Harriet who?

Townhall ^ | Thomas Sowell

[Crackingham]

Conservatives who have for years contributed time, money, and sweat to help elect Republicans have often been justifiably outraged at the way the Republicans have then let them down, wimped out, or even openly betrayed the promises on which they were elected. Much of that frustration and anger is now being directed at President Bush for his nomination of White House counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. Why not someone like Judge Janice Rogers Brown or any of a number of other identifiable judges with a proven history of upholding conservative judicial principles under fire?

Looming in the background is the specter of people like Justice Anthony Kennedy, who went on the High Court with a "conservative" label and then succumbed to the Washington liberal culture. But while the past is undeniable, it is also not predestination. This administration needs to be held responsible for its own shortcomings but not those of previous Republican administrations.

Rush Limbaugh has aptly called this a nomination made from a position of weakness. But there are different kinds of weakness and sometimes the difference matters. President Bush has taken on too many tough fights -- Social Security being a classic example -- to be regarded as a man who is personally weak. What is weak is the Republican majority in the Senate.

When it comes to taking on a tough fight with the Senate Democrats over judicial nominations, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist doesn't really have a majority to lead. Before the President nominated anybody, before he even took the oath of office for his second term, Senator Arlen Specter was already warning him not to nominate anyone who would rile up the Senate. Later, Senator John Warner issued a similar warning. It sounded like a familiar Republican strategy of pre-emptive surrender.

Before we can judge how the President played his hand, we have to consider what kind of hand he had to play. It was a weak hand -- and the weakness was in the Republican Senators. Does this mean that Harriet Miers will not be a good Supreme Court justice if she is confirmed? It is hard to imagine her being worse than Sandra Day O'Connor -- or even as bad.

The very fact that Harriet Miers is a member of an evangelical church suggests that she is not dying to be accepted by the beautiful people, and is unlikely to sell out the Constitution of the United States in order to be the toast of Georgetown cocktail parties or praised in the New York Times. Considering some of the turkeys that Republicans have put on the Supreme Court in the past, she could be a big improvement. We don't know. But President Bush says he has known Harriet Miers long enough that he feels sure. For the rest of us, she is a stealth nominee. Not since The Invisible Man has there been so much stealth. That's not ideal by a long shot. But ideal was probably never in the cards, given the weak sisters among the Republicans' Senate "majority." Full article

[samtheman]

Meirs is Roberts' second vote.

Roberts now has 2 votes instead of just one.

Bush knows what he's doing. He's playing to win, not to dazzle the media.

[Bahbah]

It is hard to imagine her being worse than Sandra Day O'Connor -- or even as bad.

I particularly liked this sentence so I thought I would repeat it.

[SkyPilot]

I still don't like this nominee--and my skepticism is well founded.

Sowell, however, does have a point. Rush was talking about this yesterday. If Conservatives want GW Bush to "go to war" over the Court, we must consider what kind of Army he has. Sadly, the troops he has in the Senate consist of traitors to the "Gang of 14", RINOs such as Snowe and Chaffe, and jellyfish. There are several good ones, but not enough of them.

So--we get Stealth in a Skirt. And it looks like all we can do is pray and hope for the best.

Also, I wonder if current justices like Kennedy and Souter read the newspapers or watch television concerning this particular debate. I have no doubt they follow it closely.

I hope the outrage that they see of their "conversion" to become Liberals bruises their precious egos--even if for just a nanosecond. They are a disgrace.

[gobucks]

"The very fact that Harriet Miers is a member of an evangelical church suggests that she is not dying to be accepted by the beautiful people

I've rubbed elbows w/ the 'beautiful people' quite a bit. I can testify that all church goers are tolerable except for one group: evangelical church goers. The quiet laughter and tinkling wine glasses go dead silent when the topic of true blue bible thumpers comes up.

For some reason, they become terribly provoked - my own theory is that the 13 letters of Paul are words that make them choke. To have a woman who reads those letters making decisions on the SCOTUS? They must be sleeping fitfully.

[Alia]

Tom nails it, so succinctly. :).. But his column does beg even more questions -- why are the Senate Republicans "this" way? That's a burning curiosity of mine.

Tells me more "politics" need to be won at the very local of local levels. This also tells me that far too many people are yet "sitting in the wagon instead of helping to pull it". Weak "large" players tend to get elected when the local activity is poor, non-existent, or frightened. In which case those "larger players" are a result of weak "sisters" at the voting level.

This overall says, there are far too many people demanding "others" declare and fight for "liberty" for themselves. But they themselves? Their lives are too busy, too full... etc.

They subscribe, locally, to the "gladiator" theory of politics in America. Not quite realizing, or accepting or being courageous in recognizing -- that defending your liberty is YOUR job in conjunction with those "elected" to office.

[Miss Marple]

Thanks! Dr. Sowell apperntly is one of the few pundits who thinks before he writes. I have been making this point about the Senate and I am consistently ignored. Maybe some of the people who are so angry will redirect their anger to the appropriate target.

