Posted on 10/07/2005 5:41:46 AM PDT by linkinpunk
Hasn't our majority been growing though -- slowly, of course. It might be a better use of resources (considering the inherent advantage of any incumbent to be re-elected) to concentrate on getting real conservatives into Dem or empty seats until the RINO's one by one die off. Not a heroic strategy, and I'm by no means expert, but I think it's at least a defensible approach.
Do you have any reasons for thinking so? Remember, O'Connor has offered to stay until a replacement is confirmed, so there won't be any discernible pressure on Dems to replace her.
I'm ok with Miers mainly because the immediate effect will be to rid the court of the influence of O'Connor; especially in light of the accepted cases already set on the table.
The following piece represents one view of the menu, will it be appetizer, or main course?
New Supreme Court needs new First Amendment direction
President Woodrow Wilson's nomination of Louis D. Brandeis to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1916 provoked rather agitated responses from some quarters.
Calling the nomination "utterly indefensible and outrageous" and the nominee "a radical of the radicals," the Los Angeles Times wrote in a Jan. 30 editorial, "A shout of rejoicing over his appointment has gone up from every dynamiter and hell-raiser in the land. His nomination is an obvious appeal by the President for the political support of the Socialists, Gompersites, law-defying labor unions bosses, corporation baiters, wreckers of business and all the discontented and dangerous elements of the population."
The Times' reservations notwithstanding, Brandeis went on to confirmation and a distinguished career on the Court.
Today, we have a new Supreme Court for the first time since 1994. John Roberts took his seat as the nation's 17th chief justice on Oct. 3 when the Court began its 2005-06 term. On that same day, President Bush announced the nomination of White House counsel Harriet Miers to replace Sandra Day O'Connor. And although commentary is intense, it tends to be more measured — if not less hostile — than that which greeted Brandeis.
Then and now, there is ample proof that Americans do take Supreme Court nominations seriously. With good reason.
Sooner or later, the nation's most vexing disagreements over our most vital issues wind up before the Supreme Court. None quite penetrates to the core of our democratic being more than those involving First Amendment rights and values.
Each term, the nine justices must grapple with profound questions involving freedom of speech, freedom of thought and freedom to participate in political discourse: Just how free is freedom of speech?
What is the role of religion in public life? Does national security trump the public's right to know?
During the Court's last three terms, the First Amendment has not fared well. The high court has accepted for review far fewer free-expression-related cases than usual and it has been unusually stingy in recognizing First Amendment claims. In only two of the 15 decisions rendered in free-expression cases did the Court sustain those claims.
How the First Amendment will fare in the future depends on how Chief Justice John Roberts differs from his predecessor, William Rehnquist, and how Miers, if confirmed, differs from O'Connor.
During his 33 years on the Court as an associate justice and chief justice, Rehnquist consistently voted against free-speech and free-press claims. O'Connor, however, played a pivotal role during her time as justice, frequently casting the decisive fifth vote in religion cases and occasionally in expression cases.
The justices over the next 12 months will hear arguments, review briefs and render opinions in several cases that have direct bearing on whether we have full or constricted freedoms when we wish to play a role in the crucial political, cultural or religious issues that confront us.
In five cases, the Court will once more take up the question of whether state laws regulating campaign contributions and expenditures pose an unconstitutional threat to political expression: Is money speech?
The issues of compelled speech and government funding of speech are raised in another case. A coalition of university law schools — which object to the military's ban against acknowledged homosexuals — contends that requiring them to allow military recruiters on campus violates their rights.
Another case tests the limits of the free exercise of religion. The justices will decide whether the federal government can prohibit a small group of followers of a Brazilian religious sect in New Mexico from importing a banned substance, a hallucinogenic tea, for use in its ceremonies.
In a case involving anti-abortion protests appearing before the Court for the third time since 1986, the justices' ruling could affect protest and picketing rights and practices.
And a Los Angeles deputy district attorney wants the Court to declare that his free-speech rights were violated when he was disciplined for informing a defense attorney about ethical problems in a pending case.
The confirmation process for Miers should be complete by the end of the year. At present, chances seem good that she will be confirmed. Since 1789, the Senate has rejected only 34 of 155 nominations to the Supreme Court.
Not much is known about Roberts' views on these issues; even less about Miers'. First Amendment advocates, of course, hope they set the new Court on a new course as far as free expression is concerned. In that regard, Justice Brandeis set a great example as a First Amendment champion during his 23 years on the Supreme Court.
