Lee & Lee on Alito

Alito's bio notes that he was assistant to Solicitor General Rex E. Lee. Lee was a highly respected lawyer and former President of Brigham Young University before he passed away in 1996. I believe that Rex Lee still holds the record of most cases argued before the Supreme Court (59) (at least he held that distinction while he was alive).

I've known Lee family for a number of years. Rex's son Mike Lee and I went to school together at BYU in 1996. Mike is currently the General Counsel to Utah Gov. Huntsman. I asked Mike for a statement for the Legacy Network newsletter and he passed this along. If anyone would have a good inside line to Alito it would be Mike who clerked for him from 1998 to 99:

It is difficult to imagine a better-qualified nominee for the United States Supreme Court. In addition to being an exceptionally kind and decent human being, Judge Alito is an accomplished jurist known for his unrivaled academic credentials, his impressive, fifteen-year record as an appellate judge, and his undeviating devotion to the rule of law. If confirmed by the Senate, he will go down in history as one of the most outstanding jurists of our time.

Mike Lee served as a law clerk to Judge Alito - who currently serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit - from 1998 to 1999.

UPDATE: Mike Lee will be on the Hugh Hewitt show tonight at 7:00 EST

Alito in 2001: No 'harassment exception' to the 1st Amendment

Judge Alito wrote the majority opinion that struck down a PA school system's anti-harassment law. This is a fantastic opinion! Excerpts below in this article from Feb 15, 2001 in the Dallas Morning News.

The left is going to be a bit miffed at this one!

ANTI-HARASSMENT POLICY REJECTED
Judges: Schools Violated Free-Speech Right

PHILADELPHIA--In a decision that could affect public schools throughout the country, a federal appeals court panel ruled Wednesday that a Pennsylvania school district's anti-harassment policy violates the free-speech right of Christian students to speak out against homosexuality.

The three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously invalidated the State College Area School District's 2-year-old Anti-Harassment Policy as being "overly broad." Under the policy, wrote U.S. Circuit Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., a student could be disciplined for making a comment that another student overheard, found offensive and reported to school officils.

"There is no categorical 'harassment exception' to the First Amendment's free speech clause," Judge Alito wrote, adding that the policy banned much speech that is not considered harassment under federal or state law.

School officials nationwide have been trying for years to cope with an increase in harassment among students, conscious of their legal liability if they ignore the problem.

David B. Consiglio, the lawyer for the State College Area School District, said he would have to consult with school officials before deciding whether to appeal.

The 3rd Circuit's decision is binding on federal judges in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Experts said the ruling could expose hundreds of districts to challenges.

"I don't know how many school districts have policies as broad as State College's, but it is probably a significant number," said Michael I. Levin, a lawyer for the Pennsylvania School Boards Association.

Bryan J. Brown, a lawyer for the Mississippi-based American Family Association Center for Law and Policy, a conservative legal group, said the ruling was the first by a federal appeals court addressing the free-speech implications of school harassment policies.

Mr. Brown sued the State College Area School District in 1999 on behalf of David Warren Saxe, a Pennsylvania State University education professor, member of the Pennsylvania State Board of Education and legal guardian of two children in the State College district.

According to the appeals opinion, Mr. Saxe's children are Christians who believe that homosexuality is a sin and is harmful, and that they have a duty to "witness," or share their beliefs, with gays and lesbians. Doing so, Mr. Saxe's lawsuit said, would expose his children to discipline ranging from warning to expulsion under the district's anti-harassment policy.

The policy's specified types of banned harassment include race, religion, ethnicity, disability and sex, as well as "clothing, physical appearance, social skills, peer group, intellect, educational program, hobbies or values, etc."

Mr. Brown said the policy doesn't differentiate between free speech about issues and targeted harassment that disrupts a student's opportunity to learn.

Judge Alito wrote that since 1969, the Supreme Court has carved out several narrow circumstances in which school officials may restrict free speech.

A school may categorically ban "lewd, vulgar or profane language," Judge Alito wrote, and may regulate speech to meet a "legitimate pedagogical concern."

New Storm Gathers: Little Nino

Move over El Nino here comes "Little Nino" aka Sam Alito.

Apparently "Little Nino" is Alito's nick name for his Italian background and his constitutionalist views comparable to Scalia.

(sorry, I can't find the tilde shortcut)

The Left Spawns the Libby Legend

Slate writers theorize that Cheney was the real leaker and that Libby is simply falling on his sword. Listen for yourself.

During the Miers debate it was very difficult for those entrenched on the left to understand what the beef was? Now we see things in reverse. While conservatives recognize that there are serious issues facing Libby many of us can't comprehend the epic tale being spun on the left.

From what I gather it goes something like this:

Dick Cheney was pissed at the CIA. In fact the White House and most conservatives are paranoid about the CIA undermining their war efforts.