[Republicanprofessor]

Thomas Sowell does nail it. Great post.

being courageous

This point is also worth repeating. Courage. Our columnists have more courage than those in the Senate. Too few see past the petty issues or privileges of the moment to see the clear issues of the future. Bush has foresight; often those with strong religious values have foresight as well. It is because we trust in something larger than ourselves. We can only hope that Meiers also has both courage and foresight.

[NCLaw441]

You said: Meirs is Roberts' second vote.

Roberts now has 2 votes instead of just one.

Bush knows what he's doing. He's playing to win, not to dazzle the media.
***

I agree with this simple, well-stated analysis. We had supposed first tier nominees in Kennedy and Souter, with paper trails, and look how they have turned out. Personal knowledge of the candidate is at least as reliable as a paper trail or ivy league education in determining how firmly a nominee will remain attached to her conservative moorings. Pundits, even conservative ones, hate to be proven wrong, and the writings you see from George Will et al are evidence of this.

[patriciaruth]

Oh, surely, you can find 12 more articles on this subject to post.

Just an hours worth of work for someone intent on stirring up divisions in the Republican Party.

Common, just 12 more. Don't slack off now.

[Alia]

I agree with yours on being courageous; each and every person regardless of station in life, or class, or ethnicity, whatnot.

I don't know, however, that I could honestly say that our columnists have more courage than those in the Senate. It's kinda like saying boxers have more courage than wrestlers: Two different fields. One field observes and makes commentary upon those in the arena. Those in the arena are often sucking up to those in the commentary fields, in order to get elected or support on a pet issue; and because that columnist can wield a pen to reach millions of (potential) voters. This puts the pundit in the "power" category over a person in the political arena, often.

In this, of yours:

It is because we trust in something larger than ourselves.

I am in perfect accord with you!

[Always Right]

The very fact that Harriet Miers is a member of an evangelical church suggests that she is not dying to be accepted by the beautiful people, and is unlikely to sell out the Constitution of the United States in order to be the toast of Georgetown cocktail parties or praised in the New York Times.

You would think, but it has been reported that Harriet demanded that the Presidential Christmas Message be fixed so it would not offend anyone. Kind of a New York Times thing to do.

[Puddleglum]

Tom nails it, so succinctly. :).. But his column does beg even more questions -- why are the Senate Republicans "this" way? That's a burning curiosity of mine. Tells me more "politics" need to be won at the very local of local levels.

I think Pubbies need to support more conservative candidates in the primaries, regardless of what the party bosses would have them do (Spectre vs Toomey -- our loss; Coburn vs Humphries -- our gain).

[bkepley]

Just an hours worth of work for someone intent on stirring up divisions in the Republican Party.

There's nothing wrong with this..holding Bush's feet to the fire and the article is fairly moderate, plus I like Thomas Sowell.

[sd-joe]

>> "why are the Senate Republicans "this" way?" <<

That is a good question. And a related one is: "Why did president Bush work so hard to re-elect Arlen Specter, who is such a continuous pain in the butt, when a true conservative could have been re-elected, if the administration had put it's weight behind him?

[Cboldt]

When it comes to taking on a tough fight with the Senate Democrats over judicial nominations, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist doesn't really have a majority to lead.

Sowell skirts the issue here. The GOP doesn't have the fortitude to contfront and repair the DEM's abuse of cloture to get its way on nominations.

And neither the Senators or the President make an issue of this. Meanwhile, Myers (9th Cir - on the Senate Exec Calendar since March 17), Boyle (also out of committee, June 16), Haynes, Kavanaugh and Saad (in committee since February) are not being acted on either. I think the GOP-lead Senate should properly handle those nominations. Maybe it would put to bed the notion that the President needs more than 51 votes to obtain a confirmation. And -THAT- would change the entire dynamic of the calculus for a SCOTUS nomination.

The DEMs and RINOs have effectively circumscribed what consititutes acceptable jurisprudence in a way that is favorable for advancing the radical social agendas of abortions, homosexualtiy, and suicide-on-demand. Conservatives are reduced to "stealth."

[Miss Marple]

What is your source for Miers demanding that the Christmas message be fixed?

[ballplayer]

Problem is Big tough Bush campaigned for Spector in Pa instead of a real conservative ,Now I think that is more telling than anything,then he wonders why no one trusts him.
I have said from day one BUSH is not a real conservative.What about Immigration? What about the unconstitoutional Campaign finance reform? Give me a break if Harriet shares his philosophy ... well we are finished

[patriciaruth]

Crackingham is a trouble maker.

[aBootes]

We had supposed first tier nominees in Kennedy and Souter, with paper trails, and look how they have turned out.

Eh? Actually, Kennedy was a third-tier replacement for Bork. Souter was a stealth candidate. Anything jump out at you now?