The Political Spectrum

Seeing as how I didn't have internet access all day, I actually plunked down $1.00 today to read the New York Times because I was interested in reading Hugh Hewitt's article. I was set to write a response, but so many others have done so already, and I think I'd rather concentrate my fire on the absurd distortions of the left. For example, the Times says:

A Supreme Court justice should have an open mind and a capacity to grow. Far right Republicans live in such fear of this notion that they were not soothed by the White House's inappropriate harping on Ms. Miers's evangelical Christian faith, or Mr. Bush's peculiar assurance that she would never change her mind, not even over decades.

Ummm, hello, we were upset precisely because of these assurances and we deemed them inappropriate. It was Miers' supporters that dwelt on these non-judicial items. The Times' editorial board has completely distorted the conservative criticism of the nomination so that it can fit more easily into their radically skewed vision of who we are and what we represent.

The Washington Post was just as guilty in radically distorting our views.

The second lesson is that some on the right are as capable of demanding loyalty oaths on abortion, and of refusing to give a nominee a fair chance, as some on the left - and every bit as offensive in so doing. While many conservatives were understandably troubled by Ms. Miers's professional credentials and lack of a known judicial philosophy, others were simply unsure she would be a reliable vote on their issues.

This is just completely ridiculous (happy?). Again, we opposed Miers not because we didn't deem her sufficiently pro-life - in fact some of us acknowledged that she probably was - but that her constitutional philosophy regarding Roe was in doubt. We do not want someone on the Court who would vote to strike down Roe simply because she is personally opposed to abortion, but instead we believe it crucial that a Justice approach the case from a completely legalistic perspective and strike Roe down because it is not supported by the Constitution.

Conservatives showed that we are not only concerned about outcome, but with process. And we opposed Miers principally because we did not think her sufficiently qualified to meditate well enough on the issues, even if she voted as we would have liked. Thus the Post's assertion is - typically - backwards.

Eugene Robinson also makes this inane allegation, but considering that Robinson makes Maureen Dowd look like a giant intellect, I'll let it go for now.

Finally, E.J. Dionne does his best Hugh Hewitt impersonation (sorry):

In picking such a vulnerable nominee, Bush single-handedly undercut the conservatives' long-standing claim that the Senate and the rest of us owed great deference to a president's choice for the court. Conservatives displayed absolutely no deference to Bush when he picked someone they didn't like. The actual conservative "principle" was that the Senate should defer to the president's choice -- as long as that choice was acceptable to conservatives. Some principle.

This makes absolutely no sense. Our position has been that the President's selection is owed an up and down vote - once that person makes it out of committee. Our concern has been that the filibuster is an illegitimate means by which to deny a person nominated by the President - and who has the support of the majority in the Senate - a seat on the Court. No prominent conservative that I can recall ever urged a filibuster. Furthermore, deference does not mean unremitting acceptance in the face of all evidence that the nominee does not merit a confirmation. But I suppose we should thank Miers' supporters for defining deference down.

I know that we should be focusing on the future nominations, but we should be aware of where will be attacked next. It's unfortunate that a few on our side have given the left the ammunition with which to attack.

Cross posted at Confirm Them.