Posted on 10/06/2005 8:33:48 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob
Souter insult PING.
Check my ping list for a funny Souter insult.
The same was true of Earl Warren, when Ike nominated him."
Actually, FR, ever that source of education, informed me a while back of this factoid. Forget who said the story but: Ike did not *want* to nominate Earl Warren, but basically he owed Warren a favor for supporting him for the GOP nomination in 1952; Earl Warren made him promise to give him the first USSC opening in exchange for his help in the campaign. Warren called in his chit and Eisenhower reluctantly agreed.
http://www.landmarkcases.org/brown/warren.html
If you want to know how Eisenhower got into that position, and how Californians became dominant in the GOP, check this out:
http://hnn.us/articles/1821.html
"With the convention split, the vote on the amendment came down to California's 70 votes. California law required their delegation to vote as a block, so it was critical to win the stalemate. The key was securing the backing of the delegates who favored the nomination of California Governor Earl Warren, who hoped to emerge as the convention's compromise choice. Eisenhower supporter Thomas Dewey got California Senator Richard Nixon to try to win them over. This successful power play was what got Nixon the vice-presidential nod. Ultimately, Warren told his delegates to vote as they saw fit and Eisenhower won the state's votes."
So Nixon got the VP slot and Warren got a USSC slot, in exchange for helping Eisenhower become President.
The rest ... is history.
First, let's address the issue of a "winnable fight".
You base your argument on the idea that the primary obstruction between a conservative nominee and confirmation is the fact that Republicans can't generate enough attention on the issue.
I'll point out that we cannot even generate enough attention on the fact that we're winning against the terrorists, and that it is the defeatism and bias in the media which bolsters and comforts the enemy.
You propose to win the battle for a conservative nominee to the Supreme Court using resources we don't have.
Second, the Liberals - including Reid have consistently overstepped their boundaries in their battle against the President's policies and agenda. They have only gotten away with it because of the Democratic-friendly media.
If Miers is the strict constructionist and conservative that the President believes that she is, and which the liberal base for the Democrats also believe she is, then the Democrats like Reid cannot not oppose her. They gave up a lot of political currency when they let Roberts slide, on the assumption that the President would nominate a hard core, known conservative for the second slot. The Democrats were ready to filibuster, denigrate, and oppose the second nominee. When the President nominated Miers, who was on Democrats "approved" list of nominees, he took the wind out of their sails.
If the Democrats filibuster or oppose Miers strenuously, there will be no protecting them from them from themselves. They will in effect give the President and other Republicans the opportunity to push through the constitutional option, because they will have no defense for their actions and for their filibuster. The RINOs would be under intense pressure to give up their so-called neutrality to eliminate the unfair filibuster of judicial nominees. This will set the stage for the next nomination, either by this President or the next Republican President who will be elected in 2008.
If Democrats don't oppose this nomination, the court will slide slightly to the right with Miers on the bench. This you'll have to accept on faith. Just as I have to accept your word that you are a conservative, and anybody you vouch for as a conservative - so must we accept that the President knows Harriet Miers well enough to vouch for her.
The question of competency and qualifications will be answered in the hearings, not in this forum or in any other forum or news talk show, or anywhere else for that matter.
Lastly, on the issue of crime prevention, she isn't wrong. Yes, there are those people who seem to be inclined to crime. Unstable psychological profiles that commit murder, steal, rape, and lie. But they are in fact a small minority of the criminals out there. Her philosophy is not incompatible with conservatism, which stresses ownership and independence from government. Government social programs like welfare have only increased the likelihood of criminal behavior by way of their creating a dependence on government, a lack of self-esteem, and the deprivation of hope. This isn't about reforming criminals in our prisons today. It is about addressing the issues which will produce the criminals of tomorrow.
And your point is???
I'm sure the President is well aware of the fact that the Republican controlled Senate will only support his nominations as long as it polls well in their home states.
