Rush Limbaugh: Miers Pick 'Disappointing'

Bush may not be a lot of things but he is politically astute.

Well, this pick has certainly alienated his conservative base. Doesn't make sense to me.

On the other hand, if he really is so astute, then he must be intentionally alienating the base. In which case I wonder what sinister designs he has for the Party?

So you are intimating that his ratings could go up from the current 20 million or so and that would be a motivating factor,unlikely,IMHO.

That was a worthless promise to be sure..Course ole Bush was the one that spoke of the "New World Order", I think he was telling the truth bout that.

I will vote but Federal offices will be left blank. No more.

I think that Rush is wrong on this, also. Considering the fact that Meirs has been heading Bush's selection committee on judges, I don't see how anyone could doubt her conservative ideology. All Meirs lacks is a national reputation.

We should have expected these kinds of nominations from Bush if the Republicans had a minority in the Senate. He is acting like a President without the votes needed.

Which is reality. The Gang of 14 and the inability to get a vote on Bolton showed that.

If that's the case, it reflects his lousy leadership.

How is it Bush's fault if some Senators are determined to chart a different course? They're elected for six year terms, his coattails are short, and he has very little leverage. That's just reality, like it or not.

I suspect he'd have rolled the dice on a more controversial nominee if he didn't think Miers was a reliable judicial conservative. But if you look closely at her background -- belonging to evangelical church, stickler for details, frustrated by political games on city council, etc. -- she could well be a conservative judicial bomb-thrower. Perhaps not, but Bush (who has been extraordinarily reliable on his judicial nominees to date), may be chuckling to himself over the Dems who have no idea what they're in for.

If that's the case with her, then this move was a no-brainer on his part.

Correct about the title.

But his conclusion the Christians should stop trying to change America through the ballot box.

It made me call his office and ask for the $7500 back that we paid him to speak at a pro-life banquet.

Wot a twirp yu R

My thoughts....if Rush said he liked her, the left would go on autopilot hate. Rush saying he is disappointed is giving the dems the ok to approve her.
I don't think she will be a disappointment. I trust Bush on this one...so far, I am pleased with his selections

I beg to differ:

Miers 2006
Does the president’s second Supreme Court pick hurt Republicans?

By Wynton C. Hall

With conservative ire over President Bush’s selection of Harriet Miers reaching eardrum-bursting decibel levels, the verdict is still out on whether Miers may prove, in the end, a sagacious choice. Still, one thing is clear: The president has now officially stepped on a strategic landmine heading in the 2006 midterm congressional elections. What might have otherwise been a masterstroke moment to ignite and galvanize the conservative base — the people who show up to vote during midterm elections — has morphed into a missed opportunity.

Even if Harriet Miers proves to be a solid conservative justice, conservatives of all stripes have already united behind the view that this represents a major snubbing of the social conservative base. Virtually any of the usual names discussed — Michael Luttig, Janice Rogers Brown, Mike McConnell, Priscilla Owens, etc. — would have sent a clear signal to conservatives that Bush was still fighting their cause, that the licking of fundraising envelopes and endless precinct walking had all not been in vain.

But this threatens that.

Worse, the selection of Harriet Miers represents a huge missed opportunity to galvanize the base heading into the midterm elections, elections where the in-party traditionally loses seats. Now was the time for Bush to pick a fight — a major fight — with the Democrats over his next judicial appointment. Had he, for example, picked Janice Rogers Brown, Bush would have had a double win: 1) He would have reinforced his longstanding commitment to “diversity,” and 2) he would have boxed Democrats into a tactical corner by forcing them to choose between giving his nominee a fair hearing or pillorying yet another qualified black conservative nominee to the Supreme Court, thus exposing the Democrat hypocrisies on both race and merit.

It would have been a strategic electoral masterstroke and would have flooded GOP campaign coffers to GOP congressional candidates who, after watching the hearings, were “fighting mad” that the Democrats were intent on destroying a qualified judge whom they had previously confirmed for fear of allowing yet another brilliant black conservative to serve on the highest Court in the land, thus shattering the mythology of identity politics as an electoral bludgeon.

Instead, the president handed the Democrats the perfect rhetorical frame/narrative: Bush Cronyism. First it was Michael Brown. Then it was that Julie Myers. And now this. As Michael Brown might say, the Democrats and the MSM will now be, “Off to the races!”

Things can and may change, and Miers may turn out to be a solid conservative after all. But either way, the president’s nomination of Harriet Miers mires GOP chances to ignite the base heading into the critical 2006 congressional midterm elections.

— Wynton C. Hall is the co-author (with Dick Wirthlin) of The Greatest Communicator: What Ronald Reagan Taught Me about Politics, Leadership, and Life. He is currently co-authoring (with Caspar Weinberger) Home of the Brave: Remembering the Unsung Heroes in the War on Terror.

Considering Rush's own picks (wives!), maybe George has better judgment than Rush, eh?

I once heard Cal (and his co-author, Dobson) state on a radio program that pastors shouldn't engage in "partisan activities in church such as voter registration." Since when did voter registration become partisan? I love Cal (in the brethren), but his book was off-base...and written like a rash attempt to gain attention in the MSM.

By way of another example, I can also recall Cal saying (on same radio program) that Dr. Falwell and his ilk need to learn to love liberals more. I guess Cal didn't see/hear Dr. Falwell tell Larry Flynt on live television (Larry King Live - CNN) that he loved him. The whole thing smacked of Cal needing to take the mote out of his own eye.....

