Miers - guilty until proven innocent

Miers has now withdrawn her nomination. I emailed my comments to Eileen Byrne at WLS radio that day and will expand upon them here.

Thanks for reading her letter. One of the more irritating criticisms from some conservatives is that her comments about judicial restraint are just "conservative boilerplate". So, are they implying that she is outright lying or merely too stupid to know what she means? From what I have seen, some have accused her of both, and will now be happy that she cannot respond. Innocent until proven guilty, the right to respond to accusations - I thought conservatives held these principles in high regard.

I find it sad that she was not given the chance to respond during the hearings. I guess we will never know if she was really conservative and capable. I suppose we might have a chance now to see if a Brown or Luttig can actually get through this GOP senate. I for one have never thought the argument that they could, carried much weight, as much as I would like them to be on the court. But suppose such a conservative judge does make it, would any liberal justice, considering retirement be encouraged or discouraged from doing so while Bush is in office? While I am not a professional political analyst, it seems to me, that a stealth candidate, at this time, could make another Supreme Court opening more likely and ultimately, the net result would shift the court, very strongly, back to its proper role.

But if that was the strategy, those who were allies to the President have defeated it. All good strategies prepare for contingencies or can at least adapt. Since the main strategy has failed, what now? Democrats are now on record opposing the "extreme" right tactics and attacks on Meirs. The President should publicly state that he agrees and is sure that the democrats will not be hypocrites and treat his new fire-breathing Conservative, constitutional originalist nominee in the same way.

Granted, the extremist idiots like little Dick Durbin will spin the language and still attack in ways much worse than Conservative pundits ever criticized Miers, but the point will not be lost on the American people if the President states this early and very clearly. Unfortunately, it may never be known if all of this has removed a chance for the President to have one more Supreme Court nomination as part of his legacy. This is a shame, but judging from the antics of some, they will not reflect on this and only continue to pat themselves on the back. History may vindicate them, or it may remind us of the phrase, “stupid is as stupid does”.

Previous posts:
I am neutral on the Miers nomination
Diane Feinstein - constitutional scholar
That Harriet Miers obsession
More Meirs criticism
Coalition of the Chillin
That Harriet Miers nomination

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

I am neutral on the Miers nomination

The Truth Laid Bear has a Call to Bloggers: Take Your Stand on Miers.

I am going to say that I am neutral because a few arguments on the other side have some force. However, I feel she should be given the chance to respond during the hearings. She may surprise her most vocal critics, who I think overstate the ability of the current GOP senate to push through a conservative with a paper trail. More details of my views on this matter are available in the previous posts.

Previous posts:
Diane Feinstein - constitutional scholar
That Harriet Miers obsession
More Meirs criticism
Coalition of the Chillin
That Harriet Miers nomination

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

Diane Feinstein - constitutional scholar

Oops - forgot the [sarcasm off] html tag before I wrote that title.

The latest from Ms. Feinstein regarding the Harriet Miers nomination is quite instructive regarding her views on democracy and constitutional law issues. Regardless of how one feels about Miers as a Supreme Court pick, and I am still waiting for the hearings, one still has to laugh at a Senator mauling the English language as this particular Senator has, apparently doing her best to emulate Newspeak. From Feinstein's website, her latest statement regarding Meirs.

“Today, I received a copy of the April 11, 1989, questionnaire submitted by Texans United For Life to Harriet Miers during her campaign for the Dallas City Council and her responses to these questions.

The answers clearly reflect that Harriet Miers is opposed to Roe v. Wade. This raises very serious concerns about her ability to fairly apply the law without bias in this regard. It will be my intention to question her very carefully about these issues.”

Here is a bit more detail on what it was that Miers responded to.

WASHINGTON (AP) _ Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers pledged support in 1989 for a constitutional amendment banning abortions except when necessary to save the life of the mother, according to material given to the Senate on Tuesday.

"If Congress passes a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution that would prohibit abortion except when it was necessary to prevent the death of the mother, would you actively support its ratification by the Texas Legislature," asked an April 1989 questionnaire sent out by the Texans United for Life group.

