THAT'S WHAT WE GET WHEN WE ACT LIKE REACTIONARY LIBERALS
Posted on 10/04/2005 4:07:12 PM PDT by Lando Lincoln
October 4, 2005 - Washington, DC - PipeLineNews.org - In the spirit of full disclosure, this is not the piece written and then discarded early yesterday afternoon.
Over the now six years that I have been running this right-wing asylum I have learned a few tricks, one of which is that even 12 hours of perspective is sometimes helpful in sorting things out.
Ok, suck it up, we got an almost grandmotherly Harriet Miers instead of Attilla Scalia and some of us...many of us are still fuming.
We were upset - and I was personally far more than merely upset, but it got better - because we had visions of pools of liberal blood in the streets. Since the fading days of the Reagan Administration we have sought that "ultimate showdown" in which the leftward drift forced by the culture war is halted, then reversed via a national debate held over a momentous event, such as a SCOTUS nomination fight.
Looking back over things it was a silly concept, we all should know that glacial drift is not halted in a single afternoon by an isolated event no matter how epochal in nature it might seem in rough outline at the outset.
No, the Miers nomination is exactly what Mr. Bush promised us, assuming he is an honest and decent man which I do.
She will not lead us into ideological battle ala Patton; there will be no order to "fix bayonets boys we are going over the top." On the other hand she will most likely in an unobtrusive - unless a prowling intellectually audacious conservative lurks somewhere in her - and tidy manner deliver votes indistinguishable from those penned by Thomas and Scalia.
Under the conservative George Bush, revolution was never an option and nothing in his background should have ever indicated that.
Bush is a true conservative in the definitional sense, straight out of a political science 101 text - probably not as conservative as many of would order up off a menu - but of course this isn't diner at the Escofier Room and political tactics are not the soup de jour.
Of primary concern remains to what degree Meirs honors the concept of stare decisis - the rule of precedent - in cases like Roe v Wade remains to be seen, but in grand form she will in no way be a squishy moderate like Sandra Day O'Connor around which pacts better left unmade get forged around ridiculous constructions invoked over homage to foreign jurisprudence. Her obeisance to that important legalism might be further revealed in the upcoming hearings, or it may not if the Ginzberg precedent remains in force.
As we have written here previously, what many of us want is not technically a conservative at all but a reactionary, someone who is willing by force of will to reverse the course of contemporary history. That sentiment may be the correct prescription but Bush was never the one to deliver that. In a larger sense one might consider that in its wisdom our form of government was designed in large part to limit the possibility of such boldness, such revolutionary ardor in the first place, since it can cut in all directions and history harbors many examples of such rampaging out of control in disorderly and messy ways.
It’s not often that we can gather enlightenment from the left, but in literally hours of reading their take on this nomination I came upon the following bit of wisdom.
“I wish people would wake and smell the coffee here. Bush clearly stated that he expects Miers to interrupt the law as our founding father intended!! ORIGINAL INTENT is nothing more than CODE for rightwing judge!! Call her to the carpet!!"
If Meirs does indeed – as I believe she will “interrupt the law as our founding father intended" – then I am a happy camper, next case…Mr. President can we chat a bit about government spending?
It's not panic. It's disappointment.
Bush could have hit a home run and decided to punt.
As many conservatives have noted, a missed opportunity.
As for "not the next SC Justice" yet, given the grins on Harry Reid's face, and given the near impossibility of Republicans rebelling over a Republican Presidential nominee unless she proves herself incompetent, her nomination is well-greased.
I'm not. But we may not know for 10 years. So why not nominate someone we know about?
"Anybody who would certainly have voted as Scalia does would have never gotten out of committee, especially if they opposed Roe v. Wade."
Gosh you do set your sights too low!
Roberts got out of committee, and got 78 votes!
If Bush nominated Michael Luttig - known Scalia clone - we would also have been confirmed. Certainly. Not maybe. Certainly.
Not just GOP votes, but red state Democrats would not commit Hari Kari over this. they would confirm the Bush nominee.
Why? Because most Americans *want* a Judge who merely interprets the law.
"How do you know she wont be another Rehnquist because he was never on the bench either?"
