Stones Cry Out

I think those with such opposition to Miers before the facts are in are the ones that are going to lose credibility. Here's why.

1. As a conservative, I believe the President is the one that selects people for the Supreme court. I'm consistent on that. If we elect Clinton, he can select Ruth Bader Ginsburg if he wants. When you pick your President, you pick the person picking the judges. It's basically over. We made this point to the democrats opposing the last nominee. Well, Bush has made his pick this time, also. It's OK to be disappointed for whatever reason, but now some conservatives are losing site of the constitution themselves - thinking they have some power that they don't. This priviledge is reserved for the president, and if you are really a conservative, you will support the process, even if you are a little disapponted in the pick. Maybe he didn't pick the best qualified person. So what, he's the president.

2. This has turned into evangeligal bashing, nothing less, by the non-religious right. I haven't heard any evangelical's claiming that her status as an evangelical is enough. We need to have the hearings and get the facts to make sure the candidate is qualified, as with any candidate, even Ruth Bader Ginsburg. However, for non-evangelicals, the fact that she is an evangelical is the only fact they seem to need. They seem to be saying "What! She is an evangelical? No way! We wanted someone who was smart." That's an insult to evangelicals, and those insults are unwise. Even if some conservatives believe Evangelicals are idiots by default, they would be wise to stop insulting a large, loyal segment of the base. Doing so makes them the idiots.

Personally, if this were an election, I'd be 'undecided' at the moment. I could be on the 'focus group' in the news studio. Neither side has convinced me about the candidates qualifications or lack thereof. I'm waiting for the hearding and I'll decide when I have more information. However, it's not an election. The election is over, and we elected Bush to make the pick. The anti-Miers crowd is doing damage to the conservative momevent and ought to stop.

Point 2 is unadulterated nonsense. I'll deal with the rest later.

OK, Matt. Sorry you feel I'm full of 'unadulterated nonsense'. You will probably feel the same about this posting as well, but I still love you as a Brother.

Since you offered no further explanation, I spent all last night trying to figure out the strong opposition by those calling themselves constitutional conservatives and I can't figure it out. (Guess my evangelical brain isn't powerful enough). Let me ask you a couple questions, and see if you can explain it to me.

1. Per the constitution, Bush sought the advice of the Senate before selecting a nominee.

2. Per the constitution, Bush, the elected President, has selected his nominee.

3. Per the constitution, the Senate is to consent. Assuming a valid FBI background check, they will also look to see if there are any basic character flaws or missing qualifications. If not, they must confirm.

What am I missing? What qualification requirement outlined in the constitution is she missing?

I haven't heard this from anyone. I've heard she wasn't the top one on the conservative's list. I've heard people feel betrayed for whatever reason. But I haven't heard what she has done that disqualifies her, or what basic qualification she is missing. My understanding of the Constitution is that history as a judge is not required, nor is a law degree even required. Why do so many claim that a history of practicing and arguing Constitutional law is a requirement? Many, including you, demand evidence of this, but the constitution does not place that type of burden on the candidate.

Here's the irony. Some claim she hasn't demonstrated an understanding of the constitution. However, if they are originalist, they should understand and support the constitutional process outlined above. By undermining the process, they do not sound like Constitutional conservatives, just partisan hacks. They are trying to make the confirmation process something the Constitution did not intend for it to be. It's not a campaign, and the candidates don't run-off in a primary. Per the constitution, it doesn't matter if they are disappointed, betrayed, whatever. If Bush wanted to nominate Bork, a potential closet liberal, or even Hillary to the SCOTUS, that's his privilege as president. (OK - Hilary's a little extreme, but I'm just making a point :) ). Our work is to elect the president and educate him before making the selection. After the selection, our work is to support the Constitutional process, to make sure that isn't hijacked by anyone, left or right. The Miers opposition isn't making evangelicals look bad, it's making the so-called 'constitutional conservatives' look like hypocrites.

Skymusings summarizes my position best.

http://skymusings.blogspot.com/2005/10/misunderstimation-and-bigger-picture.html

Bush is within the constitution, and has the votes. The anit-Miers crowd would be wise to choose another battle.