Posted on 10/05/2005 9:26:43 PM PDT by Pikamax
WASHINGTON -- Two questions were asked in conservative circles Monday when it was learned President Bush had nominated his lawyer, Harriet Miers, for the Supreme Court. Question No. 1: "Is this what we fought for?" Question No. 2: "What was he thinking?"
The conservative Republican base had tolerated George W. Bush's leftward lunges on education spending and prescription drug subsidies to re-elect him so that he could fill the Supreme Court with conservatives and send it rightward. But the White House counsel hardly looked like what they had expected.
Nothing could have more quickly deflated Republican spirits. The antidote to the Iraq-Katrina malaise was the spectacular confirmation performance by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., and Republicans eagerly awaited Act Two: confirmation of a successor to social liberal Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. This was one issue where the wind was at Bush's back, not in his face. But he robbed his legions of spirit with the Miers nomination.
Miers hardly seems the true believer the Republican base was anticipating when the president's agents spread the word last week that his choice would please conservatives. In 1988, she was contributing to Al Gore's presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee. She is listed as chairman of a 1998 American Bar Association committee that recommended legalization of gay adoptions and establishment of an International Criminal Court.
Presidential adviser Karl Rove, recognizing the peril here, was on the phone Monday morning assuring conservatives of Miers's intrepidity. The line from the White House was that Miers should not be compared with Justice David Souter, who was named to the court 15 years ago by the president's father and immediately turned left. While Souter was a stranger from New Hampshire to the elder Bush, it is claimed no president ever has known a court nominee as well as the younger Bush knows his fellow Texan. Skeptics are assured she is sound on abortion and other social issues.
Assuming those assurances are well founded, Miers's qualifications for the high court are still questioned. Members of Congress describe Miers as a nice person but hardly a constitutional scholar. Indeed, she might trip over questions that Roberts handled so deftly. People who have tried to engage her in serious conversation find her politely dull.
In singing Miers's praises, Bush agents contend her every thought is of the president's best interests, not her own. That may be a desirable profile for a White House counsel, but it hardly commends a Supreme Court justice who will be around long after George W. Bush is gone. By naming his longtime attorney, Bush risks the charge of cronyism. After the Michael Brown fiasco at FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency), Harriet Miers might seem the last person he would name to the Supreme Court.
Two weeks ago, Bush was seriously considering another Texas woman he likes and knows well. The nomination of Federal Circuit Judge Priscilla Owen would have been highly regarded in the conservative community. Owen was confirmed for the appellate bench only after the compromise forged by the Group of Fourteen, and Republican senators advised the White House they did not want to fight for her again so soon. But there is no rule that O'Connor must be replaced by a Texas woman who is the president's pal. Many well-qualified conservative men and women were passed over to name Miers.
The question recurs: "What was he thinking?" Bushologists figure the president was irked by repetitive demands that he satisfy the base with his Supreme Court appointments. He also was irked by the conservative veto of his Texas friend and Miers's predecessor at the White House, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. So, Bush showed the critics by naming another close aide lacking Gonzales's track record to draw the ire of the party's right wing.
Immensely enjoying himself was Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, who let it be known to colleagues that he recommended Miers to the president. With Miers at his side, Reid praised her a little for contributing to Al Gore and a lot for being a "trial lawyer" -- no encomium in the GOP. With friends like Reid, Harriet Miers hardly needs enemies.
Honestly look at the media, the climate in the country, and the lockhold the left has on the democrats, and give me a realistic strategy for accomplishing more than Presidient Bush has done. I am willing to listen.
I do think it fair to point out, however, that conservatives who engage in name-calling, exaggeration, and bluster are doing a pretty good job of guaranteeing that Bush supporters won't be inclined to consider far-right candidates in 2008. It works both ways, you see.
Now to my mind, the goal is to keep the White House and Congress from the left. If that is not your primary goal, then we don't have much to agree on. The danger from the left is very real. If they regain power, we will have all sorts of problems that one doesn't care to contemplate.
{ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1497540/posts?page=2#2 )
"To: lisaann8
"Here's my question for all my conservative friends -- why does it appear that the Right is seeking a conservative activist for the court but it's not okay if the other side wants an "activist judge" for the court?"