The President wants to get an originalist on the court...and he knows the R's in the Senate will cave like a house of cards once the media turns the heat on and the dems start whining. So, he nominates someone HE knows will be suitable (and his choices thus far have been excellent) and pretty much tells the cowards in the Senate he knows he can't count on them. Did you miss that part of this? The Miers nomination is an acknowledgement that the President can NOT count on the Senate doing the right thing when it comes to a "known" conservative.
Those are two very different issues. Our progress in the WOT is much harder to discern, because much of it necessarily is conducted outside of camera range, so a lot of it comes down to trusting the administration's word. But the Dems' glaring illogic on judicial nominees is not in any degree top secret, nor is it a matter of interpretation. All the Republicans have to do is shine a light on it, and there's absolutely no better opportunity to do so than during a SCOTUS confirmation debate, when public attention is as focused on the Senate as it ever gets outside of an impeachment trial.
They gave up a lot of political currency when they let Roberts slide, on the assumption that the President would nominate a hard core, known conservative for the second slot. The Democrats were ready to filibuster, denigrate, and oppose the second nominee. When the President nominated Miers, who was on Democrats "approved" list of nominees, he took the wind out of their sails.
That's of course given your assumption that she is a solid constitutionalist. But then, why would they be on their "approved" list if she was? And why would Reid continue to have acknowledged the fact that she was his recommendation, if he had reason to suspect that Bush was up to something? He didn't have to do that.
If Democrats don't oppose this nomination, the court will slide slightly to the right with Miers on the bench. This you'll have to accept on faith. Just as I have to accept your word that you are a conservative, and anybody you vouch for as a conservative - so must we accept that the President knows Harriet Miers well enough to vouch for her.
Actually, even though I myself can vouch for the fact that I'm a conservative, you don't "have to" accept it if you don't want to. All that's matters is whether what I'm saying here adds up or not.
And just as you don't have to believe any particular thing about me, likewise no one else has to believe anything in particular about Bush. Trusting politicians is always a perilous road to travel.
Lastly, on the issue of crime prevention, she isn't wrong. Yes, there are those people who seem to be inclined to crime. Unstable psychological profiles that commit murder, steal, rape, and lie. But they are in fact a small minority of the criminals out there. Her philosophy is not incompatible with conservatism, which stresses ownership and independence from government. Government social programs like welfare have only increased the likelihood of criminal behavior by way of their creating a dependence on government, a lack of self-esteem, and the deprivation of hope.
I didn't see anything in there about social programs being in any way responsible for this situation. But beyond that, I would say that she is mostly wrong. The problem is far less a matter of lack of self-esteem than a matter of lack of discipline. In fact, I would say that overweening concern for self-esteem has contributed significantly to the problem, by giving kids the impression that it's not really their fault when they do bad things.
This is an opportunity to show the public the completely illogical nature of the Dems. The Dems insist that people like Brown are "outside the mainstream of American values". All that needs to be demanded of them, by Bush or by some good Republicans in the Senate, is how that's the case when she's less likely than the Dems' preferred nominees to strike down laws democratically enacted by the American people. The Dems would not be able to get out of that. You would witness their self-destruction.
I repeat once again that because Republicans do not hold any real influence with the MSM, that light you want to shine on the hearings will be blue tinted all the way. There is no way you're going to get the truth about the debate over a known conservative nominee out in the public eye until well after people have lost interest. I go back to the similarity to our problem with the medias' biased perception of events in the Middle East and on the War on Terror. We don't control the media. The Democrats control the media.
The understanding of what the Democrats were expecting in a second nominee was an arch conservative. The Democrats presented their A-list of candidates to the President, sprinkling in people like Miers because they wanted to appear to be acting in a bipartisan manner. After all of their calls to the President to consult them so they wouldn't have to filibuster, the President did. They didn't expect him to pick someone from their list, but he did. Imagine the bind that puts on the Democrats to back up a nominee they recommended because they never intended to face her.