For Cheney and company, Joe Wilson's whistle blowing was the latest example of an agency run amok... so Cheney decides to get even while at the same time trying to undermine Wilson's claims. Cheney twists the facts chalking up Wilson's Niger trip to nepotism. (Conservatives claim that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame gave him the job. No! She merely recommended him for the job).

To dish out this dirty political trick he asks his loyal lieutenant, Scooter Libby to mete out the information. Libby is meticulous and noted for his decorum, not at all the vindictive revenge seeker that Cheney is.

Libby dishes out the information to a few select reporters.

Fast forward: the special prosecutor comes to play. Cheney knows the gig is up and Libby tries to throw off the charge of "leaking" by falling on the sword and giving false testimony, thus protecting the VP.

Fast forward some more: During his trial Libby finally gives in to protect his own hide and admits the VP was the leak. Cheney is forced to give over documents after a vicious executive privilege suit. Documents reveal the extent of forgeries and lying that came about to get us into the Iraq war, leading to more special prosecutors and eventually leading to President Bush's impeachment.

UPDATE: After a couple of posts I got a response from a lefty on Daily Kos:

that's about it. You did leave out the part about the "leaking" being a crime. We on the left also think the whole "twisting intelligence to get us into Iraq" thing kinda sucks, especially since it turns out that everything the administration ignored in the run-up to Iraq keeps coming back to bite us on the collective American ass (I want to really focus on that image).

Also, it wasn't "just" Cheney and/or Libby involved here, nor even just the upper layers of the Bush administration, but an "unholy alliance" of "special" ideological and business interests that should not have such direct influence over the governance of our putative democracy. That tends to get us a bit worked up, too. (Neocons and Evangelicals and Energy Companies, oh my! and also major civilian defense contractors, especially those starting with the letter "H" and ending with "burton").

Seriously, though, I appreciate your efforts to get another perspective. Since I'm neither a Democrat nor a typical American lefty, I may not be qualified to help here, but I thought I'd try. I like to think of politics as a loop (or probably a fractal) rather than a straight line spectrum running from left to right. That way I can picture myself as living politically at that point where left and right converge directly across from/opposed to the political "moderate." Sort of a revolutionary techno-Luddite.

At any rate, my greatest Pollyanna fantasy of Fitzmas is that the seriousness of the issues around the scandal might actually bring all of us out of our ideological hiding holes and force us to work toward some consensus of what we want our country to be. I mean, honestly, it can't be just a "left thing" to think that our President shouldn't lie us into war unnecessarily?
see here

Bottom line: know your enemy.

Miers Autopsy

Is that David Frum in that helmet?

I know this is a dead horse, but I think these are important discussions for us to have. We need to understand how we will react differently (if at all) to the next nomination or a nomination ten years from now for that matter.

Having followed the matter fairly closely I can say that the horse is dead because Conservatives shot her.

Deferring to the President is not a party thing, it's a constitutional thing. The constitution indicates that the elected President shall choose the nominee with the advice and consent of the Senate. When we stray from this rule there are consequences. When President Clinton nominated Ginsberg everyone knew she was a staunch liberal but we let her pass anyway. Why? Because she was the President's choice.

For years conservatives have been trying to remove politics from the judicial confirmation process. But now we've lost that high ground as well. The minute David Frum, Mona Charen and others raises $300,000 of anonymous money to oppose Miers we sank down with the liberals who took down Robert Bork. "Only this time we had Bork himself to "bork" Miers."

Now we come to the second point: the reason we didn't know Miers' judicial philosophy is that she never appeared before the Senate. While I'd like to think that conservatives opposed her because of her perceived judicial philosophy, the arguments made against her were almost all ideological.

The straw that broke the camel's back (for many Miers opponents) seems to be a speech she gave 12 years ago. Can you imagine if someone tried to use something pithy that you said a long time ago and attribute that as an indication of your current philosophy? Can you imagine someone inferring how you might rule based on conversations that people have had with you in the past? Oh wait, we don't have to imagine, that was the Bork hearings.

Don't get me wrong, conservatives are perfectly in their right to oppose or support any nominee. But the way we do it is truly important. If we had let the Senate carry out their job this thing might have worked itself out. And we would have Senate democrats pinned on any "extraordinary circumstances".

Instead, our hands are muddied, the base is picking itself up, the Democrat's arsenal is full, and they have every excuse to pull the "e.c." trigger without explanation. Let's not fool ourselves... there could be serious ramifications for downing Miers. And not just distant but near future ramifications. As Hugh points out the first milestone is late next month when the Supreme Court hears a case about parental notification on abortion. Miers will not be on the bench but O'Connor will.

Fortunately, many chose to sit on the sidelines. I'm not sure how I ended up (I had a bit of fun with it all along the way. See here and here) We can still take the moral high ground on many of these points. But just consider... what would you do if President Bush nominated Alberto Gonzales tomorrow? Would you abstain then as well? If not, why would you support or oppose him? How would support or oppose him?

George Gilder made an interesting point about companies saturating the political process with money. "Why do they do it?" George asked and then answered: "Because government is all over them! If government left them alone they would spend much less time and money trying to influence government." The more we can move the political process away from the nomination process the more successful we will be at regaining constitutional ground.

