the rest later.
This is the real world; and sometimes, that’s just the best you can do. We (including you) need that center-right alliance much more than Bush does, because at the end of this term, he’s off to be Commissioner of Baseball. But we’ll still be in the game. At least I will; I guess I can’t speak for anyone else.
So you make the best deal you can and come back tomorrow for the other half of the loaf.
Dafydd
Dafydd (f8a7be) — 10/7/2005 @ 10:26 pmPatterico, you may have already answered this in another thread which I’ve subsequently lost track of, but I’m curious as to why you think Bork would have been confirmed in 1981. Six Republicans voted to Bork him in 1987, which is three more than it would have taken for the barely Republican Senate to have done the same in 1981. Can you name three Republican Senators who were more loyal to President Reagan in 1981 than they were six years later? My sense is that the Republicans in both houses tend to act more cohesively when they are in the minority, not the majority, i.e., if anything there may be a few RINOs who voted to confirm Bork in 1987, but would have jumped at the chance to play “maverick” in 1981.
Xrlq (428dfd) — 10/7/2005 @ 10:50 pmFirst of all, why would you imagine, after everything I’ve written about this — some of it even in this very comments thread! — that I support the Seven Dwarfs?
Because everything you’ve written up to this point has been ridiculously deferential to the current GOP Senate. Your “take the best deal you can get” works only insofar as you actually think Miers is the best deal 30+ years of campaigning for a conservative court will get you.
I mean hell, you’ve gone so far as to state that opposing Miers puts the friggin’ war in jeopardy. Sorry, but that’s laying it on a bit thick and makes me doubt you’re serious about opposing the Maleficient Seven.
I hope I’m wrong–but you seem such a hardcore 11th Commandment kind of guy that any rhetorical opposition you may assert here in one blog’s comments will likely evaporate come ’06 and we’ll be back to “if you don’t support Lindsey Graham, the GWOT is in peril!”
I hope I’m wrong, but I doubt it.
As far as Miers, it is a done deal: Bush is not going to drop her, and she’s not going to withdraw. So you suck it up, take one for the Corps, and — like Ronald Reagan — you take your half a loaf (she’ll vote conservative) and go for the rest later.
I’m Army, thanks. But whatever, we all wear green. But saying “suck it up” is what you do if Miers were a Democratic nominee of a Democratic president. THEN would be the proper time to “suck it up” and “go for the rest later.” Not when you actually have a solid majority in the Senate. Unless you actually think Luttig or McConnell would be fillibustered, and I’d love to hear the evidence for that.
I’ll toss it back to you–when is the “later” that we grab the rest? Another 30+ years? Suppose you say “When JPS retires, THEN Bush will nominate a Luttig/McConnell/Brown.” How do we know that? Suppose he doesn’t, will we hear again how we are supposed to “suck it up” and try for the rest later?
Would you oppose a stealth nominee in THAT situation?
As for the arguments that “she’ll vote conservative”–that’s small consolation considering we have no idea WHY she’d vote that way. Will she vote conservative because of her friendship with Bush–who is gone in ’08? I don’t know, neither do you. Will she vote conservative because she’s an evangelical? Who knows. What’s the evangelical position on eminent domain or jurisdiction stripping?
If she puts on a bang up performance in the confirmation hearings, my opposition may change. But to suggest that this is the best we can get is just hogwash. This is just the best that we were given.
I would recommend the conservative opinion leaders getting together in a bunch and approaching the White House. “Mr. President,” they should say, “we’ll support your lousy nominee… IF you agree that if you get another crack at the Court, you nominate one of the judges on this here list.” They won’t get it, but it will start a negotiation.
Why are we negotiating with our own President? Heck, you even concede that they won’t get what they want. And why should we believe him if he says “Yes, i’ll do that.” Isn’t that what’s causing all the commotion in the first place, that he DIDN’T keep his word re: whom he’d nominate? So knowing that such a meeting WON’T guarantee the type of nominee Bush promised–why should we settle for Miers only to be poked in the eye later on down the road?
That’s not strategy, that’s masochism.
Would you abandon this weirdo “half a moldy loaf” approach if Bush flung a second Supreme Court turd into your lap? I doubt it.
because Bush realizes by now that he’s in hot water and he’s pretty desperate to get the base back on his side. Most of the slide in his job approval comes from Republicans growing lukewarm on him.
All the more reason to continue to exert pressure on Bush and the admin to withdraw the nomination. If he realizes his base is slip-sliding away, what good does it do him to do down with Miers? Other than Bush being a stubborn douche-nozzle at times–what’s the reason to continue to support Miers in light of all the problems it’s causing in the GOP?
And more than likely, Bush will want to placate them in future Court and court picks anyway.
