Posted on 10/09/2005 11:10:37 AM PDT by quidnunc
From the reaction of many conservative commentators, you'd think George Bush nominated not Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court but Teddy Kennedy, Dick Durbin or Chuck Schumer.
Or serial killer Ted Bundy.
George Will, supposedly the qui vive of all things conservative, ripped the president for, among other things, asking the American people to "trust him" that he knows Ms. Miers possesses a constitutionally conservative heart.
-snip-
What should be most embarrassing for conservatives is not that President Bush nominated a relative dark horse who happens to be a trusted adviser whom he thinks has fealty to the Constitution — as if that's something to start wringing one's hands over. No, what should trouble conservatives is that so many of conservatism's leading commentators rushed so immediately and vociferously to condemn a pick they know virtually nothing about.
Miers isn't one of the stars in the Federalist Society's able stable. She seldom, if ever, appeared on conservative journals' short lists. She doesn't wear blue tights with a red cape and an oversized block "C" on her chest. She can't be good, she simply can't be, many conservatives are wailing.
Suddenly, conservative commentators are demanding answers to questions that they would have a conniption over were the inquisitor a liberal. Among them, Cal Thomas, who recounts a 1993 Miers effort to get the ABA to reverse its official stand in favor of abortion on demand.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at pittsburghlive.com ...
From Washington, James Taranto reports: "Having spent last evening communing here with some 1,000 conservatives at National Review's 50th anniversary dinner, we see a political disaster in the making." He may be right. He's very smart. And he's there.
But having reviewed the increasingly personal, nasty and ill tempered criticism of Harriet Miers (including that of Charles Krauthammer, who ridiculed the nomination as "a joke" — and worse), I see another disaster in the making of quite a different kind: I see a likely intense alienation of a Supreme Court justice from the movement conservatives, thereby fostering drift by that justice away from conservative values generally.
Personal feelings matter. The liberals who so savagely and personally attacked Clarence Thomas did the conservative movement a great favor: They sealed off any reasonable chance that Justice Thomas might be led to views more like those of his critics through the back door of personal relationships. Those doors can accommodate much traffic. Justice Brennan, for example (whose credentials at the time of his appointment certainly did not tower over those of Ms. Miers) became one of the most influential people who ever served on that Court largely by the artifice of personal charm. Harry Blackmun had retreated from many conservative values through those back doors, once he was offered shelter on the other side from the increasingly personal and hostile critics of his Roe v. Wade decision. But Justice Thomas' critics made sure that he would never make that trip. Thank you, movement liberals, for making quite sure that Clarence Thomas was immune to personal charm of the Brennan variety from the first day he first put on those robes.
Is it really going to be a good thing for conservatives to have a new Supreme Court justice who feels that she only made her way onto the Court by opposing conservatives, and that the Democrats and liberals were really not all that bad? Do conservatives really want to start Ms. Miers down the Blackmun-trod path before she even writes a single decision?
Is that what Mr. Krauthammer wants? More generally, does Mr. Krauthammer and his ilk really live on this earth? You wouldn't know it by me.
Critics of the Miers nomination have a perfect right to speak their minds. But they would do themselves, the conservative movement and the nation a big favor by toning down the tenor and personal nature of the attacks.
-snip-
(Robert Musil in Man Without Qualities, October 08, 2005)
To Read This Article Click Here
This man has no concept of how hard TRUE conservatives have worked to elect individuals who are a known quality, a paper trail to prove. Then GW comes up with this "have faith in me" candidate. Let's see - we had faith that we would find WMDs or that Putin was a good guy & we could deal with him & of course Islam is a religion of peace, not to see that POS Bubba grandstanding on government time. GW has finally appeased the left one time too many & he has lost much credibility with many I associate with. 2008 looks like a frik'in RAT president. All because many wouldn't hold GW to true conservative principles.
