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.
What crap. He never presented it as anything but his own opinion.
Apparently not content to make up stuff about Miers, the anti-Miers crowd now makes up charges against their opponents.
The question we derserve to ask is not how do we know that her loyalty is more to Bush than to Originalism. But rather, where's the proof that she's not going to be a judicial activist?
Faith on this issue is NOT enough. Not anymore.
You start from the postion of assuming an activist, and become convinced that he or she would be an appropriate Justice.
Reagan said, "trust, but verify." We are at the verify point now.
He never presented it as anything but his own opinion? Then read this part again:
"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."
You DO NOT post a personal rant on the FR, refer to the FR to an audience that, from the context of the article, isn't reading it on the Free Republic, and pretend it's a real article. It's a fake. And manipulation.
She has stated she believes in a literal interpretation of the Constution.
Any sitting appeals court judge who had demonstrated such with votes would get filibustered by the Dems - while the RINOs in the Gang of 14 would not help invoke the nuclear option.
I'd love to seek JRB nominated and confirmed myself. But she'd never get through.
As long as we have 7 RINOs in the GOP Senate majority, them's the rules.
As far as a stealth candidate is concerned the only way that could auger against us is if she is stealth in the mold of Souter. It is crystal clear to anyone watching this that that is not the case. Stealth for the purpose of defeating the Democrats is a valid (and potentially more successful) strategy, precisely because we have not moved far enough along in RINO redemption to guarantee the results of a fight to end all fights. I expect the votes for JRB for example, were already counted and fell short. The only point of fighting that battle then would have been, as Rush said, to draw clear lines between the Liberals and Conservatives of both parties and educate the public to the serious issues involved and why the Liberals have the wrong answers. What does this matter if we lose the court? Order of priority IMHO is 1.) Win the Court; 2.) Convert the RINOs seats to conservative seats. The latter will take much longer and expose the court to potential Liberal Democratic presidents that could do more damage while the RINO issue ferments. Bush has the priorities right as far as I am concerned. I don't know as much as I want about Miers but we are learning more every day and I do not believe the Republican Leadership has deserted the Conservative base. That would be irrational since it would mean Democratic victories..They are not stupid even though they do not move every time as I want on the issues. Immigration is one I think could be an Achilles heal and yet they do nothing...That could change this year. '06 will be a loss year for us if they don't make an intelligent move on that issue. If Miers is confirmed there will be a record from her by '06 that will support or crater conservatism. I can't see Bush or the Republican leadership making a move they did not honestly believe would support them in '06. Sorry about the ramble. Hope this helps..We just need more information here instead of condemnation.
You DO NOT post a personal rant on the FR, refer to the FR to an audience that, from the context of the article, isn't reading it on the Free Republic, and pretend it's a real article. It's a fake. And manipulation.
Bullbiscuits. Only someone in full-attack mode read it that way. It was clear all along to me that this was a vanity post.
Politics matters. I understand the criticisms on the right on the Miers nomination, but it's gone way over the top. A lot of people on the right (whose opionions I respect [like those at NRO]) have gone way over the top on this one. If Bush can get someone on the Court who is (and this I'm assuming, but I certainly believe that BUSH believes it) a strict constructionist and well qualified, and get all of this potentially without a political fight, then bully for him! And best-qualified,schmest-qualified- was Bush or any other Presidential candidate the "best" qualified in the country for the job? Are these Senators the best-qualified people for THEIR jobs? This is politics. I know you want the best person you can find for Supreme Court (or any position in government), but they have to go through a political ringer first.
Everybody wants the big "national debate" over the issues. They want Bork. Well, Bork got defeated and things are much more contentious now in the senate than they were in the 80's. Democratic senators know their political lives depend on voting 'no' on anyone who gives any indication at all they will overturn Rowe. And a bunch of Republican Senators will immediately jump ship as well. That's the way it is. Bush has maybe one more year for big domestic issues. He doesn't have that many big fights left to make. A lot of people on the political right want him to throw himself on a grenade when he doesn't have to.
My first reaction to Miers was something akin to 'UGGH' as well, but get over it!
No Frank, it's not "we", since you're the only one that had 'delusions of deception' whirling around in their noggin. I'd suggest quitting while you're behind and stop digging the hole deeper.
"She has stated she believes in a literal interpretation of the Constution."
Then why is Harry Reid a supporter?
"Everybody wants the big "national debate" over the issues. They want Bork. Well, Bork got defeated and things are much more contentious now in the senate than they were in the 80's...That's the way it is."
Then why should millions of people support this party? What's the point, if their support is predicated on re-shaping the judiciary?
There is none, and fools like you believe these people will stick around.
Enjoy your new DEMOCRATic century.
That's quite some rant, sparky.
Your copy of Roget's must be worn out!
But we have only Bush's word on that.
And even if it were true, frankly, it's not good enough.
David Frum at NRO puts it best today:
Yesterday's White House talking point was that Miers "reflects the president's judicial philosophy." OK. But can she articulate it? Defend it? And persuade others of it - not just her colleagues, but the generations to come who will read her decisions and accept them ... or scorn them. That's the way this president should have thought about this choice. And that's the way the Senators called on to consent to the choice should be thinking about it now.
This elitism is mostly nonsense. There are plenty of conservatives (I am one of them) who have no Ivy League degrees, nor particularly expected a nominee to have one.
What we want is some evidence of outstanding ability. Maybe there's some there. But it is not on evidence yet in any thing we know about Miers. Runing a law firm and and getting elected to head the Texas ABA are fine things but they do not necesarily require outstanding ability - at least not of the sort that is called for on the Supreme Court.
Hey, way to go! You excerpted part of my post and attacked the excerpt! My point was that if (and this is an IF) Bush can shape the judiciary the way conservatives want and get that without a big political fight, isn't that, at least, a "plus"?
Assuming Miers can be a sharp and effective jurist (and there's no reason to doubt this), it doesn't do anybody on the right any good to destroy her nomination. I think most conservatives would have preferred someone whom knowledgeable conservative commentators have been crowing about in recent months. Everyone would feel better.
He'll change, just like he did with Roberts. He's a weasel - he'll say he supports a nominee to sound fair, and then will change his mind.
Plenty of folks on the left are starting to have kittens over this nomination. I suggest you examine their complaints.
I hear a lot (I mean, A LOT) of commentary from Rush to Ingraham to NRO regarding "the fight" and "outing" the RINOS and all of that. Let's not take our eyes off the ball. It's more important right now to give the so-called RINOS political cover and get someone on the court who will be good for the conservative movement than it is to have a big fight that conservatives could very well lose. In any event, a big political fight would likely force Bush to cash in all kinds of chips, leaving him weakened and unable to get through any other aspects of his agenda. Is that worth it?
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.