Lando 
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?
From what I have seen from Bush, the in your facer will be the one to replace a Lib (I know Elvis is dead, but a couple of those justices aren't looking so good these days) and he may just get that chance.
Absolutely GREAT point!!!!!
No, I don't think you do... One of Miers biggest qualifications is that she helped vetted all those conservative justices and candidates. She, along with the Pres., introduced us to conservatives such as Owen, Brown, Estrada, Luttig and many more.
Lando
I fail to make the link that you do. GWHB made that statement and then double-backed on it, clearly. Yet, if we are to judge today's politicians by the promises of yesterday's, then I am afraid the rubric is too complex for me to comprehend. GWB nominated a known entity - known to him - and I along with many other Americans entrusted him with that responsibility in November. Me? I'll bide my time and see how it turns out. For now, I trust my President's judgment. And certainly, I'm grateful the alternative universe is not at play here.....a Kerry nomination.
I must say, I feel a lot better today.
Lando
Amen. I think we are going to be very happy. I feel pretty bullish on this today, actually!
Order more Prozac, Injectable Thorazine and straight jackets for the haters of GW.
I worry for the future appointments. I don’t think it’s good to have to put up stealth candidates.
-It’s demoralizing.
-It's a lost opportunity to preach the merits of the constitution (which always needs to be done)
-And,it adds to a perception that conservatives have something to hide. Too many Pubbie Senators already act like they are afraid to be conservative.
-Most importantly, the many fine conservative justices (HEROS in all of our books) that have carried the fight in our hyper-liberal court systems for years should be rewarded with SCOTUS appts.
I suggest we focus on the need to get out there and push for the many fine conservative candidates, such as Michael Steele of Maryland, who need our help and support. Let's de-emphasize the importance of these RINOs. Let’s stop preaching and being frustrated, and kick some liberal butt.
And remember who helped him pick the other judges.
That's OK. Even the best of us fall for the occasional MSM Jedi mind trick. But the smart ones realize these are the droids we are looking for after all.
Well, last I checked, they are still using the internet to spread conspiracy theories instead of fact-based debate. They still are debating about how Bush used Diebold to steal Ohio, even though there were no Diebold machines in Ohio.
So I'd say that is a safe observation. :^)
Like taking candy from a baby. ; )
I post on a left wing MSM blog in my spare time. I don't call in other freepers in the faint hope that little ol' me against all of them will be a fair fight.
So far, it hasn't been. Gawd, some days I think they all have strings protruding from their backs that spews the same nonsense once someone pulls the string.
It sure works that way with the ones I know in real life. A real dearth of common sense.
Good for you out there taking on the battle. I used to love it, but these days I'd rather argue with friends. At least we all have basically the same ideas and it's just a matter of degrees most of the time.
Not even close to a comparison. Reagan had to get O'Connor through a heavy Dem Senate. If Bush won't stand up with 55 Senators then when.
You mean the same 55 Senators who wouldn't support him on John Bolton? Those 55 Senators?
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.