This man has no concept of how hard TRUE conservatives have worked to elect individuals who are a known quality, a paper trail to prove. Then GW comes up with this "have faith in me" candidate. Let's see - we had faith that we would find WMDs or that Putin was a good guy & we could deal with him & of course Islam is a religion of peace, not to see that POS Bubba grandstanding on government time. GW has finally appeased the left one time too many & he has lost much credibility with many I associate with. 2008 looks like a frik'in RAT president. All because many wouldn't hold GW to true conservative principles.
I'm one who questions the Miers nomination, particularly the strategy of not confronting the Democrats. But I agree that personal criticism of her should cease.
Blackmun may not be a good example, though. Anyone who rendered a ruling as utterly appalling and lacking in constitutional basis as Roe is unlikely to be anyone we could bring over to the right side with tea and candy. Besides, it would be like trying to outbid Democrats in a spending war. Blackmun had an ego that was as big as his mental capacity was small. What could conservatives have possibly offered him to placate his psychological need for praise? During his tenure, the left controlled the media, the law schools, the law journals, and the inside-the-beltway establishment. I doubt Blackmun would have given up being praised by the New York Times and invited to speak at Harvard in return for some letters of support from average folks in Nebraska.
Let's face it, Blackmun was simply a wicked man.
First mention I've seen (fwtw) of the Federalist Society.
While its true he couldn't have known he'd get two picks this close together, I suspect that when it happened, GWB 'n company saw this as an opportunity to both shape the court as he wanted AND prune away the dead wood.
This may have been what he meant by referring to Meirs as "the most qualified"...she certainly didn't have the written record that a lot of others did, but I doubt if anyone was more situated to bring out the howling dog pack within his own ranks like she was.
Again, if this is true, we may be witnessing the kind of "strategery" seldom seen by a sitting president.
Misunderestimated....again...lol. Whether you like GWB or hate him, you have to hand it to him for pure balls, if this is indeed, the strategy.
He'll weather the storm from the base. The "true believers" will stay, as they always do. The dissenters will have a choice...stay or "go away we won't miss you". After all, where would they go?
As far as the Dem/Libs are concerned, he's left them scratching their collective heads. They (at the moment) have no clue.
So in one fell swoop, he'll get his court picks, render impotent the dissent within his own ranks and decapitate the ability of the Dem/Libs to effectively oppose him.
Wow...helluva logic train if it's accurate.
They're not "going to be wrong" as they are already correct. Miers is not from the Federalist mold that we have been working towards and fighting for lo these many, many years.
No matter how she "turns out," she is less than we thought we were working for -- and far, far less than our Constitution deserves.
Can we make the best of her? Sure... but it will be a long time before I give up as many leisure hours or open my wallet until it hurts because I understand how many decades it might be before we finally get the court reform we need. I also understand that Miers, and to a lesser degree, Roberts, are missed opportunities that we will all pay for.
The problem with your logic is that, in this case, the true believers and the dissenters were from the same base. I've been a loyal supporter and defender of him at every turn, but I can't defend this appointment.
You can survive a fight with your friends, but if you split your base... well, just look at what's happened to the Dems when they split off the Southern portion of their base. History does tend to clobber those who miss her lessons...
"The dissenters will have a choice...stay or "go away we won't miss you". After all, where would they go?"
Home.
They will go home. And stay there.
And that will mean that many elected Republicans will go home and stay there too.
The electorate is deeply and closely divided. Give the finger to 10% of the Republican base and really lose them -which the Supreme Court issue CAN in a way that no other issue can (because the only reason we put up with all that crap for all these years was the Supreme Court) - and that 10% is not going to be gotten back.
Elections in the US are won by a 1 or 2% margin.
The Supreme Court is not like any of the other issues.
The gamesmanship that worked before - the "where else do they have to go" strategy, worked because none of the other issues were core. But the Court is WHY we stuck around, WHY we put up with all of the other bad moves. This was the battle we kept our powder dry for.