... reading back over what I wrote it comes out a little harsh. This is just my frustration at conservatives going off on Miers because she's "never written an Op/Ed" or "only practiced corporate law" or is a hypocrite for heading up the Texas ABA or you fill in the blank.

Read Hugh today in the NY Times, he says it best.

The Miers Debate: Winners and Losers

--------------------------------------------------
WINNER: George Will for his solid hard-hitting commentary:
"Under the rubric of 'diversity'' -- nowadays, the first refuge of intellectually disreputable impulses -- the president announced, surely without fathoming the implications, his belief in identity politics and its tawdry corollary" - Will 10/4/05

LOSER: George Will for some of his outrageous hard hitting commentary:
"He has neither the inclination nor the ability to make sophisticated judgments about competing approaches to construing the Constitution" - Will 10/4/05
--------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------
WINNER: Hugh Hewitt for his staunch and rigorous defense of Miers.
"The conservative opposition to Miers is rooted in the conceit among some Beltway operators --echoed by some conservative pundits-- that some conservatives know how to discern a nominee's philosophy and future trajectory, and are better positioned than the president, the vice president, senior aides, former White House Counsel lawyers, law professors Gralia and Starr, Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht, James Dobson, Jay Sekulow, Chuck Colson etc. " - Hewitt 10/12/05

LOSER: Hugh Hewitt for his staunch and rigorous defense of Miers.
"The nomination of Miers is one of three things: a brilliant move by the president; a blunder like Reagan's nominations of Justice O'Connor and Kennedy or the first Bush's of Souter; or a betrayal of the sort that occasions taking leave of the whole project." - Hewitt 10/10/05
--------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------
WINNER: David Frum for moving his little known blog on NRO into anti-Miers central.
"George W. Bush conversely is very decisive. The trouble is he often decides too quickly and therefore without sufficient information. A loyal staffer would serve him by setting up formal systems to ensure that information finds its way to the president and that alternative points of view are articulated and heard." 10/21/05

LOSER: David Frum for raising questions from anonymous sources, money from anonymous donors and generally debasing his former boss.
"And she will remain not good enough even if she votes the right way on the court, or anyway starts out voting the right way. A Supreme Court justice is more than just a vote. A justice is also a voice." - Frum 10/6/05
--------------------------------------------------

more to follow...

Don't Celebrate?

The lead editorial on NRO says that conservatives should not celebrate. Just a few items down is Frum's declaration that it's a great day for Democracy.

Frankly, I'm not sure what "democracy" has to do with it. Perhaps politics, but not democracy. There is a difference. And that is what manyin the Anti-Miers crowd failed to realize.

AP out on a limb

Ok... So my purest attempt at towing the middle road on the.  Miers nomination was either a weak-kneed fence sitting foree or a good way to avoid a messy debate. Moving on...

That being said this AP piece is really too much. Take this paragraph:

The withdrawal stunned Washington on a day when the capital was awaiting potential bad news for the administration on another front -- the possible indictments of senior White House aides in the CIA leak case. Earlier in the week, the U.S. military death toll in Iraq hit 2,000.

That last sentence is choke full of axiomatic wonder... As if to say: "oh yeah, and by the way, 2000 soldiers have died for nothing in Iraq, but you knew that."    

Hugh the Anti-Miers Slayer

Just when I think I'm on the brink, ready to jump into the Anti-Miers battalion (ala Ed Whelan but with a smaller splash) just at that moment I read the transcript of Hugh Hewitt demolishing an NRO pundit. The list is pretty long and most of these you can find on radioblogger.com: Ramesh, Frum, Podhoretz, Kurtz, Lowry, Frum again last night.

Hugh is a very persuasive guy. Although I have to admit that his strategy has turned a bit. He's moved from defending her record to defending the right of President Bush to make the pick to pointing out the very real dangers of opposing the pick.

Last night he convinced me that Frum is on dangerous unprecedented ground.

(Come to think of it, that's a strange phenomenon... advocates of ancient constitutional precedent charting unprecedented ground to oppose the SCOTUS pick from someone in their own party)

Hugh makes some excellent points about the very real and detrimental ramifications if Miers goes down.

I could go on... But I think that there are 2 things that turn me off from the Anti-Miers crowd:

1) I'm just completely uncomfortable seeing groups form to raise money to defeat Miers. That's just odd. And while it doesn't represent everyone in the anti crowd, it taints the whole. I'm not sure I want to throw my hat in that mess

2) Is there really a "disqualification" for Miers at this time? For the longest time conservatives have advocated that personal merit and not ideology should be the qualification. Yes, Miers was not a judgen but is there really a disqualification in her record? Even the argument that she hasn't had constitutional experience is an idealogical argument. I'm not willing to disqualify her because she's never "written an Op/Ed piece".

Hugh is correct, this is the Borking of Harriet Miers.

