Replies

Heres a couple thoughts and questions...

Bush said something to the effect that this woman was 'the best I could find' for the SCOTUS. Is she more qualified than Estrada, Brown, Nuttig? WHY???

What makes for a dream candidate for SCOTUS?

Has Bush articulated why she is the best? Has anyone on this forum articulated why she is the BEST QUALIFIED (best and brightest) candidate? What is it in her background or writings that indicates she is the best around. (Please don't talk simply about personal qualities as qualifiers for SCOTUS).

Jay Sekulow likes her...a plus...Mark Levin doesn't...a minus. Many conservative pundits seem to be quite disappointed or guardedly optimistic at best...I'm not keeping score. As far as peer support...it appears mixed at best among known conservatives.

Is she as qualified as John Roberts, who sailed through confirmation? Roberts was seen as a solid CONSERVATIVE. How did he get through without a filibuster?

Do we have any other known solid conservative jurists as qualified (or close to) as Roberts who could also sail through confirmation as Roberts did? Many say we do...are they wrong? Why didn't Bush nominate one of those people?

Advocating for a business client in commercial contractual litigation, and deciding personal liberty and law matters based on the Constitution are IMO entirely different matters...and unrelated to each other. What do I know..I'm not a lawyer.

If she is intelligent...she could learn the craft...from the best teachers on the planet. Its possible that Miers may turn out...after a years of apprenticeship under a chosen mentor...to be a good justice "in the mold of Scalia or Thomas". Age then also becomes a factor in determining how many years she could be effective once she learned her new craft. How much longer will Scalia and Thomas be around to guide their new pupil?

We simply don't know,and cant know what type of judge she WILL become....she has no experience ruling on legal matters, and there are sparse writings to gage her mental process. I read some of her recent statements on the Constitution...they sounded good...but talk is often cheap.

If we eliminate the case that she is clearly the best, brightest, and most qualified candidate around out of some known excellent candidates, (because Bush says she is...or we trust that she is) we are left with two options as to how things stand politically in the Republican party and /or the Senate at present..take your pick...or pick both.

OPTION 1....We cant get a solid KNOWN conservative (besides Roberts)confirmed to anything at this time. If so..why not? I have been troubled ever since that 'magical deal' was cut by the 'gang of 14'. The nuclear option was taken off the table...many apparently DO NOT WANT A PUBLIC FIGHT ON CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLES...ON ANY ISSUE OF SUBSTANCE.

The reason..the leadership wouldn't want the CONSERVATIVE base to come to the realization that there is no consensus in the pub party for a true conservative agenda (besides tax cuts) ....due to the blocking actions of the infamous voting block of RINO senators. Maybe theres more RINOS around than we are aware of. The best we could hope for is a bipartisan consensus stalemate.

We gage conservative results in known ways...one is the growth and size of government. Is a conservative agenda moving forward with the present Congress?

Nominating a candidate like Estrada or Brown....and fighting for her would have exposed the status quo in the party and the Senate..not good for fundraising efforts. So Bush tries to sneak a good candidate in under the radar.

Is it pragmatic...perhaps. Can you advance an agenda merely on stealth? I don't think you can.

I consider myself a 'conservative optimist'. I believe that conservative principles, stated logically, and with a degree of passion...convince people, and advance an agenda. A good fight and debate is a good venue to air ideas...thats what we supposedly do on this site. We can do the same thing nationally...and should at some point, in order to move forward.

A conservative agenda sells if you have an effective salesman. This is why Rush is successful at what he does. If Bush and the pub leadership were to pick someone like Estrada (my preference) or Brown, and actually fight and stand on principle...they WOULD PREVAIL with the American people.

OPTION 2....The fact that Bush and other pub leaders in the Senate seem reluctant to fight hard on principle indicates that they are either weak, worn out...or perhaps not fully committed to advancing a conservative agenda. The goal in avoiding conflict would be to provide political cover for RINO or weak pols and avoid exposing the status quo.. denying the conservative base ammo to go out and defeat those pols who are RINOS during the next primary cycle.

In the extreme case scenario...Miers could be a stealth liberal...although there doesn't seem to be anything solid revealed up till now that suggests that. I'm assuming the political gift to the dems was done for pragmatic reasons...that might not be the case. We may get some idea from the confirmation hearings...not just from what is said...but like the Sherlock Holmes dog that didnt bark...from what is NOT said.

Those are two options as I see it. Maybe there are others as well. Take your pick....but don't (attempt) to shoot the messenger.