Posted on 10/08/2005 1:34:59 PM PDT by beyond the sea
Krauthammer: Withdraw Miers Nomination
http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/10/8/130600.shtml
President Bush should withdraw his nomination of Harrier Miers to fill the Supreme Court seat of retiring justice Sandra Day O'Connor, says Washington Post columnist and Fox News commentator Charles Krauthammer.
In a blistering Post column Friday Krauthammer, normally a strong Bush supporter, wrote that if Miers weren't a Bush crony, "her nomination to the Supreme Court would be a joke, as it would have occurred to no one else to nominate her."
Noting that there are 1,084,504 lawyers in the United States, Krauthammer asked: "What distinguishes Harriet Miers from any of them, other than her connection with the president? To have selected her, when conservative jurisprudence has J. Harvey Wilkinson, Michael Luttig, Michael McConnell and at least a dozen others on a bench deeper than that of the New York Yankees, is scandalous."
The columnist called the fact that Miers has been chosen by a conservative president "particularly dismaying. For half a century, liberals have corrupted the courts by turning them into an instrument of radical social change on questions – school prayer, abortion, busing, the death penalty – that properly belong to the elected branches of government. Conservatives have opposed this arrogation of the legislative role and called for restoration of the purely interpretive role of the court. To nominate someone whose adult life reveals no record of even participation in debates about constitutional interpretation is an insult to the institution and to that vision of the institution."
Krauthammer predicted that Miers will "surely shine in her Judiciary Committee hearings," but explained that she will do so "only because expectations have been set so low. If she can give a fairly good facsimile of John Roberts's testimony, she'll be considered a surprisingly good witness. But what does she bring to the bench?"
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
I agree with Charles. Bush's selection is pathetic. I wanted Chuck's head to explode when questioning J. R. Brown.
I'm not betting on it. It's 99.6% wishful thinking at this point.
OK OK........yes, you should have....LOL. :)
I retract my sarcasm accordingly, friend.
deserves repeating
So was I but just once. lol
See post 95 for more info on Krauthammer. I was surprised.
Yeah, I was awake for that civics class.
But that doesn't answer the question. Why move her to the federal Bench if Bush is quaking in his boots because of this constitutional crusader. He could have left her in California where her billiant decisions wouldn't need to be overturned by the Supreme AntiConstitutionalists.
Send them to bed without their milk and cookies.
As I recall, Krauthammer is--much like Bork--a would-be gun-grabber.
Thus, on constitutional questions, he starts out with an 0-1 count in my book.
Here's what I posted on another thread that may have relevence...
Well, actually, what many are probably witnessing is akin to the judicious and necessary pruning of a tree by a professional horticulturist.
When a tree is but a sapling, you have to let it grow, flesh itself out, so to speak. But as it get olders, branches start dragging the ground and going off in all sorts of directions which takes away sap from the formation of new growth necessary for the tree to do what trees are supposed to do; go up and fill out along the way.
The only way to achieve that is to judiciously and precisely prune away the debilitating foliage. Of course, at the conclusion of the pruning, the tree is smaller, doesn't block out the sun as well, and just looks bad.
However, over time (if done correctly), pruning causes a deeper root structure which leads to a far healthier, longer living tree, with stronger branches and a far larger ability to withstand those forces which seek to uproot it.
GWB is many things...dumb isn't one of them; even his enemies concede that point. The opportunity has presented itself to prune away no-longer-useful branches. Those who have aligned themselves with him and his "vision" out of expediency or because they thought he would be the vehicle by which they could achieve their own agenda are being induced to show themselves for what they have always been; an asset at times which helped the sapling become a young tree to be sure, but now that the tree is strong, healthy and vibrant, they are un-necessary and, at times, debilitating foliage.
The tree has become large enough to sustain itself without them. But in order to both sustain itself AND grow deeper roots for the long term, this pruning has to occur. There will undoubtedly be defections from his camp (some have already occurred) and some of them may go on to become his most vocal critics.
However, like the branches that are pruned away and discarded, for a time, those folks who do jump ship and become his most vocal detractors will remain "green" for a time, before they no longer can sustain themselves and their influence and prestige will wither away and have literally zero effect on the overall health of the tree. Meanwhile, the tree will grow stronger and become deeper entrenched; only they won't be a part of it.
As I said, even GWB's most virulent political enemies concede that he isn't a dumb guy nor is Rove, Chenney, Rice or anybody else involved in the senior leadership roles.
Now whether or not one agrees with this SCOTUS pick, I think, is just a scene from a rather larger play the ending of which, none of us can see; because we're not the screen writers of this particular one. The initial pruning began with the Reagan Revolution (the country-clubbers were put on notice), the second pruning took place in the '94 congressional takeover. This is the third pruning.
The question is, why has this issue (SCOTUS pick) been chosen as the vehicle to begin the pruning process? I'm afraid I can't answer that one other than to say it seems the most likely vehicle by which the "debilitating foliage" would best reveal itself.
But I can tell you what I will watch....the self-destruction of those branches who attempted to make the tree conform to their expectations rather than understand that they are but a small part of the larger role of the tree.
For the record, while there is well earned criticism of the nomination process, I will withhold my decision on whether or not this SCOTUS pick is a good one until after the hearings are concluded.
I'm sure that there are more than a few FReepers that will probably get real angry with this train of thought but that'll be ok, too. If my thesis is correct, the tree will enjoy a long life and grow much bigger with a far more entrenched root system; even if some of the most beautiful, finely formed leaves the tree ever had lived on the branches that are now gone.
Thank God a national commentator with Krauthammer's credentials has called for the withdraw of this lame nomination.
President Bush, please withdraw this pathetic nomination and choose an originalist that was on the short list.
He just nominated a conservative with steling academic credentials. Named Roberts, just confirmed as
Chief Justice.
Today, a conservative who likes to write provacative things, like Bork or Brown, cannot be confirmed.
Named by whom? I despise people who use the passive tense. Who named her one of the top 100 lawyers in the countries, Bush?
Yes but a partisan hack can play to a portion of his party if it 'looks' as if he's doing something doesn't it? Put her in a position of semi-power and appease the conservatives (the Reagan libertarians that are becoming fewer by the day) left in the Republican party. But in effect any decision she makes can be reviewed by SCOTUS.
But didn't you know?
He's no supporter. He's just another unappeasable whining liberal.
Therefore
You sir, are a Democrat lurker...put a sock in it.
This thread has been too much fun today! :)
Charles Krauhammer is an MSM insider. He draws his paychecks from the WP.
Krauthammer was first hired by the MSM, The New Republic, after being speech writer for Mondale. This relationship of leftwingers with their Democrat connections being hired by the MSM is a form of cronyism that hs wrecked this country.
With all the good writers in this country, why would anybody hire a Mondale speech writer, Krauthammer, except for reasons of Democrat cronyism. Does anybody remember Mondull's speeches? Some really great speeches huh? We've got to hire the guy who wrote them, huh?.zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Crony...
Some of this logic (and I'm stretching that term to be kind) that individuals here are using...is downright scary and eerily reminiscent of the left. (again, "sexist and elitist")
Very Well Said!
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.