All these silly questions ... The original article asserted that Miers would vote a certain way as if it were a fact. I'm saying we dont know ... and you seem to agree.
"How do you know she wont be another Powell or Rehnquist because they was never on the bench either?"
She could a liberal Powell or a conservative Rehnquist.
She could be another O'Connor. WE DONT KNOW is my point.
"Reagan put Kennedy and O'Connor on the Court."
Reagan also put Scalia on the court, and Kennedy was pick #3 after Bork got Borked.
If Miers was pick #3 after we lost on Luttig, McConnell, Edith Jones and Karen Williams, I'd understand.
But after Roberts, and given Bush's great options, it's an underwhelming pick.
Besides, we dont know Miers would be better than OConnor.
Not yet anyway.
"We also don't know how Luttig or Janice Rogers Brown would vote once on the SCOTUS."
WTF?!?! Don't you realize that both have had long, distinguished careers, made public speeches and written many Judicial rulings that make crystal clear their Judicial philosophies??? Maybe you are just uninformed. But others arent. ... this is why 'confirmthem.org' is so upset:
http://confirmthem.org
"Many conserv atives doubted Clarence Thomas also"
Thomas, like Souter, was an unknown. Here is unknown #3.
Some of us dont want to play 'lets make a deal' here ..
"I'll take whats behind curtain #3, Bob".
How do you know that Joe Torre won't have John Flaherty pinch-hit for Alex Rodriguez in a key situation, and that Flaherty won't hit a home run. This sort of "How do you know" speculation is ridiculous. We don't "know" what the future will bring. We can only offer our best guess. My best guess is that Alex Rodriguez, with a batting average 2 or 3 times higher than John Flaherty's, and with over 400 more lifetime home runs, would be a better choice in a key situation.
We have Michael McConnell on the bench. We have Priscilla Owen, and Janice Rogers Brown. Why take a chance with an unknown whose credentials hardly compare to those of the above three, and probably a hundred others?
See if you can answer the following question honestly:
If George W. Bush had a filibuster-proof, 60-40 Senate (with the 60 all conservative republicans), would he have chosen Harriet Miers. If your answer is "Yes," you are fooling yourself.
LOL! Nice mixed metaphor. Perhaps he should have taken a three-point shot or a slapper from the blue-line. Or a penalty kick. Or bowled a 300 game. Or thrown a left hook for a knockout. Or captured the yellow flag. Or sunk a hole in one.
(I apologize. For the first time ever, I have spent today arguing with conservatives instead of liberals, and I needed some diversion. Forgive me.)
Well, you have a point about what is known, but Bush knows her better than most Presidents have ever known a nominee, and considering the top notch picks he has made so far, I'll take his word for it over your's
Bump to reason.
Lotsa conservatives have instincts like the ancient Celts, for fighting style:
Get drunk and naked, run into battle unorganized and screamin. Oh how they loved the fight!!
But lost.
THAT'S WHAT WE GET WHEN WE ACT LIKE REACTIONARY LIBERALS
That is the only demonstrably valid concern I have seen expressed – not that no other concerns may turn out to be valid but we do not know – that being said, I heard that her mother was 93 an doing fairly well, so she may be around longer than we think.
Excellent article.
Order more Prozac, Injectable Thorazine and straight jackets for the haters of GW.
"Bush knows her well. He knows her better than he could possibly know any other potential candidate.
And he describes her as a pitbull in size 6 shoes."
LOL. I made it. I found the article interesting, as I do all of the things that you post. True, we can be an impatient lot, but look how far we've come. Don't give up the battle, even if it means solidly planted baby steps as opposed to fixing bayonets and going over the top. I heard a Canadian on NPR the other day talking about how Americans are different in that they believe if it is necessary to take the law into their own hands to protect their homes and families, they will do so, while he would never think of it and would wait for duly constituted authorities to step into the breach. I pondered that for some time, wondering, in my American way, why anyone would relinquish their right to life and liberty in a crunch to a hoped for "duly constituted" savior.
"Bush could have hit a home run and decided to punt."
No. Bush has his focus clearly on the objective: Get conservative Justices confirmed. Focused pragmatism.
BTW home runs are in baseball; punts are in football. Not focused.
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.