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?
Although not my choice for SCOTUS we have to back Bush's play for several reasons. Here are two.
First we have to trust that Bush is a man of his word on the Supreme Court issue. Either he knows her and believes in her or he deliberately stabbed us in the back. Take your pick. If we cut hom off at the ankles now he's finished as President. The '06 elections will probably go badly and we'll have to try to recover in '08 which will be tough enough as it is.
We hired Bush we have to back his play whether its the one we like or not.
I agree with what you say up to a point.
The GOP Senators will have to back Bush 100%. We spent a lot of political capital and years exposing Democrats as obstructionist on judicial nominations, explaining how the Senate needs to defer to the President more, given that the power to nominate is in the President's hand. To obstruct our own President's nominee over the pettifoggery of a nominee not being all we hoped for is absurd.
That being said, I urge you to read George Will's column. Simply because "we have to back Bush's play for several reasons" doesn't negate the fact that this pick is sub-par.
Bolton had well over 50 votes... he didnt have *60* votes, thanks to the extra-Constitutional behavior of Democrats filibustering the nominee. Only 1 cryin' GOP Senator was AWOL.
And dont get me started on ending that charade, I wanted to do the "nuclear" aka "Constitutional" option long ago. Pull it and throw a known conservative into the lion's den - he (Luttig) or she (Jones) would pass.
Good points all. This is not defeatism, but disappointment at a missed opportunity. We will have to move on.
And I agree with helping Michael Steele. Help the deserving Republican candidates and ignore the RINOs.
I couldn't believe how fast without facts on her, the right acted like the left. Presumptions running wild especially here at FR. I hope FReepers in the future will put facts together first and foremost before acting like wild animals on an eating frenzy. Shame on you...looking like DU'ers is ridiculous. Trust W, he really knows what he's doing. He learned hard lessons from his father's choice of souter.
Without a doubt W knows this women and she'll not change her conservative stance. She'll vote according to the organic Constitution.
However... I think Will misses the critical point as I expect of a charter member of the self-proclaimed conservative intellgensia. We have years of history and at least a score of examples of "brilliant" judical nominees turning out bullshit decisions justified by foreign law and even sillier nonsense. It doesn't take a sharp legal mind to know that the recent expansion of the state's eminent domain powers was wrong and violated not only the letter but spirit of the Constitution. In this case I'd have settled for a judge who's sum total argument was "It ain't in the Constitution. Keep your hands off people's property."
I personally would gladly trade the buldging brains of 42 legal scholars for just five SCOTUS judges with medium legal training and a clear understanding of the limits of judical power.
Bush apparently believes that this is the woman to carry that ball. Certainly the President has provent that the one thing he does not lack is balls to make a tough decision. As with so much in life you make your choices and you live with them. We picked the guy to make these decisions so there is an implied obligation to trust his judgement.
All that said I admit that I worry about the outcome myself.
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.