Oct 06 2005
Carnival of The Chillin’ #4
Keep checking the Updates Section at the end!
The Mark Coffey of Decision ’08 and founder of The Coalition of the Chillin’ and Patrick Ruffini, founder of The Coalition of The Chillin’: SCOTUS Division have joined forces on the Harriet Miers nomination.
This occured right after I posted the requests for participants on Monday – with a deadline Wednesday evening so we could collect the inputs before the weekend. Many of us do not feel the conservative movement suffered a major blow with the nomination of Harriet Miers. And many of us are dismayed at the response from conservatives. With that said, this Carnival is open to all views and both sides are represented – and welcomed!
I do not even attempt to synopsize the posts since I probably would not do the writers the justice they deserve. Suffice it to say they are all worth reading.
Since this issue will rage for some time I am willing to make this a rolling Carnival for debate – so please feel free to email me at AJstrata@strata-sphere.com if you wish to have your post added.
We begin with Patrick Ruffini’s post establishing is cool Coalition graphic, but more importantly his post is a carnival in itself with all the trackback links.
Mark Coffey submitted One Man’s Take On Harriet Miers, Or Is What’s Good for the Goose Good for the Gander?
The first comment I received was an email from non-blogger Mike which I felt was worth including:
The real story here is that they called off the war. The bases on both sides wanted war (they probably wanted a war more than they wanted a victory), but the White House and the Senate did not. The Democrats didn’t want one because they would lose and look bad doing it. Bush didn’t want one because he has a big agenda and not too much time. This way he gets a Justice who is conservative enough for legacy purposes (and will have time to reassure the base before 2006), gets some points from centrists who worry about too much social conservatism (and don’t like political food fights), avoids giving the Democrats and PFAW a three-month soap box, and gets to move on to tax reform, social security, etc. By year-end things will look better in Iraq, Katrina will have receded, Plame/DeLay/etc. will have blown over, and it may be possible to get some work done. Blogging lawyers and law profs may care intensely about the pure quality of every nominee, but it is not clear that people in general do, or necessarily should. Bush plays a long game; don’t misunderestimate him.
Get yourself a blog Mike!
In order that I received them:
Don Surber submitted Pouting Thomases
Sean Hackbarth at The American Mind submitted Unknown Miers Nominated
Academic Elephant at Elephants in Academia submitted Picture of the Day
Curt at Flopping Aces submitted The Miers Nomination
Peter Porcupine submitted Judgment Must Take Deep Account
The good Dr. Sanity submitted Enough Already!
Jeff at The Bernoulli Effect submitted Chillin’ On Miers
And yours truly submitted The Miers Test For Pundits
UPDATES:
Lori Byrd has offered up Bush Lied
Karl Maher at Can’t See The Center has submitted The Miers pick: An alternative theory [Good To See Karl Is Still Posting]
Tee Bee at Guide to Midwestern Culture submits Miers and the Conservative Construction
Wave Maker submits Shut Up And Get On The Bus
[…] You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your ownsite. […]
I Guess I’m Chillin’
I’m in the SCOTUS edition of the Coalition of the Chillin’. Must be my agnosticism on Miers. It’s hard to…
[…] You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your ownsite. […]
Miers and the Conservative Construction
I’ve left this one alone, just bringin’ the usual facts and fun here, but this Washington Post article ticked me off: “Right Sees Miers as Threat to a Dream.”
[…] Add the Washington Post editorial board to the ranks of the Chillin’ (and be sure and check out AJ’s Carnival while you’re at it): TO HEAR THE reaction from some conservatives to President Bush’s nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, you would think the president had named an avowed liberal. While admitting there are legitimate concerns about the qualifications of Miers, the Post condemns the attitude of conservatives who want a firm assurance on Roe v. Wade as the litmus test that it is: …it is no more Ms. Miers’s job to promise Mr. Brownback her vote to overturn Roe than it was Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s job to promise Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) his vote to sustain it. Not even the president’s allies are entitled to certainty. Indeed, I argued in an earlier post that if we adopt the attitude that only a nominee who backs a certain political position is worthy of nomination, we’ve got no moral leg to stand on when the Democrats do the same. […]