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.
Bush
Thank you for refreshing my memory, though I don't believe I ever knew it was Bill Bennett who convinced Ginsberg to withdraw.
Sorry she is no more talented than any Halfcourt scmoe, who played some basketbal in school.
What is absurd, is your fawning over a "benchwarmer" at best. (Pun Intended)
"a spirit of subordination and obedience to government"
Heh I'll bet Washington didn't know how much the government would change. I think today he would say spirit of obedience to the constitution first and the government second, just speculation of course.
For one so sactimoneous, why are you not in contention?
>>>"Then you and your fellow ankle biters will have egg all over your faces much as Little Annie Know-It-All Coulter did after the Roberts' hearings."
No, it will be the GOP leaders who have egg all over their face because they didn't save King George from making a terrible mistake. They will be the ones looking for over 1/2 of the party faithful on election day, to say nothing of the $$$.
Hoppy
This is just too funny. You come on this thread making snarky comments, and then complain that you're not being treated with kid gloves?
Look, most normal people can understand the difference between "The people are in charge" and "I personally am in charge". If you can't tell the difference, and if you use some smirky remark as a way of advertising your inability to do so, then don't complain when you get smacked down for it.
It is evident in that commercial that's out..what ever happen to customer service?.
We have raised a generation of individual "Gods" who respect no authority, even if it is their own and push the laws to the limit.
When "elite" start arguing what the definition of is is..there's a problem that more intellectual discourse can not correct.
It's time to get back to the basics.
Being testy is not the same as having testoterone poisoning. Your reference to brains, was obviously made as an excuse for your lack of thinking. If you don't think to well, don't think to often.
When all is said and done, Meirs is a very weak choice.
Since it's not addressed to you, and you don't know what's gone on before, maybe you'll just want to tend to your own conversations-- particularly since you're not a mod.
The word is sanctimonious If you are going to make that charge against someone, better spell it right.
Personally, I've always thought it was sanctimonious of someone to call someone else sanctimonious.
You're absolutely right. I saw that he agreed with you, and I pinged the wrong person. Sorry! Btw, nice profile page. :o)
Fact remainss- Presidnt's choice....all the critics
on both sides....don't know her or her background
as well as GWB..Hell...did they ever pan Clinton
for the Ginsberg fiasco...I will put her up against
thar broom jockey, anyday...OK...stick it if you
want to also bash Bush..flakes.... Jake
Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters
No one's suggesting that we not honor our laws. However, that's completely and utterly different from saying that we're obliged to assume that politicians are acting in our best interests. Our whole system of government is based on the idea that we can't make that assumption, that in fact the people have to vigilantly keep them within bounds. This isn't about disobedience; it's about accountability. And for that, the people have to take the initiative.
Oh don't try that Rehnquist was no more qualified than Miers angle here. It won't sell because it is laughably false.
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.