Posted on 10/18/2005 11:02:36 AM PDT by Cboldt
There was an interesting exchange during the "Round Table" segment of Fox News Sunday talk show, of October 16, 2005. The gist of the discussion was that, assuming Miers gets through Committee hearings, doesn't lay an egg, and is seen as a "mainstream conservative jurist", the Senators still face great uncertainty as to how she will turn out.
The discussion was in terms of how each Senator's vote will look in hindsight. This illustrates the problem I have with the nomination. Senator's votes and public vision should not be undertaken in an environment of this much uncertainty. Selection of no government official, be they President, Congressman, senator or Justice, is not supposed to resemble a philosophical crap shoot.
Imagine you have the responsibility to discharge the duty that attaches to being a Senator. "Senator, this is the President. I have a bill here, that will assure the safety of Social Security for the next 3 generations. It's a good bill. It privatizes accounts yet has a safety net for those who are not able to complete an adequate private account. I want you to pass this bill. 'Trust me'"
You would expect the contents of the bill to be laid out for review, so the bill could be debated on the merits. Do you think a responsible Senator would vote 'Aye" based on "trust me?" Would you? I think not, because that is too much of a crap shoot. You, the Senator might get it right, or you might not.
And carry that to the outer part of this particular feedback loop, if your vote is based on a too much of calculated guess and too little on hard facts, the Miss Cleo factor, on what moral and ethical basis could a voter hold you, the Senator, accountable for the outcome? If the vote is not based in principle, but on a guess, all you, the Senator, are guilty of is "guessing wrong."
And then we get to the damage that "uncertainty, the nominee" causes to the party. "Uncertainty, the nominee" produces two camps of argument. One camp of argument is based on loyalty, trust, power and/or clique; the other is based on a concept of objective analysis of facts to inform a sense of whether or not to confirm this nomination.
The two camps are on footing that is irreconcilable, due to the fact that the quality of the nominee (an indefinite term that describes the degree of approval for nominee offered) is unknown and probably unknowable.
One side is "pro" on the basis of trust, and the other side is anti, on the basis of "show me", or mistrust if you feel better labeling it that.
Attempts at discussion to find "compromise" between those positions only serves to drive the wedge deeper - because there is no way to compromise trust.
If the nominee had somewhat a paper trail, we'd be arguing over its substance. Without a paper trail, one side's argument is reduced to charges of disloyalty and mistrust.
Finally, there is an issue of damage caused to the very fabric of self-governance, by "uncertainty, the nominee." The acceptance of the practice of advancing nominees with an impenetrable judicial philosophy represents a bigger risk to our form of government than any single SCOTUS nomination and appointment. What is being advanced is government process by trickery over your opponents. Down that path is rhetorical chaos, where words mean nothing, and outcomes are obtained by deception.
"It's okay if we cheat, because the other guys deserve to lose." Adults are too smart to admit this expressly, but it is the path that we are following.
It is incredible that the ramifications of "Uncertainty, the nominee" are overshadowed ... no overlooked by we the people. Instead we revel in personal insults that have no substance, and analysis in a vacuum of fact. And yet, we act as though there is fact, there is certainty, trust me, this will all work out.
But all we really have is "Uncertainty, the nominee."
It's not all about Mires. It's about alot more.
Almost all Republican senators will vote for her.
Um NO as has been repeatedly made CLEAR to you. Your emotional demand for CERTANITY is not a rational but a childish response. NOTHING in life is certain. To demand that your own uncertainty take precedence over the job of our elected Representative is NOT an intellectually serious position. You are still JUST thrashing around rather then admit your emotional based position is just so much nonsense. Bush is the chosen Representative of the people. He made a choice. The critics jumped up and demanded that THEIR emotional whimsy must be satisfied. We have all been pointing out to you repeatedly that your emotional need for "Certainty" is completely irrelevant to the debate.
When the absurdity of your position was pointed out to you, you immediately started whining "you are all just attacking me". No what we are doing is pointing out repeatedly the intellectual vacuity of your arguments. Unfortunately you seem complete unwilling to considering anyone else position but your own. Simply putting your hands over you ears and screaming your opinions over and over and over will NOT help you make the case. You have to actually address the points made to you NOT just keep screaming your opinion over and over and over. Too bad for you that YOU do NOT get to dictate to everyone else what to think. Sorry you find it so difficult to accept reality that your argument is irrelevant. Too bad YOU are uncertain. You are not one of our chosen Representatives therefore your "uncertainty" is an issue to NO ONE but yourself. Sorry you seem so unwilling to grasp that simple fundamental point. Bush is President. He Picks. The Senate advises. Your worries and hand wringing have NO part of this issue. There is NO requirement that the President seek YOUR approval. Sorry you find that so difficult to accept.
Maybe the Heisenberg principle applies here. The product of the indeterminacy of a nominee's position by the indeterminacy of the issue to which a position applies could not be made less than a systemic constant.
He ought to seek cboldt's approval.
