Harriet Miers Nomination: Fish or Cut Bait

Lots of stuff flying around today about the Miers nomination. Except for Beldar's excellent factual examination of Miers experience as opposed to Roberts', it apprears to be all tail-chasing.



You got some new information, or a truly unconsidered viewpoint, I'm interested. I'm not interested in going around and around arguing over the same information. My position remains what it was: Disappointed, but willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, and I will support her nomination unless she shows herself to be unsuitable. The president is the one with the power to choose said nominees, and the president chose her. She appears to be qualified by her record. Yes, there were better choices available in my opinion. I'm pretty certain I wasn't elected president last election. The man we did elect chose Harriet Miers. Live with it, and either support or oppose her nomination on its own merits, not that of some hypothetical alternative candidate. Yes, if you're one of those people that worked for his election, you have a right to be angry at President Bush for this. My advice to you is to let it go. He's never running for anything, ever again, and deserting the Elephants who are running in the future over this is stupid on every level. If you think you'll get a better nominee out of the Donkeys, particularly by supporting them because they're Donkeys and not Elephants, I have a wake up for you. Now get your mind off of wishful thinking and evaluate the nominee we have as to whether she's qualified or not.



She seems to be qualified. She seems to be a strict constructionist, which is certainly my number one overall priority. I'm not wedded to having any one particular decision upheld or overturned. I really don't have a litmus test, and a strict constructionist is more likely to see it the way I want it seen on every issue. There is no single issue where I want a sure vote in exchange for giving up a large portion of the rest of my wish list. There is no single decision I'm willing to forsake several others for. Harriet Miers seems likely to fit the sort of justice whose votes on the court I would most likely match.



Conservatives keep telling the rest of the country they don't like activist judges. Their actions in the outcry against Harriet Miers belie this. If you are a conservative and want something mollifying, look at this Supreme Court Deathwatch at Countertop Chronicles that I linked two days ago. After this, the Donkey activists are playing defense for four of the next five likely vacancies. You vote Donkey (or fail to vote Elephant) in 2006 and beyond, and you're cutting the nose off to spite your face at the moment you would most likely win. There are several words for those who do that sort of thing. Stupid is one, moron another, imbecile a third. Pinhead, idiot, dumb, and dolt also apply, as do childish, immature, and spiteful. These Things Take Time, and they're just taking a little longer than you assumed. To stalk off and forfeit the game in a snit when you're ahead on points because your first play after one touchdown only gained six yards instead of a touchdown is not the act of a rational adult.



UPDATE: I'd forgotten about this Scrappleface piece of satire. Wonderful satire yes, but it makes an excellent and real point.