Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

After the McCain Mutiny
WND.com ^ | 06-01-05 | Buchanan, Patrick J.

Posted on 06/01/2005 6:11:24 AM PDT by Theodore R.

After the McCain mutiny

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: June 1, 2005 1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2005 Creators Syndicate Inc.

It is being called "the McCain Mutiny."

On May 23, Senate Republicans were poised to disarm Harry Reid and Co. of the weapons they have used to kill the Bush judges. Every hostage still held by the Democratic minority was about to be freed.

And the Senate was about to dynamite the last obstacle to President Bush's honoring of his pledge to end judicial activism. The road was about to be opened for two, three or perhaps four Supreme Court justices, who would bring an end to the social revolution that has been imposed upon us from above since the time of Earl Warren.

Victory was at hand.

Majority Leader Bill Frist had the 50 votes to pass a rule permitting the majority to ensure each judicial nominee gets a vote, up or down, and none is smothered to death by a tyrannical minority.

But that evening, Sen. John McCain and six other Republicans defected and threw victory away. They agreed to let Reid and Co. keep the filibuster-veto, if they would agree only to use it in "extraordinary circumstances."

The naivete of the moderate Republican is a thing to behold.

Only 72 hours later, those "extraordinary circumstances" suddenly arose, as Reid and Co. beat John Bolton to a bloody pulp, refused to let the Senate vote to confirm or reject him and sent him back to his cell.

Not to worry, said the McCain Seven. Bolton is not a judge. He is only the president's nominee to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. By bringing Bolton out for a ritual beating and dragging him back to his dungeon, our Democratic colleagues did not violate the Spirit of Munich.

The filibuster-veto is the moral equivalent of letting a mob tie a man to a whipping post and lash him almost to death, without a trial, while denying the majority the right to set him free. Under the filibuster-veto, at least a dozen conservative judges have seen their good names smeared by Senate demagogues, as in a show trial, but been denied a vote by the full Senate on the truth or falsity of the charges against them.

This is un-American. But now we are instructed by McCain and his colleagues that Senate comity requires this tactic be made a permanent Senate institution.

For dissing his colleagues and Frist, and leaving Bush's Supreme Court nominees subject to a filibuster gauntlet and death by a thousand cuts, McCain is being hailed as the conscience of the Senate. But the ball is now back in the court of the majority, Frist and President Bush himself.

Will they accept the demand of the McCain Seven that the president "consult" them on all future appellate and Supreme Court nominees? And does that mean prior approval? Will they accept a minority veto of Bush's judicial choices? Will they accept the deal cut by the McCain Seven that freed three hostages – Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen and William Pryor – but gave Reid, Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer a conceded right to take future hostages under "extraordinary circumstances"?

In brief, is the Republican Party bound by this Munich? If it is, the GOP has lost its last chance to change the composition and course of the Supreme Court, and Bush's legacy will be as diminished – as was that of his father and every Republican predecessor since World War II.

Dwight Eisenhower said that his nominations of Earl Warren and Bill Brennan were two of his biggest mistakes. Nixon came to office determined to recapture the Supreme Court for constitutionalism. But after Judges Haynsworth and Carswell were rejected by a liberal Senate, he was persuaded to name Harry Blackmun, father of Roe v. Wade, for which three of Nixon's four nominees voted. Only William Rehnquist dissented.

President Ford's lone choice was John Paul Stevens, the most reliable liberal on the court. Reagan elevated Rehnquist to chief justice and named Antonin Scalia, but his first choice was Sandra Day O'Connor, who is now reading up on international law to find out how she should rule. After Robert Bork was keel-hauled, Reagan named the mugwump Anthony Kennedy. Bush's father named cipher David Souter, but redeemed himself with Clarence Thomas. And so it has gone.

Since Nixon, then, Republican presidents have named 12 justices to the Supreme Court. Three turned out to be "strict constructionists" who look for guidance beyond the rulings of the Warren Court, as they should, to the Constitution of the United States.

The mega-issue here, then, is: Who shall rule us? Shall it be unelected Supreme Court justices? Or elected legislators we can replace at election time? Is America a judicial dictatorship or a constitutional republic?

If Frist and President Bush cannot break up the McCain Seven and bring two of those senators back to supporting majority rule, the game is up. As Barry Goldwater used to say, "It's as simple as that."


TOPICS: Government
KEYWORDS: akennedy; anothermunich; blackmun; bolton; bush; carswell; clarencethomas; democrats; eisenhower; frist; goldwater; haynsworth; judges; liberals; losers; mccain; nixon; nuclearoption; oconnor; rehnquist; reid; republicans; scalia; scum7; souter; stevens; supremecourt; traitors

1 posted on 06/01/2005 6:11:30 AM PDT by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
"Is America a judicial dictatorship or a constitutional republic?"


Why Mr. Buchanan, Patrick J., what ever do you mean?

