[[His judicial nomination track record is not helpful in the Miers case either. The past track record was based on a vetting process that was not followed for Miers.]]
And you know what vetting process was employed with Miers how ? Did someone in the White House tell you ? Or is this based on some pundits opinion ?
[[Each nomination has a certain flavor of its own, uncolored by past or future nominations.]]
Of all the things I have seen you write, this makes the least sense. Were this concept to be employed, there would be no such things as a track record to be cited on any issue, each decision would have 'a certain flavor of its own, uncolored by past or future' decisions.
She [Miers] was in charge of the White House selection of a chief justice nominee, vetting candidates' records and often playing the tough questioner."We'd be talking about somebody's background," said Leonard Leo, now on leave as executive vice president of the Federalist Society, the conservative group whose headlined speakers have included Supreme Court justices and Bush administration official.
"There would be a moment of silence when she was clearly thinking about what was being said and then she would challenge it, asking, 'But what specifically in those opinions strongly suggests that this is someone who ascribes to judicial restraint?'" Leo said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051015/ap_on_go_su_co/miers_what_s_known
If Miers' fits the pattern of past nominees, the WH would express what specifically (generalities, like "strict constructionist" with no more, are not specific) in Ms. Miers' opinions (they won't be judicial, but that's okay - any writing, transcript of speech, etc. will do) strongly suggests (this admits a slight amount, but not much ambiguity) that she is someone who ascribes to judicial restraint.
The WH has not done this.
Each nomination has a certain flavor of its own, uncolored by past or future nominations.
Of all the things I have seen you write, this makes the least sense. Were this concept to be employed, there would be no such things as a track record to be cited on any issue, each decision would have 'a certain flavor of its own, uncolored by past or future' decisions.
I'm not citing the track record - I'm evaluating ONE nominee, Miers. You are correct, if I were evaluating a track record, the others are a necessary part of the evaluation. But citing a track record is a weak defense of this nominee, and in fact works against this nominee -- see Souter, O'Connor, etc.
Are you trying to argue that a nominee cannot be evaluated without reference to the nominator's track record?