Replies

(Added you, suspects, to alert you to the thread)

Michael makes good points. In fact, nobody should be supportive of the acts of the president just because the president is republican. If President Bush pushes a bad education bill, we should speak about it's errors.

If there is party loyalty, it applies best when things are done and we move on.

I disagree with Michael on this issue, on one specific but extremely important (to me) point. But I will also point out that the ABA stuff doesn't appear damning to me, because there is no indication she supported the views of the committee she headed. THat's what the hearings should be about, finding out what she thinks.

My specific disagreement is on the matter of "qualifications". Now I happen to think her resume is good enough to "get her to the interview", and I know a lot of people disagree with that.

But the number one qualification of a justice for me, in fact so important that not meeting it disqualifies a judge in my mind, is this: That the justice be a strong strict constructionist, and that we know they won't change while on the bench.

If that IS the prime qualification, than it is quite possible that Harriet is, to Bush, the MOST QUALIFIED of the people he interviewed who said they were interested in the job (yes, it is possible that some candidates turned him down).

In order to KNOW that a person won't change, you have to really know them. Reagan vouched for O'Conner in 1981, but didn't really know her. Bush Sr vouched for Souter, but again he didn't really know him. Reagan kind of got taken a 2nd time with Kennedy, who was supposed to be the fix for O'Conner.

So, here is Bush. The one thing we all tell him is NO SOUTERS. Well, how does he ensure that. He knows that good conservatives sold Souter to his Dad, because he was there. Now good conservatives are selling judges to him

But he also has Harriet. She's been vetting his judges for years now, telling him whether they meet the strict constructionist test. She has been spot-on in identifying good justices (which btw seems to indicate she has enough of a grasp of constitutional issues to at least DISCUSS them with smart nominees, and to discern their position).

And, in his 10 years of knowing her, he has learned about her character 1st-hand. He KNOWS she won't change. So, if she is a strict construtionist NOW, she will be 10 years from now.

In fact, Bush has said just that. And he has said that was HIS PRIMARY QUALIFICATION.

So, if you agree with Bush that strict-constructionist-now-and-forever is the prime qualification, then all you need to know about Harriet is, IS BUSH CORRECT?

As to whether she understands and attaches herself to the strict constructionist view is something we can learn at the hearings. And if she won't answer, she should be rejected. If she DOES answer, and her answers are wrong, she should be rejected.

If she does answer, and answers correctly, then we have only one question remaining. Do we trust that Bush knows she won't change? Or do we need a paper trail in order to have that trust?

That is something each person has to decide. I have decided that, if she answers correctly, that will prove Bush was right about her views, and then I will trust him about her unchanging attitude.

And regardless of the "meritocracy" argument, and it does have merit, no doubt, there isn't a single conservative among us who would have accepted ANY candidate, no matter HOW high they were on the meritocracy scale, if ten years after they were appointed, they were voting like stevens.

In other words, we want a meritocracy pick, but not as much as we want a strict constructionist who will remain failthful through her entire career.

In that sense, if Bush is right, she meets the prime qualification for the post. Even though she is only one of the top 100 laywers, rather than the best in the country.

Other than the personal attacks, the arguments for and against Harriet here have been very enlightening.