Posted on 07/02/2005 8:04:07 PM PDT by CHARLITE
ON OCTOBER 23, 1987--a day that lives in conservative infamy--Robert Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court was rejected by a Democratic Senate. Now, 18 years later, George W. Bush has the chance to reverse this defeat, and to begin to fulfill what has always been one of the core themes of modern American conservatism: the relinking of constitutional law and constitutional jurisprudence to the Constitution.
The restoration of constitutional government has been the one area in which modern conservatism has had the least success. From Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush, conservative economic policies have been (more or less) pursued, and, when pursued, have been vindicated. From Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush, conservative foreign policies based on American strength and American principles have been--when pursued--remarkably successful. One might even say that, in both economics and foreign policy, the degree of conservative success has been far greater than anyone would have imagined in 1980.
But in the area of constitutionalism, conservative goals have been thwarted, and the key moment of failure, from which conservative constitutionalism has never recovered, was the Bork defeat in 1987. For the last 18 years constitutional jurisprudence has continued to drift away from a sound constitutionalism based on the written Constitution and a proper deference to popular self-government in many areas of public life. Bork's defeat was both a cause and a symbol of this continued downward drift. Now, with one of the two swing votes on the Supreme Court stepping down, George W. Bush has a chance to begin to make constitutional history, as he is certainly attempting to do in foreign policy and, to a lesser degree, in economic policy.
There are two pieces of good news to keep in mind as President Bush ponders his choice. The first is that, by contrast with the situation in 1987, the Senate has a Republican majority. The second is that President Bush can choose from among many, many well-qualified conservative constitutionalists. Although President Bush is understandably fond of and loyal to his attorney general Alberto Gonzales, it's simply a fact that Gonzales does not have the stature of several other possible candidates. I now believe that, though tempted, President Bush will leave his attorney general in his current office.
The president has the luxury of choosing among such candidates as Michael McConnell, probably the leading constitutional thinker of his generation, now serving on the 10th Circuit; J. Michael Luttig, who has served with great distinction for 14 years on the 4th Circuit; the remarkable Janice Rogers Brown, with almost a decade on the California Supreme Court and a recent confirmation to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals; as well as other federal and state supreme court judges--some of whom happen to be women (if that matters), and all of whom have strong credentials.
Most of the Democrats will fight any strong candidate. It won't matter if that candidate doesn't have a paper trail, because any nominee will have to make his or her general manner of constitutional thinking clear to the Senate--which thinking will almost inevitably provoke opposition from the left. But such opposition, however vociferous the rhetoric, will not be unstoppable. Indeed, looking at the current Senate, I do not believe that there are 40 Democratic votes to sustain a filibuster against an objectively well -qualified conservative nominee. And in any case a filibuster would be very difficult for the Democrats to defend.
George W. Bush's has been a Reaganite presidency in the areas of foreign and economic policy. He has impressively adjusted Reaganite principles to deal with today's challenges. Now he has the chance to once again follow Reagan's lead by nominating a jurist as impressive as Robert Bork for the Supreme Court. And now he has the chance to surpass Reagan--by getting that nominee confirmed.
Standard propaganda tactics. There are still a few stubborn holdouts who will recognize it for what it is and make a conscious attempt to refrain from engaging in it. To quote Rush "Words mean things." Throwing around labels that can't be objectively justified isn't helping. This is our government, not Sweeps Week.
"Is there any reason Bork cannot be nominated?"
Bork is 78 years old.
One thing McConnel would have, though, is the intellectual firepower to re-shape the court or at least to give it intellectual power. That is what I think he should look for: the "X" court. It needs to be a leading decision maker and a leading force for constitutionalism a counter just a stron gas the "Warren Court" and a worthy successor to the "Rehnquist court"- even if only in dissent.
You obviously know about these guys...what about some of teh bigs on the 7th circuit? What about...the Posner court? How old is he? I know he might be seen as a bit too libertarian...but he certainly would have done us right on the takings case.
If you counter that by putting on someone like Noonan on the 9th (?) and maybe McConnell (for an associate position), then, though none of them are Robert Bork, they will be good, solid justices and more constitutional than not...and they can back it up with intellect approaching Scalia.
I sure wish someone would ask MY opinion on this.....
What do you thinK?
From what I've learned so far, "I Like Luttig."
How's that for a campaign slogan? :-]
Now, I guess we'll see if GWB has the stones to nominate a conservative.
Semper Fi,
Kelly
Nominate Ann Coulter, just for the entertainment value
"Nominate Ann Coulter, just for the entertainment value"
I have a better one, Mark Levin!!!
You want entertainment? Levin would "shock & awe" the entire American media and electorate.
the Lefties in the Senate would have to wear a helmet and flak jacket to face Levin! LOL
I think so too but they won't. Everyone involved tries to hide the elephant in the living room -- the fact SC appointments have become brazenly political and partisan. The Orrin Hatch types even swallow the myth that liberals somehow have a "right" to mau-mau "extremist" Republican appointments. At least they won't face that lie head-on. I think the two biggest problems for conservative appointments are named Hatch and Specter.
