Posted on 10/06/2005 2:24:09 AM PDT by AntiGuv
That having been said, the Meirs pick was another administration misstep. The president misread the field, the players, their mood and attitude. He called the play, they looked up from the huddle and balked. And debated. And dissed. Momentum was lost. The quarterback looked foolish.
The president would have been politically better served by what Pat Buchanan called a bench-clearing brawl. A fractious and sparring base would have come together arm in arm to fight for something all believe in: the beginning of the end of command-and-control liberalism on the U.S. Supreme Court. Senate Democrats, forced to confront a serious and principled conservative of known stature, would have damaged themselves in the fight. If in the end President Bush lost, he'd lose while advancing a cause that is right and doing serious damage to the other side. Then he could come back to win with the next nominee. And if he won he'd have won, rousing his base and reminding them why they're Republicans.
The headline lately is that conservatives are stiffing the president. They're in uproar over Ms. Meirs, in rebellion over spending, critical over cronyism. But the real story continues to be that the president feels so free to stiff conservatives. The White House is not full of stupid people. They knew conservatives would be disappointed that the president chose his lawyer for the high court. They knew conservatives would eventually awaken over spending. They knew someone would tag them on putting friends in high places. They knew conservatives would not like the big-government impulses revealed in the response to Hurricane Katrina. The headline is not that this White House endlessly bows to the right but that it is not at all afraid of the right. Why? This strikes me as the most interesting question.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Superficially, the similarities between King Henry and the Archbishop of Canterbury are uncanny, but underneath the basis doesn't fly.
Henry chose Thomas because he wanted to control the Church. In effect, he expected Thomas to serve the throne. Thomas, on the other hand, discovered that he could not serve two masters and chose God.
GWB's nomination of Miers is because he expects her to serve the Constitution faithfully. In effect, he is appointing her to the position on the expectation that she will serve the Constitution. The only relevant question is whether or not her Faith in God is incompatible with the Constitution, and as we all know... It isn't. The Constitution was by and large written by Christian men.
And Peggy's point is facetious at its core. If her premise is that power corrupts, a previous record would not be any firm judgment of how consistent a person on the bench may be. Good and honest men have been driven to extreme immorality by power, and that happened regardless of their long record of good deeds and compassionate works. Our histories, legends, and myths abound with versions of that tale because it happens.
Every nominee to the Supreme Court remains who they are by the strength of their convictions. Weakness can manifest itself in 180 degree flips after inauguration or a slow slide.
The only valid test for Miers is how she'll perform in the upcoming Senate hearings. Claims of inexperience or lack of intellectual pedigree are inconsequential and meaningless. Predictions on how she is going to rule based on her ideology are also meaningless. If she is a strict constructionist, as the President believes she is, then she'll base her decisions entirely on the text and original intent of the law. Her ideology won't be the factor that determines how she votes, but the facts and arguments will be.
This is what we want in the court. I'd support the confirmation of a Liberal strict constructionist, if one were nominated, but since liberal ideology does not include the possibility of strict construction that's a moot point. That leaves only two types of conservative nominees for a conservative President to choose from - a conservative judicial activist and a conservative strict constructionist. The President chose the latter, which means when our laws don't conform to conservative values the decisions and rulings are going to be a severe disappointment to conservatives everywhere, but that places the onus of legislation on the legislature where it belongs...
And so, I'll grant that I do feel queasy when I think about the way the President nominated Miers, I have to trust him to be as smart and capable of a judge in character as I believe him to be. To reject Miers would be to place my on incomplete knowledge and judgment over the man I voted for to make this decision for me. I look at the decision and see strategies that make absolute sense to me, and I have to believe that the President knows what he is doing. I am not so much an intellectual elitist to believe that I can make better decisions than the President with less information and even less personal experience making these kinds of decisions.
I'll admit, the President can be wrong. But I seriously doubt that he is. He is the team captain and I helped put him there. If I question him now, then any advantage we might gain from his decision will be lost. In effect, if we break with the President over this, we create a situation with a self-fulfilling prophecy. We can destroy the President and his nominee, without giving either of them a chance to prove themselves, and hand the '06 elections over to the Democrats. And if we do this we, not the President, will be the ones committing the unforced error.
In tennis terms it is as if the President has hit a surprise lob. At the moment we can't judge how deep the ball is going to go into the back court. The Democrats on the other side are clueless too. Only the President really knows where he hit the ball. Us, we're his partner up at the net, and we're playing a split court position. Well, we're thinking he's crazy - we're going to get killed.
What should we do? We can run off to the sidelines and avoid being in the path of the ball when the Democrats hit an overhead right at us. Essentially, we can give up the point and berate the President for losing the point... Or we can adjust our strategy and shift backward and dig in and see how the Democrats handle what they've been given.
Now, I've seen this happen a lot in my athletic days. A high lob goes up and the other team wasn't expecting it. In the confusion they can do a lot of things - and often both of them will go for the kill and get in each others' way, or they can both assume the other is going to hit the ball and neither does.
Now, on our side of the court, I didn't cover the possibility that the ball might land out of bounds. There's a reason for that... You never assume a ball is going out of bounds until after it hits the ground. You lose a lot of points assuming a ball is going out before it lands. Yes... indeed.
So, if you've read this very long reply - I hope you can see some way to make sense of the situation in a manner that furthers our conservative goals rather than that which tears us down from within.
That is your opinion
No attack... just the facts.
