We need another one of these guys.
Posted on 10/07/2005 8:51:48 PM PDT by Urbane_Guerilla
Don't you remember the utter let-down when elder Bush broke the fundamental promise he made, "No new taxes"?
The promise was not merely a bow to the Laffer curve, it was an emotional and pyschological statement to the many people in this country who still believe in constitutional goverment, and who knew that taxation was the means to undermine constitutional government, liberty and freedom, to put it another way.
The younger Bush promised a Thomas or Scalia for the same reasons: to tell the believers in constitutional government that supporting him would mean a definitive change in the jurisprudence of this country, jurisprudence which adhered to the basic concepts in our Constitution, not to a sort of current intellectual church of what's happening now.
In both cases, there was an even deeper issue, the issue of integrity. Integrity is the first principle of conservatism. Integrity means an unflinching openness to the facts and faithful adherence to principle.
"No new taxes," "Thomas and Scalia."
Unlike the Left, conservatives usually have the integrity to call out their own, regardless of political cost. The subtle political benefit of integrity is that there are so many people (conservatives) who vote for the politician who is actually honest.
Now, it is not a matter of calling out one of our own. It is a matter of calling out a charlatan, who pretended to be one of our own.
She may turn out to be a justice in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. We just don't know enough yet.
KMA
True - though one could just as easily say that she may turn out not to be.
And therein lies the problem. No one is saying she's bad or she's great -- they're saying, "We have NO way of evaluating this person, one way or the other. She has no record we can review, no great deposit of public commentary to reflect her judicial philosophy, etc."
Not so bad for Congress/Senate, where the person can be voted out in 2 or 6 years. Critically important for someone who is about to get a lifetime appointment. When it comes to the Supreme Court, the president -- and the citizenry -- can't afford a mistake.
She could be the next Scalia -- or the next Souter. WE DON'T KNOW. Do we want to roll the dice when it comes to Supreme Court appointments?
He had even less of a judicial paper trail than MsMiers.
And, for all you know, Harriet Meirs may precisely fit the bill.
I know. I know. The problem is that we don't know, not for sure.
But, so far, President Bush is notable for having done exactly what he has said he would do. There is no evidence that Harriet Meirs isn't more of the same -- the Scalia or Thomas you crave.
I don't like it either. But, based on his history, I'm inclined to trust him. And I can understand why -- given the spineless nature of the GOP's Senate majority -- why he might choose to avoid the fight we're all spoiling for.
In short, if you have to count on John McCain and Lindsay Graham, you're probably going down.
When W made his promise, we knew who Thomas and Scalia were. Their brilliant opinions, their profound understanding of our Constitutional government, were there for all to see.
The betrayal by W has happened now. It does not matter if Miers turns out to be in the mold of Thomas and Scalia. W does not know, and nobody knows, how she will turn out. W is Michael Jackson holding his baby over the railing, and smirking.
The smirk is the elder Bush non-vision thing. Hey, we are dolts! and we defy you! we are rich and privileged! We are Kennebunkport, you are voodoo!
In fact, those vital, urgent decisions are the very ones from which she will have to recuse herself.
That is, if she has even the faintest conception of judicial ethics and propriety.
Don't pay attention to the far right extremists...the same type of people who think the goobers in DU are typical democrats. They've got their crazy uncles and we've got ours.
President Bush has earned the right to nominate anybody he damned well pleases.
He's proven in 5 years, he's got gravitas ...up the whaazooo! ;^)
Clarence Thomas wasn't a Scalia either when George H. ("Read My Lips"} Bush picked him. Conservatives called him a lightweight affirmative action candidate who was only picked because GHB wanted to replace a black justice (Thurgood Marshall) with another black.
And therein lies one (a) the problem.
NO ONE knows...but we would have had a much better idea with a Luttig or Jones.
The GOP has 55 Senators, there is NO REASON Bush couldn't push through Genghis Khan if he wanted to.
Zero leadership.
The smirk is the elder Bush non-vision thing. Hey, we are dolts! and we defy you! we are rich and privileged! We are Kennebunkport, you are voodoo!
Bush knows. He knows Harriett Miers as well as anyone in the entire world.
Your "smirk" comments are DU-type remarks, and really ought to make you ashamed.
But, I doubt they do, as you despise George W. Bush, and it comes through, loud and clear.
And, yes, you are, indeed, a dolt.
She's not who I would have chosen - But I still have great faith in the President's judgement. I hope it is not misplaced.
You have NO idea how she will turn out, and I am wondering why you would post this.
Depending on which the other side is, it will offer excuses and more convoluted logic, or repeat that "we didn't know at the time, did we?" The time we don't know is now!
Read my lips. You don't know what you are talking about. I trust W over this stupid rant.
Perhaps she will recuse herself from judging the constitutionality of these war decisions. These are crucial years in the war on terror and some of those national security court cases will be new and she will be the swing vote for national defense.
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.