Are you intimating there is trouble, right here in River City? And are you chuckling at the thought that our Republic is about to founder?

Not many "reporters" are needed in a gulag.

2 posted on 06/01/2005 6:24:53 AM PDT by G.Mason ( Republicans – A Party adept at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
Hark!!! We have lost the Republic and descended to Social Democracy. Grave thought should now be given if we are to avoid further descent into the sea of liberalism.
3 posted on 06/01/2005 6:33:54 AM PDT by jec41 (Screaming Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jec41

Yep, Old Buck, was left in the marinade WAAAAYYYY TOO long!


4 posted on 06/01/2005 6:43:17 AM PDT by Pat79thST (Pat79thSt. - Irish arthritis - I get stiff in a different joint every night!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.

Trent "Yellow-Belly" Lott is up to his eye-balls in all this mess as well Pat!


5 posted on 06/01/2005 6:45:33 AM PDT by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.

It is being called "the McCain Mutiny."

On May 23, Senate Republicans were poised to disarm Harry Reid and Co. of the weapons they have used to kill the Bush judges. Every hostage still held by the Democratic minority was about to be freed.

And the Senate was about to dynamite the last obstacle to President Bush's honoring of his pledge to end judicial activism. The road was about to be opened for two, three or perhaps four Supreme Court justices, who would bring an end to the social revolution that has been imposed upon us from above since the time of Earl Warren.

Victory was at hand.

Majority Leader Bill Frist had the 50 votes to pass a rule permitting the majority to ensure each judicial nominee gets a vote, up or down, and none is smothered to death by a tyrannical minority.

But that evening, Sen. John McCain and six other Republicans defected and threw victory away.

Finally some good ole Pat.


6 posted on 06/01/2005 6:46:45 AM PDT by TomasUSMC (FIGHT LIKE WW2, FINISH LIKE WW2. FIGHT LIKE NAM, FINISH LIKE NAM.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.

Well...we've seen Frist's "power" and remain unimpressed. I think W can forget about naming anyone he likes to the High Court for the remainder of his term.


7 posted on 06/01/2005 7:07:56 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.

A lot of "conservatives" don't care for PJB, but I'm still trying to find stuff I disagree with.


8 posted on 06/01/2005 8:58:25 PM PDT by TradicalRC (I'd rather live in a Christian theocracy than a secular democracy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TradicalRC
I use to like McCain and was going to watch Faith of My Fathers, but he turned me off by pandering to the Democrats.

Sometimes I agree with Pat. But he comes off far to anti-Israel, and I really think he is just pissed he couldn't steer the Republican party into isolationism. That may have worked pre-911 Pat. Time to get with the real world now though.
9 posted on 06/03/2005 12:24:28 AM PDT by Lord Nelson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Lord Nelson
Sometimes I agree with Pat. But he comes off far to anti-Israel, and I really think he is just pissed he couldn't steer the Republican party into isolationism. That may have worked pre-911 Pat. Time to get with the real world now though.

My impression is that he's not anti-Israel, merely America first. Our problem is not our isolationism which was fine until Wilson dragged us into WWI and Roosevelt dragged us into WWII. I guess we're all democrats now. Nobody seems to think that terrorism arrived on our shores because of A.)America has her long military and economic fingers in EVERYBODY's pies and B.) We do squat about illegal immigration and protecting our borders. Isolationism would stop terrorism in the U.S.

10 posted on 06/03/2005 6:07:26 AM PDT by TradicalRC (I'd rather live in a Christian theocracy than a secular democracy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: TradicalRC
You see. That’s the sort of thing Pat Buchanan would say that makes me want to put my hand through the TV and bang his head on the desk. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Pat interviewed in Michael Moore’s next movie.

Basically you and he are justifying what happened to 3000 Americans on 911. As far as I understand US troops are no longer stationed in Saudi Arabia. So that is just a lot of nonsense about American troops hanging out in Mecca and Medina. America is hated for being America. If you think isolation would stop Moslems from hating us, I have a bridge to sell you. We had 8 years under Clinton with our heads in the isolation sand. That didn’t stop them. And it won’t stop the thousands of illegal immigrant Moslems in America from advancing their campaign to turn America into their Islamo Fascist fiefdom.

America has her economic fingers in other pies? I thought this was a free world that believes in freely trading. So Moslems are justified in killing us because we have coke machines in Damascus. That makes a world of sense.
11 posted on 06/03/2005 9:17:09 AM PDT by Lord Nelson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.

I like Pat. I think some of his ideas are just way off, but he's ok most of the time, and I love the twinkle in his eye when his sense of humor appears.

I thought his article here was just right on, and was about the most succinct review of the nuclear option mess I've yet seen. Just MO.


12 posted on 06/08/2005 4:32:20 AM PDT by Randy Papadoo (Not going so good? Just kick somebody's a$$. You'll feel a lot better!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson