For or against, this has to be one of the biggest vanity generating subjects ever.
This is a tired argument, that is fearing that a more qualified candidate may not get confirmed. If the WH nominated Meirs not out of weakness - as Rush says - but out of such tiredness, then they should resign as a group. Like a shark, you either move forward or you're dead, and if the WH is too tired to move forward, then step aside and let some young blood in right now - resign and don't wait for the next election.
Wonderful post.
I trust the President.
Your premise is wrong. It's not that conservatives are upset and "whining" about all the time and effort spent to finally get some conservative justices on the Supreme Court and Bush not nominating who we wanted. It is about Bush promising to nominate justices "in the mold of Scalia and Thomas" and then Bush failing to keep that promise and instead nominating an unqualified political crony. This nomination is indefensible and it is truly disheartening to see so many so-called conservatives defending it.
Anybody who thinks President Bush is a conservative, is living in the land of denial. No vetos, out of control spending, wishy washy Supreme Court nominees, making the federal government much bigger, open border policy. The one positive is he is better than Kerry. Of course, you can't blame him alone, the Republican controlled Congress has gone off the tracks too. They were so much better when they had Clinton in the White House to battle.
The bottom line, man gets too careless and seduced by power when there is no opposing force. That is why only people born from above with an incorruptible nature, incapable of sinning, and immune to the influence of Satan, can run this planet. In other words, only Jesus Christ FULL salvation, the COMPLETE redemption of body, soul, and spirit of mankind will bring an end to 6000 years of wars, disease, death, and misery. Until that day all we can do is pray for our leaders, do the best we can in spite of our fallen condition, and wait for HIS deliverance.
If you think fallen man can do it on his own, you are falling right into the trap of Satan, the mark of the beast, and the False Prophet. So be very careful not to get too caught up in anything in this world, because it is all going to pass away.
Tactically, I think it would have been better to nominate a known conservative. The reason is that the dems now get to sit back and watch our infighting. I would rather have dems be on the defensive trying to destroy a just nomination than have republicans on both the offense and defense at the same time. No matter how Miers turns out, we have lost something by choosing to avoid the fight.
Every high school has a bully that feeds on others' willingness to get along and try to achieve their ends without a brutal confrontation. If it is utterly impossible to win, the smart man avoids the fight. But if it is possible or even likely to win, only a fool avoids destroying his enemy. Liberals will continue to come back and bite our heels until they are destroyed as an ideology. Admitting their strength and making decisions based on their strength, while appearing to be embarrassed to be a conservative, only lends the enemy credibility.
I don't see how President Bush can ever expect to tow a conservative line again during the remainder of his presidency. He has all but admitted that conservatives will lose any fight they enter. He has ceded the high ground to the dems by choosing to avoid the confrontation.
By the way, it doesn't matter if Miers turns out to be great. Bush has avoided giving a political ass whooping to the dems--a whooping that has been long over due. It would have made more sense to put them on the defensive, spewing their bigoted garbage. Conservatives only win, in the long run, by exposing dems and their vile ugliness while providing a clear picture of a better way to do things. This better way is CONSERVATISM, but to have any power it has to be named. This nomination spares us the dems ugliness, and foisters upon us our own. This is a big PR blunder. Every time the dems have Wellstone memorial incident, we gain in strength. This is another attempt by the president to rehabilitate his enemy, and is pure stupidity.
There would not be all this fear and whining if the Supreme Court judges were not nominated for lifetime positions. We need to work on term limits for these clowns.
Good post. I think it's hilarious how often the conventional knowledge is complete fantsy.
It is clear that the most important thing that you prefer, is more cronyism and incompetance in government.
Hmm you gives me two choices...
#1.. whineing about Miers...
#2.. Goose stepping with the bots and being goosed by the boot of the bot, to my rear..
Hmmm..
The thought that a knucklehead like Harry Reid would support her makes my ambush alarm start ringing.
I'm wondering how much of her work as White House Counsel will result in her recusal in issues coming before the court. Depending on what Robert's vote would be we have the potential of a deadlocked court on some important issues.
Everyone knows you pick your battles. But you do pick your battles, if you believe in something.
What battle has W picked? One: Iraq. And for that he deserves huge commendation, even if he has been oddly inert it its defense.
Two should have been this nomination. It wasn't.
When you start with the word whine, you demonstrate you aren't interested in discussion, just starting a food fight.
</sarcasm>
But seriously...
I also find it hard to believe that all of those conservative judges appointed over the past 5 year were vetted by a closet liberal.
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.
Appointing Supreme Court judges was the cornerstone of GW's 2004 campaign. He told us over and over again the importance of finding judges who were strict constructionist - as he said “somebody who looks at the words of the Constitution for what they are, somebody who will not legislate from the bench,” which means that a constructionist judge will adhere to the meaning of the words in the Constitution the same way as it was originally intended – no room for spinning. All along GW has made good on his promise by nominating conservatives judges and he hasn't failed, so why doubt him now?
What's the point of getting a monumental judge who would put up an extraordinary fight leaving Democrats speechless due to his magnificent answers while we conservatives clamor and cheer patting ourselves on the back only to see him defeated?
After all, as the President he gets to pick who he thinks is qualified to do the job, because he knows her better than the critics and better than us. And she'll go through the Senate confirmation hearings, and we we'll get to trash her some more. But she'll be confirmed, and therein lies the difference between a monumental judge and Harriet Miers.
Hear, hear.