I'm hoping to exemplify this in next week's video.

Where should I lay my tears?

Today, a personal note. I have three beautiful children. We were expecting our fourth child in April. Unfortunately, we had a miscarriage this last weekend. After initial indications that something was wrong on Friday we went in for a ultrasound which confirmed our fears. We took the weekend to reflect on things and determine whether to let things happen naturally or to get a D and C.

There are many emotions you experience with a miscarriage. The first thing you realize is that many people have gone through this experience. After the initial bewilderment there is a deep emotional angst that you encounter. When a person dies you know exactly what sort of tears you should shed and where they should fall. With a miscarriage there is a strange ambiguity that you encounter.

Questions arise: Did I cause this? What could I have done differently? Was there a spirit in the child already? How do I break the news to my living children?

On top of this, there are some specific Mormon doctrines that give you both comfort and additional questions: Will I have this child in the afterlife to raise? Was the child taken to fulfill some greater purpose?

Joseph Smith felt that the Lord takes away many that they may avoid the troubles of this world. "They were too pure, too lovely to remain on the earth."

In the end we opted for the D and C. Essentially, this is the same type of procedure used for an abortion. My wife chose a medium anesthetic and remembers nothing of the operation. Fortunately, it's an outpatient procedure and the physical and emotional healing is already evident.

But with this encounter I have a deeper appreciation for the frailty of life, the life that exists in the womb and the deep trauma that abortion can cause.

Most importantly I have a deeper love for my existing children and that love runs eternal.

Alterman and Cornell West

This is reason enough for me not to like Eric Alterman

Conversations with Clinton - Altercation - MSNBC.com: "At lunch, I got the requisite hug from Brother West, who packed more eloquence and inspiration into a single five minute speech than I could manage in a lifetime. "

Video: The Conservative Story

A tale of two conservatives. Their love, their break-up and their reuniting?

Privileged Conservatives (Hepburn) vs. Intellectual Conservatives (Stewart)

Blogging from the Capitol: Quick Summary

Bloggers present:

Kevin Aylward WizbangBlog
Mary K. from C-Blog on Townhall
Ian from The Political Teen
Matt from Blogs for Bush
Eric P from The Buzz
Pat Cleary from RedState.org
William B. from Hotline

There are others here as well... more on them later.

We've had a parade of members of Congress come in and talk to us. Literally, almost two dozen members.

Here's what we have have so far:

Quick video pan of the table and set up in the Capitol:




Q&A with Tim Chapman from Townhall.com




Very articulate Katherine Harris




Congressman Balart defends their budget record

Wizbang Blog is here

See his comments here

C-Log Blogger Mary K.

Mary Katherine is blogging two chairs to my right (she's the one you see in the video below).

She's blogging a great synopsis of this whole event.

Political Teen is blogging...

... just two chairs down from me ...

And guess what... he is a teen!

see here

Congressman Chris Cannon just joined us

Chris Cannon just joined us...

Interesting personal tidbit... I actually was the Campaign Phonebank Chairman for his Republican opponent in the 1996 primary.

... but I like Chris a lot.

Very Articulate Katherine Harris

She's very engaging and is well-versed in all the issues in my estimation... see for yourself.

Congressman Balart defends GOP spending cuts

Joined now by

Congressman Jack Kingston, Marsha Blackman, Chorcola, Scott Garett, and others meeting with bloggers at Blog Row.

More Congressmen

Congressman Dreier and Balart just joined us along with Congressman Gohmer.

The main subject today is fiscal discipline.

Question and Answer

Chairman Deborah Pryce answers a question from Tim Chapman from Townhall.com

Congressman Pence - Indiana

Congressman Pence is here!

Rep. Pence is one of the first congressional bloggers.

Very personable.

---- Also Deborah Pryce, Chairman of the House Republican Conference, has showed up.

Quick proof that we actually are here at the Capitol with other Bloggers

Blogging and Talking to Politicos

So, here we are at Blog Row on Capitol Hill. Bloggers present:

Mary Kathering and Tim Chapman from Townhall.com
Eric Pfeiffer from Beltway Buzz at NRO
Matt Margolis from Blogs for Bush
Ian Schwartz at from the Polital Teen
Pat Cleary from Red State

Hey, a congressman just showed up.

"Harriet is a great lawyer, a delightful wonderful person. I think a great deal of Harriet. But I will repeat but one of my conservative friends said. She'll probably be wonderful. Let's wait and see..."

Justin interviews the bloggers at Blog Row

Justin is audioblogging somewhere in the D.C. area


MP3 File

Justin is audioblogging somewhere in the D.C. area


MP3 File

Blogging from the Capitol

Watch this space. I will be blogging from the Capitol today.

