Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Do We Not Believe Our Own Rhetoric?
I know I said I was done posting about Miers until the hearings, but I am having a hard time believeing some of what I am hearing and reading. Monday Hugh Hewitt interviewed John Fund.
Peace Like A River took some exception to my characterization of a post there the other day. In their response they say
So, we conservatives what "originalism," or "strict constructionism," or whatever sobriquet you choose in name, but not in practice? Constitutional adhereance in fact demands that nominees not answer questions. The constitution seeks to make the court as apolitical as possible -- not answering issue questions is similarly apolitical. This line of arguement says that, in fact, conservatives do not want an apolitical court, they want a very political one -- just one whose politics are in line with theirs. This also belies a lack of faith in the constitution itself.
I honestly thought we were the party of reason, not emotion, but I am beginning to have my questions about that.
JF: Look, no one in the conservative community knows Harriet Miers well, other than the people she's worked with at the White House.In other words, "She's not a part of the club." Funny I thought cronyism was the problem. Apparently it's a question of whose crony you are and not cronyism itself. Then consider this
JF: Hugh, the problem is the White House can't provide us with those answers, so we're going to have to go out and get them ourselves. That's the problem with the vetting process. The White House has no answers to these questions. We're going to have to dig them out ourselves.I see, so the problem is that the White House is not doing the press' job for them? Is the White House accountable to the press? Where is that in the constitution precisely?
Peace Like A River took some exception to my characterization of a post there the other day. In their response they say
What are some of the reasons given in support of Miers? One common one is that President Bush knows Miers very well, and that since we don't know much about her, we shouldn't criticize the pick. Doesn't that strike you as a problem? We don't know much about a nominee to the Supreme Court? And how will we ever find out anything about Miers? The confirmation hearings? The strategy with Roberts was Admit Nothing. (I wrote here that nominees should answer questions.) The military has a saying: Hope is not a course of action. What sense does it make to put someone on the Supreme Court about whom we know little, and simply hope they come around in the end?Mark Levin similarly contended on Hewitt Tuesday (transcript not available at press time) that nominees should not have the so-called "Ginsburg rule" available to them.
So, we conservatives what "originalism," or "strict constructionism," or whatever sobriquet you choose in name, but not in practice? Constitutional adhereance in fact demands that nominees not answer questions. The constitution seeks to make the court as apolitical as possible -- not answering issue questions is similarly apolitical. This line of arguement says that, in fact, conservatives do not want an apolitical court, they want a very political one -- just one whose politics are in line with theirs. This also belies a lack of faith in the constitution itself.
I honestly thought we were the party of reason, not emotion, but I am beginning to have my questions about that.