That is a question only they can answer
As for myself
I just want a Judge that will follow the Constitution
For if they just do that .... then I have nothing to fear
You either believe in the Constitution and what our Founding Father wrote ... or you don't
It is my belief that President Bush shares that thinking and that is why he choose Harriet Miers
Way worth repeating, Mo1.
Very sane.
Non conservative republicans never miss a chance to bring on the possibility of another Ross Perot appearing. If lockstep republicans want to go it alone then indeed have done with conservatives. We all know what that leads to.
Asking conservatives to vote with republicans but not to utter one word of dissent is rather disingenuous.
Is that suppose to help your argument??
I need to go pick up my granddaughter. I will return in a couple of hours.
Either 1. you agree that President Bush is an intellectual midget who has made a very dumb move, all the while not understanding what it would do to America and his legacy;
Or, 2. you believe Bush never was a conservative in the first place, and now that he will never face re-election he is free to put on his moderate/liberal social views, renounce everything he has said on the subject as subterfuge to get elected to a position where he could exert maximum damage on the SCOTUS;
Or, 3. you trust that the man is who he says he is, and that he is the man we have all watched these five years now as he matched word and action. You also believe that he has examined the state of the Senate GOPers, and the potential candidates, and selected the one that best fits the situation, and the amount of political capital he wants to expend on this single pick.
I personally believe 3. I also do NOT fall into the camp of those who think that extensive judicial experience is required for the job. Naturally lawyers and judges are going to be present on any short list. "Regular" decent folk will not appear on the list, but that doesn't mean that non-judges are incapable of reading the Constitution and understanding original intent.
I think that I could do it, and I think many Freepers who are not lawyers or judges could do it. There are millions of Americans who would make excellent SCOTUS judges.
Bush also deep-sixed the ABM Treaty, one of the liberals' sacredest cows.
On another thread, Dog announces that he is through with President Bush and the WH staff. His words were, the nomination sticks in his craw and the nomination was done out of arrogance. I don't get that. It made me feel like crying, to read that. To you who are still "there" for this President, and for writing the good posts that you do, I say, thanks a million. I am grateful.
Well the present plan is working splendidly now, isn't it? Gimme a break.
i just gave you a blueprint, of which you are obviously ignorant, of why your suggestion would have been a worse disaster.
Tx, the way i figure it, they can only sustain this level of hysteria for so long. the nomination process has only just begun, and i think that people are going to calm down over time.
The confirmation hearings will be the opportunity for Ms. Miers to show her capabilities to all of us. If she comes across as too stupid, or too pandering, or too liberal then will be the time to fight against her confoirmation.
That is why they have the hearings. Seeing so many people go off the deep end so early has made me rethink the nature of partisanship. The similarities between the extremists on both ends of the political spectrum are readily apparent. Both want judicial activists, the only difference is in the decisions they are demanding for their pet issues.
For some people, you are surely right. For others, I dunno. I have trouble believing I am not in the Twilight Zone. To not even take time to research her, to not even listen to her say one public word, to not credit the President one iota, before going scorched earth against the President, his staff and Harriet...words fail me. Words don't begin to capture the sense of mass meanness, unfairness, loss and betrayal I feel.
the screaming, moaning and downright vitriol expressed against her on FR has been pretty amazing. and i find it interesting that just maintaining calm and an open mind on the issue brands one a koolaid drinker and bushbot. very curious.
hang in there, there are many who share your sentiments that are afraid of being labelled Bushbots. You are not alone, and Miers will either sink or swim by her own words in the Senate. I trust President Bush on this one.
i agree, tx. but, those grounded in reality and having some tether to sanity will come back to their senses eventually. those that don't, well that says something about them, doesn't it?
"OR we could increase spending by a small amount and demand results. Dubya chose the latter and test scores have been going up and children are receiving a better education."
You forgot the part about how this is also forcing states and localities to increase spending. So the money part isn't just about a small increase from the feds.
Please provide your evidence that NCLB is providing a better education. I know that in Virginia the Republican General Assembly wants out of NCLB because it's wasting money, it actually "dumbs down" the state SOLs, and some of the rules are just plain stupid.
many were spoiling for a fight, followed by dancing on the Democrats graves as we rammed a pick down the liberals throats. they are as interested in the fight and the gloating as they are in the win.
it is no different than right after the Gang of Fourteen cavein by the Democrats over the filibuster, many went berserk that their victory dance was taken away, others of us said "the Rats caved even though they are acting like they won something, we'll take the real win".
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.