More Goal Post Moving

After being rebuffed by many emails it seems that JPod is moving the goal posts:

The Corner on National Review Online: "[Lawyers in Love]...with their own arguments continue to insist that they really do a lot of hard work outside the courtroom. I get it. What I was trying to say, from this morning onward, was this: Those who acknowledge Miers' weakness in the field of experience with constitutional law have been arguing that her deep experience as a corporate lawyer gives her a voice worth hearing on the Court. Having then said that 16 court cases in 27 years of practice really didn't sound like a lot to me, I was informed--repeatedly-- that, yes, it was, or it could be, or it ought to be. Fine. So she's a corporate lawyer with a pretty standard resume and pretty standard experience as a corporate lawyer. So at the risk of offending all corporate lawyers, let me say that experience as a standard-issue partner at a decent law firm does not make you a credible candidate for the United States Supreme Court."

John I'm sympathetic to many of your arguments. I've noted many of them here. But when one of your arguments falls down -- admit it like Rich and move on! K-Lo suffers from the same thing when she played the hypocrisy card (ala the Evangelical/Lottery argument) only to be thoroughly dismantled by Beldar who had ground-floor knowledge, and then never admit on The Corner that she was probably wrong.

Hey, it happens to the best of us. I stepped in it last night with this post. So again, let's keep the field at 100 yards and call a spade a spade... and I will stop mixing metaphors.

Frum's Petition Problems?

I know a bit about non-profit organizations and quite a bit more about internet petitions. A couple of points on Frum's petition to withdraw the Miers nomination:

• I'm sure Frum checked with National Review's legal counsel before putting up the petition but there could be complications. I know that NRO is a non-profit organization, but there are specific limitations to what a non-profit can do. I'm not saying the petition is illegal but it could be troublesome in my experience.
  
  
• While NRO has denied that it is an official NR petition, the petition is hosted on the FRUM sub-domain on NationalReview.com. Obviously, there is a database that NRO owns and NRO owns, manages and pays for the website.
  


• Aside from the legal questions, the Frum petition is getting a pretty thin response in my estimation. Frum indicates that he has nearly 5,000 sign ups on the petition. Frankly, I expected a lot more. The Corner does not publicize their page views or unique visitors but I can surmise a rough estimate. I know that when the Corner has linked to my blog in the past, I invariably get thousands of click throughs and unique visitors (probably around 3,000+). If I had to guess I would say The Corner has at least 40,000 unique visitors a day. (I base this on the amount of click throughs I get when the Daily Dish or Volokh link to me - slightly more than The Corner). Given that Frum's petition has gotten a lot of blog press I think the low amount of petition indicates that most people are in a "wait and see mode.

UPDATE: I could be wrong on the NRO non-profit status. In fact, I could be very wrong. I guess there are so many NR "fundraisers" I sometimes mistake it for a non-profit... apologies.

Towards a Miers Debate Taxonomy

OK... this is very anal. I've got the disease.

I am currently taking my extensive list of Miers Arguments Pro and Con and working them into a proper Taxonomy, some categorization that might prove useful.

Here's what I have so far. Comments and suggestions welcome:

• Record - Record in the community.
• Positions - Political, social or legal positions.
  
• Philosophy - Legal philosophy
  
• Aptitude - Abilities, skills and talents.
  
• Reputation - Standing, name and character among colleagues etc...
  
• Personality - Personal behavior and qualities.
  
• President Bush - Arguments related to the President
  
• Political Context - Arguments related to political circumstances
  
• Nomination Context - Arguments around the SCOTUS nomination process and history.
  
• SCOTUS Context - Arguments around the Supreme Court itself.
  
• Party Context - Arguments around the Republican party
  
• "The Base" Context - Argument concerning the base of supporters
  
• Other

I've updated the list for today's relevant arguments. I really thought we were at the end of any valid arguments but two new ones came up today:

PRO: Seeing the Miers pick as an enhancement to the court, a "portfolio" pick.
CON: Miers nomination degrades the court to political outcomes rather than rule of law.

See the list for details

In Defense of Ant-Elitism or Kind-of

I hear again and again that Hewitt-clones (the pro-Miers crowds) are calling Miers objectors elitist. While there has been some direct accusation of elitism (see Mehlman) I think the objectors miss the point. Jonah Goldberg, whose last word on Miers before the hearings was Thursday, broke his silence ("Mm'Doh!") today and points to Hewitt's "elitist" background. Note to Jonah and others: I don't think that the Pro-Miers crowd is calling YOU "elitist"... rather I think they are accusing you of playing the "elitist card".

See for example this excellent post by Beldar last week. After citing some profoundly "elitist" comments by any reasonable standard (i.e. that no President would ever have the prowess to pick the right kind of Jurist for SCOTUS) Beldar states:

I continue to respect Prof. Barnett. But I reject — I mock and I ridicule without apology — his notion that only "experts" or "advisers who do know about such matters" have the ability or the authority to decide who ought to be appointed to the courts. I submit that that notion is profoundly anti-democratic, profoundly insulting to the American public and the office of the POTUS (whoever holds it), and profoundly contrary to both the history and intent of our constitutional structure under the rule of law. As I commented on Prof. Barnett's post, if he really believes that, he's "not just off into the elitist deep end now, [he's] drowned in it."