"Those who won our independence," he wrote in 1927, "believed liberty to be the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth."
The cause of liberty would be better served if this Court's future rulings transcend individual temperament and ideology to embrace the freedom for speech and the tolerance for belief that define a vital democracy.
Paul K. McMasters is First Amendment ombudsman at the First Amendment Center, 1101 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Va. 22209 or www.firstamendmentcenter.org. E-mail: pmcmasters@fac.org.
Assuming your memory is better than mine, did either of them have anyone like McCain working to undermine him and showcase himself?
Actually it had. It's just that those issues hadn't become the liberal Holy Grail. Ted Kennedy was anti-abortion (or so he said and ran) until after Roe.
“.. but I don't believe a Dem filibuster could keep Owen or Rogers-Brown from replacing O'Connor”
Filibuster, I am not sure there would even be 51 votes for those, given that there are about five liberal Republicans that might vote against a known conservative.
nutmeg: pinging for your interest
I find this column pretty much on-target. The main problem is the "RINO 7" in the Senate and Spectre, McVain trying to control the nominating process. Bush cannot control them and trying to punish them could very easily backfire. Bush has no way to replace THEM now (yes, I too fervently wish he had tried to unseat Spectre last year, but nothing can be done about that now). Maybe Bush could have rammed through a high-profile nominee, maybe not, but he may be better placed to read "what's possible" than any of us..... I do think that if conservatives blow up the Miers nomination it will not lead to a better outcome -- the 'Rats will just enjoy the spectacle of Republican infighting and then they will filibuster the next nominee if it's someone more pleasing to conservatives. Maybe it will end up in the Senate "going nuclear" (i.e., constitutional) but I don't think anyone can count on the RINOs for very much.....
"George Bush is NO COWARD!!!!!!" - mariabush
Really? Why didn't he veto McCain-Feingold? Why hasn't he vetoed spending bills?
And what's this utter crap about Reagan deserting our Marines?
One need only read this thread, as well as most others here at FR, to see just how effective they have been.
It's getting real old, real fast.
Thank you Mr. Sowell.
God Bless PRESIDENT Bush!
Yes, it sounded like pre-emptive surrender because it was.
What Dr. Sowell is saying is that the GOP leadership is too weak to enforce any kind of party discipline. That is especially annoying in the case of Arlen Specter, considering how the president went to bat for him in the primaries.
. . . 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.
It is a mistake to let the Democrats off the hook this way. The GOP should force them to take a stand on controversial issues. Unless there is a political price to pay for opposing the president, the Democrats and their RINO allies will continue their obstructionist tactics.
Nope. Reagan had a majority in the Senate from 1981-1986 and (having made a campaign promise to name a woman) he wasted one of the two nominations he had while he had the majority on O'Connor. Then after the Dems regained the majority in the Senate, he named Bork - and we ended up with Justice Kennedy.Bush 41 never had a majority in the Senate, and he managed to get one conservative justice out of two tries. We don't want another failed nominee, like Bork or Nixon nominee Carsworth, whose defeat let to the selection of Blackmun - author of Roe.
"Bush helped out every RINO that he could. He shares some of the blame for a weak Senate."
An ongoing weakness of Bush!
I am basically a Savage kind of guy; "Borders, language, culture."
And, less government, less spending, less intrusion...
(A little bit libertarion, but not extreme.)
End Dept of Education, PBS, EPA...
I believe my Asthma is caused by MTBE. Is Ethanol any better?!
Hopefully not on all or even most other issues.
I wish this nomination was the only beef I had with him.
Ditto. Miers would not have been choice either, but the die is cast. Mr. Sowell makes the same point I make. There is no way Miers can be as bad as the five lib judges currently on the court. Which makes me as smart as Tom Sowell...yeah, I wish (ha,ha,).
"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."
That all very nice but due to the feckless behavior of the pubbie 'majority' the rats have played the fillibuster card.
Frist and the Senate pubbies have done NOTHING about.
THIS IS THE POLITICAL REALITY BUSH HAS TO DEAL WITH.
IMO Sowell is the wisest of the conservative pundits. He is exactly right in the case he presents in this article.
I devour anything written by Sowell. I challenge anyone to add just one word to, or to subtract just one word from his writing without ruining it. It can't be done. The man is simply brilliant.
I can still blame Bush (and Santorum) for supporting Specter over Toomey.
Supporting Specter was a horrible decision. Toomey would have easily beat Hoeffel, who was UNELECTABLE.
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.