The President says that Miss Miers has character, that she will hold to her judicial philosophy and not change.

"Character" does not mean good character. It simply means that a person will do what they agree to do and hold with it through the winds of controversy. Joseph Stalin had character. The socialists in government have character. Riley in Alabama when he tried to push through the biggest tax and spend increase in state history had character.

Judicial philosophy is what a potential jurist holds in the heart, an internal ethic. The answers to questions during hearings may be one and the internal may be another. Questions can be answered truthfully, but the right questions can not be asked. Questions probing imminent domain, the orientation of the 2nd amendment, interstate commerce.

Consider Mr. Bush's behavior on the border, campaign finance, large government spending, slews of executive orders placed by Bubba that turn the rule of the country over to a junta just awaiting an "emergency" to kick in not rescinded.

All these are indications of a constitutional judicial philosophy. Of Mr. Bush.

There are dozens of conservative, constitutional justices that are very qualified for the court, and we would know how they would rule.

Trust me. Once we know how Miers and Roberts will rule, it will be too late.

But, trust him.

The answer to this is simple, Bush would have never gotten a strict conservative selection pass the Democrats this time and he knew it.

This is the kind of reasoning that drives me crazy. Who cares what the Democrats do? They are IRRELEVANT!!!! The Republicans control both the executive and legislative branches, and it's high time they started acting like it. The Dems can whine and moan all they want, but if the Reps stick together there is nothing the Dems can do to stop ANY nomination. Anybody here remember the nuclear option?

I agree....I am trusting GW to do the right thing....

OUTSTANDING COMMENTARY!

There is another Constitutional option described in Article 3 that can negate the potentially disastrous consequences you expressed with: Once we know how Miers and Roberts will rule, it will be too late.

Article III, Section 2 - The Washington Times: Editorials/OP-ED , October 6, 2003
In the 107th Congress (2001-2002), Congress used the authority of Article III, Section 2, clause 2 on 12 occasions to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts.

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju94458.000/hju94458_0.HTM#45
Notes on the Testimony Of Martin H. Redish, Louis And Harriet Ancel Professor Of Law And Public Policy, Northwestern Law School, June 24, 2004

Professor Redish is a nationally renowned authority on the subject of Federal jurisdiction. He received his A.B. With honors, with highest honors, in political science from the University of Pennsylvania and his J.D. Magna cum laude from Harvard law school. He has been described in a review of his book, The Federal Courts in the Political Order, as quote, ''without a doubt the foremost scholar on issues of Federal court jurisdiction in this generation,'' unquote.Professor Redish is the author or coauthor of 70 articles and 13 books, including Federal Jurisdiction: Tensions in the Allocation of Federal Power. He was recently included on a list of the 100 most cited legal scholars of all time.

Section 1.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

There are absolutely no federal cases constitutionally excluded from state court jurisdictional authority. The State courts provide an adequate forum to interpret and enforce Federal law, including the Federal Constitution. State courts are empowered and obligated under article VI, clause 2, the supremacy clause, to interpret and enforce the Constitution. The Constitution didn't require Congress to create the lower federal courts (Madisonian Compromise). Congress did create the lower Federal courts immediately, but it is well established in the case law that that power to, from time to time, ordain and establish the lower Federal courts includes the power to abolish the lower Federal courts, and the greater power to abolish the lower Federal courts logically subsumes within it the power to leave the courts in existence, but limit their jurisdictions. The Supreme Court has proceeded on the logical assumption that if Congress possessed discretion not to create lower federal courts in the first place, it also has the power to abolish the lower federal courts. See, e.g., Lockerty v. Phillips, 319 U.S. 182 (1943); Sheldon v. Sill, 49 U.S. (8 How.) 441 (1850). Since it has been assumed that Congress possesses the authority to abolish the lower federal courts completely, the Court has assumed that it has the logically lesser power to ''abolish'' them as to only certain cases by limiting their jurisdiction.

Section 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

In Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506 (1868), the Supreme Court recognized the unlimited authority explicitly authorized in the text. There are no internal constitutional limits, no limits in article III on Congress' power. Its power is plenary. There are external constitutional limits on this power; the Due Process Clause, and the equal protection directive in the fifth amendment apply, but are satisfied by state courts which Congress can't affect. The text, and internal logic of the Constitution allows Congress to combine its power over the article III lower courts and the Supreme Court under the exceptions clause, the end result is that it can completely exclude Federal judicial power over pretty much any issue, as long as the State courts remain available. The case law agrees with the Constitution in this respect.

That's pretty powerful. But you would have to hang all congressmen in Washington and replace them wholesale, a rope already around the replacements' necks, to accomplish it.

Sadly, our republic worked only for a while, but like all governments run by human beings, had a relatively short shelf life, and an even shorter use life.

Anyone who thinks that the elective process will remedy the conditions that have prevailed is fooling themselves, but that notion, too, is in the same class of human shortcomings that ensures the human governments will expire.

The abortion issue is important, morally important, make no mistake. But it pales to transparency to the issues of the "substantial effects" doctrine, the right to bear arms and the imminent domain issues.

It seems to me from the outset that this is a pick that was made from weakness.

If there's any weakness here, it's not at the White House. It's down the street in the Senate.

As I posted elsewhere, Bush is quarterback on a team that refuses to field more than 8 players--on offense, much less on defense.

I think even Rush has misunderestimated Bush this time.