In my mind, the accusation of "elitism" is not that the accuser attended Ivy schools and wants the same ilk on the court but that the Anti-Miers is using "elitist" standards as a bar to reach. There is a difference.

That's not to say that the argument is a great argument. Lowry rightly points out the hypocrisy of the Roberts/Miers talkings points and Kristol makes a case why intellectuals are not a bad thing to have on the court, but I really think that people are mis-reading the accusation on a whole.

You don't have to have an elitst background to play the "elitist card"

See the whole picture.

Miers update

Over 3,000 people on Frum's petition

Harriet and the Vetting Process

JPod on Miers and the Constitution

Miers Critics Can Save Face says Bush :)

NR Editors really don't like Miers

Questions about marketing Miers

Scully with Understated Praise for Miers

Wrong Harriet?

Ed Whelan turning on Miers?

Biblical Literacy and the Miers Disease

Jonah has a great piece on the Miers Obsession... I admit... I've got the disease. Rich has a great piece on Bible literacy.

Now, combining my disease (Miers Mental Dementia Obsessive Hysteria (Mm'Doh!)) and the Bible what do you get... a parable! Here is the story of Elisha.

In 2 Kings Chapter 6, the prophet Elisha is hanging out in the city of Dothan. Previously, Elisha had said some pretty harsh things about the King of Syria. So the king sends his troops and surrounded the city with orders to capture Elisha.

Elisha's servant wakes up and looks out over the city walls and freaks out (I would too). He wakes up Elisha fearing of his life. Elisha calms him down and says: "They that be with us are more than they that be with them."

Elisha prays that the servants eyes should be opened. When they are he looks in the hills surrounding the armies surrounding Dothan and sees that they are filled with angels and chariots of fire.

Elisha goes out the army and tells then that they are in the wrong place. The army follows Elisha, blindly, who leads them back into Syria. He makes them a feast and tells then who he is. The story ends: "So the bands of Syria came no more into the land of Israel."

I'll let you draw your own analogy to the Miers debate. I'm not yet willing to reveal my hand.

---

But the Miers Cheat Sheet has been updated again

Masugi at CI points out some of the more benighted arguments against Miers

I know this debate is heated... but this is a bit much.

This summer post by Frum is a bit bewildering (hat tip to Hugh)

Exclusive Video: The Conservative Ice Age?

All this Miers debate has prompted an interesting question: Is a conservative Ice Age upon us?



HOSTED by AudioBlog (your source for audio and video blogging)

viewed over 16,000 times!

Click here for the Miers Debate Cheat Sheet

Rock, Paper, Scissors... Dynamite!

-Ad hominem, Ad naseum-

"There's something intrisincally inferior to the stew he spews."
-pot calling the kettle black

I recall a debate in Sunday School sometime ago about Cain and Abel. The question arose: was Cain's statement "am I my brother's keeper?" an ad hominem attack? It seemed a pithy discussion at the time. One person replied: "Do we really have to analize the rhetorical devices used by the first murderer? Can't we call a spade a spade?" Someone then replied: "But now your statement is ad hominem." Clearly, there were a few lawyers in the class. Most of us sat through the debate determined to look up the phrase when we got home.

Ad hominem, is a Latin phrase that literally means "argument to the man." Essentially, when someone employs an ad hominem argument or rebuttal they criticize the origin of the opposition rather than what the opposition says. For example:

There is something objectionable about person X. Therefore what person X says is false.


Did you ever play rock, papers, and scissors with a sibling, anticipating a dominating set of games only to find yourself behind in the count. Invariably, one of the siblings will get bored with the limitations and add in a forth element in the shape of one finger, dynamite. Paper may beat rock, rock may crush scissors, but dynamite can take out anything.

There are times, however, when pundits invoke "ad hominem" as a blanket defense, dismissing something as scurilous in order to avoid real rebattal. This is a straw man defense, one that has deep historical precedent.

I think we can look back on the debate of the last few days and find some very off-tone ad hominem arguments (I've documented some here). But if we can hold our breath until the confirmation hearings I think it will do us all some good.

Bottom line: I do not think the White House will withdraw her nomination, nor do I think she will step aside. As much as I like to think of the blogosphere as the center of the universe look at the front page of MSNBC or CNN or even FoxNews… Miers is mentioned only once as the last article on Fox News. While we have our precedents of fermenting debate leading to public news (see Dan Rather) I'm just not sure we're going to see the same thing… especially if the Left keeps quiet.

In short, this is a lively and very revealing debate… but let's stick to rock, paper and scissors. Enough of the single finger dynamite sticks already!

David Frum: Disappointing X-mas Morning

I'm not sure I would go as far as David in decrying the nomination, but I can't deny that these were my feelings when I first heard the nomination:

David Frum's Diary on National Review Online: "The Miers nomination was like getting up on Christmas morning, bursting downstairs, and opening up your big, beautifully wrapped present only to find socks and underwear. All that waiting, all the anticipation, all that “being good”, all seemingly wasted on a gift that isn’t worth either the giving or the receiving."

