Conservatives Turning on Bush Over Miers Appointment (A day to rue in perpetuity!)

Yahoo! ^ | October 15, 2005 | David M. Shribman

[quidnunc]

Long ago, when liberals weren't afraid to call themselves that and when the president and much of the congressional leadership were liberals, they had a big problem. (Memo to conservative readers: not that one.)

Their big problem was that they were 100 percenters.

By 100 percenters, I mean that they were disinclined to settle for anything less than 100 percent, whether in environmental legislation or tax policy. It was in the era of liberalism that one of the most devastating phrases about politics — the perfect is the enemy of the good — gained wide popular currency.

If you've been paying attention to American politics in the last fortnight, you know exactly where this column is going. Conservatives, who grudgingly but pragmatically accepted what little good they could mine out of mid-20th-century American politics, suddenly have adopted the liberals' outlook on life. They're in power now, and they don't see why they should settle for anything less than the perfect.

Their critics think they're impractical; their supporters think they're principled. Politics is practiced somewhere between the impractical and the principled, which may be why this discipline is sometimes called the art of the possible.

-snip-

But the yapping on the right — maybe it is yelping, not yapping — is indicative of a deep distrust conservatives have about politics even in an era when conservatives dominate politics.

-snip-

[quidnunc]

The Plight of the "Rule or Ruin" Right

-snip-

But that does NOT mean that I will (or should), or they should, oppose the confirmation of White House counsel Harriet Miers, a well qualified woman whom the President has known and worked closely with for more than a decade, and who has helped him put strict constructionists, including some on the list, on the federal bench.  

A United States Supreme Court nomination is a president's choice. President will live or die in history based on his Supreme Court choices. He knows it well. And Ms. Miers knows it well. If she joins with Justices Scalia and Thomas and Chief Justice Roberts instead of the other woman on America's highest court, ACLU favorite (and former general counsel) Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Ms. Miers will do President Bush and herself proud, assuage the fears of those who do not know her and fear that she is another David Souter in size six shoes, and show up those presumptuous, pompous, priggish strict constructionists (bless their good hearts!) who foolishly let personal pique prevail over their good sense.  

To be sure, some, but certainly not all, of the opposition to the confirmation of White House Counsel Harriet Miers as the next United States Supreme Court Justice is sexist and/or Ivy League elitist.  

The problems with the Miers opponents who are neither sexist nor elitist are their presumption and their "rule or ruin" attitude.  

The Constitution assigns the right and responsibility to nominate Supreme Court justices exclusively to the President. There is no requirement that a nominee be a lawyer, much less a judge, much less approved by the American Bar Association, much less on a list provided by the Federalist Society when a religious conservative is President or the American Civil Liberties Union when a secular extremist leftist is occupying the White House.  

The successful borking of the brilliant Judge Robert Bork is an egregious example of Democrat demagoguery working. It was a personal tragedy for Judge Bork and, worse, bad for America, because the person who took the seat that Judge Bork should have taken — Justice Anthony Kennedy — acquiesced in the Supreme Court-created right to abortion instead of voting to overrule Roe v. Wade as wrongly decided.  

These days Judge Bork is borking: leading the charge against the confirmation of Harriet Miers. EVEN THOUGH HE PUBLICLY STATED THAT IF MS. MIERS IS NOT CONFIRMED, PRESIDENT BUSH'S NEXT NOMINEE WILL BE A POKE IN THE EYE OF THOSE STRICT CONSERVATIVES WHO WILL HAVE BLOCKED HER NOMINATION.  

THAT is NOT brilliant!  

Remember how Justice Harry "Blackheart" Blackmun became a Supreme?

-snip-

(Michael J. Gaynor in MichNews, October 14, 2005)
To Read This Article Click Here

[nwrep]

The writer raises a good point. What if Miers withdraws (or is defeated) and the second nominee is also in the same vein, like Larry Thompson. Then what will NRO and David Brooks and Ann Coulter do?

[Cicero]

If President Bush puts up a lousy candidate, and then she is shot down, and then he puts up an even worse candidate, then I would begin to question his sanity. He would deserve whatever reaction he got.

It's not a matter of "rule or ruin." It's a matter of objecting when Bush screws up the one big opportunity we have all worked for for many years, not only reelecting him with the expectation that he would come through on judicial appointments, but helping him increase his majority in the Senate.

We are not responsible for this split. Bush is. We can overlook compromises in less important areas, but not in a SCOTUS appointment.

[trubluolyguy]

They're in power now, and they don't see why they should settle for anything less than the perfect.

---

What's the point of having power if you don't have the testicular fortitude to use it?

[GladesGuru]

Well, gag me with a cliche - not a bunch of 'em, will you?

For example: " - - indicative of a deep distrust conservatives have about politics even in an era when conservatives dominate politics."