Ummm…why didn’t he do that with this one? And again, why is any hypothetical “oh the next nominee will be great, you just wait” remotely credible?
So long as Republicans keep the Senate, and so long as we can get two of the Seven Dwarfs to vote for the Byrd Option, we can get any conservative onto the bench.
That’s what we have now. So why are we settling for Miers? Hanging on to Miers imperils the GOP control of the Senate–not opposition to her. Don’t “blame the victim” when conservatives are rightly pissed that Bush broke his promise re nominations.
What you do, Chris, is you take the best deal you can get, then come back and try to get the rest later. This is the real world; and sometimes, that’s just the best you can do.
And the only reason you consider it “the best deal you can get” is because you aren’t willing to fight for it.
Christopher Cross (766d8f) — 10/7/2005 @ 11:07 pmPatterico, you may have already answered this in another thread which I’ve subsequently lost track of, but I’m curious as to why you think Bork would have been confirmed in 1981.
I explained the math here. Reports differ as to whether it was five or six Republicans who voted against Bork, but at least two Democrats voted for him. Total number of net defections: three (which seems to suggest five Republicans, but maybe I’m missing something, because I’ve seen the number six as well). They could have afforded that in 1981.
I haven’t done a microanalysis beyond that, which is why I say the nomination “arguably” might have gone through.
But 55, even with some squishy people, ought to be enough to fight for it. If you nominate a quality guy like Luttig, it only takes two of the Gang of 14 to stop a filibuster and confirm him. Why it’s so obvious that Bush shouldn’t have waged that fight, I have no idea. Maybe we could still make him do it.
After all, it’s not like there’s a single damn Republican I’ve talked to — including everyone reading this right now — who actually prefers Miers. Go ahead: deny it.
Patterico (4e4b70) — 10/8/2005 @ 12:28 amChristopher Cross:
Your entire argument consists of gainsaying anything I say. You’re unable to come to grips with the fact that Miers is the nominee, and you’re not going to get another whack at it this time. This conversation is pointless.
Dafydd
Dafydd (f8a7be) — 10/8/2005 @ 6:25 amPatterico:
You haven’t talked to Bush.
He likes her better than Luttig. He’s not going to dump her, and she’s not going to withdraw. Your only alternative is to ally with the Democrats to defeat her… and that will severely damage the party and lead to significant losses in 2006: the president will look weak, the Republicans will appear to be in disarray, and the Democrats can make the false but effective argument that Miers was such an extreme right-wing appointee that even many Republicans couldn’t stand her ultra-conservativeness and had to vote against her, so therefore we need to elect more Democrats to stop this extreme right-wing president from nominating Jerry Falwell or James Dobson to the Court.
It’s ludicrous, but that’s the way the Dems will spin it — and they’ll get some votes on the margin. Plus, losing a high-profile confirmation fight — when the GOP has a big majority in the Senate — will depress the vote far more than could possibly be suppressed by nominating Miers instead of Luttig (hardly any voters have even heard of Luttig or would care; but nobody likes losers).
Contrariwise, just confirming her will not lead to losses in 2006, for the reason I enunciated above: the number of people who will sit on their hands and not vote because Bush named Miers and they wanted Luttig is so miniscule, it wouldn’t even be a blip on the electoral radar screen. But if you make the president look like a loser, that will make a huge difference in turnout and among the undecided.
It really is that simple: civil war in the GOP will lead to significant losses in 2006 and possibly even in 2008; but just confirming Miers and moving on will have no discernable negative effect on the election: there simply aren’t enough of you, Pat.
There is no upside to going to war against the party over this issue. None at all. That is why, despite being asked repeatedly, you never could come up with “victory conditions” for your possible war: there aren’t any.
If you just want to “send a message,” try Western Union.
Dafydd
Dafydd (f8a7be) — 10/8/2005 @ 6:39 amFair enough. Sorry about that.
Patterico (4e4b70) — 10/9/2005 @ 10:45 amDayfdd
Your entire argument consists of gainsaying anything I say.
Well, I’m gainsaying your blind acceptance of the turd you’ve been handed and saying that it’s “the best deal we can get.”
And when, again, you go so far as to claim that we confirm Miers or lose the War–yeah, I think you’re connection to rational thought might be a lil’ strained on this topic.
You’re unable to come to grips with the fact that Miers is the nominee
Ummm…no. But thanks for playing. I accept that Miers is the nominee, I’m trying to argue why she should be withdrawn or rejected and why she’s not good for the GOP.
Of course, that’s because I want to lose the war.
and you’re not going to get another whack at it this time.
Only because of stalwart defenders of truth and liberty like yourself, right?
This conversation is pointless.
