(cross-posted in my Daily Kos diary)

I was taking a leap into the conservative blogosphere and found a transcript from a conference call held earlier today held between some conservative bloggers and former Texas Supreme Court Justice Craig Enoch and White House communications advisor Jim Dyke organized by the RNC.

The person responding to the questions is TX Supreme Court Justice Enoch unless otherwise noted.  My emphasis in italics.

What kind of qualities do you think Ms. Miers has to be Supreme Court justice? Does she have strong convictions or feel strongly about issues that are big topics today like Roe v. Wade or gay marriage?

She has strong convictions, but you also asked me what her qualifications were. Let me tell you, what I have seen her display is good judgment and common sense. What I know about her strong convictions is she has them. One of them is the role of the judicial institution. One of the strong convictions among others is the proper role of judges. And I think that gets kind of lost among all this chatter about what does she think. What does she say? It's what you do on a city council or what you do on the American Bar Association that gives you one side of someone's commitment and personal beliefs. But what you do gives you another side. Judicial restraint doesn't mean you go on and follow an agenda. What it's saying is I know the proper role of a judge. I take the facts. I apply the law, and I apply it to the facts and make a decision. I don't make the law. I think we lose some sight about what it is that makes you a good judge. The integrity that you display day in and day out is, in my mind, what qualifies you for this position.

That doesn't sound like any trailblazing to me.  Can't they at least make up something?  He sounds like a terrible salesman.

Tim Chapman: I got a chance yesterday to talk to Congressman Gohmert, a former Texas Supreme Court judge as well, and asked him what he thought of the Miers nomination. And he said that Harriet was a brilliant lawyer, and he thought a great deal of her. But the fact that we have to say, "Let's wait and see" as to her qualifications, means conservatives didn't get what they were looking for.

I love Louie... I don't know how well Congressman Gohmert knew her from day one. But those that knew her over the 30 years, know that she's well qualified for this. And quite frankly, I think some of the conservative commentators who jumped immediately out there with criticisms of this choice, really did so out of ignorance than of knowledge. And of course they'll just say, "Well, we didn't know anything about her. But not everybody who gets put in positions of trust is known by these commentators on the East Coast. I think there is good value in sessions like today, where you are taking advantage of the opportunity to talk to people who do know her and talk about her background, to become knowledgeable in this debate. I think when the Senate hearings are completed, all this wait-and-see attitude will have been done and they will say, "this was a good choice."

He mentions the value of sessions like the conference call, but fails to offer any real insight.

I agree with you that maybe people jumped on this a little too soon, and I've been urging people to wait and see. But I think that those of us who have been urging people to wait and see have become concerned it's not enough to say Ms. Miers will be a legend on the court before she's finished. I think that's what you said. And some of us are saying, aside from your personal opinion, can you reassure us that Ms. Miers will be legendary like the Ford model T and not like the Ford SL.

I think when I first was saying that, I said the icons of the United States Supreme Court, many of whom had never been a judge before they had gotten on that court. I'm in the business of words, and words are cheap. Do the words have any meaning for you, do you live those words? I was always fascinated when someone would ask me, "Well, did Harriet Miers ever tell you this?" I saw her on a daily basis. I saw how she acted and the decisions she made. What I'm telling you is not that I believe that she will be appropriately guided as a judge on the court, or that I believe she'll be a good judge. I'm telling you that I've seen her judgments in action. I've seen her in matters of mundane as well as important, in times of crisis. Proper reflection of her judgment day in and day out was solid, and so I know that Harriet Miers will be an excellent addition to the United States Supreme Court.

Is anyone else buying this crap?

You can read the full transcript here

Let's go back and look at exactly what Justice Enoch said.

1) She has strong convictions
--last time I checked, most public figures have strong convictions; hell, my stoner friends have strong convictions

2) I have seen her display is good judgment and common sense
--I would hope that any person nominated for such an important position would possess both of these traits

3) She has integrity
--see 2)

4) those that knew her over the 30 years, know that she's well qualified for this.
--that's good and well, but there are the 284,998,012 who haven't know her for that long.  Could you provide us with some concrete accomplishments?

5) I believe she'll be a good judge. I'm telling you that I've seen her judgments in action. I've seen her in matters of mundane as well as important, in times of crisis.
--I believe that my constitutional law professor would be a good judge (probably better than Miers), but who cares.  What judgments, what matters, what crises?

What's with these people?  This nomination is on its deathbed.  Harriet, we still hardly know thee, but we won't shed a tear when you leave us.  It was nice not knowing you.

Peace,
Chris

"I wish the world was run by love, and absolutely nothing more." <--Does this qualify me for the SCOTUS?