Conservative isn't the same as Republican. Ever heard of RINO's? Can a real conservative accept the CFR or UN perspective on almost anything?

Bush does, conservatives don't.

While there is always the possibility of worse, such is life.

Anyone who considers membership in the NAACP to be acceptable, but the Federalist Society to be extreme, who considered taking action against those who thought lawyers were walking, talking jokes (while she was with ABA), is going to be viewed with the greatest suspicion by the conservative who still believes in limited government.

If anyone can show where Mires is for limited government, in more than a passing phrase or two, please inform the rest of us.

Where others have clearly and unambiguously put forth the idea that government must be reduced in size, I can't find such views ever expressed by Miers.

And given that Jeb Bush came to Florida as part of a huge land development group, and that KELO type takings are going on across Florida, and that his brother has not taken any definitive stand against KELO, the conservatives are untrusting of Miers and President Bush.

Can you blame them?

[EternalHope]

Good article. Thanks for posting.

[You Dirty Rats]

In the highly unlikely event Miers is not confirmed, I expect the President would appoint his Attorney General.

[trubluolyguy]

But that does NOT mean that I will (or should), or they should, oppose the confirmation of White House counsel Harriet Miers, a (well qualified woman)

---

Based on what?

[Ol' Sparky]

What kind of Kool-Aid are you drinking?

Let me get this right. Conservatives are supposed to accept a woman that is likely to be another O'Connor because if we don't Bush will nominate another Souter? It's no wonder conservatives can't make changes in this country and the Republicans always betray us with this kind of mentality.

If Miers is defeated, it will be by Republicans and Bush will have no choice to put up a solid conservative or face defeat again and more damage to the party and his Presidency.

[trubluolyguy]

Then what will NRO and David Brooks and Ann Coulter do?

---

Hell with them, what will the conservative's of the repub party do? It could be open warfare on the Party Powers that be.

[deport]

Their critics think they're impractical; their supporters think they're principled. Politics is practiced somewhere between the impractical and the principled, which may be why this discipline is sometimes called the art of the possible.

---

What I won't to know is how many of them have a vote in the Senate?.... That's were the final and only vote that counts will be made....

[Ol' Sparky]

Phyllis Schlafly:

"Conservatives are very angry -- and we have a right to be angry. We elected Bush to move the court away from its ideas of judicial supremacy. We have nothing to go on to suggest he's moved the bench one inch."

"If we were going to trust anyone, we'd trust Reagan, and he gave us O'Connor," she said in a reference to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, whose seat Ms. Miers has been nominated to fill. "So we don't trust anybody."

In couple of years you and those dumb enough to tolerate this nomination will again be pissing and moaning about how liberal the court is and trying to blame it on Democrats.

[trubluolyguy]

That's were the final and only vote that counts will be made....

---

There are also votes in 2006 and 2008 that mean quite a bit.

[Earthdweller]

This is a prayer request for a man in need of prayer.

Please, take a moment and pray for this man. He is in a situation that few people find themselves. He is criticized at every turn, and few people have thanked him for the good things he has done.

Few people know the extent of his situation. We need to pray that God gives him the guidance he needs to do his job effectively. I have attached a photo of this man. Look at it. Most of you will recognize him. Please pray for him.

Feel free to pass this on to anyone else who will pray for this man. He hasn't asked me to send this request, but I am sure that he will appreciate all your prayers. If you were facing what he is facing, you'd want people praying for you!

Thanks!

No matter what party you support, this man is our President right now and needs our help in prayers. This country belongs to all of us. IN GOD WE TRUST

[wmfights]

"We are not responsible for this split. Bush is. We can overlook compromises in less important areas, but not in a SCOTUS appointment."

We have settled for unprotected borders, bloated budgets, expanded entitlement programs we probably didn't need (presc. drug bill), Teddy Kennedy Education Bill with no Vouchers, loss of free speech - campaign finance reform, no real defense of marriage, no real defense of private property rights, no permanent tax cuts, we supported the PUBS with the hope that the SCOTUS would be changed and when that glorious moment came what happened?

A crony of GWB was nominated! Where's the LEADERSHIP that I'm supposed to be inspired by?

[sinkspur]

In couple of years you and those dumb enough to tolerate this nomination will again be pissing and moaning about how liberal the court is and trying to blame it on Democrats.

It's much more likely we'll be very happy with both Roberts and Miers, and you'll be drooling over some other perceived slight to your "my-way-or-the-highway" view of life.

You're always pissed, Spanky. How come?

[deport]

Really now..... but they won't be made on the SCOTUS nominee now will they? Either Ms. Miers will be confirmed by the Senators or she won't.... In 06-08 the antis will have a vote should they chose to use it. Then they can kick out their Senator if he/she is in the race that time and pick them some new representatives that may just vote to not include all that pork in the budgets..... Now that would be good.

[Jim Robinson]

Amen

[Black Tooth]

What a mess.