Jell-O and Mormons

There's quite the thread of interesting comments on Jell-O over at The Corner.

I should note that Mormons consume the most Jell-O on the planet.

Take it for what its worth

On the Miers scorecard and more...


MP3 File

Submit your OWN Argument

I've updated my argument "scorecard" on Miers. Now you can submit your OWN argument.

And just to be completely anal, I'm coming up with a whole taxonomy to better understand the type of argument being made.

Here's the link again:

http://www.rightsideredux.com/projects/miers/procon.htm

The Miers Scorecard

I've put together a fairly comprehensive list of Pros and Cons for the Miers nomination. Feel free to email me with updates.

http://www.rightsideredux.com/projects/miers/procon.htm

Elitism or not

Michelle Malkin makes a good point:

Michelle Malkin: "I think that Hugh, like many of the Bush White House aides and supporters who are wielding the elitism card, seriously misreads and underestimates the opposition to this nomination coming from grass-roots conservatives. And that includes evangelicals. These are not elites."

But, upon second thought, I should note that you don't need to be an "elite" to "wield the elitism card".

Captain's on Deck

Great article by Edward Morrissey, from Captain's Quarters:

How Harriet Unleashed a Storm on the Right: "The question on so many minds on the right is: What in Bork's name was Bush thinking?"

Of course in my estimation, Bork is a bit off. Beldar, has this to say

Robert Bork is an elitist. Period. He's not the only one, either. And confronted with that accusation, he might very well twirl to face his accusers, agree, and mount an impassioned defense for elitism that would, in the end, not be an endorsement of excellence but an assertion that only law professor-types are excellent enough to be on the Supreme Court. No one will ever convince him otherwise, his mind is closed.

WMDs, Miers, and Atheists

President Bush and the administration have been under fire for going to war with Iraq under the primary premise of potential WMDs. No WMDs have been found, which has caused serious debate about whether we should have gone in the first place. In truth, though you will never here the MSM say it, we acted on the best intelligence we had at that moment... but that hasn't curbed the political damage.

Now to Miers. Let's take a little forethought here and consider: what if Miers gets on the stand and knocks it out of the park? Let's face it, as Podhoretz and other have pointed out, the bar is set pretty low. (note: this White House is the master of the expectations game, but I don't think this was planned). If Miers shows some decent prowess in front of the committee, the anti-Miers crowd could be severely damaged. Even if they claim "we acted on the best intelligence" (or in this case the lack of intelligence) they will have some serious humble pie.

Taking the old adage against athiests... if you believe there's a God and it turns out there isn't, no love lost. But if you deny the existence of God and it turns out He does exist... you might be in trouble.

Doesn't it make most sense to give her the benefit of the doubt?

If you can't tell, I am slowly leaning to support Miers (after much consternation). Nod to Beldar.

Justin

Intelligent Design and the Harriet Miers Project

Is there some correlation between Intelligent Design vs. Evolution and the Pro/Con Debate around Miers? I'm not sure I can go as far as to say ID proponents are all supporters of Miers and vice versa... but I can make an analogy using the best arguments that ID and Evolution people make:

• Evolution advocates claim that ID is bunk, junk science and doesn't deserve a seat at the table because it hasn't met the scientific criteria they require.
  
• ID proponents (disclosure: I'm one of them) claim that they are worthy of attention because they are simply following the evidence where it leads them. What's more ID folk think the rules of science need to be revisited.
  
  
• Pro-evolution forces claim that a majority of scientists think that ID is bunk.
• ID forces claim that there are a number of scientists that think highly of the theory and that there many more lay people support their position.
  
  
• Evolutionists require proof that ends in scientific reasoning.
  
• ID advocates claim the proof is there if they would simply give ID a chance.
  
  
• Evolution folk feel that ID is simply creationism in disguise.
• ID folk deny this but claim that a theory consistent with beliefs is not a bad thing.

Any takers? Draw your own parallels.

Psychic seeks $32m Saddam reward

Psychic seeks $32m Saddam reward - World Breaking News - Breaking News 24/7 - NEWS.com.au: "A BRAZILIAN court will consider a psychic's claim that the US Government owes him a $US25 million ($32 million) reward for information he says he provided on the hiding place of ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein."

Thanks for your help. Can you concentrate on Bin Laden? Then we'll talk dough!

404 Errors and Liberal Politics

You've no doubt encountered the ominous (some would say omnipresent) 404 "page cannot be found" error while surfing the Internet. Most people blame this type of anomalous event (some would say ubiquitous annoyance) on user error or incompetent webmasters.

In truth, the 404 error is a way to handle exceptions. Every web server has a default message that it will display if the user requests a page that doesn't exist. This is how websites "fail gracefully." Application programmers, mechanical engineers, and even chemical weapons experts know how to handle exceptions, and fail, gracefully. Not so for left leaning policy advocates.