I can't say I disagree with you. This campaign has to be run from the White House. Therefore, I am not hopeful. Bush's history of backing up his nominees sucks, bigtime.
Alas, I fear he is too old. Too bad.
BUT... it would be far better to elevate Justice Thomas to Chief, but for now, to appoint Mrs. Brown. With her recent confirmation, the Dimwits will be hard pressed to make a case against her. At that point, place Luttig before the Senate...
Justice Thomas has established his credentials, and clearly would be a slap at the Dims... as a trump card!
Did you see Levin talking to Alan Colmes the other night? Colmes played a tape of Pinky Reid and Fats Kennedy rattling their sabres, and Colmes asked him, well, what do you think of that, Mr Levin?
And Levin said, "Harry Reid and Ted Kennedy? Who cares what they think?"
I loved it...!
Gonzales doesn't twang my buds. I'm not too up about him being AG either.
Again we agree. For me this is his ultimate test. If he goes squishy on this one I'm afraid I'll turn into a political spectator instead of participant (i.e. voting, contributing). This is the last inning of the last game of the World Series and it's no time for phony bipartisan "comity."
we've got to put as many solid conservatives on board as we can. the democrats' strategy is to get bush to appoint a kennedy.
the democrats are expecting hillary in 08,
and then every liberal will retire during her tenure,
stacking the court for decades.
Oh it's nice to dream. I would love to see Levin in front of the Senate.......he'd chew em up and spit em out! *~*
Nominate Ann Coulter, just for the entertainment value.
Now that would be FUN to see. Imagine the debate on that.
Now, what if Rupaul became a Republican? Would he/she switch genders halfway through a case?
They went to the mat for Clarence Thomas.
We'll see. I hope they have at least two more fights left in them.
Standard propaganda tactics. There are still a few stubborn holdouts who will recognize it for what it is and make a conscious attempt to refrain from engaging in it. To quote Rush "Words mean things." Throwing around labels that can't be objectively justified isn't helping. This is our government, not Sweeps Week.
You've hit a nerve with me on this one (not saying that in a bad way). Simply state, I like politics, but not "politics." I'm getting tired of the name-calling and dirty tactics. For me it's say what you mean and mean what you say. If you have to namecall, then you do neither. I don't like people "playing games" in politics or in real life. I get along wonderful with blunt people who can always be depended to tell you what they're thingking. I don't get along with arrogant people at all (because I'm so humble--not).
My parents taught me and my siblings to treat others like you want to be treated. We got our mouths washed out with soap if we even uttered one bad word. And insulting Mom was out of the question as we found out soon enough from Dad's swift hand on the few occasions it happened. I just don't understand it being so widespread. They even had a kids' reality show where they engaged in Survivor-like tactics (except the nakedness).
Speaking of survivor, I stopped watching it after the first two editions. Yet, two characters stand out to me--Rudy, the old guy from the first one who could be counted on as sticking to his guns and expressing what he was thinking AND the minister dude from the second one who was always doing something and encouraged others to play the game as "honorably" as they could.
I wrote a letter to the Democratic Party to protest Kerry's f-bomb in a public forum. All I got back was a list of times W had done it. I thought that was pretty childish--"he did it, so I can too." And then a little while later, the f bomb came from Cheney (whom I respect a lot except for this one instance). AAARRRGH!
While I have seen far more on the Democratic side, such is not limited to them, especially in my Republican state. The state senator in our area waged a big campaign against a state representative (who was a pretty good conservative) because he hadn't supported him on a bill and a couple of other issues. He used every dirty trick in the book, but the guy still won. Another Republican group actually called up people and told them to vote for the Democrat. Luckily, negative campaigns usually lose here, but it doesn't stop people from trying.
I'm not perfect, and I have been guilty of doing all the things i detest, and on more than one occasion. But I do try to be fair-minded and objective too. It seems like, though, that those who play games dominate the action.
I went to the county Republican convention and expected to find people running for the county party offices to state their positions and we would vote. Instead it turned out to be a battle for two factions for control. One guy had his list and the other guy had his. I did do the best I could to study which each thought and chose the best cantidates that I thought would do the best job. Some won, some did not. Don't get me wrong though. I met a LOT of wonderful people, including cantidates. Sometime soon, I plan to get even more involved, though the schedule is tight at the moment.
There are still a lot of good people out there and it is my pleasure to associate with them.
Ditto.
""From Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush, conservative foreign policies based on American strength and American principles have been--when pursued--remarkably successful. One might even say that, in both economics and foreign policy, the degree of conservative success has been far greater than anyone would have imagined in 1980."
""But in the area of constitutionalism, conservative goals have been thwarted, and the key moment of failure, from which conservative constitutionalism has never recovered, was the Bork defeat in 1987.""
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.