The Tony Snow Show Thread, Wednesday October 5, 2005

Conservative Caution
Conservatives are beginning to breathe again after learning more about Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers. What does one of the most prominent conservative members of the Senate think of the pick? Tony'll ask Senator George Allen (R-VA).

Sticking to the Budget
All of Congressman Mike Pence's efforts are beginning to pay off--the House leadership is pledging to hold the line on federal spending. We'll talk with Rep. Pence about how he achieved his goal and what will happen in the future.

New Operations
We're still keeping tabs on the Iraq war, especially Operation Iron Fist, which has already achieved great results. Lt. Col. Oliver North, author of The Assassins, will assess the war's progress.

You can find out more information about the line-up, stream Tony's show, find local radio stations as well as other fun stuff off his website.

CLICK HERE and follow the "Listen Live" link to stream the show which runs from 9 AM est to noon.

WMET airs Tony’s show on the web from 9-12 EST. Another way to hear Tony’s show is by streaming it at 7pm
CST on klif.com

Yet another source of the show is at 1190wamt.com which streams at least part of Tony’s show during its regular air time.

By the way, if you miss anything, the show is streamed again immediately after the three hours. Please feel free to add thread narrative about what is aired on the show as a group effort is helpful to get more of the content posted and is much appreciated by those reading the thread later.

If you’d like on or off the Tony Snow Show ping list, please post a request.
All requests happily honored.

"Woof" is used in broadcasting to say "stop," "that's enough" or to mark a specific point in time
-- which is what is done in this case. "Tony's show starts in 3 minutes: WOOF!" Means in 3 minutes from-- NOW!

Here's an article that you may find interesting.

RULE OF REASON
The president was visibly angry at his press conference yesterday. Nobody likes criticism, especially when it's justified. But was he convincing? He sure did not convince me. The closest thing he offered to a defense - praise for his nominee for hailing from outside the "judicial monastery" - entirely misses the point. Senator John Cornyn elaborates on this defense in the Wall Street Journal this morning, and makes it clearer than ever what is wrong with it:

"[S]ome have criticized the president because he did not select an Ivy-League-credentialed federal appeals court judge for the open seat."

The problem with Harriet Miers is not that she lacks formal credentials, although she does lack them. Had the president chosen former Solicitor General Theodore Olson, or Securities and Exchange Commission chair Christpher Cox, or former Interior Department secretary Gail Norton, nobody would complain that they were not federal appeals court judges.

Or had the president named Senator Jon Kyl (LLB, University of Arizona) or Senator Mitch McConnell (LLB, University of Kentucky) or Edith Jones Clement (LLB, Tulane), nobody would be carping at the absence of an Ivy League law degree.

Those who object to the Miers nomination do not object to her lack of credentials. THey object to her lack of what the credentials represent: some indication of outstanding ability.

The objection to Miers is not that she is not experienced enough or not expensively enough educated for the job. It is that she is not good enough for the job.

(See more on this in my article in the next print NR.)

And she will remain not good enough even if she votes the right way on the court, or anyway starts out voting the right way. A Supreme Court justice is more than just a vote. A justice is also a voice.

The president's defense of Miers in many ways amplified the problem. His case for her boils down to: "Because I say so" and "She really is a nice person."

But "because I say so" is not an argument. It is an assertion of pure authority. And have not the great conservative legal minds of the past three decades warned again and again that the courts have gone wrong precisely because they have relied too much on authority and too little on argument?

"She really is a nice person" likewise is a statement grounded on feeling rather than thought. And don't conservatives object to legal liberalism precisely because it is based on sloppy emotion rather than disciplined thought?

Legal conservatism is a powerful and compelling school of thought. The Scalias and the Thomases and the Rehnquists have changed the law not by forcing their positions on the country by brute vote-counting, but by persuasion. That's why, to pick out just one example, that Bush v Gore was decided by a 7-2 majority and not lost 3 to 6.

This president has never believed much in persuasion. He believes that the president should declare and that the country should then follow. But judges cannot and should not do that. He should have chosen a justice who could lead by power of intellect, and not because she possesses 1/9 of the votes on the supreme judicial body

It has been conservatives who have been most up in arms about the Miers nomination - and can I single out here the broadcaster Laura Ingraham, who has been first and most forceful with this story? Not for a second has she wavered under the pressures that have been deployed against her and the others who have joined this fight.

But the Miers nomination is a disservice, not just to conservatives, but the whole country.

All Americans are entitled to know that those judges who exercise the power of judicial review have thought hard and deeply about the immense power entrusted to them. If the courts were just about getting the votes, then the preisdent should have chosen Dennis Hastert for the Supreme Court. But to change American law, it's not enough to win the vote count. You have to win the argument. And does anybody believe Harriet Miers can win an argument against Stephen Breyer?

Yesterday's White House talking point was that Miers "reflects the president's judicial philosophy." OK. But can she articulate it? Defend it? And persuade others of it - not just her colleagues, but the generations to come who will read her decisions and accept them ... or scorn them. That's the way this president should have thought about this choice. And that's the way the Senators called on to consent to the choice should be thinking about it now.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.