“I object to appointment somebody that has no track record. Corporate power is a big one because of the Citizens United decision, and also Miranda. There are a lot of things where it would be helpful to be able to examine past writings.”Orange Julius? Mitchy? El Rushbo? Moose Lady? Glennsanity? Bachmanniac?
“If I was in the Senate, I would vote no, because like Harriet Miers she doesn’t have the judicial experience.”
“Accepting Kagan just because people like Obama is wrong. That’s appropriate for American Idol, not the Supreme Court. Nobody knows what she stands for but him. It’s just a cult of personality with Obama. This is the Supreme Court.”
Wrong on all accounts. Because Jane Hamsher has gotten so bad on the firebagging (talking to Politico to attack Elena Kagan) that even the Power Line guys are calling her out on it.
In sum, conservatives needed to rely more heavily on President Bush to vouch for Miers' soundness than liberals need to rely on President Obama to vouch for Kagan's. Moreover, Obama is himself a lawyer, whereas Bush is not. Thus, his assessment of ideological soundness is worth more than Bush's was.Paul Mirengoff as the voice of reason on an Obama SCOTUS nominee, and Jane Hamsher spouting PUMA-era Clinton crap about Obama's "cult of personality". It's 9 AM and I already need a Bloody Mary and a corned beef sandwich.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, conservatives were able to find evidence that Miers had not consistently been a conservative in the past. It turned out that her speeches during the 1990s revealed significant centrist, and even liberal, tendencies. It was only when these speeches came to light that the tide turned decisively against Miers.
If someone unearths comparable departures from orthodoxy by Kagan, her nomination may suffer the same fate as Miers'. Short of that, she's unlikely to face serious opposition from the serious left.