The Black Republican

Bush has a tendency to support liberal Republicans when challenging conservatives. That's what makes me nervous about his TWO nominees. Hopefully, he's delivered. But, if you look at his history from outspending LBJ and all the others to his support of Chafee over Laffey and Specter over Toomey, you have to be a little uneasy. For the sake of us all, let's hope he made good choices.

BC, I believe the president met the burden of my trust with the Roberts nomination, and we supported the new Chief Justice. But on first blush there is nothing in the nomination of Harriet Miers that leads me to be assured this will end well.

It could end well, and I could be proven wrong. But where Judge Roberts was clearly someone who met the description the president promised us, and more scrutiny reassured my fears, with Miss Miers we begin with cronyism and it's been tepid steps downhill from there.

I cannot and will not wait until it's too late to voice opposition, and I will be encouraging my Senators to vote no. The president has asked for too much trust and provided too little substance this time.

In the mists of all this flap about President Bush's latest nominee, Harriet Miers, to the U.S. Supreme Court. Some conservatives broadcasters have aired their concerns (even dismay) about this nominee. I have only this to say. If you are a Christian, than the only opinion that should matter to you is the opinion of Christian lawyers fighting to defend life and family in our US court system....

remainder of spam truncated - Ed.

Sorry Brother Knight, this one's not buying today.

I'm as pro-life as you can get, but I still won't sell out my hopes for a rational legal system to anyone on one issue, no matter how important. It's the perversion of the legal system to suit agendas that got us into this mess in the first place. And I can't think of a better definition of "agenda" than a politician being installed by her friend the president with no other redeeming recommendation other than someone's word. You're going to have to give me something more to go on before I bend over again.

Oh, and don't come in here and spam my site with your talking points. Send 'em to me by email and I'll think about including an update. Or post 'em on your own blog and trackback to me.

EDIT: Well, apparently Shane has a problem with the concept of trackback, because the above is a verbatim recitation of his post here. Send an email, Shane. I'll 'splain a few things to you.

I'm a little surprised you questioned the President's choice. If you trust his leadership why doubt him now - just because she is a friend?

Maybe this will help.

You're only surprised because you don't know me, and seem to go through a great deal of effort to avoid learning more about me. Mr. Lifson makes lots of good points for supporting Miss Miers - including many arguments that are making some conservatives sound quite foolish - but he never directly addresses the reason why I don't. He comes close a few times, but veers off in another direction before getting there.

Sir, how can one learn about someone unless they interact with them and engage them in conversation? This is what I thought I was doing.

Well maybe once her judicial philosophy, temperment, or experience is better exposed you feel better.

Oh, I dunno, how about reading what I write? If you won't read it the first (or second, or third...) time, what makes you think you'll get anything out of it through dialogue?

I’ve read what you wrote. That’s why I’m surprised you didn’t rely on your “Captains” years of experience, judgment, and his advisers to pick someone qualified for the job. Why not give him the benefit of the doubt?

You said your one reason was “the Supreme Court nomination I was promised was for a judge in the mold of a Scalia or Thomas.” And you said you, “Miss Miers is not someone I can yet trust in terms of judicial philosophy, temperment, or experience, and is not the best example of the Scalia/Thomas mold we can find.

So why are you so quick to request the withdrawal of Mier’s nomination? Why can’t she go thru the confirmation process for you to see if you can “yet trust” her judicial philosophy etc.?

Are you sure it’s not the cronyism or the fact she MAY not a Thomas or Scalia minded choice but rather “I was holding hope of a real fight with the nomination of Janice Rogers Brown”.

I cannot and will not wait until it's too late to voice opposition... The president has asked for too much trust and provided too little substance... I was holding hope of a real fight with the nomination of Janice Rogers Brown, but... The naked cronyism of this pick - in defiance of every promise, and every previous impulse - severely outweighs any other quality I might find in agreement with the nominee.

If the president broke his promise, why am I under any obligation to respect his request for trust? I hold no ill will toward the woman - she could end up being great for all the reasons stated by Lifson and more. But in this instance, the president promised something very specific, and it's a violation of that promise to skip over all the people who are clearly qualified according to those terms in favor of someone only he believes can tell is qualified according to those terms. (Poor phrasing corrected - many conservatives "believe", but only he "can tell". - Chris)

His attempt to avoid a fight over these principles is a denial that they have any validity in public discourse. For us not to hold him to his promise is as much a denial on our part.

He pulls Roberts out of his hat, probably knowing there would be opposition, but knowing the man was a strong candidate with impeccable credentials.

Then WHY would he choose such a person who would cause is own supporters to raise their eyebrows and come out against her like you have and point to cronyism?

It doesn’t make sense.

Welcome to the Republican Party!

Those who wonder what the heck I'm talking about need to read this snark from the Left. When I said this "is a denial that (conservative principles) have any validity in public discourse," this is exactly what I was referring to.

There are concerns from those who oppose any nomination to any court by this administration that it is a move to make law rather then interpret – something that Roberts continually denied.

But if we believe Meyerson's view "Roberts and Miers is a clear indication that his goal is at best to change the voting pattern of the Court," then THAT is the reason for your "Captain's" choice of Miers – to make and change law. Even if it means breaking his "promise."

That's politics for you.

LOL! Whatever you say, Mr. Pot.

LOL! I didn't say it. Meyerson said it. I just thought a possible reason for your "Captains" disappointing choice.