Posted on 10/10/2005 5:55:27 AM PDT by JamesP81
I am a bit confused.
Bush was re-elected by his conservative base on the understanding that he would appoint strict constructionist judges with traditional values.
Bush chose Harriet Miers to replace Sandra Day O’Connor. Miers is pro-life, pro-2nd Amendment, and is definitely not a judicial activist. Exactly the kind of person Bush’s base wanted.
And all I have heard over the last week is wailing, crying, moaning, sulking, and general hell-raising from conservatives......
-- excerpt --
(Excerpt) Read more at sopundit.com ...
The "wingers" on both ends of the spectrum desire to advance their individual philosophies.
Bill... Bill O'Reilly?!
Are you a "winger"?
No... I'm a leg-man.
LMAO.
Seriously - IMHO, almost everything is agenda driven.
I've resigned myself to just making flippant quips about the Miers bru-haha.
My prediction is that Miers will vote to overturn Roe. She will be pro-business, but hold an O'Connor-like position on affirmative action. That's likely the area where conservatives will be most disappointed.
"My prediction..."
But why must we all wonder what kind of justice she's going to be when Bush could have done the right thing by appointing a known conservative-constructioninst that requires no divining and would have brought another battle for the lefties to lose in this, our culture war?
I don't know what a "conservative" is anymore, or who they define as their ideal leader. Pat Buchanan? John McCain? Bill Kristol? Ann Coulter? George Will? Ross Perot?
Do only Christians of certain Protestant denominations qualify as "conservative?" Or maybe only folks devoted to gun rights? Or only folks who are anti-abortion? Anti-affirmative action? Anti-euthanasia? Anti-big government (whatever that means anymore)? Anti-immigration (illegal or otherwise)? These are the hot-button issues, at least on FR. The policy issues I care most about get very little, if any, support.
I want true, massive tax reform, for example. I support states rights and a scaling back of the role of the federal government in so many aspects of public policy.
I haven't got a clue anymore what defines "conservative." Why? Those who speak most loudly for "conservatives," appear to be filled with hate, venom, snobbery, and other qualities that are a huge turnoff to me. And they rarely, if ever, espouse policies that matter to me.
If Harriet Miers is confirmed and votes the way President Bush says she will, then the President will look like the ultimate Conservative and his constituency will back him 100%. President Bush will emerge as a true conservative Guru.
"But why must we all wonder what kind of justice she's going to be when Bush could have done the right thing by appointing a known conservative-constructioninst that requires no divining and would have brought another battle for the lefties to lose in this, our culture war?"
The "why" is probably due to the lack of spine already shown by the Senate Republicans in the "Gang of 14" on appellate court nominees. Bush doesn't want to have to nominate another Anthony Kennedy after losing confirmation battles over Edith Jones and Janice Rogers Brown because of the GOP nervous nellies in the Senate.
Personally, I want all-out war with the Democrats, and I'm not happy with the Miers nomination because of the fear of the unknown, the "Souter factor". But I will be satisfied if Miers turns out to be a strict constructionist ala Scalia and Thomas, regardless of her paper trail and lack of judicial experience. If she is not a strict constructionist, then "W" will have had his "Read my lips: no new taxes" moment that he has so desperately tried to avoid.
I have a tough time buying this, and here's why:
1) The president and his advisers KNOW that the judiciary is a hot button issue that could cost them their electoral majority. If they drop the ball on this (because of a supposed fear of fighting with libs), they tarnish everything that they've done, and Bush will be judged to have broken his word.
2)The president, to his credit, has NEVER been someone to back away from a fight. Also, he personally knows the stakes of an activist judiciary (see Bush v. Gore) and is committed to reforming it. I think that he believes that Miers is a predictable vote that he can count on for years, and who can be confirmed with a minimum amount of effort.
Miers has also had tied to radical feminism, is pro-affirmative action, pro-women in combat and pro-Title IX. There is also evidence she is soft on the death penalty.
What do Miers opponents want? A conservative judge with a proven track record?
Why in the world would anyone in their right believe this strategy of appointing stealth candidates is going to work out after 25 years of it failing? It's the same cycle over and over again and conservatives never seem to have enough intelligence to realize that is doesn't work.
The entire issue is not what she MIGHT do, but what she WILL do.
We know what several conservative judges who HAVE done the right thing (literally and politically speaking), why not nominate them?
If the legal counsel of the ACLU can be put on the court (Ginsberg) why the heck can't a 100% conservative be nominated at least?
The entire issue boils down to the Left's new religion - abortion on demand. It isn't a litmus test, it's an article of faith they demand. Convert or be gone, ye heathen!
When I heard Miers supported trying U. S. military members in international courts, that was enough for me. Vote her down, get her to step aside - crush her like the enemy she is, drive her before you, and hear the lamentations of that woman (to borrow from Conan)!
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.