There's nowhere else to go if neither Democrats or Republicans represent you on your heart-of-hearts, core-of-cores issue. Other than home.
How very odd.
I'm certain that is one of the charges brought against Ms Miers right here on our very own Freeper version of the "Harriet Miers Must Go Show".
As an aside ... an unusually fair article. I'm shocked!
You true conservative?
Saddam had chemical and biological WMD. Whether we find them or not, that is fact.
Bush's "good guy" talk to Putin was diplo-speak. He gave Putin a chance at the start of his presidency. Putin didn't behave and Bush has treated him accordingly, from the Ukraine, to Georgia, to Belorusia, and to Iraq, Lebanon and Lithuania....
Bush has done more than anybody to remove thousands of Muslim terrorists around the globe.
You don't speak for TRUE conservatives. You have hard enough trouble thinking for yourself. If I see that phrase "True conservative" misused one more time by dupes like you I'm going vomit.
By the way, I also suspect her approval majority will be at least 65-35...probably higher. By Xmas '05, this will be a forgotten issue; except for the "my-way-or-the-highway" Republicans who have been, and will always be statistically irrelevent in the over all scheme of things.
Yes, all those Conservative pundits and editorialists we always loved to quote and cheer are suddenly a bunch of "ignorami" to challenge a Presidential decision.
And... another important thing too... and frankly I am surprised people on the other side have not though of this. I must be BRILLIAN! /sarcasm (kidding but stupid, I am not). IT IS PERFECTLY POSSIBLE... that there maybe another position open in the SC!!!.... 3 years is a long time and anything could happen.. So, George should at least remember that we are not all so docile as he obviously miscalculated. Because if Mrs Miers gets confirmed and that is not a done deal yet, I will bet you he will think a lot more on his next pick and this time consult us instead of the Rats, if there is another chance and who knows...
Good article. I think Thomas Sowell said it best, "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." Bush had to nominate someone for whom our weak-spined Republican Senators would vote.
Or serial killer Ted Bundy.
Or Elle Woods*. Or Vinnie Gambini**.
*The protagonist of the "Legally Blonde" movies.
**The protagonist of the movie "My Cousin Vinnie".
(Footnoted as a service for the humor-impaired by RichInOC.)
Fits a pattern here: post anything that supports Bush, and you're wonderful, marvelous, adorable---as long as your support is unqualified of course. Express any criticism of, or even consternation or dismay at, anything Bush does, and you're forever excommunicated. It really does bear comparison to the way unquestionably totalitarian parties operate.
Really... What are you smoking.?...
The uproar is not about Meirs its about Bush...
Bush has burst his "trust my good intentions", bubble..
Its not about Meirs at all..
The boy blew it up too big(the BUBBLE).. and it BURST..
You must think many of those that voted for him were NOT voting AGAINST Kerry..
OR Gore.. by the way..
No the boy blows and blew it big time.. Blew what?... 2006 and probably 2008 too.. Harriet is just a symptom.. She will be confirmed, granted.. But at what cost.. since the bubble has burst, and don't be fooled the bubble HAS burst.. Hillary is a bit more viable in 2008... maybe a lot more.. worse the RNC will NOT back a real republican for President..
We will get a Giuliani or a McCain.. or a look alike.. with no track record (like Meirs).. WHY?.. RINOs run the party.. or the democrats.. the difference is negligible.. and some people are noticing.. FINALLY... The down side is the democrats are noticing too.. and will pour gas on the fire.. Acting like democrats was not wise.. Democrats are used to being "tricked" by their leaders.. Republicans generally are not amused at all.. The democrats ploy of comeing out FOR Meirs, WAS BRILLIANT..
"By Xmas '05, this will be a forgotten issue; except for the "my-way-or-the-highway" Republicans who have been, and will always be statistically irrelevent in the over all scheme of things."
That is the gamble that you've decided to take.
It may work out for you.
But then again, it may not.
It is an unwise gamble to take, given that it is completely unneccessary.
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.