Posted on 10/03/2005 4:35:19 PM PDT by quidnunc
Rush Limbaugh has found the information that Harriet Miers is an evangelical Christian, a member of a church in Dallas that most would describe as "fundamentalist." I believe that this vindicates my earlier analysis based on mistaken information about a Ministry supported by Ms. Miers.
Blue state fundamentalists tend to hate evangelicals the way that Islamists hate Jews: viscerally. It will take enormous willpower for many of them to avoid saying that one who believes in the literal word of the Bible should not be allowed a place on the Supreme Court. They played footsie with the position that a devout Catholic would be disqaualified.
To partially quote my earlier post: this is a battle the Democrat left can't win with a majority of the American public, which sees religious faith as a good thing. As far as I am concerned about the coming attacks, Dirty Harry summed up my feelings: "Go ahead — make my day."
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
You are suggesting that one cannot be openly conservative and be nominated to the SCOTUS. Every nominee must be stealth.
Have you considered her main job for the President... finding, vetting, and getting nominated strong conservative judges. If she supports Owens, Brown, Estrada, etc., she does so because she agrees with them.
You say that like it's a bad thing...
The reason I am asking this is that I do not know the answers to those questions. Neither do quite a few people posting. Most of the people who have chosen a favorite potential nominee are basing their opinions on life story (Brown) and the opinions of pundits like Coulter and Levin.
The thing is, Levin actually supported Kennedy. So how is he qualified to tell me that this is a wrong pick? Why should I believe Levin over the President?
At least I am willing to say that I don't know that much about ANY of the potential nominees. I theefore have to rely on the opinions of others. I will go with the President, Vice President, James Dobson, the Federalist Society, and assorted Texas lawyers and judges. If people want to go with Levin and Coulter, that's fine; but they need to be honest and realize they are simply following other opinion makers. It doesn't necessarily mean they are right.
Bush has not let conservatives down on judicial nominations yet.
Consider this:
Tom Bell says that the Miers nomination is a Bush head-fake. Reader Mike O'Neal emails with a somewhat similar spin:
The real story here is that they called off the war. The bases on both sides wanted war (they probably wanted a war more than they wanted a victory), but the White House and the Senate did not. The Democrats didn’t want one because they would lose and look bad doing it. Bush didn’t want one because he has a big agenda and not too much time. This way he gets a Justice who is conservative enough for legacy purposes (and will have time to reassure the base before 2006), gets some points from centrists who worry about too much social conservatism (and don’t like political food fights), and gets to move on to tax reform, social security, etc. By year-end things will look better in Iraq, Katrina will have receded, Plame/DeLay/etc. will have blown over, and it may be possible to get some work done. Blogging lawyers and law profs may care intensely about the pure quality of every nominee, but it is not clear that people in general do, or necessarily should. Bush plays a long game; don’t misunderestimate him.-snip-
Sure. Why must any qualified judge have to hide their conservative convictions in order to become a judge? That means there is an unwritten litmus test for all judges in order to be considered for the bench.
Friend, this logic minimizes the power of the national office and political position GWB holds. GWB, and only GWB, has the bully pulpit to shape the national debate and "out" the liberals.
GWB, and only GWB, is the head of the Republican Party. --- He has the power to rein in party members in Congress. GWB, and only GWB, had the power to rally his troops around clear ideas.
I do not blame Bush for not picking a fight in which there was a good chance he might lose...with disastrous results for his presidency and the party.
Ah, but what if choosing NOT to fight, even if the battle is lost, brings disastrous defeat for the political war both GWB's Presidency and his Party face?
I love this President, but rage against the place his "higher ground" philosophy and continued aversion to a political fight may have put the Republican party going into the 2006 elections.
Choosing not to fight now may cost us more in 2006 than the majority in Congress. It could well give political momentum for 2008 to the opposition.
Personally, I want to see some domestic "shock and awe" from our President. -- Before it is too late.
Okay...I'll hope this is enough.
And only to you does her nomination mean that there is an unwritten litmus test for all judges.
So from now on, all future SCOTUS nominees must be stealth nominees? You are conceding that one cannot be an openly conservative circuit court judge. They will not be nominated to the SCOTUS if they come out openly as conservatives. Sorry. That is wrong for the country and the judiciary. In fact it's just a further and more insidious form of politicization of the judiciary. That means that Dem presidents will just nominate stealth liberals.
Add to it, her Christianity, her remarks today about the constitution... and we are beginning to build...
More information will come out in the coming days.
Let's with hold judgement until then...
"Bush has not let conservatives down on judicial nominations yet."
Surely you jest. I am only one of a multitude of conservatives who have been let down by Bush's judicial nominations. Please review this thread and countless others on a multitude of other blogs for other counter examples.
The thesis proffered by Tom Bell--whoever he is-- is laughable. It's merely an excuse for Bush's failure to confront the DUmmycrats.
You really don't know anything about how she will try cases. You only know things about her. I will await her bold proclamation of her conservative philosophy in the confirmation hearings. </sarcasm>
Let's see...she's a member of the Christian Church, she's a nice lady, she pushed for a vote on the ABA statement on abortion. Oh yea, the POTUS likes her. Guess that's good enough for me! </sarcasm>
"So from now on, all future SCOTUS nominees must be stealth nominees?"
That indeed seems to be the position of Miss Marple and countless other so-called Republicans who prefer to avoid a confrontation with Dingy Harry and his minions at all costs. This is a strategy guaranteed to provide Republicans with only the lowest common denominator candidates for judicial office--ones that are quite satisfactory to the Dems and the RINOs as well. I guess Roberts passed that test, and Miers may as well.
Here's the difference... to you the sky is falling in and it's the end of the world.
To me... I am willing to be patient enough to wait.
You've already assumed she's not conservative.
I see enough to convince me that she is.
To you, here a litmus test, there a litmus test... everywhere a litmus test...
To me... that is too exhausting...
I should have maybe said "Bush has not let conservatives down on judicial nominations yet — except for the lunatic fringe."
Ok. I'm with you on this.
Most of the Senators were there when he got there and will be there long after he leaves.
They are the power... not the President.
Take McCain... why is he defiant, because of Arizona. It doesn't matter what the RNC thinks or the President... as long as Arizona will vote him back into office, his power is secure.
Same with Ted Kennedy...
I think it is a loosing game to think that the President has the power that you think he has.
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.