Since the President's picks for the courts have so far been good, better, best... I feel comfortable trusting his instincts about Harriet Miers. The President doesn't shoot from the hip when he makes decisions. He's an extremely deliberative person. If he's picked Miers, he's weighed the risks carefully and decided to nominate her.
Trusting politicians is always a perilous road to travel.
As true a sentiment as any. You do seem to be placing more weight on Harry Reid's support of Miers, than on the President. Whereas the President has an honest to God interest in nominating a strict constructionist to the court, Harry Reid has an honest to God interest in defeating any nominee put forth by Bush. Unfortunately for himself, he himself recommended Miers in order to appear bipartisan, on the assumption that she'd never receive the nomination. Having recommended her, he must now look for a way to back out and preserve his connections to his base - which are very upset at him right now. We'll find out during the hearings.
Your own cynicism is acceptable, as long as you are an equal opportunity cynic, but all i ask is that you withdraw any vocal condemnations of Miers until during the confirmation hearings, at which point the answers to your skepticism will be revealed and possibly confirmed, at which point you'll be more than welcome to lord it over. But if it turns out that she holds her own and appears imminently qualified in the hearing, then I hope you join us in blocking the Democrats from blocking her confirmation, or at least sitting out the fight rather than joining with the Dems to destroy her.
And as for her philosophy on criminal behavior and your differing opinion, I think your opinion does not cover the emergence of criminal behavior and how the emergence of criminal behavior has links to self-esteem issues. Self-esteem however is only one factor of many that contributes to the cycle of criminal culture that pervades our cities' slums. The culture of criminal behavior has been glorified, making youth with those very same issues of self-esteem easy targets for recruiting into gangs.
If we're ever going to defeat crime in our country, we're going to have to take a full spectrum approach to removing the current criminals from the streets and positions of influence over our nation's youth. Economic opportunity must start filtering down to the lower echelons of our society, allowing for greater upward mobility, more opportunities for achievement, etc.
Essentially - we need to look at the problems our society faces as a whole and implement what Bush has often referred to as an "ownership" society. It is my belief that an ownership society will be the most effective policy in reducing crime rates, decreasing divorce rates, increasing traditional family values, and promoting entrepreneurialism in our country. Ownership vs. Helplessness. Helplessness is a side effect of low self esteem. The idea that one cannot help oneself. Ownership is empowerment.
Hehehehehe. Good answer.
"...more qualified than Miers" and "(more) solid conservative credential(led) (than) Miers..."
In which case, can you name a few who come to your mind that fit your descriptions that you think Miers does not?
And, what is "more qualified" than Miers, implying Miers is less qualified than (whom) for the S.C.
As to the "solid, conservative credentials," Miers' values and beliefs are about as solid and conservative as they come.
I'm still mystified by the general denigration of Miers as substandard candidate by some because I have yet to read any specifics about her that can support the allegations of her substandard-ness.
As that old saying goes: TURN ABOUT IS FAIR PLAY!!! And the dembos are scared to death...'cause their rule in the courts is fast coming to an end. Thank you, Mr. President.
Excellent comments -- about which (all) I completely agree.
With a tad reservation about Miers' predicted voting as to possibly overturning Roe v. Wade given some future plea to do so. We can only now imagine the possibilities but if/when RvW is proven to be unConstitutional in any context, Miers shouldn't be expected to routinely not allow it to be overturned.
I realize that RvW has been reviewed substantially for Constitutionality, but the possibilities are not exhausted, just saying, it's still arguable, as to possibilities.
Anxious to see what's going to happen when the dust settles and the pigs are back in their pen now that I'm familiar with most of the pros and cons.
(I can still smell the Armor Meatpacking odor that wafted over my neighborhood back in the '30's. :>)
(Or maybe it was Cudahy... scratches head.)