Progressive politicians demand that exceptions be handled as the key driver for all policies. A liberal cannot accept "failure," graceful or otherwise. In their world, there can be no exceptions. Exceptions not only dictate the breadth and scope of their policies but also signify the success of those policies. Whether expanding abortion rights or promoting OSHA standards, no sparrow falls that the left will not defend through political means. Take automobile safety standards. As one advocate recently put it: "One death is one too many deaths." Thus, auto standards can never be too stringent. In fact, we might as well do away with the combustion engine, right Al? But what about coconut trees? Is 28 deaths per year by coconuts dropping too many? Should we drive at 5 miles per hour? Can their really be no deaths with automobiles?

Thus liberals can feel good about themselves and place the exception (in this case automobile deaths) as the basis for more policies. They place themselves in the role of God, but with a twist. "He knows the sparrow's fall" The progressive advocate adds "and He catches him mid flight to avert his death."

Abortion is another touchpoint of liberal exception handling. Why do liberals so fervently oppose banning partial birth abortions?. Because they can devise an exception that demands inclusion. Thus, they can spout a "what if" story for every needy minority. "What if a girl is raped and hides the pregnancy until the last trimester?" "What if the mother's life is in serious jeopardy?" Of course, the former is a horrific event that we have to deal with, the later is very rare. But does that really dictate that warrant the killing of a nearly fully formed child?

While liberal exception handling is failure of policy conservatives fail to fail gracefully when it comes to ideological discussions. The latest spate of discussion, the Harriet Miers experiment, is a whole 'nother ball game. I hope to discuss this more next week.

More on Miers, the pro and con and the impact on non-profit groups

The Miers Pick Impact on Non-profit Groups

Kaus wrote an interesting aside which I have a little insight into:

Conservatives, a D.C. Republican friend tells me, wanted a fight over the O'Connor seat for its own sake--and not just for tacky fundraising and self-promotional reasons. They think they represent the majority position on judging; they needed a confrontation to draw the line and prove it. Plus a confirmation battle would be "consciousness-raising," as we used to say on the left, serving (in theory) to actually increase their ranks.

The "consciousness-raising" aspect is both accurate and well-known, what I want to point out is the point about fundraising. I work and consult for several non-profit organizations and I can say that it is true. A lot of firms had contracts, campaigns, events, speeches, emails, mail drops and the like all set up to deal with the certain fight over a Supreme Court nomination. We didn't need it for Roberts but we thought for sure the fight would be on for the next one.

This is not to say that non-profits are disappointed about missed chance to fill the coffers, but it will probably hurt a bit. More than anything, non-profits want to be influential, they want to build a base of support, excite those supporters to bigger and better things.

Take for example FRC's lead article for the past few days. There are no action alerts associated with this, pleas for donations, just limbo. Indeed, many non-profits are in limbo on the issue, deferring to the president but disappointed that the momentum they had built over the last few weeks (non to mention the past few decades) is thoroughly anti-climactic.

I mean its difficult to put together an email to supporters and say: "Donate now to support the fight over Miers." In the end, many non-profits will hold their nose and support the president, but we really do have to examine our intentions and more importantly the motivation to grow our support.

Today's Etymology Lesson: Crony

The word Crony means "friend" and comes from the Greek word: "chronios", meaning "long-lasting." That could describe several things in this Maelstrom:

• We can take Bush at face value that Miers' court actions will be conservative and long-lasting
• The debate on the judiciary committee could be foreseeably long-lasting
• The growing and fermenting anger of the Republican base will continue to be long-lasting
• Bush could be right all along and years from now our praise could be long-lasting
  

2 Charts on the homepage describe the pundit and pols reaction to Miers nomination.


MP3 File

Magic Quadrant for Miers

Coming from the tech world, I frequently use a Gartner-style Quadrant chart to map things out. Here is my very subjective attempt to identify the trends and opinions that are out there. Again, don't blame me too hard for this, its' VERY subjective:


click to enlarge




click to enlarge


Notice the interesting overlays between the elected Dems and the Conservative pundits. Interpret at will.

Stuck on Stupid: RNC Census

Every year, the RNC publishes and sends out to select individuals a census to take the pulse on registered Republicans and identify key issues that they need to address and review. I am one of the lucky souls who received the census this year.

I immediately went through the census to find a question that I knew would be there. I mean, surely, one of the top issues among conservatives would be high on the list? On the front page, on the back page? no. Not one question about immigration:

Miers links

Here are some interesting links on Miers before her announcement. You can already see the

Q&A with Harriet Myers

Last years reaction on the left to Miers appt. to the White House

June 2005 Wash Post profile of Miers

Miers political contributions ($1000 to Al Gore! - in 87 : ) )

Baby Jane Harriet Miers (that's just wrong)

Miers and the Bush Memos?

Another Unmarried Bushy?

Gave commencement at Pepperdine Law this year

President's comments about Miers last year

More on Miers and the Bush Memos

More leftist chargers concerning Miers

Time Picture of Bush and Miers