Christopher Cross (5a6f9e) — 10/9/2005 @ 12:42 pmWait, I thought you wanted to “have a dialogue”? Unless “dialogue” means “agree with Dayfdd or else I’ll go home.”
WTF is “reports differ” supposed to mean?! That sounds like the kind of weasel words for which one of my favorite bloggers frequently (and rightly) takes the L.A. Times to task for employing when describing a black or white assertion they were either too lazy to research, or perhaps rightly feared might undermine their premise if more fully researched. Whatever differences may exist between individuals’ “reports” of their hazy recollections, the only “report” that counts is the one contained in the Congressional Record. If you have evidence that the Congressional Record was forged, or that some hacker broke into the U.S. Senate web site to sneak in a fake version of it simply to help me win an argument on a tangential point having little to do with the Miers debate, I’d love to see it. Or, for that matter, if you have evidence that John Chafee (R-RI), Bob Packwood (R-OR), Arlen Specter (R-PA), Robert Stafford (R-VT), John Warner (R-VA) and Lowell Weicher (R-CT) – all of whom were Senators in 1981 as well as 1987 – weren’t really registered Republicans in 1981 and/or 1987, I’d be interested in seeing that. But unless you can show one or the other, or that any of these six underwent a conversion from Real Republican to RINO during that same period, the notion that Robert Bork was ever confirmable is an unsupportable fantasy.
Xrlq (428dfd) — 10/9/2005 @ 4:34 pmCalm down there, hoss.
Now: how many Democrats voted for Bork? A quick search I did a few days ago revealed links that claimed the answer to that question was “two” — but I didn’t do extensive research as you appear to have done. Based on those links, unless the 55-45 number is wrong, then Repubs for Bork were 45 minus 6 equal 39, and Dems for Bork were 2, making a total of 41. But 42 Senators voted for him, not 41.
I had seen some links claiming 5 Senators voted for him, and some saying 6. The five number at least added to 42; the 6 didn’t. But I didn’t really care which, because I wasn’t that terribly interested in the details; for me, the important number for my purposes (since I wasn’t doing a freaking thesis on it), was that there was a net loss of three Republican votes.
If that is correct, then when we had a 55-seat majority in 1981, we could have afforded a net loss of three.
Now, if you want to go off and do the research to learn 1) why the above math is off by one, and 2) whether the 2 (3?) Dems who voted for Bork were around in 1981 — and maybe even 3) uncover what personal changes they had in their lives between 1981 and 1986 that might have affected their votes — you got yourself a thesis. And more power to you.
I don’t have the energy for that; net loss of votes is good enough for me.
Patterico (4e4b70) — 10/9/2005 @ 5:10 pmAccording to this list, it is wrong, but it’s an understandable mistake. Based on the Wikipedia entry I just linked to, it appears that voters did indeed elect a 55-45 Senate in 1986, but that one of those 55, Edward Zorinsky of Nebraska, died of a heart attack the following spring. Zorinsky was then replaced by Republican David Karnes, who voted in October to confirm Bork. Zorinsky himself probably would not have; on the one hand, he was generally seen as conservative on some issues, but no more so than Sam Nunn, Lloyd Bentsen, John Breaux or countless other, lesser known Southern Democrats, all but two of whom voted alongside their liberal brethren to bork Bork. [The two exceptions were David Boren of Oklahoma and Fritz Hollings of South Carolina.]
You now have the links to the same information I’m working off of, so feel free to point out where I’m wrong, or forever abandon the “we coulda had Robert Bork” pipe dream. I’m not saying no Senate would ever have confirmed Robert Bork, but I am saying that if such a Senate ever existed, its tenure didn’t overlap with Ronald Reagan’s. “Justice Bork” simply was never in the cards.
Xrlq (428dfd) — 10/9/2005 @ 6:41 pmNonsensical? Ouch that hurts.
In life outside of the dark room that houses your ocmputer, there is a world where concepts and ideas are not pigeon-holed into the realms in which they usually operate. People leverage conventional ideas across transparent lines in business everyday. Applying the Principles of War to the Miers nomination could have been as much as a planning tool pre-nomination, as is it can be an analysis tool, post nomination.
Certainly, as you go about your daily chores, you conduct routine cost-benefit analyses, probably at a rate you barely stop to notice. This nomination was certainly made with such analsyses before it was announced. To deny that is to deny the obvious.
Pick for me the best baseball player…who do you pick…a pitcher, a home run hitter, a base stealer? Pick!
In an endeavor such as filling a vacancy on the Supreme Court, there is no “best” candidate. The pick is a result, because of today’s political envrionment, of a series of compromises…personnel, political, timing, etc., that puts on the bench a candidate the can do the job, AND fill some other…hate to say it …political need. And as Hugh Hewitt, a rater intelligent fellow and a teacher of Constitutional Law puts it…it just ain’t that hard.
