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.
True, but I think he sees a fruitcake every morning when he shaves.
Bahahaha!! Can I use that for my new tagline?
Oops it's already there somehow.....how did that happen?
My tagline is stating that I am outraged at the global welfare by the president while we scale back military weapon platforms. I am outraged at the president's fixation on global welfare while we are nearing $8 trillion in debt and the administration claims we can't afford to police the border.
I am outraged we are giving $15 billion to Africa to maintain their bad sex practices but the USA can't afford to have flu vaccines for Americans.
You have an arguement with that??????????????
Yadda, yadda, yadda.
. . . and you have no answer!
Roberts wasn't qualified either, according to him. There's no use wasting time. He's long gone.
Pat, you are a loser so just shut the heck up.
Now is exactly the time to rally around our President.
Why are you giving the dims their talking points? (I realize you are but the messenger.)
LOL!
Lets be sure the Dems and the disloyal Conservative GOP reads this:
"no distinction between those who commit acts of terror and those who support and harbour them because they are equally guilty of murder."
We have you locked in on our radar,Scum.
Howlin,
You're on a roll! You go girl!
Boy to talk about nailing it!
Friends, I don't mean to pile it on... that is not my style but I am extremely dissapointed, almust "hurt," with presidents choice and the whole thing (I don't like the choice and the whole way it was done). I am begining to hope she will recuse herself to avoid further damage to the president. She should. And to all those who think this story/issue will go away... don't count on it. I don't want to argue, I respect your views, you have as much right to be passionate on your views, as I with mine. Everybody should have the right to express their views within the rules of this forum. Would not be absurd in everyone here had accepted this as the BEST! possible choice, and we were all similing and singing like "cheer leaders," :) Would not that be creepy? Yeaacchhh... Luckily we are not... our views differ and yet I can be civil to one another.
Now that you mentioned the flu, it didn't escape my notice how eager Bush is to trample Posse Comitatus using a flu epidemic as an excuse. Wonder how Justice Miers would rule in a case challenging Bush's use of the military in such a contingency? I think Bush is nominating Miers for reasons that have NOTHING to do with constitutionalism or conservatism.
I want Buchanan to shut up because he's a loser who left the Republican Party to advance his own ambitions for a second unsuccessful run for the WH...after his hate filled rhetoric against Bush 41 helped give us the "Clinton era".
How many times does this fool need to be told Americans do not want him?
Buchanan is an embarrassment not only to himself, but to the conservative movement. I don't want his self-serving idiotic rants associated with the Republican Party.
Clear enough for you?
And I'm not even thrilled with the Miers nomination, for heaven's sake. But I find it preposterous that limp-wristed Republican Senators are now going to be asked to stand up to a Republican president on a nomination like this when they've never had the b@lls to do it when a Democrat was in the White House.
Why are you pretending to be a conservative? Why not simply acknowledge that there's nothing Bush can do, or not do, that you wouldn't defend against all criticism or assertion of principle?
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.