Instead, he takes Reid's approval.
It also says Bush acknowledges that no conservative who publicly states his beliefs or his philosophy is suitable for the Supreme Court.
Talk about silencing conservatism!
Ah come on; you're trying to make it about alot more. We will know MUCH more about HM by the time she is confirmed than was known about 90% of all former justices.
Sorry you all find the fundamental facts of a Constitutional Republic so tough to live with. Sorry you are so mad because you do not get to dictate to the rest of us what to think about Miers. Perhaps when 9 out of 10 people are telling you your opinions are silly, you might want to reconsider them rather then blindly lashing out at anyone who does NOT validate your own over inflated opinions of your "intellect". Your position on Miers is NOT a demonstration of intellectual brilliance
One camp of argument is based on loyalty, trust, power and/or clique; the other is based on a concept of objective analysis of facts to inform a sense of whether or not to confirm this nomination.
Let's try this in your language: The Senate advises and CONSENTS. Although IT is not SURPRISING that you attempt to read the WORD "consent" out of the CONSTITUTION since your support for a nominee WITH no articulated constitutional PHILOSOPHY shows how unimportant you regard that document TO be.
I think you're cute.
Do you like me now?
BTTT
Although I'm on the "support Miers" side of this issue, I think you have made some good points. Thank you.
It is very rare on this issue, but your post seems to me to be an example of a PRODUCTIVE contribution to what has been one of the most appalling examples of conservative self destruction I have ever seen.
Before launching into my long winded response, I'm really, REALLY in favor of appointing the most conservative candidate who can be approved. I suspect you are too, as are most of the people on either side of this issue. The stakes could not be higher.
I disagree with your analysis on two "reality check" issues.
FIRST DISAGREEMENT:
First, in my opinion any truly conservative nominee must be at least somewhat "stealth" to have any hope of confirmation. I do not believe a truly proven and reliable conservative nominee could be confirmed by THIS Senate.
We have a Republican majority in the Senate, but not a CONSERVATIVE majority. (Even the "conservative" Senators have a notorious lack of back bone.) Even if we did not have organized blocks like the Republican "McCain 7", or the "bi-partisan" "Gang of 14", the facts are that this Senate simply does not have a majority of ideological conservatives.
Those who cite the Roberts confirmation as proof that the THIS Senate will confirm a PROVEN conservative must have missed the confirmaion hearings. Roberts refused to answer any questions that could pin him down on specific issues, but was still forced to affirm that Roe v. Wade was "settled law". Without that statement I doubt he could have been confirmed.
I think we've got a winner with Roberts, but that is based on his comments on original intent, not his proven track record on any of today's "litmus test" issues. One reason he was approved is that his vaunted "track record" did not include anything specific enough for the Dems (and squishier Republicans) to attack. He may turn out to be another Souter for all we REALLY know so far.
The idea that the Senate will debate "qualifications" has long since given way to a debate over specific views on a selected list of litmus test issues. For instance, no candidate willing to state forthrightly that Roe v. Wade was an abuse of power would stand a chance of confirmation by today's Senate.
So, to sum up my first objection to your analysis: I do not think we can get ANY nomination approved if that person is not at least a somewhat "stealth" candidate. Requiring that a candidate not be "stealth" is simply not realistic if we actually want a conservative justice.
SECOND DISAGREEMENT:
The second area I disagree with you on is more philosophical. You see "stealth" candidates as degrading the confirmation process itself. You point out that to ask the Senate to "consent" to an unknown candidate is to degrade the entire process.
I AGREE with you philosophically, but it too late for that.
The confirmation process has long since been degraded below that level. The confirmation process of today is not "advice and consent". It is "win at any cost", including the vilest of lies, distortions, and character assassination.
(SIDE NOTE: The most distressing thing about this whole thing has been willingness of some on the Republican side to engage in the same gutter level tactics, minus only the profanity.)
It is a sad truth that in today's world, EVERY Supreme Court nominee MUST be ready for attempted character assassination during the confirmation process. This has been true ever since the Bork and Thomas confirmation hearings.
In my view at least, this has so damaged the intended confirmation process that it is nearly destroyed. Concerns about damaging the process are a little late.
Evidence for this is the rumor (not proven fact) that the selection of Harriet Miers was influenced by the refusal of several high profile candidates to subject themselves to the character assassination that is sure to accompany any nomination to the Supreme Court. This is just a rumor, but the current situation is so degraded that the rumor could easily be true.
Even ignoring the Bork/Thomas history, and Democrat threats to "Bork" anyone President Bush nominates, what message do the REPUBLICAN attacks on Harriet Miers send? After seeing the ferocious attacks on Harriet Miers, how many potential nominees can be induced to run that gauntlet?
Gonna bump this thread a little bit for ya mon....
WHAT WENT ON IN RIO BETWEEN PARIS HILTON, MADONNA, AND ROSIE O'DONNELL???
WE KNOW......FIND OUT ON THIS THREAD...!!!!!!
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.