Posted on 10/08/2005 9:52:18 AM PDT by Allen H
Since I’m sure there are still many conservatives out there who are still upset and whining about Bush not nominating who they wanted, I’m wondering. Do you wish Bush had nominated who you wanted, even if it meant them not being confirmed and Bush being forced to pick a milk toast? I don’t think anyone can argue about the fact that the Republican majority in the Senate haven’t exactly acted with a spine or any kind of united strong conservative voice the four years they’ve been a majority. And it seems the larger their majority gets, the more its spine gets watered down.
This is a reality lesson in life. There are two ways to stand strong to your convictions and beliefs and not waiver. You can go about your life, putting your beliefs into practice, never bending, never breaking, never compromising, and whenever anyone asks what you believe, you tell them, politely, civilly, like how Miers has done it. OR, you can do it another way. You can be all those same things above, and you can also be very vocal, very "in your face", very confrontational, outspoken, and be very well known as to what you believe and stand for, so that if you come up for a position like Supreme Court Justice, it’s known immediately which side of the court you will always come down on. The Scalia / Thomas side, or the Ginsburg / Stevens side. The latter is the kind of person that Michael Luddig, Pricilla Owens, Edith Jones, or David Pryor, who I would sure support. Frankly that’s the kind of person I am, and I was hoping they'd of gotten this nomination. I’m not quite "in your face" with liberals unless confronted, but I also will not sit like a wall flower while people say stupid liberal things in the face of reality. I wouldn’t expect to be nominated for the SCOTUS either. Being that way is not bad in any way, but it is a problem. It’s guaranteeing a nasty, long, drawn out, ugly fight that would not even guarantee ALL the Republicans standing with the President. If Bush thought that the Republican majority in the Senate actually had a spine and would stand up to a fight, I think he would have likely put up someone like Juddig or Jones. I think this pick is an indictment on the complete and total lack of conservative will in the Senate majority. Heck, this woman he did pick stands as a solid conservative nominee with all those who have endorsed her, and not all Republicans are backing her. The bottom line is, Harriet Miers WILL be confirmed, and she much more likely than not, will prove to be a conservative, indications show she will be much like Scalia and Thomas. And if you voted for President Bush both times, like I did, or just one time, then you have to trust that he will keep his promise on Judges, like he has so faithfully kept it to this point. There hasn’t been one single Judge on the district, appellate or federal court level that Bush has nominated that hasn’t been a strong unbending conservative. And this is one fact I STILL can’t get around that frustrates me with those opposing Miers. Miers was pivotal in choosing ALL the Judges that Bush has nominated to all the courts the past five years, all of which have proven to be good solid conservatives that all the conservative voters have liked so much. Yet somehow the person who found, supported, and brought all those good conservative judges to the President, somehow isn’t good enough to be a judge herself when she’s accomplished all the things she’s done in her life? That is simply the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. Especially after it’s been proven she said now she was worried that perhaps John Roberts might not be conservative enough. And some conservatives are still not supporting her? ARE YOU FRIKKEN KIDDING ME??? THAT is just simply elitism and nothing else.
I was worried initially, because I desperately wanted an Owens, or Luiddig, or someone just like them, someone that was nose to the wind, finger pointing and shaking to the left, well known vocal hard conservative, BUT, if the person put up instead of them is just like that, with the same conservative ideological beliefs, just isn’t a well known confrontational person who will unite all liberals and democrats and milk-toast weak RHINO Republicans against them, then I will choose the Miers over the Owens or Luddig EVERY TIME, because frankly I have NO FAITH in the Republican Senate majority, and while I am more like the judicial Luddig’s and Jones’s, I’ve still seen nothing that yet shows she’s any less conservative than they are. When she gave money to algore, he was pro-life and hadn’t taken the pink liberal without reason pill yet, and since then she has been nothing but a conservative loyalist on all levels, professionally, personally, and religiously. She voted for Reagan in ‘84, she voted for the first Bush in ‘88. Once she became a registered Republican she stayed Republican and voted and worked and donated that way even when clinton was President, even in ‘91 and ’92 when the democrats controlled both Houses of Congress. Not one person who really knows her has come out against her nomination. Frum is the only one I’ve heard of who has worked with her and doesn’t support her, and that was years ago and it’s not as though Frum doesn’t have his own agenda. None of Bush’s judges has disappointed. They’ve all been proven to be very conservative constructionist judges, and there is no reason to believe Miers will be any different. The arguments is stale and smacks of elitism at this point. I prefer someone who hasn’t been indoctrinated by the snobbery of Yale and Harvard liberalism, and has lived most all of her life in very conservative Texas. Even when Texas was majority Democrat, it was conservative and had nothing in common with the radical New England and left coast liberal bases of operation. Instead of being a judge she’s been actually arguing law from the conservative perspective, not sitting on high on a bench disconnected from reality. What is so wrong with that? She will be confirmed, and more and more, I believe she will prove herself to be a dedicated defender of the Constitution and what it REALLY says, not what stevens and souter and ginsburg wish or think it says. Her votes I believe will consistently fall right with Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas and John Roberts, and when that time comes, I hope all here who eviscerated her just because she’s not some elitist insider snob, or a speak first think second hothead that would inflame all democrats and RINOs in the Senate, will remember just how vacuous the opposition to her really was, and just how wrong it has proven to be. Given the past 20 years of her life, I can’t see any rational way she will betray all she has proven to stand for the past two decades. And if you voted for and supported W. Bush last year and in 2000, then for Pete’s sake, show just a little faith and trust in the guy and believe that he would have gotten to know this woman the past 10 years he’s had a close relationship with her. Have a little faith. With faith as small as a mustard seed, a mountain can be moved. I choose to have faith and pray that Harriet Miers will be the conservative strict-constructionist Justice that this nation desperately needs right now, and pray that she will have the strength and wisdom to adjudicate in that way, and continue to display and enforce the beliefs and convictions on the bench, that she has so strongly lived in her life.