There are ways of getting through the media chokehold, especially now that we have Fox News and various conservative media that reach a lot more people than in the past. If Republicans keep hammering the Dems on their illogical positions, and especially if the President gets involved, there's no way the media would be able to ignore it for long. They may be able to bleep out a few obscure inconvenient comments from a Senator or two, but not when the whole team is pushing the argument.
The Democrats presented their A-list of candidates to the President, sprinkling in people like Miers because they wanted to appear to be acting in a bipartisan manner.
If the Dems have the media in their pocket as much as you say they do, why would it even matter whether or not they want to appear to be bipartisan? All they'd have to do is demand whomever they want. And above all, why did Reid continue to extol her even after she was nominated? If, as you say, he was banking on her not getting nominated, then surely he would have thought he'd been had, once the President nominated his own legal counsel.
As true a sentiment as any. You do seem to be placing more weight on Harry Reid's support of Miers, than on the President.
I don't doubt either man's genuine approval of the nominee, if that's what you're getting at. Given that, it really comes down to two choices: Either Bush is further to the left than he pretends to be, or Reid is further to the right than he pretends to be. The second scenario just doesn't seem all that persuasive to me. We've had Republican control of both political branches for about three years now, and things have continued to slide to the left in a great many areas. But when do things ever slide to the right when Democrats control both branches? Republican SCOTUS appointees, even those appointed by Reagan and Nixon, have veered left or shown themselves to be leftist ab initio, but Democrat SCOTUS appointees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for the right. This leads me to conclude that the natural inclination for a politician is to the left (because that's the inclination that represents more power to the political class), and they have to be constantly drawn back rightward by the voters.
Your own cynicism is acceptable, as long as you are an equal opportunity cynic, but all i ask is that you withdraw any vocal condemnations of Miers until during the confirmation hearings, at which point the answers to your skepticism will be revealed and possibly confirmed, at which point you'll be more than welcome to lord it over.
My only criticisms are based on what I know, not on what I don't know. I don't think it hurts anything to put together whatever I can from the data I have on hand. If more information comes out that changes things, I'll proceed to give that its due. As it stands now, though, I don't mind saying it's unfortunate that a rare opportunity was (or appears so far to have been) wasted to expose the Dems for who they are. Furthermore, I really don't consider it likely that real progress is going to be made, on any front, through any process other than public confrontation of those who stand in the way - i.e., liberals. Since they control so much and are so well connected, they're not going to let it happen through stealth. The only power they really have is keeping the public ignorant, and that's where they have to be fought.
Essentially - we need to look at the problems our society faces as a whole and implement what Bush has often referred to as an "ownership" society. It is my belief that an ownership society will be the most effective policy in reducing crime rates, decreasing divorce rates, increasing traditional family values, and promoting entrepreneurialism in our country.
No argument there from me, but that's not what came across in her piece. Certainly traditional family values didn't seem like a factor at all. I wish there was someplace that has the entire article hosted, but in the meantime, it's worth pointing out that these excerpts are from conservatives trying to support her nomination, so if there was something else in there that would be attractive to conservatives, one would think it would have been highlighted in some way.
Thank you, Congressman Billybob..Good column.
I think the only way to prove my point is for Harriet Miers to do well in her confirmation hearings, and for President Bush to do what he feels is best.
I think we've reached an impasse in our argument where neither of us will agree that the other is using logic. Such as I expect that Harry Reid is pretending to support Miers, and that he is not sincere. It is my belief that his support is the consequence of her inclusion on the approved candidates list, and to reject her would be to invalidate all claims to bipartisanship.
The goal with the list that included Miers was to appear bipartisan, so that when the President selected the "conservative" as his nominee, the Democrats could take the list to the MSM and say, "Look, we tried. The President lied. We're going to filibuster." And that's all you'd hear from the media day in and day out.
Thank you for your excellent article! I'm on Miers' side too.
>>can you name a few who come to your mind that fit your descriptions
Luttig, JRB, Kozinski...
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.