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 ...
"IMHO, I don't think what we want right now is a Justice who is goaded to go higher. I think what we want is a Justice who will interpret a sentence according to its construction."
And, say Robert Bork wouldn't? It's a damn good idea for ALL of us to go higher
"I don't ever want to place myself in the position of defending Clinton--except this once. Had you seen him that day, you'd understand he was the real deal in service to the wrong cause. He was not practicing sophistry or rhetoric at the mic. No sir. Not that day."
I did see him that day. Clinton never uttered a sound that didn't serve his own ends. A goddamned liar is a goddamned liar 24/7
"Peggy saw angels dancing when Bork was testifying. Peggy has a great imagination"
'Doesn't take any imagination. I've seen Angels dancing when Hendrix was playing.
That's exactly right.
The linguistics of any political label can be extremely confusing. In a perfect world, I'd call myself a libertarian, but the LP has perverted that term beyond recognition. I could, in good faith, call myself a classical liberal, but the leftists have have that word toxic as well.
Then we come to the word "conservative". Most of my friends and colleagues are quick to slap this label on me, and I really don't have a problem with it. My main two concerns are small government and 2nd Amendment rights, issues that are certainly in the "conservative" camp.
However, many on FR would call me a liberal since I am very indifferent to the subject of gays. I simply don't care who f@#ks who.
I also think that the War on Drugs is an absolute failure and that it should be phased out. While this is common thinking here on FR, most of my off-line conservative acquaintances think I'm liberal for thinking such.
So, when it comes down to it, people define others conservatism based on their own. For me, personally, if one is not passionate about small-government and an absolutionist on the 2nd Amendment, they are not a conservative in my eyes. Likewise, I'm sure you would be hard pressed to label Ron Paul a conservative, even though he is one of the most popular legislators amongst freepers. Neither of us is facist, we each perceive others according to our own biases.
Nope, but the issue of overturning RvW would lose in the marketplace of the Republican Senate as currently constituted and Bush said he was a prolife president and in the same breath (well news conference) said Miers shares his philosophy. When asked had he ever had a conversation with her about RvW he danced around and gave answers the press took as "no" but he never said exactly that. It was pretty good footwork for Bush.
No one has that I know of and you are the only one I have seen suggest it. I think you are off base but to each his own.
I agree. If this is the worst that comes up the handwringers are going to need more data. I'm still looking for data on positions of importance like RvW, 2nd Amendment, Commerce Clause etc. If there is any or if she addresses those in the hearings that will drive my thinking.
Re the hearings, I think it is particularly fair especially with this nominee to ask her to explain her understanding of particular, relavant expressions and passages in the Constitution. For example: Do you believe the expression "the people" in the second amendment refers to an organized militia or to individual citizens who may be called upon to defend the constitution...Being able to articulate the meaning of the text of the constitution itself ought to be a prerequsite for the job seems to me so we can be sure she (or any nominee FTM) understands the document. Fair game as I see it. (and there is no RvW in there to explain)
Judges are required to subordinate their personal views of appropriate social stucture to the laws and the Constitution. Her personal opinion should be irrelevant, and I take it as irrelevant.
I wonder if she thinks the legal basis for Roe was correct, or if the dissent in Roe got the case right. That question won't be asked, in part because it is a clear example of the difference between judicial restraint and judicial activism. The same mind set can be illuminated by Lawrence v. Texas, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and a potload of other well known cases. Kelo! for example.
I think Miers would practice judicial restraint, based on evidence such as her advocating the entire ABA vote on a social hot-button resolution, instead of giving the power to the ABA leadership to promulgate that resolution. She also respects Justice Hecht of Texas, who demonstrates judicial restraint in his written opinions.
As for the kabuki dance that President Bush had with the reporters, he said he doesn't ask candidates about the judicial philosophy on social issues. At least I think that is his qualifier. ANd I think that is too bad, because it is exactly that, judicial philosophy, that matters - regardless of the underlying hot-button social issue.
You and I may be clones.
