Posted on 10/06/2005 3:13:10 AM PDT by KMAJ2
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.
LOL
How in the world did you decide that this was a "ruse"?
I'm betting most saw it for what is was -- a simple vanity.
[[So you have no problem with gay marriage becoming the law of the land, Christ taken out of Christmas and God removed from the pledge?]]
Damn, I thought some people were capable of comprehension and staying on topic. Did I mention any of those three topics in my editorial ? Are you asserting those are Meirs positions ? I challenge you to document them. Talk about puerile ad hominem innuendo and diversion.
Not that it is relevant to my piece, I am against gay marriage, taking Christ out of Christmas and taking God out of the pledge of allegiance.
I think you are correct. Bush knows this woman and is not about to appoint another Souter to the SCOTUS. That is perhaps his dad's worst legacy, that and not ridding the world of Saddam the first time.
If I can nitpick, for someone with a degree in journalism, you use more mixed metaphors than you can shake a stick at. If you're not careful, Taranto is going to use you in his Metaphor Alert.
[[So he used three brain cells to produce his infantile temper tantrum?]]
My piece was a temper tantrum ? And what was your response ? A doctoral thesis ? It certainly was not an intellectual rebuttal.
Tip: Put down the thesaurus and pick up Strunk and White. That punctuation is atrocious. Unless you meant to say that fingertips, bootlickers, bushbots, etc. were flowing "unctuous bile." And I think that would be even worse. . .
In the end ALL THINGS in this creation come down to one man (or woman's) take on it. Just one. Not some committee. Not some consensus. Not some advisory panel. Not some (*yuch-pitoowy*) poll.
White House adviser Ed Gillespie suggested that some of the unease about Miers "has a whiff of sexism and a whiff of elitism."
It's nice to see someone using more than two brain cells and giving in to infantile temper tantrum instincts when dealing with this nomination.
It was an attempt at gentle ribbing of his/her sentence, which probably meant to say something like, "It's nice to see someone using more than two brain cells rather than giving in to infantile temper tantrum instincts when dealing with this nomination."
FWIW, I agree with what you say. Harriet's nomination is OK with me, if only because I like to see all the pundits trip on themselves over their predictions on whom Bush would nominate. Pundit-tripping is always fun.
I might change my mind, though, based on her performance in the hearings. I think that is supposed to be the purpose of holding hearings.
I am very sorry that my posts don't have sufficient intellectual content for you.
I think his words were "suited", not "qualified"
[[Journalism????? And you're proud of that???? You are a sicko!]]
Maybe you grasp what ad hominem is. Did you bother to try to garner my opinion on the state of journalism in this country ? No, that would take reasoned thought. Journalism has destroyed much of its credibility as a profession, it has become sensationalistic garbage that is more akin to a Goebbels' propaganda machine. Much of the decline in journalistic ethics can be laid squarely at the door of left wing academia sending out young zealous reporters to be advocates rather than presenters of unbiased news.
Miers not Meirs
Restorer, please accept my apology.
I appreciate the parsing, but I am too small a fish for Taranto to take notice.
Take care.
Bush and his people pulled the old sleight of hand trick on us and got caught, now he is petulant (it shows on TV) and has not the grace to admit it.
"can anyone name one judicial nomination of Bush's that has been bad ?"
[[Miers, and he is being called on the floor for it.]]
Now there you go prognosticating and using your own tea leaves and crystal ball. I, at least, claimed mine was a gut feeling, ergo, opinion.
I believe it's the Left that's required to think in lockstep; are you sure you know who you are? How does the current Miers flap differ from the sprightly debates we have here on, say, drug legalization or school prayer or intelligent design?
If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
LOL, let's trust the President instead of standing up for our principles. Do you think that Miers would find Medicare part D or No Child Left Behind or McCain-Feingold unconstitutional? (i.e., the agenda of our "conservative" President... I'm sure that his support of these socialist boondoggles was just stratgery) I didn't see similar concerns on the right about Roberts, despite indications that he may not be ideologically "pure". The concern with Miers is well-founded.
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.