That's okay. Those "conservatives" will never vote for GWB again.
BTW ... Tom Bevan takes a nice smack at George Will. ;)
Posted on 10/05/2005 10:29:24 AM PDT by new yorker 77
She's polite. Shy. Smart. Modest. Hard-working. Goes to church. Helps the poor. She immediately won the praise of the leader of the Democrats in the Senate. And yet she may end up making Justices Scalia and Thomas look like a couple of card carrying lefties.
I'm exaggerating for effect, of course, but the point is that despite the dramatic tearing of flesh that has gone on in some conservative quarters over the last 48 hours, the indications are that Bush has chosen someone who is extremely culturally conservative. Based on what little we know at this point, he's also chosen someone who favors the Patriot Act, wider presidential authority and an aggressive national security posture.
I understand the disappointment on the right. Conservatives wanted a first-rate legal and ideological gladiator to go do battle with liberals in the Senate. Instead, Bush gave them the Church Lady.
But gladiators don't receive - nor should they expect to be given - any mercy from their opponents. A humble, accomplished, God-fearing woman is a different proposition. Those who know this process understand that the first few hours and days are absolutely critical in shaping the image of the nominee for the public. Thus far, aside from the griping of conservatives, Miers' public image is developing rather favorably and isn't being radically influenced by attacks from left-wing interest groups the way other nominations would have been.
George Will argues this morning that these types of political considerations are unimportant. Qualifications are all that matter and, according to Will, Miers isn't remotely qualified:
The wisdom of presumptive opposition to Miers's confirmation flows from the fact that constitutional reasoning is a talent -- a skill acquired, as intellectual skills are, by years of practice sustained by intense interest. It is not usually acquired in the normal course of even a fine lawyer's career.
I find this line of reasoning deeply elitist and unpersuasive. Will is setting a standard (years of practice of constitutional reasoning sustained by intense interest) that would exclude a vast number of people who would make perfectly fine justices (including Senators like Orrin Hatch) as well as a number of those who've served ably on the court (including William Rehnquist who spent 16 years in private practice in Arizona and then only 3 years in the Nixon administration before being nominated to the Court).
I also find Will's complete and total deference to constitutional scholarship unsettling. Yes, we want talented, high-caliber appointments to the Court which represents, we should remind ourselves, a co-equal branch of government. It's not at all convincing to say, if you follow Will's logic, that a court made up of nine of the country's most eminent, ivy-league pedigreed constitutional scholars is going to be any better for America than a Court composed of justices who have demonstrable talent of varying legal backgrounds and perspectives. And it is undeniable that Harriet Miers is an accomplished lawyer.
So where does all this leave us? I suspect most Republicans and conservatives will become more comfortable with Miers as we move forward and most Democrats, including Harry Reid, are going to find themselves with an increasing urge to sink her nomination.
One way of doing that is to attack her religious convictions and to imply they make her unfit to serve. This is a very perilous strategy. The other way for the Democrats to derail Miers is to argue that she is unqualified due to a lack of experience and/or intellectual-horsepower. Still a tough case for the Democrats, in my opinion, though certainly a lot easier to make when conservatives are already out there doing it for them.
Democrats arguing lack of intellectual horsepower (ANY DEMOCRAT) would be a comedy routine worthy of observing.. Yes even Zell Miller.. If Zell was smart he wouldn't even BE a democrat..
That's okay. Those "conservatives" will never vote for GWB again.
BTW ... Tom Bevan takes a nice smack at George Will. ;)
"GWB hasn't failed anyone ~ Stop Sniveling and Get A Grip!"
I wasn't snivelling in the first place.
What I have stopped doing is contributing, and volunteering, and voting for caucus Republicans like Christopher Shays.
I do not trust this President anymore.
Nor do I trust the Senate leadership.
They have lost my trust by not supporting important issues.
And this was simply the straw that broke the camel's back.
She will probably turn out alright.
And that's not good enough.
After giving a pass to these bozos on immigration, on spending, on the mishandling of the Iraq war and WMD, on Schiavo and the nuclear option, my "trust me" is all used up.
I DON'T trust them.
They have not EARNED my trust.
Show me.
He didn't.
Stating that is not "snivelling".
It's a fact.
And repeated a million times over, it will result in a bad year for Republicans.
Maybe the lesson will be learnt.
