Posted on 10/07/2005 5:41:46 AM PDT by linkinpunk
October 7, 2005
Republican Senate Is Weak, Not Bush
By Thomas Sowell
Conservatives who have for years contributed time, money, and sweat to help elect Republicans have often been justifiably outraged at the way the Republicans have then let them down, wimped out, or even openly betrayed the promises on which they were elected.
Much of that frustration and anger is now being directed at President Bush for his nomination of White House counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. Why not someone like Judge Janice Rogers Brown or any of a number of other identifiable judges with a proven history of upholding conservative judicial principles under fire?
Looming in the background is the specter of people like Justice Anthony Kennedy, who went on the High Court with a "conservative" label and then succumbed to the Washington liberal culture. But while the past is undeniable, it is also not predestination.
This administration needs to be held responsible for its own shortcomings but not those of previous Republican administrations.
Rush Limbaugh has aptly called this a nomination made from a position of weakness. But there are different kinds of weakness and sometimes the difference matters.
President Bush has taken on too many tough fights -- Social Security being a classic example -- to be regarded as a man who is personally weak. What is weak is the Republican majority in the Senate.
When it comes to taking on a tough fight with the Senate Democrats over judicial nominations, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist doesn't really have a majority to lead. Before the President nominated anybody, before he even took the oath of office for his second term, Senator Arlen Specter was already warning him not to nominate anyone who would rile up the Senate. Later, Senator John Warner issued a similar warning. It sounded like a familiar Republican strategy of pre-emptive surrender.
Before we can judge how the President played his hand, we have to consider what kind of hand he had to play. It was a weak hand -- and the weakness was in the Republican Senators.
Does this mean that Harriet Miers will not be a good Supreme Court justice if she is confirmed? It is hard to imagine her being worse than Sandra Day O'Connor -- or even as bad.
The very fact that Harriet Miers is a member of an evangelical church suggests that she is not dying to be accepted by the beautiful people, and is unlikely to sell out the Constitution of the United States in order to be the toast of Georgetown cocktail parties or praised in the New York Times. Considering some of the turkeys that Republicans have put on the Supreme Court in the past, she could be a big improvement.
We don't know. But President Bush says he has known Harriet Miers long enough that he feels sure.
For the rest of us, she is a stealth nominee. Not since The Invisible Man has there been so much stealth.
That's not ideal by a long shot. But ideal was probably never in the cards, given the weak sisters among the Republicans' Senate "majority."
There is another aspect of this. The Senate Democrats huffed and puffed when Judge John Roberts was nominated but, in the end, he faced them down and was confirmed by a very comfortable margin.
The Democrats cannot afford to huff and puff and then back down, or be beaten down, again. On the other hand, they cannot let a high-profile conservative get confirmed without putting up a dogfight to satisfy their left-wing special interest groups.
Perhaps that is why some Democrats seem to welcome this stealth nominee. Even if she turns out to vote consistently with Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, the Democrats are off the hook with their base because they can always say that they had no idea and that she stonewalled them at the confirmation hearings.
The bottom line with any Supreme Court justice is how they vote on the issues before the High Court. It would be nice to have someone with ringing rhetoric and dazzling intellectual firepower. But the bottom line is how they vote. If the President is right about Harriet Miers, she may be the best choice he could make under the circumstances.
The Senate idiots vote on the amendment to hamstring our military when interrogating terrorists proves Sowell's point.
Or here in Iowa, Salier would have taken the fight to Harkin and not let up. Ganske just sat there grinning like his morphine drip had just kicked in and got trounced.
With aggressive conservative candidates like Toomey and Salier we could have not just had an "R" majority in the Senate but a Conservative majority.
Why doesn't the GOP-lead Senate debate and vote on the Circuit Court nominees presently on its calendar? Myers and Boyle. ANd what of Kavanaugh, Haynes and Saad? They are in committee, have been since February. Get them to the floor, and vote on the nominations.
If the abuse of cloture ("filibuster") was quashed, and the Constitutionally-correct hurdle of simple majority was restored, the dynamic for choosing SCOTUS nominees would change radically.
So, yes. Let's confirm the appellate nominations. Let's do that now, and then handle the Miers nomination.
Good for you, I have done the same. I can find more productive places to send my $$.
Sounds good. Coulda, shoulda, woulda... let's keep working.
Chief Justice Roberts was selected based on the President's working KNOWLEDGE of John Roberts, Ms. Miers was ALSO selected based on the President's working KNOWLEDGE of her work over their years together.
Why is it so hard for some 'so-called' conservatives to trust a very good man like President Bush and just get over their 'want' for a fight in the Senate, and then get on with supporting OUR President's choice.
Yes, he is. We have long known that the president has been frustrated on many occassions by the 5 or so RINO's in the Senate. The House passed a bill on at least THREE different occassions to repeal the AWB but the Senate would not even take it up.
Time to repeal the 17th Amendment!
George Bush is NO COWARD!!!!!!!!
Yet with only 45 Republican Senators (many of whom were Rockefellar types) he was able to get Scalia confirmed. And with a similar Republican minority, Bush Sr. was able to get Thomas confirmed. Thomas was a battle royal but what is wrong with that? Sometimes you have to fight for what you believe.
Now with 55 Senators some of whom are admittedly RINO the President won't even try to get one of our superbly qualified judges confirmed? That is spineless!
Reagan,Shmeagan! Leave it to you guys to leave the wisdom and brilliance of Sowell and get "wrapped around the axel" on debate points.
I make two political contributions each year. Ron Paul and the NRA.
Me too., Why can't the big name Conservatives figure it out?
Nice article. I have wondered too if Bush has the Republican votes to push through someone like Brown.
I'm gradually coming over to Mier's side on this, with misgivings, since we really don't know her constitutional beliefs.
I must have been channeling Sowell since yesterday evening. I am sure it could not be the other way around.
Exactly. Sowell has been plenty unhappy with Bush before. This column just shows that he thinks even less of the Senate.
Because I view the President - any President, not just W - as my hired help.
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.