Miers checked "yes" to that question, and all of the group's questions, including whether she would oppose the use of public moneys for abortions and whether she would use her influence to keep "pro-abortion" people off city health boards and
commissions.

Apparently Ms. Feinstein does not understand the role of legislatures and courts. Well, perhaps she does and resents the notion that if the will of the people were allowed on abortion, many states, though not all, would severely regulate the procedure and in some cases ban it. While I can sympathize with someone who is badly informed, I have no such feelings for someone who intentionally twists the language and frames any dissent from their cherished views as somehow being against the law or disrespectful of it. People like Feinstein choose their words well, but a pile of bovine excrement is still that, no matter how senatorial the language used.

For those who are undecided on Miers, or who would just like to hear more than Conservative pundits wailing, try BeldarBlog. You may not change your mind, but you will at least have a broader range of views and information from someone who has been characterized as brilliant by Jon Podhertz, an anti-Miers NROite.

A good round-up of news and commentary can be found at Mudville Gazzette which has another open post.

Previous posts:
That Harriet Miers obsession
More Meirs criticism
Coalition of the Chillin
That Harriet Miers nomination

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

That Harriet Miers obsession

Or, it has to be my way or else!! waaaa

That seems to be a good way to describe some conservative pundits and how they are reacting to the Miers nomination. Specifically a petition being hyped by David Frum of National Review Online. He boasts that they now have 4,000 votes and counting.

I wonder, what the numbers would be if Frum had also referenced a petition that told these pundits to take a deep breath and wait for the hearings. They certainly would not be 4,000 for the petition and zero for the shut up and be men petition.

This doesn't mean that I am certain Miers is a good pick. However, I am waiting for the hearings to see what she has to say. Maybe she will do what Powerline has suggested in their unsolicited advice.

Suppose Miers testifies to the following: 1) She believes Roe was wrongly decided, and has expressed that view from time to time in conversation. 2) Her disagreement with Roe is not based on her opposition to abortion, but rather on her opposition to judicial usurpation. The Constitution says nothing about abortion, and the idea that the Court suddenly "discovered" the right after nearly 200 years is ridiculous. 3) She doesn't know whether she would vote to overturn Roe, because that would depend on issues relating to stare decisis that she hasn't yet analyzed, and she would not make that kind of decision without hearing the case before her, studying the authorities and the arguments of the parties, and discussing the issues with her colleagues on the Court.

Mightn't that approach solve a number of problems? Miers would immediately become a heroine to nearly everyone on the right...

There is just one flaw with that. Some of these over the top knee-jerk reactions have most certainly given the left all the ammunition necessary to shoot Miers down, even if she were to vindicate herself to these pundits on the right. For all their pride in their intellect, it may turn out that they only end up sounding like Homer Simpson when this is over - DOH!

Just for giggles, I have created my own poll, that you can see on the left, above the google adds. Feel free to vote, even though this poll has about as much scientific accuracy as Frum's petition and as many optional answers as he allowed. Granted, I don't have the traffic of NRO but it does illustrate how bragging about 4,000 signatures when only one answer is allowed is kind of silly.

*update* Mudville Gazette has another open post.

Previous posts:
More Meirs criticism
Coalition of the Chillin
That Harriet Miers nomination

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

How much do AP "reporters" get paid?

Whatever it is, it's too much and more than what I get payed for this blog. What else is one to think over a ridiculuous "news" item such as this?

Karl Rove's Garage Proves to Be Typical

There was no car in the garage. And the stuff left behind turned out not to be much different from what gathers dust inside most American garages.

Whew! I was worried that Jimmy Hoffa's body might be found there.

Seriously, there is nothing else going on in the world? Does an organization that labels itself "the essential global news network" really need to write about something so trivial? Hey, if you want to make a joke to liven up the mood, fine. But it would help if you remember the funny parts. I suppose this is progress though. It at least appears to be accurate and not dripping with moral relativism.

Related posts:
Compare and contrast
Important News!!!!

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

Non-destructive stem cell breakthrough?

A recent report seems to indicate that embryonic stem cells can be harvested without destroying the embryo.

Stem cell breakthrough opens way to ‘spare part’ tissue banks

STEM cells have for the first time been harvested from embryos without killing them, using a technique that could eventually provide children with a personal store of spare part tissue for treating diseases later in life.