Maybe not.
Yes, it's a good start. Let's hope he proves good and effective.
What an intellectually dishonest statement, all the more ironic coming from those who claim that she isn't intellectual enough.
There is plenty of evidence to suggest, the real complaint is that there isn't much evidence to prove or substantiate. You don't think the fact that she vetted and recommended so many excellent lower court nominees might suggest her leanings? Why would Pres. Bush, who knows who well, give her that task if her views were at odds with his? Why would he give her the WH Counsel's office job, where she deals with virtually every legal matter that passes through the WH, if her views didn't match his? That would be a whole lot of trust in delegation going on to pass off to someone with suspect views. Plenty of testimony from cohorts going back decades suggesting that she is strongly conservative, and various aspects of her life also suggest such.
If you want to claim that we don't are severely lacking solid evidence, fine. But to say that nothing suggests that she would be strongly conservative is hyperbole that ignore mounds of contradicting evidence put forth here in the last several days.
Ann Coulter's a LITTLE prettier than Miers!
Sorry for the typo, should read:
If you want to claim that we are severely lacking solid evidence, fine.
That post is a shining example of why people should never put bumper stickers on their vehicles.
They know they are sick puppies, why advertise it?
Of course, this being Free Republic, we have that inherent right. Full speed ahead. ;)
"From an Evangelical Christian point of view there is considerable EVIDENCE Miers will be to the right of Scalia and Thomas."
Agreed. She will make Scalia look like Lenin's more Liberal brother.
I think this is a fine pick and as a bonus, she has not been judge and she has run a business.
I am of the opinion that what makes judges tack left once appointed is that they come to believe that their intellect is superior to written and stated matters of law. They seek to create profound meaning where none is required or exists. Roe v. Wade a case in point. There is no right to privacy in the constitution. The intellectual struggle in Roe v. Wade was not in creating the right that didn't exist, the struggle was creating the numerous pages of BS around the ruling trying to convince everyone that the right did exist.
To me, the excerpt from Will's article would seem to point out the source of the problem, not the solution. I am sure some of these intellectuals are still trying to figure out the meaning of "is".
years of practice sustained by intense interest
- to me, this defines a fanatic - someone that won't change their mind and won't change the subject.
Ultimate Trojan? I get the feeling these two have never met.
Nice paragraph, but in the end it still does not list much evidence showing that she supports conservative causes. Association is good, but not credible.
Christine Todd Whitman was on the Bush cabinet in the first term, was'nt she. By association, she should have had the same poltiical views, but she was very liberal.
Furthermore, at least one person asked me to take the nomination on faith. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
However, I have just learned that she belongs to a pro-life splinter Church group. Once that religious bigot Chuck Schumer comes out against her, then she will have my full support.
Thought you both might be interested in the article/discussion.
She's goning to sneak in under the Democrat Radar and whack them like a direct hit by a Daisy-cutter.....
Stealth Tactics.
Gotta love it.
Just keep repeating "I do believe. I do believe. I do. I do. I do..." and hope somebody brought the magic pixie dust.
This is not merely about a "vote."
The Supreme Court is not a legislative working group.
In order to repel the rampant anti-Constitutionalism that has become ingrained in the judicial mindset-and especially within the federal judiciary-over the course of the past fifty years you need someone with the intellectual depth and cohesiveness of philosophy to defend his or her beliefs in original intent.
If this were just a matter of acquiring a "vote," then President Bush could have just as easily appointed any one of a number of Republican lawyers with similar credentials.
So the lady's a neoconservative according to malkin.
Too bad. We need a paleoconservative.
YOU SAID..."The constitution was not written by constitutional scholars. :-)"
No...it was written by a couple of guys whose IQ was probably off the chart.
Madison
Hamilton
Jefferson
a host of other eminent, learned men who contributed
No, these guys were superstars...and they got it just about perfect. Thats why no other country has got the system and Constitution we have.
To defend it against the bad intentions of those on the other side who are clever and smart and seek to corrupt its beauty...you need some real sharp people on our side on the SCOTUS.
However, I'm sure that one of Harriet Myers' shameless sycophants will come along in the next few minutes to assert that she is not only the intellectual equal of Mr. Jefferson, and his Federalist counterparts, e.g. Madison, Jay and Hamilton, but their superior.
(Prolonged eye roll.)
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.