READ MY LIPS: THOMAS AND SCALIA

Me | 10-7-02 | Me

[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.

[ladyinred]

It does seem they want the GOP to fail as you said. I am wondering what the heck is going on here. They seem to be feeding off each other, as no one will confess that they know much about her. Since they don't , where is this coming from? How did they all get so convinced she is some liberal in conservative clothing? They can't possibly know that Howlin, so what is this all about? I am really getting sick of this. (not that they care! :-) )

[TheDon]

Don't bother. Just another drama queen....
< sarcasm >
I never knew there were so many conservative drama queens.
< /sarcasm >

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

No, the stink is about her lack of credentials, her inability to state clearly and unequivocally where she stands on a number of vital legal issues, and her age, which lends credence to the theory that President Bush has no intention of reversing the decades of damage inflicted upon this society by the Warren Court and its successors.

BTW, I know lots of extraordinarily left-wing Christians.

[Howlin]

This was not an intellectual decision by Bush and his advisors

Proof?

[TheForceOfOne]

Some of the stink is hand wringing conservatives with no sign of steel in their belly to hear this nominee before lynching her. The rest of the stink is due to Moonbats and Rats seeking opportunity to cause havoc where they see weakness or division in the ranks.

Look closely and you can tell the difference.

[McGavin999]

I am really getting sick of this. (not that they care! :-) )

They'll care when their book sales cut in half. They'll care when their speaking fees drop because nobody wants to hear them anymore.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

You might very well go broke by being intellectually honest, but I doubt that will happen in this case.

[Blowtorch]

Well, you're already doing that, so you're way ahead of your game plan, aren't you?

I was repeating the phrase you used in your post as an example scenario.

I am uncomfortable about the stealth pick-because that's what it is-because there were better and choices that Bush could have made that were known quantities. Do you really think she was the best pick GW could have made? Were there not more qualified picks with top-notch credentials? The fact is Bush can and did name his pick, within his constitutional right. But as I said in post 112, it seems that barring a major screw-up, she'll be confirmed. All will have to wait to see if GWB's choice benefits the court in the way conservatives have hoped.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

No, I haven't noticed.

That might be because he hasn't been waffling and backtracking on this particular issue.

[KingKongCobra]

I listen to Rush. A lot of people heard what they wanted to hear at first. Rush was saying "here is why people are upset" and then he'd lay it out. The upset people thought they heard Rush agreeing with them when all he ever said of his own opinion was that the pick came from a "position of weakness". Rush never said anything to indicate that he didn't think Harriet would be a good judge. Like most of us, he won't make that determination until the hearings.

[Howlin]

This is the same old malcontents and unappeasables we've put up with for years on FR; most of them never even considered voting for Bush in 1999; their thinking is that this is their chance to retake the party; you see, if Bush and the GOP fails, they honestly believe we will turn to them to save them. They want that old Conservative Coaliton back in charge, my friend.

They want to teach the GOP a lesson and are more than willing to trash any and all comers, up to and including helping the Democrats win; a lot of them LOVE that idea.

They're willing to drive the GOP into the ground to prove they're right.

[BigSkyFreeper]

You calling Ratzinger a crony? That's a stretch.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

Sinkspur is the one who broached the Ratzinger analogy, not me.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Those who are calling for Miers to step down, or for Bush to withdraw her nomination are, indeed, dolts.

Those who are calling for Miers to step down, or for Bush to withdraw her nomination, have never even met Miers.

[McGavin999]

Well....as with the hearings, let's just wait and see.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

I'm waiting...anxiously.

[JerseyHighlander]

President Bush consulted 80 Senators prior to making this announcement.

This was a decision made on Bush's faith on her intellect balanced against his collective discussions with Senators on who could pass nomination.

Pure unadulterated power politics. Including the appeal to religiosity by the President and his consultants and media proxies.

And everything that goes along with this argument has already been posted numerous times here.

[TheForceOfOne]

There is more than one piece to the puzzle, Thomas Sowell wrote an interesting article today.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1498234/posts


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 preemptive 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.

[MadIvan]

Brilliant and well said.

Regards, Ivan

[bkepley]

When did Bush say he was "one of [your] own"? Whatever that is. A crybaby maybe? I hope I voted for someone who's his own man and can make his own mistakes and have his own successes but always does what he believes is right. What you wanted I guess was a Bushbot.