Patrick did not have to deal with a house of RINOs. The court is the "immediate" goal. Is that better? All the rest is second tier IMO. It is the preimminent objective many of us have worked for for so long. (which incidentally is why so many of us are so upset with Miers being an unknown quantity) Now if I agreed the fight was worth the loss I would be with you (and Rush) but there is a school of thought that I belong to that holds that this result is too important to be where we draw unecessary battle lines if we can beat the enemy at their own game. Good generals don't set up for battle until they are in position to force a victory. That was Lee's mistake at Gettysburg. We'll have to disagree on this point. But regardless, Miers is before us and I for one need to know whether she is who Bush says she is to get comfortable with his call. She looks ok at this point but we have little data. If that remains the case, the hearings should help, but if she is the real deal, getting us to shoot ourselves in the foot is the best Democratic strategy. And I am seeing some of that playout in the media. I want to wait on pulling the trigger until I know where I am aimed...
I believe she sees an individual right there, without the limiting qualifier of "may be called upon to defend the constitution."
Thank you, sir.
Hard to remember written words seldom, if ever, carry the intended tone of voice . . . nor sometimes the intended meaning.
Still, it's fun to try it, though never so much fun to fail at it. Guess that's why somebody invented emoticons, to avoid unnecessary virtual fistfights. ;-)
Maybe so. We'll see. But regarding the losses, I expect if her record and hearings go ok the Republican losses will be minor and she may pick up a few Democrats...(don't hold your breath though) Ried and Leahy did suggest her to Bush so they are a little exposed to hipocracy charges unless they support her. They'll have to pull out the ole weasel again.
Glad to see you picked someone I like, but whether or Robert would or wouldn't isn't the issue. The issue is whether or not Harriet would. The fact is that at this moment nobody knows for sure, unless you believe George the Younger is telling the truth about her or he's lying about her.
If George the Younger is telling the truth, then it does not matter, because we'll get a Justice who reaches her decisions based on text and intent and not conservative, liberal or moderate wishfulness.
I did see him that day. Clinton never uttered a sound that didn't serve his own ends. A goddamned liar is a goddamned liar 24/7
George the Elder and I saw something quite different.
My point was I think there are pointed legitimate ways of askeing nominees specifics about the original intent of the words used in the Document that would tell us about their judicial philosophy.
The gamble that is playing out because of Miers being picked, instead of a better-known jurist, also involves causing some part of President Bush's tribe to lose trust and faith in its leader. That is a fact, see these threads.
In other words, the calculus is more complex than considering only the battle with (liberal) enemies. Much more complex.
... if she is the real deal, getting us to shoot ourselves in the foot is the best Democratic strategy.
The division among Bush's supporters is a result of Bush's action. It wasn't DEM strategy that made the nomination, it was President Bush.
I agree with most of what you said and you can type faster than I can...Bush said a bunch in that conference but he was asked directly if he hadn't ever discussed abortion with her even informally ahd he did a great dance. Get a replay and check it out. Anyway, I agree with your analysis of how she would probably reach decisions and I am comfortable with that....so far. We may learn more..it is very early.. but I have problems with assertions of what she will do that are not backed up with actual real information....way too much of that flying around here. We need the real stuff to get more comfortable..If he had put forth a known quantity we would not be discussing this but we would be counting noses and praying for a good vote and wondering how the filibuster and ensuing gambits would turn out..Frankly I'm more comfortable here, if we don't tear ourselves a part in the process. We'll see how it goes..
Signal to noise at FR is awful. But what signal there is, is valuable.
If he had put forth a known quantity we would not be discussing this but we would be counting noses and praying for a good vote and wondering how the filibuster and ensuing gambits would turn out.
Yep. We would be publicly disussing the proper way to apply balance of powers as expressed in the Constitution. Judicial nominations is one of few matters that raise balance of powers discussion. Opportunity - lost. Maybe recoverable if the GOP-lead Senate puts Myers and Boyle up for debate before the Miers hearings. And puts Saad, Haynes and Kavanaugh on the calendar too. Any one of those nominations might settle the filibuster dysfunction - and that matter NEEDS to be settled. It is a more powerful issue than any single SCOTUS post, IMO. But, opportunity lost, and that bothers me.
Frankly I'm more comfortable here, if we don't tear ourselves a part in the process.
Comfort does not lead to strength. Neither does pure compassion, or pure charity, etc.
LOL. Listen, I wanted to thank you for the thoughtful and substantive exchange. FR needs more of that, and less tit-for-tat and whatever else comprises the "noise" around here.
So, thank you. Life will go on, and things will indeed work out in the end.
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.