While this has only been tested in mice, it would seem that this might free us from the morally reprehensible act of destroying embryos for our own benefit.

It also promises to address one of the strongest ethical objections to embryonic stem (ES) cell research. The cells have great medical potential as they can form any type of tissue in the human body, but their use is opposed by religious groups, as they can be extracted only by destroying embryos.

If the new procedure, tested so far only on mice, also works in human beings, it would allow researchers to obtain ES cells from embryos that remain intact and could go on to become children.

Unfortunately, it appears that this technique is using embryos derived from IVF. The IVF procedure itself has created moral problems due to creating many more embryos than needed for one couple, to serve as backups so to speak. This then leaves a number frozen and with the morally vapid hyping of the supposed promise of embryonic stem cells, many are tempted to think we should at least use them to heal. Sadly, they put aside the moral issues of creating life for experimentation or the fact that adult stem cells are already being used in treatments.

The embryos from which the cells were removed were then implanted back into the wombs of mice. Of 47 such embryos transferred, 23, or 49 per cent, developed into healthy pups. The success rate was essentially the same as a control group of normal mouse embryos, which thrived 51 per cent of the time.

So, even if this procedure works on humans, we will still have excess embryos created and some will be lost. Let us not rush so quickly in an attempt to relieve our fear of death or satisfy our vanity, which heaps scorn upon misshapen limbs and handicaps. We think we may be willing to pay any price to avoid death and disfigurement for ourselves, but we may find, much to late, that the price was much higher than we anticipated.

Related posts:
Another potential stem cell source
What Kool-Aid do GOP Senators drink?
Embryonic stem cells - Narcissism unleashed
Stem cell research

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

Just because

I wonder if my readers will agree.

Your Blog Should Be Green

Your blog is smart and thoughtful - not a lot of fluff. You enjoy a good discussion, especially if it involves picking apart ideas. However, you tend to get easily annoyed by any thoughtless comments in your blog.

What Color Should Your Blog or Journal Be?

H/T Reading, Writing and Ranting

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

The Gender Wage Gap

An excellent article about women and wages in the workforce by Warren Farrell

Is Pay Equity Ready to Enter a New Era?

Nothing disturbs working women more than the statistics often mentioned on Labor Day showing that they are paid only 76 cents to men's dollar for the same work. If that were the whole story, it should disturb all of us; like many men, I have two daughters and a wife in the work force.

When I was on the board of the National Organization for Women in New York City, I blamed discrimination for that gap. Then I asked myself, "If an employer has to pay a man one dollar for the same work a woman would do for 76 cents, why would anyone hire a man?"

The article contains suprising numbers for those who only hear about the 76 cents figure.

H/T Dr. Helen who also refrences other works by the same author.

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

Iraqis vote - tsk tsk

I wonder if that is what Mother Sheehan and her supporters are thinking. Remember, not too long ago, Sheehan and her minions were saying we should be out of Iraq. It didn’t take long for her to add Afghanistan and New Orleans to the list. Perhaps that partially explains why the MSM has focused its agenda distorted lens elsewhere. It wouldn’t do for the useful idiots that you try to bludgeon the Bush administration with, start to sound like some of the moonbats on the DailyKos and the Democraticunderground or Moveon.org. Nope, that would be a bit too honest for Americans, can’t have that.

So now, we have reached this important milestone. Does anyone believe this momentous occasion in the history of Iraq would have occurred if the United States had not removed Saddam and then stayed until Iraq could protect itself? It is interesting to see some object that we are forcing democracy on them. Yet, Iraqis have bravely decided to vote, despite threats of violence, with what looks to be a 60% or so turnout. Saddam wasn’t in power by popular vote, but rather by cruel brutality, apparently forcing despotism on people is fine with some.

The people of Iraq have greatly impressed me with their bravery. I hope and pray they can continue to demonstrate that they are capable of rejecting Islamic extremism and that their country will prosper in the modern era and be an example to others in the region.

For more views on this historic vote, check out Rightwingsparkle, she has several good links. Most interesting is the difference in world headlines provided by Protein Wisdom.