LLS
"I was being facetious myself, and I certainly would never call Reagan a "barking moonbat"! I know somebody else though who would if Reagan differed with Bush on an issue so I'll ping him over.."
Sometimes it really pays to include a sarcasm indicator.
Wittgenstein said the same thing, only incoherently. :-)
Thanks for posting the link. Would be interesting some time to stumble on a thread discussing the origin and transformation of rights talk.
"The president would have been politically better served by what Pat Buchanan called a bench-clearing brawl.
Peggy .. why does there always have to be a fight?
Why can't you all just believe that he thinks Harriet Miers is the best person for the bench?"
Um, because she's not qualified?
Appointing Miers to the Supreme Court is like me being given the job of running Walmart (I have an art degree) because I shopped there.
Although I guess that's not quite fair - in Miers' case, she was also nominated because she has the correct genitals for the job (sigh).
Gee .. what a great argument you have there about Miers not being qualified for the court
The only issue that I had with GWB up to this point was his bone headed stance on immigration. Nominating Harriet Myers to a federal judgeship would have been fine, nominating her to fill an important spot on the USSC is incomprehensible. This President has become arrogant and self important to the extent he now feels he cam dis his constituents whenever the mood suits him. I can tell you in no uncertain terms the Republican party at the national level will never see a dime of my money again ... my 'rat acquaintances who have always felt GWB was one one beer short of a six pack ... are, unfortunately, right.
Well, if you actually debated the merits of the article, you'd be right. Instead you're debating the merits of the messenger without addressing any of the points she makes.
You live in a dream world where nothing but a direct democracy will satisfy you. A representative democracy... a Federal republic like ours is premised on the idea that we choose people who cast our votes for us. The character of the majority is supposed to be reflected in the character of the elected representatives.
In that manner, our representatives and elected officials are cast in the role of making decisions for all of us, with our votes being the only manner in which we can show our displeasure. But for the time between elections - we expect them to vote and act as we hope they will. As conservatives we shouldn't want a poll driven President.
As to your "clintonesque" comment... The difference between a conservative and a liberal is that the liberal will expect you to vote for him/her again because they know better. The conservative expects their record and results to speak for themselves.
The President doesn't have a third term coming up. He does have the responsibility to the movement to try and build our majority. Aside from the War on Terror, that majority is the overriding domestic agenda. According to all of his critics he's doing a piss poor job based on his recent nomination of Miers. He managed to piss off his base, etc... etc... But answer me this question... What happens if he's right? What if Miers is in the mold of Scalia and Thomas? What if she is every bit as qualified and capable as he thinks she is? What does undermining her and the President now do to accomplish anything? Everybody wanted to see a good fight in the Senate over the confirmation of someone like Janet Rogers Brown. Even I wanted to see that fight, just because we've been kicked, scratched, and beaten to a pulp by the MSM and the Democrats at every turn... but hell - we've followed this President through two wars, a prison abuse scandal, a nasty election, and an aggressive foreign policy that at times seemed as if it was going to blow up in our faces.... and we fail to stick by him when he asks us to trust him?
Believe what you will, but I think you'd be happier as a conservative libertarian than as a Republican. It must gall you to have to vote for people to make decisions for you, and not have a personal puppet. Yes, a conservative believes they can make better decisions for themselves. But since when was deciding a Supreme Court Justice your personal decision to make? We vote for a President, the President picks who he considers the best possible nominee. Politics, ideology, and philosophy are all factors. If you want to run for President in 2008, by all means, do so. But our system of government is premised on elected officials who act according to their beliefs on what is best for their constituents. If you disagree with that, there are deserted islands where you can be king.
She's qualified.
The best anybody who opposes her can do is make the claim she is the least qualified. And that claim belongs in the realm of personal preference, not in any Constitutional requirement anybody anywhere can cite.
That's what they said about Clarence Thomas.
Yet anyone who asserts their right to not vote Republican as a means of responding to, for example, a particular rogue Senator like Arlen Specter, and watch the brickbats come out.
This is like pinch hitting Duane Kuiper when you've got Mickey Mantle in the dugout "because he's got a good heart". I don't care if Miers MIGHT be our dream jurist. A good manager shouldn't expect a standing ovation when he starts fooling with fate.
No, she is qualified by here mere nomination.
But her nomination was a poor choice when there were so many other great choices.
Not only that but it was a kick in the teeth to conservatives. Mainstream, economic, social, political and cultural conservatives. The people who represent the Right in the media are nearly all against this nomination or strongly opposed to it.
I always ask for the least qualified surgeon when I go for an operation. Specifically, whoever has the best personal relationship with the Head of Surgery.
:-)
Explains a lot.
:-P
You simply do no know the truth of any of this . . . yet.
As someone suggested to me in another thread, don't go all wobbly on old George until you've seen her first written opinion.
>>political decisions should benefit all citizens, not just
>>the ones who voted for the Party in power and to hell with the others who didn't.
Depends on what you mean by "benefit". IMO doing away with the welfare state (including SS and Medicare), all corporate and farm subsidies, federal flood insurance, and the Department of Education would benefit all Americans. Not everyone agrees with me, of course. However, it would benefit all Americans. If I were elected President, should I act upon my belief, appointing judges who agree with me, or should I appoint judges who disagree with me because there are legitimate differences of opinion on these matters? If the latter, can it be honestly said that I have any conviction behind my belief?
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.