Eating Their Own On The Right

There is no denying that the Meirs nomination has caused a stir. The vitriol has risen in a short sighted furor emblematic of ideological elitism. What was once the purview of the progressive left has taken root in the conservative wing. Only only has to look at the postings in Free Republic. The vituperative rhetoric flows like unctuous bile from the fingertips, bootlickers, bushbots, morons, kool-aid drinkers, as the poster champions his elite point of view by defaming those who disagree. Rather than discussing on a reasoned basis, it has become the land of ad hominem and non sequiturs.

I do not think anyone believes Meirs is the best qualified, strictly going by having a paper trail. I doubt Bush really believes she is the best qualified in that aspect. So why would he choose her ? What led up to his making that choice. Whether we conservatives agree or disagree with certain of his policies, he is not a stupid man and he has shown himself to have good political instincts.

What I never see mentioned, can anyone name one judicial nomination of Bush's that has been bad ? Has he nominated anyone who has not fulfilled his promise ? He deserves a little more respect than he is being given on this front. His record is spotless on judicial nominations.

I have only seen one writer, Thomas Lifson, who has even hinted about how this nomination came about, none with an in depth analysis and/or strategy in the lead up. I offer this up for your reasoned thought.

Originally Meirs was not on the list for the very reason many have qualms, no extensive judicial bona fides (writings), and for obvious reasons, she is his advisor, an evangelical Christian, pro-life and conservative.

To Bush's surprise, democrats Reid and Leahy have her on their lists of suggested nominees. Why would these two democrat leaders put a pro-lifer on their list ? What reason would make any sense to explain it ? Because she was nice to them on the phone ? Does anyone really think they thought Bush would really nominate her ? No, she was on there as a bluff, so the democrats could say "See, we even offered conservative choices, and he ignored us." They would have used her as evidence that Bush was not playing fair in their case to the public.

Bush, being a skilled poker player, recognized the bluff, and called them on it. Meirs is the nominee. Who knows Meirs better than Bush, outside of Texas Supreme Court Judge Hecht in Texas ? She is not the lightweight many try to paint her as, you do not get voted among the Top 100 most influential attornies in the U.S. twice without having some legal savvy and expertise.

Right now, the democrats are hoping and praying the conservatives self-destruct and blow up her nomination, it is their only chance to escape and save face. If the conservatives open their eyes and see the big picture, NARAL, NOW and all the left wing women's groups are going to go ballistic if Meirs is supported by the democrats, yet, if they go back on their word, and fillibuster or block her, or attack her on religious grounds, they become hypocrites and the negative PR will be even more than the 'old media' can cover up.

If the democrats manage to defeat her or block her, Bush can then say, "I listened to you, and you still blocked her, I see no further need to waste time consulting with you", and a documented ideological conservative is nominated, the constitutional option is invoked and the democrats get the blame.

Mark my words, that ideological battle many conservatives are looking for is going to happen. The democrats CANNOT allow a capable, conservtive, pro-life, evangelical Christian attorney, who worships Bush, end up on the Supreme Court. Their special interest groups, especially the feminists, will revolt, the firestorm will tear the democrats apart.

My gut feeling on Meirs is she could possibly end up being to the right of Scalia and Thomas, paper trail or no paper trail, at worst, she will march lockstep with Roberts.

It is fine to be apprehensive, it is fine to ask questions, but draw in the claws, judicial nominations is one place where Bush's record is beyond reproach. The poison and venom need to stop, let the left eat their own, conservatives are supposed to be smarter than this.

This has to be one of the savviest political poker maneuvers I have seen. Misunderestimated by the democrats again ? This time he did it so well, it went over the heads of many conservatives.

Yes it comes down to HIS personal decision -- that his not only his right, it is his responsibility, his duty. As the contract, the Consitution, says.

How each person reacts to that is his choice. And the cats are on a hot tin roof on this one.

When the libs argue, it is written about in obscure on-line articles.

When conservatives argue among themselves, Greta gets Rush live on the phone, and the perky Katie gets the vapors.

Miers will win me over if she is outspoken and brilliant when she faces the senate hearings. If she goes in and tries to avoid answering questions, I won't be happy. If she can state her positions (something that, these days, no one likes to do openly), if she can defend them, if she can light off a firestorm and face it boldly, I'll be on her side.

That's plenty good enuf for me, dear marron! Truly I am looking forward to these hearings: We'll see what kind of "stuff" this "pit bull in size 6 shoes" is really made of.

So good to hear from you!

As with any judicial nominee, Miers must be circumspect in those questions that she does answer. It would be inappropriate for her, as for any nominee, to address what they would rule on any case that might come before them.

So, in my view, she is allowed avoid certain questions, but should fully answer others.

who worships Bush,

I would say that Miers "worships Jesus Christ," and "admires Bush."

But, I know what you mean, so I'll just back off on this one.

So, in my view, she is allowed avoid certain questions, but should fully answer others.

Which to his enormous credit is what Chief Justice Roberts did, with fine discrimination and discretion. I so enjoyed listening to his testimony before the Judiciary Committee!

My husband old me (based on a source I didn't see) that the Chief Justice really "hit the ground running" WRT to the oral arguments in the Oregon "right-to-die" case now before the Court. B. said the "pro side's" attorney barely got three words out before Roberts started grilling him... "But isn't what you are arguing for already illegal?" Or words to that effect.... If B.'s report is accurate, then I think this would indicate that the Chief Justice is rather proactive. :^)

Of course, this doesn't tell us how Justice Roberts will finally rule on this case. It does tell us that he likes to get down to brass tacks right out of the gate.

Thank you all so very much for sharing your insights!

I do look forward to the confirmation hearings with Miers but I do not expect her to break with the tradition of not discussing matters which may come before the court. She can however speak to judicial philosophy, the nature of her past work and the like.

IMHO, Roberts will be a difficult act to follow both in the confirmation hearings and as he tackled the first case to appear before his court. OTOH, no nominee should be expected to "perform" as well as the Chief Justice - but there are many who have developed such a personal hatred towards her that they no doubt will do so.

The good news is that she is Christian and thus Christ is in her and no weapon formed against her will prosper. May His will be done.

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.