Fat Steve's Blatherings

Monday, October 10, 2005

A Summary of the Miers Arguments

        Right Side Redux has a summary of the pro- and anti-Miers arguments, with links to the arguers.  They break down into a few distinct categories.

  • She's a third rate lawyer (probably untrue, as Beldar has argued extensively).

  • She might not be a reliable conservative vote.

  • It doesn't matter if she's a great trial lawyer, and it doesn't matter if she is a reliable conservative vote.  Only legal scholars with long records expressing conservative legal philosophy should be nominated (even though Clarence Thomas didn't fit this mold, and is a favorite of most of the critics; even though Robert Bork did fit this mold, and was rejected).

  • Liberals might not like her!

  • She's a "Presidential Crony," which is automatically a bad thing, as Hamilton said (except that Hamilton didn't say that).

  • Was allegedly a failure as a member of the President's staff (even if true, why does this disqualify her as a Justice?)

  • The base wanted a fight, and is mad at Bush because it didn't get one.

        Three observations: first, very few of the critics ask if the people they favor could be confirmed; second, most of the "we want a fight" people seem to be living in a fantasy world, in which just nominating a conservative legal scholar automatically causes good things to happen; third, many of these arguments are contradictory, yet the same people make all or most of them.

THE HOUSE OF SAUD MUST BE DESTROYED — AND WILL BE!

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home