Posted on 10/04/2005 4:07:12 PM PDT by Lando Lincoln
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.