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.
The problem is that Bush is asking us to trust him, but he hasn't earned our trust. In fact, he's proven to conservatives that he can't be trusted. So, because Bush can't be trusted, an unknown is too much of a risk for the Supreme Court. That isn't our fault.
And, just as important, we're not likely to find out a damn thing in the hearings either - song-and-dance charades that they are.
Good Grief....take a chill pill or something.
Your post is ridiculous. You said W does not know Miers. That's just a lie. That is one fact that we know, President Bush does know her.
When you talk about the "smirk"......I figure you are a troll.
Half of them are RINOs, the other half of them gutless, your're dead on.
lol......I responded before reading down the thread.
You had the same comments I did.
The "smirk" comments always tell the true intention of the poster.
I recall that Thomas, during his confirmation period, was considered to be a judicial lightweight. He turned out pretty well.
And trust me, the ACLU isn't getting any more patriotic, so I doubt that those petitioners clamoring for our nation to disarm itself in the GWOT will pipe down anytime soon.
I agree, President Bush has earned the right to nominate anybody he damned well pleases. A good soldier, "Always trusts their sergeant."
Irrelevant. Thomas in fact could have turned out a disaster, but did not. We have zero reason to believe that the elder Bush would have anticipated how brilliant Thomas would turn out to be.
But Thomas did turn out to be brilliant, with wonderfully written opinions (I have read them) and opinions consistent with the Constitution.
It was the Thomas we all knew that W promised to nominate. The man we KNEW to be brilliant in his defense of the constitution.
W has already spoken: "I offer a cypher. I do not grant you the dignity of offering you anything you could possibly know. I don't deal in life that way, I deal in life by fiat."
Uh, Clarence Thomas was a JUDGE, no? Ms. Miers has never been a judge, right? I'd love to hear the logic behind your statement.
MM
It was when the rats brought out anita hill, that put him over the top.
They aren't going to do that this time. They are just going to put misleading tidbits in their mouthpiece(The wash compost,the leahy/burger brouhaha) and let the "true conservatives" do their work for them.
Just for the record Rehnquist was never a judge also.
An appellate judge on the toughest circuit court in the nation for a year.
He was also the single best administrator the EEOC-an agency of which I've never been particularly fond-ever had.
He he also graduated with honors from a (GASP!) Ivy League academic institution.
The people constructing elaborate rationales for the Miers nomination need to wake up and smell the coffee.
Are you nuts? Thomas had been on the bench such a short time there were hardly any writings to judge on and those he had were being called "Souteresque" by conservatives.
You knew no more about Thomas than you do about Miers.
Souterphobia seems to have the right firmly in its grip.
One major difference is that 41 knew little to nothing himself about Souter, but counted instead on Rudman and John Sunnunu, as New Hampshirites familiar with him. 43, on the other hand, has known Ms. Miers personally in a variety of roles for 15 years. He has had the opportunity to hear what she has to say when not under the glare of consideration for the "short list.'
If conservatives believe honesty is doing what's right when no one is looking, perhaps W got a better read on Ms. Miers when she had no idea of the impact of what she was saying. I trust the man's instincts. And, I'm getting mighty tired of movement conservatives jumping on the president and his appointee before she's had a chance to define herself.
Harriet Miers was offered the opportunity to join its ranks, and respectfully declined.
Game, set, match.
Not that it is very relevant or informative, but how do you account for the smirk? Or do you even see it as plainly as it is there?
During his debates with Mondale, my beloved RR looked bewildered at some points, I remember that, yet I never held it against him, despite the fact that I realized it meant he was not as tuned in as would be opportune. An occasionally bewildered RR was vastly superior to Mondale completelt lucid.
W has a smirk. Any rational person would see that it is out of place. My own personal opinion and complete speculation, is that the smirk means he is an unserious person, except as an issue pertains to himself.
"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."
This doesn't make any sense. If "Meirs turns out to be in the mold of Thomas and Scalia," you'll still feel betrayed? And, BTW, of course Pres. Bush knows how Ms. Meirs will "turn out" - he's known her and her thought processes for many years.
Why don't you do the rational thing and be honest, that you are a DUmmie, the only thing you left out and probably will be saying soon is "chimpy".
Well that only makes my point. Dubya knows Miers quite well, and apparently has every reason to believe she will cement his legacy of turning around the judiciary. We have far more reason to believe she will be excellent. First Dubya is very sensitive to the issue and clearly understands that it is a cornerstone of his legacy, as opposed to his dad who didn't seem to care much. Second he has learned from his dad's two biggest mistakes, raising taxes and David Souter, and is determined not to repeat either. Third his appellate court nominees have been outstanding, and the most important person in helping him pick them was Harriet Miers. I see way more reason to believe Miers will be a great justice than we had with Thomas.
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.