I am not saying Miers is brilliant. I am not saying she is the best choice. But I am saying that all this carping and divisiveness may crack the foundation and let Hillary waltz through the door in ’08. This fight, while perhaps necessary in your view, is not worth that.
That is reality…it is just outside your computer room door.
Nonsensical…still hurts…oh, thanks for all the traffic. MM
Major Mike (ee9fe2) — 10/9/2005 @ 7:02 pmsorry…typo on the URL above…www.mysandmen.blogspot.com
Major Mike (ee9fe2) — 10/9/2005 @ 7:08 pmMajor Mike,
I shouldn’t have used that word. Emotion is getting to a lot of us. I strongly disagree, and I owed you the courtesy of explaining why, and not lobbing an unexplained insult. I’m sorry.
If I get time, I’ll explain later.
Patterico (4e4b70) — 10/9/2005 @ 8:05 pmX,
Time is short now, so I’ll go through the math later, but for now, 3 quick questions:
1) Do you agree with the macro point that you shouldn’t save your best shot for later, because later may not ever come — *assuming* you have a good shot of success now?
2) Does a president’s popularity affect these votes?
3) When was Reagan more popular? 1981 or 1987?
Patterico (4e4b70) — 10/9/2005 @ 8:07 pmX,
Okay, I’m running the numbers. Looks like Republicans led 53-46 in 1981. So if there were 4 net defections, then you’re right — all other things being equal, Reagan loses 49-51. If one Senator voted differently — say because Reagan was more popular in 1981 — it’s 50-50 and Bork is nominated with a tie-breaker from the Veep.
I don’t know how you can be so certain what would have happened in 1981.
As I said, Reagan arguably could have gotten him confirmed. But I thank you for helping get the 1987 numbers accurate.
My main point holds: if Reagan was going to bother running Bork at all, the time to do it was 1981. You at least agree with that, right?
Patterico (4e4b70) — 10/9/2005 @ 8:47 pmYes.
Xrlq (428dfd) — 10/9/2005 @ 8:51 pmProbably.
Dunno. I lived in Mexico in 1981 and Germany in 1987, but don’t remember offhand which nationality hated him more. Given Reagan’s early image as a loose cannon of an actor cum faux politician vs. his later image as the standard bearer for the right who easily got Bush the Elder elected in 1988, his bare 1980 majority vs. his 1984 landslide and the fact that the economy was in the toilet in 1981 but strong in 1987, and given his ability to skate through Iran-Contra with the same Senate he had to deal with for the Bork confimations, my guess is that he was more popular in 1987. But I honestly do not know.
That, in turn, assumes that Reagan was more popular in 1981, which I doubt, and it also assumes that the two Democrats who voted to confirm Bork in 1987 would have been just as happy to do a favor to the guy from the enemy party who had just gotten done unseating their President. Not saying it couldn’t have happened, just that there’s no reason to think it would have.
I do agree, FWIW Bork had a better shot in 1981 than he did in 1987. I don’t see that helping Bork himself, as he’d have been borked anyway, but it does suggest that if Reagan had had a crystal ball, the thing to have done would have been to appoint a Bork-lite in 1981, and the promised woman whenever.
Xrlq (428dfd) — 10/9/2005 @ 9:03 pmI don’t know for sure at all relevant times — I don’t have stats that go month by month — but I did find this:
So: spring of 1981 Reagan’s approval rating was 73 percent.
O’Connor was confirmed on September 21, 1981.
In early 1987 Reagan’s approval rating was 44 percent.
Bork was rejected on October 23, 1987.
Now, from this, one could argue that Bush’s approval rating sucks now, and that’s why he had to go with a second-rate choice. All the press reports I am seeing nowadays are saying this. But I think it’s a poor analysis.
So it comes down to: *if* Bush gets another shot, and *if* it doesn’t come so late that the Dems just stall for the next president, will Bush be markedly stronger — and will he have as sizable a majority in the Senate?
I think, under these circumstances, waiting for the future to confirm a strong judicial conservative is an unbelievably foolish move.
Patterico (4e4b70) — 10/9/2005 @ 9:07 pmDafydd:
My “victory conditions” would be that this nominee is rejected either in committee, or by the full Senate.
I am utterly unconcerned with political “upside”. The Republican Party can hang, for all I care. I want demonstrably-qualified judges on the Supreme Court, and if the Republican Party isn’t going to give me that, then the Democrats may as well be in power.
Brett (f7ee3b) — 10/10/2005 @ 2:42 pm