And just for kicks linking to several Open Trackback posts:
Stop The ACLU
California Conservative
Holly Aho
The Political Teen
MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
Outside the Beltway
Wizbang!
The Indepundit,
The Mudville Gazette

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

More Meirs criticism

From Bench Memos at NRO The Administration, Ms. Miers, and the Federalist Society by Richard W. Garnett

If Ms. Miers really does harbor the tiresome, skittish, establishmentarian, protect-the-guild wariness toward the society described in the accounts mentioned above — rather than respect for its work, admiration for the vision of David McIntosh, Steve Calabresi, Spence Abraham, and others who founded the Society more than 20 years ago, and gratitude for the dedication of hundreds of law students today who often take real hits in order to stand up for and strengthen the Society and its intellectual mission — then I am inclined to
think that she has not earned (no matter what church she attends, no matter how good a person and impressive a lawyer she is, no matter how much she abhors abortion, no matter how loyal she is to this President, and no matter how Rehnquist-like her record turns out to be) conservatives' support.

No matter how her record turns out to be!? That seems incredibly childish and short-sighted. Why can't people wait for the hearings? Perhaps, we will all see that she is not qualified; then again, some of these critics might found out that she is. If they do, hopefully the Democraps won't see the same thing, because sadly, these knee-jerk reactions have given them all the ammunition they need to derail this nomination.

H/T Professor Bainbridge

Previous posts:
Coalition of the Chillin
That Harriet Miers nomination

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

Compare and contrast

Perhaps some of you have seen the following as "reported" by the MSM:

"WASHINGTON (AP) - The number of Iraqi battalions capable of combat without U.S. support has dropped from three to one, the top American commander in Iraq told Congress Thursday, prompting Republicans to question whether U.S. troops will be able to withdraw next year..."

Notice the AP headline: "Top U.S. General Says Number of Capable Iraqi Battalions Drops to One"

Take the time and read the entire news "report" here

Now, take the time to read a much deeper analysis provided by The Belmont Club that also links to the entire briefing.

Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and General George Casey gave a press briefing on September 30 focusing on the 'quantity of men' issue, a status report on the process of rebuilding the Iraqi Army.

First the raw numbers. Secretary Rumsfeld reports there are "technically 194,000 Iraqis" in the security forces. In terms of what may properly be referred to as the Iraqi army, General Casey said there were 100 battalions in all. These were divided, in terms of their capability into three categories: Category 1, 2 and 3 -- with Category 1 being the most capable.

Category Number of battalions
1 1 (as per leak in Congressional testimony)
2 classified
3 classified
Total 100

The widely circulated report in the press that of 3 Iraqi battalions that were formerly combat ready, only one is currently rated in that status is an example of how the 'quantity of men' issue has been misunderstood. That number turns out to be the number of Iraqi battalions in Category 1, which as we shall see later, is not the critical category at all. Here is the exchange that...

I've seen the AP "report" used to criticize how the Bush administration is doing in Iraq. The claim being that we are now going backward. It's easy to see how someone can come to that conclusion based on the ommissions and implications that the article intended. But it is also obvious that the context and facts are not as their headline or cherry picked quotes imply.

The AP "report" helps support some who have compared Iraq to Vietnam. This is ridiculous for a number of reasons and there is actually a quite a bit of contrast to the Vietnam experience. But there are several things that do compare. Like Vietnam, we have certain media organizations once again pushing their agenda to undermine the war effort of an administration they don't like or for some, a dislike for anything the United States happens to be doing. Like Vietnam, if they succeed and we leave before Iraq is ready, then it will be even more like Vietnam, where we abandoned an ally to certain defeat. Only this time, it will be much worse.

Our military and some politicians learned the correct lessons from Vietnam. But in contrast, it appears that some in the press and other groups learned exactly the wrong lessons. Do they not care how many will needlessly die or suffer this time?

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

Coalition of the Chillin

Regarding the Harriet Meirs nomination, I am joining the Coalition of the Chillin.

