pudge's Journal: Straw Men

We put up reskeys (formkeys replacement) on journals. There was a Slashdot-specific file that was not updated, so for like 5-10 minutes, you couldn't post new journal entries. I checked to see who was affected, and cyranoVR was one of the two, so I checked back later to make sure he could post now, and sure enough, he did.

I only mention this post because I see a lot of people use this same "argument": we shouldn't just confirm whoever the President wants, without full questioning! That's a nice argument, except that no one of any consequence is arguing the contrary position. The President and the Senate are all committed to a complete and thorough hearing process, where no question is off-limits.

(Maybe Bush would prefer her to get a quick pass with no real questioning, but he knows that is not how it works, and hasn't said or done anything to try to force her through in such a manner.)

Of course, there's much debate over what questions should be answered, but not what should be asked, or how much should be asked. It's simply not an issue, at all.

Further, moreso even than with Roberts, both the right and the left are going to want to grill Miers. The Republicans do not want to give her a pass, they want to make sure she is going to be good before they vote for her; Senators think long term better than most people, and they won't approve of a Senator just because she is the President's choice and may be pro-life/anti-Roe, if it also means she will strike down a whole slew of laws the Senate passes, etc. And it goes without saying that the same holds true for the Democrats.

But...

[cascadefx]

That's a nice argument, except that no one of any consequence is arguing the contrary position.

That's exactly the argument that was given for Roberts and Owen. Just because the Republicans are a bit shakey on Miers and might actually do a semi-credible job with her (if you trust them... which I don't), doesn't mean that the hand-wringing over vetting her is innappropriate. Given a track record of generally automatically confirming GB's candidates in the Republican controlled Congress, the Democrats see

Re:But...

[pudge]

That's exactly the argument that was given for Roberts and Owen.

By who? When? What was said? Sorry, I don't believe you. I've been listening to Senators fighting over nominees since Bush took office, and not once can I recall ever hearing one Senator or White House official say we should have minimal questioning and just go speedily to an up or down vote. Not a single time.

Just because the Republicans are a bit shakey on Miers and might actually do a semi-credible job with her (if you trust them... whi

Re:But...

[cascadefx]

Yes, a small percentage of the whole, but a *large* percentage of the district court nominees.

Which can be restated as "generally, most nominees are passed right through, only a small percentage were held up"

Re:But...

[pudge]

Which can be restated as "generally, most nominees are passed right through, only a small percentage were held up"

No, it cannot, because it neglects the salient fact that the Democrats targetted the more important positions for filibuster.

Re:But...

[cascadefx]

Because, otherwise, they would have sailed right through a process that isn't geared towards truly vetting a candidate (as you have agreed). And, as Michael Brown has showed, GB's "trust me" schtick isn't something that most of us would hang our hat on.

Re:But...

[pudge]

First of all, that's entirely beside the point. You're trying to explain why they were more likely to Bork the more important nominees; I was merely noting that they did do so.

Second, that's a rubbish excuse. It's abundantly clear that Schumer &co. were out to prevent conservatives from reaching the important court positions, and would use any excuse they could come up with. Was Bush asking anyone to "just trust him" with William Pryor (Alabama's attorney general), or Janice Rogers Brown, both with v