Posted on 10/06/2005 11:23:28 AM PDT by longhorn too
Christian Worldview Network Columnist Had Politically Correct Run in With Harriet Meirs When They Both Worked At The White House
Conservatives are Not Amused with the Miers’ Nomination By Ned Ryun
When my brother told me the end of last week that there was a strong likelihood of a Harriet Miers’ nomination to the Supreme Court, I started laughing. I didn’t think he was serious. Sadly enough, he was right.
Now I have just a few problems with this nomination. First, I wanted a brawl. I wanted an in-your face, strong conservative nominee with a proven track-record, like a Mike Luttig or a Janice Rogers Brown, that would clear the benches and be a showdown with the left. I’m tired of how the left in America has used the Supreme Court, and the rest of the federal judiciary, to tear apart the moral fabric of this nation. I’m tired that the left has been advancing its cause through the court system because it knows its causes cannot win at the ballot box.
Truth be known, the President needed a big fight between Republicans and Democrats, conservatives versus leftists, over this nomination to replace O’Connor. He needed something to unite his base, especially with his abysmal poll numbers. What he is getting is exactly the opposite as conservative passions begin to boil over at the President over the Miers’ nomination. If you haven’t been following, meetings between the President’s surrogates and the conservative groups over the Miers’ nomination have gotten downright ugly.
A friend of mine commented the other day, “It just struck me that perhaps Miers isn’t the real stealth candidate here. Maybe Bush is.” That’s a pretty interesting charge, and perhaps unfair, but what if this President has been playing his conservative base? He’s been awful on immigration, terrible on any fiscal restraint, and he has made it fairly clear that he is a big government Republican. I’m not really sure I want to even consider that he might not be a true conservative. I’d rather chalk this Miers’ nomination up to a we’re-all-human-and-make-mistakes decision.
This nomination is almost too cute (President appoints long-time personal lawyer), and barely passes the laugh test; Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah was heard arguing that her stint on the Dallas City Council means that she would bring real world experience to the table rather than having been in a judicial cloister. While being an elected official is an act of public service, being on a city council is not a strong argument for sitting on the Supreme Court (and I’m trying not to chuckle as I write that last sentence).
What concerns me about the Miers’ nomination is that it is too ambiguous. The White House seems to think that one of the strongest points for Miers is that there is no paper trail. What I want to know is why no one really knows what a 60 year-old person, who has been in the public eye for some time, really believes? I’m half that age and I bet people know pretty much where I stand on the issues. So in case you’re not able to read between the lines, the “no paper” trail argument means that the President and the White House do not have the guts for a hard nomination battle. And they need a battle to unite the base.
Another item of concern to me, despite hearing all the arguments to trust the President on the key issues like abortion, is what happens when Harriet Miers is confronted with the choice of whether to stand up for basic principles or whether to compromise. I worked with Miers at the White House. Though my interaction with her was limited, since I was merely a Presidential Writer and she was the Staff Secretary, I had a unique experience with her. In 2001, I was given the task of writing the President’s Christmas message to the nation. After researching Reagan, Bush, and Clinton’s previous Christmas messages, I wrote something that was well within the bounds of what had been previously written (and in case you are wondering, Clinton’s messages were far more evangelical than the elder Bush’s).
The director of correspondence and the deputy of correspondence edited and approved the message and it was sent to the Staff Secretary’s office for the final vetting. Miers emailed me and told me that the message might offend people of other faiths, i.e., that the message was too Christian.
http://www.worldviewweekend.com/secure/cwnetwork/article.php?ArticleID=301
"You have that problem as well?"
Yes, and apparently saying this makes us "not true conservatives". I wonder if conservatism ever would have become a dominant ideology had conservatives in the past not been willing to challenge Republicans when they go awry.
"This will go down in history as one of the greatest missed opportunities of the Bush presidency."
It's far worse than a missed opportunity. It is very likely to cause disaster at the 2006 elections. It has created a permanent rift between Bush and conservative activists. It has displayed a lack of seriousness on the part of many Republicans when it comes to important issues such as the Supreme Court. It is also a perfect example of the "cronyism" that Bush is chronically accused of, and don't think it won't be noted that way by history.
Takes a full article for him to finally give his true basis of writing the article...... His article may have had a larger validity has he left off the final para. But vanity is a failing for most of us....
"When we find that issue," Mr. Bush told the party faithful, "I'll just walk up to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and spit in his eye."
LOL....
Check the Santorum thread and you'll see what I mean.
:(
Judicial qualification? Oh yeah.... you might point out where that part of the constitution is... or where that's detailed anywhere.
You guys just want the fight. Plain and simple. And there's nothing especially wrong with that. Me... I just want a conservative judge that will vote the way I want him / her to. I think this one is more likely to do that than Roberts over the long haul.
Fox news reporting now that Rove has agreed to testify without the promise of imunity.
>>Nowhere am I seeing real evidence of ideological courage and judicial qualification.
Count me in as well.
I think that Bush and other RINOs are terrified of conservatives really getting hold of the judiciary... it would kill the political fantasies of the GOP as well as the Democratic party, and so they will fight the conservative takeover without appearing to fight it. Occasionally they will tip their hand, as has happened with Miers.
Don't make me laugh. Bush has nominated Miers for reasons that have nothing to do with her supposed Christian faith, her alleged opposition to abortion, or her purported conservatism---let alone her credentials.
How about being a committed strict constructionist?
How about faithfully adhering to the plain text of this nation's bedrock legal document?
How about not believing in a "living Constitution," or using the idea of "substantive" due process to read "rights" into that document which do not exist, and which our founding fathers never envisioned coming into creation under any circumstances?
This is an associate justice on the Supreme Court, not the presidency of the Southern Baptist Convention.
"Idological courage? Apparently she's a fundamentalist christian. What's more idological than that?"
There are millions of evangelical christians of many different ideologies. Being a "fundamentalist" is not a qualification one for the supreme court.
"Judicial qualification? Oh yeah.... you might point out where that part of the constitution is"
This is probably the weakest argument of the lot. Because she isn't required to have qualifications explicitly by the constitution means that it doesn't matter?
"You guys just want the fight."
If by fight you mean a well qualified conservative, then yes.
"I just want a conservative judge that will vote the way I want him / her to."
The Supreme Court is not a perpetual voting booth. It is not about voting and tallying votes. I think you have a fundamental misconception as to what a Supreme Court Justice does (or is supposed to do).
For way too many "conservatives" here, there's one and only one "principle": "Trust the President."
In their minds, that "principle" trumps every other principle hitherto associated with conservatism: national sovereignty, fiscal restraint, small government, commitment to the Constitution, commitment to excellence and merit in political and judicial appointments, defense of our national borders, law enforcement, plus other bona fide conservative principles too numerous to mention.
Exactly... this "Sunday School teacher" could be just as misguided and oppressive as a leftist hack. Just because the occasional decision might favor conservatives is no reason to cheer.
By the end of the second Bush term, there won't be a conservative movement left.
There will be momentary lapses of faith, but we'll just admonish each other to mutter thirty "trust the Presidents" out of penance. Then it's back to spouting the talking points to one another, carrying the water buckets, and other miscellaneous errands.
Would the same people who are touting Harriet Miers-for no other reason than the fact that she might be an evangelical Christian-be similarly enthusiastic about nominating Tony Campolo to the Court?
How about Michael Lerner?
Or the Rev. Calvin Butts?
What about Democratic State Senator Rueben Diaz, from the So. Bronx?
Or the heretical Bishop John Shelby Spong?
Since when did attending church become a prerequisite-or in this case, a substitute-for Constitutional scholarship?
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.