Posted on 10/06/2005 3:32:08 PM PDT by Map Kernow
“Sometimes, party loyalty asks too much,” said JFK.
In asking conservatives to support Harriet Miers, prior to full Judiciary Committee hearings, George W. Bush asks too much.
Trust me, Bush is saying. Trust but verify, they should reply.
For as of today there is no evidence Harriet Miers possesses the judicial philosophy, strength of intellect, firmness of conviction or deep understanding of the gravity of the matters on which her vote would be decisive to be confirmed as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.
If she does not exhibit these qualities in testimony before the Judiciary Committee, Harriet Miers should be rejected. That she is a woman, a good lawyer, a trusted friend of the Bush family, a born-again Republican and Evangelical Christian is not enough. That Dr. James Dobson has been secretly assured by Karl Rove she is pro-life is not enough. After all, we have a president who professes to be “pro-life,” yet cannot bring himself to say that Roe v. Wade was an abomination he hopes will go the way of Dred Scott.
Because of the immense damage the Supreme Court has done to our society over fifty years, seizing upon and dictating on issues beyond its constitutional province, imposing a social revolution from above, tearing our country apart over race, religion and morality, conservatives cannot take any more risks. We are too close, now, to the promised land.
After Nixon named Blackmun, Ford named Stevens, Reagan gave us the malleable O’Connor and Tony Kennedy and Bush’s father gave us that textbook turncoat Souter, presidential assurances are not enough. We must hear from Harriet Miers herself of her judicial philosophy and views of what the court has done and should do.
Why did Bush do it? Is he unaware of the history or savagery of this struggle? Does he not understand the cruciality of this one court appointment to conservatives who vaulted him to the nomination over McCain and gave him the presidency twice? Does he not care?
Since the Goldwater and Nixon campaigns of the 1960s, a great philosophical struggle over the Supreme Court has been waged. In that 40-years war, jurists like Clement Haynesworth and Robert Bork have been pilloried, smeared and rejected by a liberal Senate that realizes the stakes. Others like Clarence Thomas have survived brutal scourgings. Brilliant young lawyers and aspiring judges like Miguel Estrada have even been denied a vote for the appellate court because of liberal fears they may have the stuff of another Scalia.
Yet now we are told by the White House Harriet Miers is an ideal candidate because she “has no paper trial.” But what does that mean, other than that Miers has never declared herself with courage and conviction on any of the great issues from 1965 to 2005.
This is now a qualification for the U.S. Supreme Court? To have been AWOL in the great social and moral conflicts of her time? This is like saying the ideal candidate to sit on the Joint Chiefs of Staff is an officer who has never seen combat or suffered a wound.
There are today third-generation conservatives who have bravely defended their beliefs in hostile law schools, clerked for Supreme Court justices, paid their dues in the White House or the Department of Justice, joined the Federalist Society, advanced by excellence and merit to federal judgeships. The message of the Miers appointment to this generation is: You made a mistake. You left a “paper trail.” Is this the message we want to send to the next generation: Don’t let anybody know where you stand on gay rights, affirmative action, or Roe v. Wade?
Is this what the conservatism has come to? By the standard of “no paper trail,” we would never have nominated Scalia or Bork, or Ronald Reagan, who, with his thousands of radio and TV commentaries, had the longest paper trail in American history.
In claiming Miers is the most qualified person he knows to fill the seat of Sandra Day O’Connor, President Bush tells us more about himself than her. If she is truly that qualified, why did he hide this extraordinary talent in the paper-shuffling job of White House staff secretary? Why was she not named White House Counsel instead of Gonzales? Why was she not nominated to the U.S. Appellate Court for the District of Columbia to give her judicial experience? If she is that good, why did Bush pass her over for John Roberts?
Twenty-four hours after he picked his personal lawyer for the Supreme Court, George Bush was in the Rose Garden trying to put out the firestorm he had ignited in his own base camp. How’s that for political brilliance?
His aides are now demanding that Republican Senators and conservatives rally around their president. They should not. They should tell the president, respectfully, that, though he went with Harry Reid, they will stay with their convictions.
It’s stand up time again, as in the days of old.
LOL...Just wish I could throw a towel over their cage
There was PLENTY of outrage. Enough to help give people like Gingrich the hand they needed to turn out the base to vote in a Republican Congress end of 1994. You know, the same base that's going to stay home in 2006 and take Congress away from Republicans if the Republicans don't straighten up and fly right.
Maybe Bush should nominate Condi for the SC and Buchanan as Secretary of State to patch things up?
So, what else is new? I'd vote for re election of bush today in a heartbeat. I wouldn't give spit for re election of anyone in the senate, including the GOP
Congress is staying right where it is ....calm down and take big deep breaths
There wasn't the slightest bit of outrage over Ginsburg. On that contrary, even now it's assumed that the lunatic is perfectly "qualified" to interpret just about anything.
And, of course, that was much less important. Why? The left knows that if Miers is a conservative Roe V. Wade is in deep trouble.
And? We get the infilitrators who've been waiting for this moment for a very long time.
BUMP
BTW, ignore the flames from the usual bunch. They mean well and they are good people, but they have one very serious fault--party politics is more important to them than leadership from the White House, and party politcs is more important to them than direction this nation is headed, and party politics is more important to them than the future of this nation for our descendants.
Miers should withdraw herself as she is unfit compared to some very highly qualified justices, or Bush should withdraw her name as playing crony rewards is not why we fought for Bush to get elected.
You are 100% correct for true conservatves (even if you are 100% wrong in the eyes of party cheerleaders).
There's no need for him to play his hand now (again, the poker analogy). Luttig or Brown will never be confirmed NOW thanks to the Democrats and their gutless enabling RINOs in the Senate. But after Meirs is confirmed, it's more likely that one of them WILL be confirmed if another SCOUTS opening occurs.
Don't blame conservatives. John McCain, Olympia Snow etc. would never trigger the nuclear option. I think President Bush
had to settle for this choice because there are not enough
conservatives on the Republican side.
There has even been some of that. Can you imagine how President Bush and Miss Miers feel with all of this backstabbing by our own?????
-no evidence Harriet Miers possesses the judicial philosophy, strength of intellect, firmness of conviction or deep understanding of the gravity of the matters-
Sorry, folks, but WE claim to understand these things. Why do we assume Harriet Miers can't or doesn't?
I'm so sick of this garbage that I'm about ready to turn off FR in addition to the media, Fox included.
He worked at the White House, but never got a promotion to any policy making position.
Lifetime envy.
Please. If you've got a beef with Buchanan's points, make them. Don't play this childish game every Bush 'zoid uses against every conservative critic of Bush, that the critic's a disappointed office seeker, or dying of envy. I'm quite sure that Buchanan and quite a few others who were laboring in the vineyards when GW was still applying to Business School are GLAD that they're not "on board the Titanic" of the Bush Administration these days.
I forgot to add, pat buchanan is a LOSER of major proportions.
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.