So the idea is to head off Democrat opposition by going for the milquetoast first? I'm not sure I like that idea.
The question should be put, which would you want? Bush to nominate Miers, or, Kerry to nominate Lawrence Tribe?
I hate vanities. But not this one.
How about finding a thread with an actual news story and posting this as a comment? That is the way it is done. Then, after a year or two, if enough people like what you say, you can become a columnist like JohnHuang2.
"...trust in the guy and believe that he would have gotten to know this woman the past 10 years he’s had a close relationship with her."
_______________________________________________________
I trust him too.
Good posting and thanks for putting it up.
Bush has damaged the conservative movement by nominating Ms. Miers, rather than Judge with a solid track record.
Sun Tzu The Art of War
DITTO! You are right on!
Yes, I would rather have had Bush nominate Janice Rodgers Brown, and have had a knock-down, drag-out fight in the Senate, with all the Demoncrats and RINOs voting against Brown, and her nomination failing--and then Harriet Miers.
Because those events would have driven enough Black voters out of the arms of the Demoncrats to break the stranglehold that keeps Blacks on the urban plantations. It would have been a blow to the Demoncrats that it would have taken them years of more lies to overcome.
The Miers pick is the fulfillment of a promise made to the CHRISTIAN CONSERVATIVE portion of W's base.
The fallout, therefrom, cleves along spiritual, not intellectual lines.
Bovine Fecal Matter!
If the founders had intended to restrict service on SCOTUS to a VERY narrow segment of society such as "judges with proven track records" they could easily have done so! They chose not to do that. Can you even imagine why?
The president is far smarter that these elitists give him credit for!
Suppose Bush put up, say, Wilkinson and he got buffeted by the Senate. Clearly and unmistakably, Senate Democrats would be opposing the candidate based on politics and not the merits. The Angry Left was ready to shred Roberts, but it couldn't -- because his record was just too good. You saw how the Democratic senators who feared for their jobs supported him.
Now, you might say, that wasn't the pick that would have changed the balance of the court. True (as far as media perception goes). My answer is ... so what? Does that make our side less correct?
This is why we put up with all the compromises of the past five years. This was it. This was our shot. What did we get? The least qualified candidate since Abe Fortas.
Come on, we're supposed to care about the right way to do things, not just the right outcome. That's what makes us better.
Yeah ... exactly, this individual has been onboard all of one month and boring us to tears already.
I agree with you 100%.
I know I don't like that idea.
If a milquetoast pick is to be made, why not at least send a tested conservative up first. Let the Republician controlled senate show their true colors and then send up a miquetoast nominee.
What evidence to you have that Miers is milk-toast? Her recent and past history indicates the opposite. Just because she hasn't been in anyones face about her beliefs doesn't meen she doesn't have or believe them. Meek does not mean weak. narwal and now and a bunch of other liberal groups have come out strongly against her, so just because some democrat Senators think she's okay, doesn't mean they will in the hearings or on the floor. I expect very sharp criticism from most all democrats in the Judicial Committee. Maybe even more than Roberts got, since she's not just a conservative like Roberts, she's a Bush loyal conservative, and that's evil to all democrats. I just don't get all the venomous oppositon from conservatives towards her, and I say that as a life long conservative Christian Republican who's been a delegate at the State convention. I don't understand it. I don't like it. And it disgusts me and has no positive outcome for the conservative movement. What this loud and blatant opposition to her does do is do what the democrats haven't been able to do and are so gleeful about. Split the conservative movement in this country. So is opposing her worth giving the democrats what they've wanted for over a decade? You can oppose her speficically and wish it had been someone else without withdrawing support from the President and the conservative majority, and like it or not that is exactly how this opposition to Miers comes across.
Great post Allen. Good job.
Wilkinson leaked the details of his interview with Bush to the NEW YORK TIMES. If you were Bush would you feel comfortable nominating a person like that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.