Congratulations!
Posted on 10/16/2005 12:08:21 PM PDT by Westpole
President Bush has blundered badly with the nomination of Harriet Miers. It isn't just the profound split within the Republican Party that is damaging. The presidency itself is weakened because his judgment is now doubted within his own camp.
The Democrats always doubted his judgment, indeed his intellect. Now the same doubts are being expressed on the right. What is it about this nomination that can so undermine the presidency? The main problem with Ms. Miers nomination can be summed up simply - she is a "weak sister".
People respect bold action even when they don't agree with it. The Democrats mostly voted for the war in Iraq even though they opposed it. A bold move by a President will usually be deferred to. But there is nothing bold in this nomination. The very character of the nominee that is emerging is that of a follower not a leader.
Some may believe the strength of the opposition to Miers comes from people with misgivings about her views on Roe or her clandestine leanings on any number of other issues. But that is not what is giving the Bush presidency problems. Mr. Bush could have gone in one of two other directions;
If he nominated a conservative intellectual leader the right would have cheered and the left would have played the same cards they have over other conservative judicial nominees. Their opposition would only have made the President look stronger not weaker. Had Mr. Bush nominated say a leader with centrists or even liberal views the right may have objected but he could claim that "balance" on the court is a an important principal for American stability and his willings to put stability over his party's wishes would have made him look bold and certainly in the media wise. In either case the president would be a bold thoughtful leader but Mr. Bush did neither. He nominated a camp follower, a weak sister whose best quality is her loyalty to him. If confirmed the Democrats would hope the loyalty was binding as long as it was convenient. Whereas the right would hope she would just follow Justices Scalia and Thomas. So what Mr. Bush has done is force both sides to wonder which leader this follower will follow. No one is comfortable with making that speculation for a justice of the Supreme Court. And everyone senses a missed opportunity to increase the intellectual heft of decision making in the country's only forum for which there is no appeal.
Btw, stop editing my comments to spin your point.
That is too late. The hearings are designed to hide any real information and to avoid verbal gaffes from a nominee.
You would prefer that the President of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA..the leader of the free world, bow to the pressure of one group and send the message to the new Democracies around the world that our system does work as it stands.
That's a theocracy..something that is an abomination to any red blooded American who knows their history.
We the people elected this man to make these decisions for us, for what it is worth to you, and we will just have to eat the consequences of that original decision.
Your full of it!!
And your an Idiot Troll.
We don't know that yet...and yes I have made my thoughts known to the Senators..as we all should.
You are right in one respect. There has been a whole lot of nominating going on, but a whole lot lesss confirming going on.
Six nominee's to high courts are still in limbo out there somewhere. Other than the 5 or the the Gang of 14 let by, there has not been much confirming going on.
Why hasn't Kavenaugh been confirmed?
So if Bush nominates Barney the dinosaur, by this logic, we should all fall in line and support the president? This "reasoning" is in fact no reasoning at all.
Why is hard evidence of his otherwise good judgement absent from this pre-eminently important nomination?
Another way to look at it, and one which makes more sense with the actual facts, is that Bush is caving under feminist (some would put it less charitably) pressure.
Harriet Meirs-- withdraw your nomination. Now. Thank you.
One more thing-- what does the fact that Meirs has not withdrawn her nomination by now despite splitting the conservative unity tell you about Meirs the person? Perhaps to Meirs, her nomination is more important than keeping conservatives in office in 2006 and 2008.
If this group is in the right, which it is in this case. Tell me, what constituency in this society, that constitutes a majority of the population, would be opposed to having JRB on the court?
By the way, it's rather interesting that you'd accuse me of wanting a theocracy, in light of your own #77, and in light of the fact that I didn't mention a single thing about religion on this thread.
I cannot believe that someone would write something that defeatest. Rollover and play dead, because I voted for the better of two options in the last election.
I voted for President Bush, knowing I had been given the shaft on spending, illegal immigration, the drug bill, etc. I had to consider that he was doing well on the WOT,and economy/taxes. Social Sec. privatization and future SCOTUS picks were of prime importance. Justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas were promised.
I could certainly depend on a Kerry presidency, to not do any of the things I desire.
Does this mean I lose my right to criticize, what I consider wrong headed? Not on the God's green/blue Earth given me to live on!
And I don't think it would be expecting too much of a President who was truly concerned about reining in judicial activism, to put up some kind of fight for his nominees. That means demanding that the Dems get up and explain clearly to the American people what's so horrible about these judges that they have to engage in extraordinary methods to keep them from being confirmed.
And he should not let them get away with tired cliches about them being "extremist" or whatever. They should have to explain exactly what they mean. That would put their 'nads in a vice, because we all know what the real reason for their opposition is: They're afraid that these judges would uphold too many laws that the people themselves enacted.
But the Republicans, time and again, let the Democrats get away with not having to address that publicly. Until they at least start making some attempt at that, they can't convince me that they're committed to judicial good behavior.
Truth be known, I would be just as happy if all the people in the US were of one type of ideology...my own. I'm sure most people feel that way if they have any strong convictions.
But since it just ain't so, the founders had a plan to keep things in check, so let's just stick to it.
Nah..Bush doesn't care. He has to be thick skinned to put up with the daily attacks that never let up. Bush will prevail on this, and won't give an inch if asked. Why should he?
We constantly hear a certain merry-go-round argument with this crowd.
During election time, they'll constantly harange third-party or potential third-party voters to vote GOP, saying that if the Dems win, we'll lose everything. We can always try and get the Republican guy to do things are way once he's in office, but right now, we gotta get him elected. Then once the election's over, criticism of him is still verboten. "We just won an election, and now you unappeasables are trying to spoil the party?!" And on and on it goes. Eleven months after the election, Bushbots are still saying "Would you rather have Kerry?" in response to any criticism that they hear.
And then comes the election season again: Wash, rinse, repeat.
"Bush has done his job with his past picks to the federal courts. He's nominated mostly conservative jurists and his track record in that regard is quite good."
Over the last 4yrs-9mths, Bush has nominated to the federal courts jurists like Janice Rogers Brown, Pricilla Owens, Edith Clement, John Roberts and others. I can't for the life of me understand why so many, so-called conservatives aren't willing to give Bush and Miers the benefit of the doubt. Keep your powder dry and wait to see how Miers handles the Senate hearings. Jumping to conclusions solves nothing.
That says it all! No need to read the rest.
Instead laying down the hardball politics against some conservatives who disagree with Miers, why hasn't he laid down the gauntlet against the democrats and a few RINO's who have yet to confirm the rest of his nominee's. It's nice to nominate them but why not go to the mat for them as well? Why does The Jim Jones wing of the republican party threaten some conservatives, but give a pass to the real culprits of this disaster... The Gang of `14
When it comes to judges, you can consider it pretty likely that the majority do, since the conservative "ideology" with regard to judges is that they shouldn't overrule the will of the people without a clear unambiguous constitutional reason. The Dems disagree, but they're afraid to say so publicly, so they hide behind weasel words like "extremist". The bare fact that they use that word doesn't mean you have to believe that it's even remotely true. All conservatives have to do is force the Democrats' hand, and the party's over for them. But this nomination represents a wholly unnecessary retreat from doing so.
But since it just ain't so, the founders had a plan to keep things in check, so let's just stick to it.
Part of the plan is for informed citizens to keep the pressure on their public servants, and so that's a plan that I'm highly in favor of sticking to.
Write your Senator with your complaints. It's best to drop the gang of bullies and intimidation act.
My guess is it has already backfired.
Later..
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.