You can see from my previous post, that I am not yet enraged at the President's choice and that I can see the possibility of a deep strategery being attempted. Even better though is what the Anchoress has to say Infantile and needlessly injurious, regarding the tone of some the conservative criticism. I hate to say it, but the heated rhetoric from conservative pundits I greatly respect, seems to be on the level of a childish temper tantrum. Let's wait and see how she performs under questioning. It would be a shame for some, to find their own words used to defeat her, after they find out she really is a great choice for the Supreme Court.

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

That Harriet Miers nomination

Well now, it seems the President has really stepped into it this time. One would have to be deaf to not hear the chortling from the likes of little Dick Durbin and others of that ilk.

The reaction of many conservative pundits and those in the grass-roots ranges from confused to enraged, that Bush would skip over ideological conservatives like Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown or William Pryor, just to name a few. We are after all, talking about appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court. The President's as well as the Vice President's admonition, to trust us, is falling a bit flat. This is clearly due to the President allowing government spending to increase so drastically, and to the apparent inexplicable tendency to support moderate Republican congressional candidates, who as soon as they can, vote against the President on important policy matters. This is all the more painful, when that support has been given at the expense of clearly conservative candidates.

So what gives? Is Bush scared, dealing from a weak hand, playing political jujutsu or just plain old fumbling about? One thing that needs to be considered is that while there is a Republican majority in the Senate (55), it is not a certainty due to RINOs and the general spinelessness of GOP Senators. As Rush Limbaugh has stated, Bush may not believe he can win a serious fight with this army. I can understand that type of thinking, but then what of the administration supporting RINOs in congressional races? I have a hard time understanding that one. It certainly hasn’t had much return on investment from what I have seen. If someone wants to point to Roberts being confirmed, as a dividend, I would have to say that has more to do with his stellar qualifications and abilities, rather than moderates or even Democrats acting in good will. This leaves us on shaky ground when we are asked to simply trust the President.

What about strategery? It is tempting to revel in some Machiavellian plot. To be tempted to think one has found the hidden truth that no one else knows. I have no way of reading Karl Rove's mind or the President's but there is a possibility that I haven't seen mentioned elsewhere.

Let's suppose that Harriet Miers really does believe in the same judicial philosophy as Scalia or Thomas. Yes, I know that's a shot in the dark and requires a great deal of trust, just play along. Now, let's say one were personally certain that was her view, and doubted the ability of the GOP Senate, in its current form, getting a conservative with a clear track record in; what would you do if a Liberal Democrat Senator mentioned that individual to you as someone to consider? Also, Miss Miers, by virtue of this stealth attribute, may placate more than just the normal political opposition. What if, the combination of the somewhat unknown philosophy of Chief Justice Roberts and the very much-unknown Miers, eases the mind of a Supreme Court Justice who would like to retire? What if, one was worried about whom Bush would nominate to replace them but sees this record and how conservative ideologues are not pleased? Perhaps this would result in another opening on Bush's watch and the chance to very much tilt the court away from judicial activism. Sure, a bloody fight to the death over O'Connor's replacement would be more fun. I for one would like to see an open battle, to wipe away the stain of what happened to Bork. But that would most certainly be a short-term experience and one ruefully remembered if the nomination actually failed as Bork did.

Considering the ages of those currently serving, it is possible a retirement could occur before 2008. It may be, that Bush has increased the likelihood of this happening, by not nominating obvious conservative ideologues to the court.

John Paul Stevens – 85
Anthony M. Kennedy – 69
David Hackett Souter – 66
Ruth Bader Ginsburg – 72
Steven G. Breyer – 67
Antonin Scalia – 69
Clarence Thomas - 57

It may be, that many have misunderestimated the President. Then again, this might be a case of my being too clever. I'll admit, this is probably more likely. I am after all, not paid for political analysis or for the ability as a spinmeister. But, it would be sad to ultimately find out, that because of the hyperventilating of some, that a very clever political move was derailed and with it, an opportunity is lost to further change the momentum and possibly the direction of the culture war.

That's my 2 1/2 cents, no refunds or guarantees, accept at your own risk ;-)

Related posts:

A question for Judge Roberts
Bush made a mistake
Little Dick Durbin - should pay the price
George Voinovich - Let's start a support group
About that Senate compromise
McCain for President - NOT!
GOP Senators - Still wusses!!
GOP Senators - wusses!

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions