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?
[[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.]]
I admit the White House has not done a good job in presentation of Miers, which is why I am now leaning against her nomination. Writings, or lack thereof, are not a sound basis for total rejection and pre-judgement. Nor is it evidence of a lack of or different vetting process, unless you are alleging that because she could not vet herself, somehow, the process was different.
[[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.]]
You are isolating one nominee from all the others, and to not consider Bush's track record, which reflects on his judgement of judicial nominees, is dismissal of a relevant fact, and as such, skews your opinion. Were a track record being cited as the sole reason for confirmation, I would agree with you. I only cite it as one reason, among others, including the opinions of those who know her (which, in my opinion, is more valid than the opinions of those that don't) to wait and see and make my judgement based upon the hearings. That is where your argument falls apart, I am not calling for her confirmation based upon Bush's track record.
I find the incessant throwing up of Souter, O'Connor and Kennedy as examples to be a case of comparing apples and oranges, and providing a stronger argument against your demand for Miers having a paper trail. All three of them had paper trails, none of them ended up being conservative, not one of them was personally known by the president that nominated them.
[[Are you trying to argue that a nominee cannot be evaluated without reference to the nominator's track record?]]
No, I am certainly not. You can do so, but it skews your evaluation. What I am arguing is that the nominator's track record is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration.
You did see where staunch conservative judge Charles Pickering, who knows her, has endorsed her ?
----
PICKERING: John, you know, I think her resume speaks for itself. She has a very impressive resume. And one of the strengths that I think she has is that she has real-world experience.
I think it's unfortunate that we think someone has got to come from the bench or someone has got to come from academia to sit on the Supreme Court. During the history of our nation, half of the judges that served on the Supreme Court did not have previous judicial experience, so this is not a new phenomenon. This is not a new situation.
And the fact that she has had real-world experience, she was an experienced litigator. She served in local government, state government, and federal government. I think that's to her advantage. I think that's a prospective that the Supreme Court by and large misses.
GIBSON: Judge Pickering, what I'm going to hear and what I know you're going to hear is conservatives saying, "Look, we want a battle-tested nominee like Judge Pickering. We want somebody who's made decisions and had to stick by them. We want somebody who isn't going to wilt under this liberal pressure."
PICKERING: I understand that and I respect that and I think that is a position that, you know, certainly everyone has a right to a position that they want to choose in this, but she's been there before. She's been in litigation. She's represented clients who had $100 million at stake. She has had to advise the president.
You know, for people to suggest that the counsel to the president is not a significant position. She advises him on things that he does all over the world. She's had to stand in the trenches and fight before. I think she'll be able to hold her own with the justices of the Supreme Court.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,172016,00.html