Talk about a faith-based initiative
No matter where I look, the only defense I can find in support of Harriet Miers boils down to a plea to just trust President Bush.
On his radio program today, Hugh Hewitt interviewed Professor Lino Gralia. Hugh posted the transcript, part of which reads as follows:
Do we trust Hecht? Do we trust Bush?
In the face of contradictory, anecdotal evidence about Miers, no one seems to be able to say with any certainty how she would conduct herself as a Justice. Yet, the same folks saying we just don't know, say we should go ahead and support the nomination, and we'll see how it goes.
*pause*
May I remind these good folks that there is no recourse for a mistake on the Supreme Court if things don't "go" well? That's why it is important to make the right choice in the first place.
So, when President Bush starts saying things like "I picked the best person I could find", I start tightening my belt, because that can't possibly be true, and someone is trying to blow smoke where I don't want it.
When Bush campaigned on faith-based initiatives, I had no idea he was talking about future Supreme Court nominees.
-----
Bogus Gold posts about trust and the base.
EckerNet doesn't see any way to prevent confirmation of Miers.
Psycmeistr doesn't think state party chairs are a good measure of grassroots support.
Watchman's Words has a reminder that the opposition to Miers is broadbased.
Professor Bainbridge alludes to a leap of faith in making the pick in the first place. He also comments on Hugh Hewitt's argument about Hecht.
Cap'n Ed points out we need a little more than a surly "trust me".
On his radio program today, Hugh Hewitt interviewed Professor Lino Gralia. Hugh posted the transcript, part of which reads as follows:
HH: I should have asked this at the beginning. Do you know Harriet Miers?
LG: I do not, no.
HH: Do you know Nathan Hecht?
LG: I know Nathan Hecht.
HH: Do you trust him?
LG: Nathan Hecht is very trustworthy. Nathan Hecht is probably the most conservative judge on the Texas Supreme Court, very trustworthy. He speaks very highly of Miers, who he knows, and that is a large part of my basis of belief that she'll be all right.
Do we trust Hecht? Do we trust Bush?
In the face of contradictory, anecdotal evidence about Miers, no one seems to be able to say with any certainty how she would conduct herself as a Justice. Yet, the same folks saying we just don't know, say we should go ahead and support the nomination, and we'll see how it goes.
*pause*
May I remind these good folks that there is no recourse for a mistake on the Supreme Court if things don't "go" well? That's why it is important to make the right choice in the first place.
So, when President Bush starts saying things like "I picked the best person I could find", I start tightening my belt, because that can't possibly be true, and someone is trying to blow smoke where I don't want it.
When Bush campaigned on faith-based initiatives, I had no idea he was talking about future Supreme Court nominees.
-----
Bogus Gold posts about trust and the base.
EckerNet doesn't see any way to prevent confirmation of Miers.
Psycmeistr doesn't think state party chairs are a good measure of grassroots support.
Watchman's Words has a reminder that the opposition to Miers is broadbased.
Professor Bainbridge alludes to a leap of faith in making the pick in the first place. He also comments on Hugh Hewitt's argument about Hecht.
Cap'n Ed points out we need a little more than a surly "trust me".
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home