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.
The Democrats and Rebublicans in the Senate and Bush have been talking about nominees for a long time. The Democrats (at least the ones in red or red-leaning states) are dying for political cover. They don't want to filibuster. They know the kind of person Bush wants, but they need someone they can vote for without getting their brains beaten out by their base and big donors. Why would Reid come out and immediately express a measure of support? Because he very well might be able to make a quasi-defendable case to his own supporters for confirming her. And if a couple of years down the road she turns out to be a disaster for the left, well he can claim he was fooled (and that's an eternity away, anyway, in political time). And that's politics.
George Bush could spit up his lunch and you would call it a brilliant strategic maneuver. Bush failed to consult his base. Picked his lawyer and ducked a real fight.
He's already backtracking, just like he did with Roberts.
But I doubt a lot of the folks looking to Reids initial support of Miers as a strike against her will turn around and view Reid's backtracking as a positive for her. They are interested less in getting a conservative nominee on SCOTUS than in provoking a fight - even though we got hamstrung by 7 RINOS during the last fight over the nuclear option. Some folks just don't learn. Bush apparently has and adapted his tactics.
If the fight is going to happen anyway, why fight over an unknown and untested nominee with skimpy judicial qualifications?
Yeah, we need a real fight! Just like we had over the nuclear option!
Oh, wait.
We got sandbagged by seven RINOs in that fight.
But hey, I'm SURE those seven RINOs will fall behind Bush over a hard-right nominee! Bring 'em on!
Do y'all EVER bother to reconcile your views with political reality?
So far, it's not happening. The Gang of 14 gave their tenative approval. Which means no Dem filibuster.
Do you honestly think that would have happend with JRB as the nominee?
There is a place for vanities. The news section isn't the spot for your opinion piece.
Most of them can't or won't. The goal is to throw child-like temper tantrums "But mommy I want it!!! Whahhh...", not truly understand anything.
Are you trying to tell me that DeWine and Graham would have allowed a fillibuster of a well qualified nominee? Graham and DeWine were quite public with their promises to go nuclear if the Dems tried to filibuster a well qualified SCOTUS nominee. I don't think that Warner or McCain wouldn have allowed a filibuster either. But even if Graham and DeWine were the only ones who would go nuclear, that would give us 50 votes and Cheney could break the tie. So, I have reconciled my views with political reality.
Yes.
Graham and DeWine were quite public with their promises to go nuclear if the Dems tried to filibuster a well qualified SCOTUS nominee.
And you trust DeWine?
I don't think that Warner or McCain wouldn have allowed a filibuster either.
They're the ones who left the backdoor open.
But even if Graham and DeWine were the only ones who would go nuclear, that would give us 50 votes and Cheney could break the tie. So, I have reconciled my views with political reality.
No, you haven't. The political reality is we had the nuclear option ready to deploy - and the RINO's screwed us. I don't trust them to not screw us again - we'll be rounding third and our own third-base coach will trip us.
That my be your assessment, but don't tell me that I'm out of touch with reality.
Jeepers, I'm glad someone out there "gets it," KMAJ2. The President has got his opponents tucked in between a rock and a hard place with their own rank and file. It's not going to be easy for them to wriggle out of it either.
And people say this president is a "BB-brain," a dim bulb.... He's playing some real hardball politics here; it would be grotesque if the Right in a pique of self-destructiveness doesn't back him solidly on this nomination. We should just sit back and watch all the fun when this nomination goes to the Judiciary Committee.... :^)
Thank you so very much for your excellent analysis!
No problemo.
I daresay that even your rhetorical question voids itself. We all talk about 'originalist' and 'strict constructionist'. But even that varies by individual definition. You are right, none of us are fortune tellers, so anyone claiming 'to know' the future is at best making an informed guess, and those able to make the best guess are those who know the person best, not those making anecdotal observations.
States rights is very much an originalist school of thought, I agree, it is the basis upon which this republic was formed. The Oregon case exceeds the states rights issue and does extend to individual rights, the basis for the Bill of Rights. Does someone have the right to decide to take their own life ? I do not think very many would advocate someone doing so as a choice. Once that choice is made, should they have a right to seek assistance to make it less painful ? And what form, if any, can that assistance take ? Once you find those answers, you then cross into the realm of the states' right to determine what form that assistance can take. I understand the right to life reasoning with abortion, as the unborn have no say, it makes sense. A right to die is a much more troubling and complex moral problem, if only for the tendency for it to get extended to euthanasia. The Oregon case also does a slight switch in that the fed is making the argument, not from states rights or individual rights, but from a drug enforcement and useage aspect, which is the purview of the federal government.
Honestly, A-G, commentators like Will, Kristol, Coulter, Limbaugh, Podhoretz, etc., etc., are coming across sounding just like the lunatic Left here -- all this anger, tumult, breast-beating, angst, and hand-wringing -- Jeepers, implying that President Bush is some kind of ineffectual, weak-kneed wimp. I never thought I'd ever see Ann Coulter conducting herself (i.e., throwing a tantrum) just like Cindy Sheehan -- but very recently I have seen it with my own eyes. I guess these pundits just "misunderestimated the President's strategery" here.... Maybe they'll wise up in due course. Hopefully before they further divide the conservative base....
I just loved your remark about the "toxic poison pill served up with a spring of parsley!!!" Well said: Bon appetit, Dims!
Thanks so much for writing, A-G!
[[This post is very, very, funny because the poster is what he describes.]]
Tom, for not knowing me, you certainly seem to assert that you do. Now what would that make you ? And to answer your question, no, it was not written with a thesaurus. Your assertion being because someone likes to have an expanded vocabulary makes them elitist is absurd on its face. Now, if I were to put down those who chose not to have the same, that would be elitist. Your observation/opinion is called soft bigotry.
[[I'll repeat your question. How do you know?]]
I didn't claim to know, nor can you, I said it was a gut feeling, an opinion. The most informed opinion will be from those who know her best, which does not include either of us, but does include Bush and Texas Supreme Court Justice Hecht, not any of these pundits that are being cited. If Bush's track record on judicial nominations were spotty, I would be more concerned. Miers is not a lightweight in the legal community, as many who oppose her try to fraudulently assert.
When did anyone promise they were not going to filibuster Miers?
Mark my words, that ideological battle many conservatives are looking for is going to happen.
This is EXACTLY what I've been thinking since finding out Miers is a born-again pro-lifer. Why does anyone think the Senate Libs and RINOs will allow an "uncredentialed" pro-lifer to get by them any easier than a "credentialed" one?
Which calls into question the entire strategery of the stealth pick: If this stealth nomination gives Bush the very confrontation it was supposed to avoid, then he'll be going into that fight without a large part of the conservative base that he's just alienated.
In which case, then it would have been just as well to go with one of the "known" jurists the conservatives wanted, and gone into the fight with a united, and enthusiastic, party behind him.
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.