Bush on the Edge ("There is Almost No Enthusiasm for Her [Harriet Miers'] Nomination...")

Washington Times ^ | 10/26/2005 | Tony Blankley

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

< /snip>

Those who claim that it is only Washington eggheads and activists who are disillusioned, misunderstand and underestimate the consequences of such Washington-based problems. The current Washington Republican negativity to Mr. Bush is as a stone thrown into a lake -- it will ripple outward until it causes waves on the distant shores of the heartland.

< / snip>

More importantly, the president is perilously close to duplicating the estrangement his father experienced from his congressional allies when George H.W. Bush raised taxes in 1990. Just a year out from congressional elections, Republican congressmen and senators are in the process of making the practical judgment whether to distance themselves from the president to save their skins. I don't blame them. (After all, it's not as if he is currently championing their principles and policies domestically.)

If they decide in the affirmative, their constituents will hear criticisms rather than support of the president for the next 12 months. The most dangerous time for any politician is not when his opponents say rude things about him, but when his own partymen do. They will start out respectfully disagreeing, but will build to more flagrant rhetoric as their Democratic Party opponents start raising and spending more money and start rising in the polls.

< /snip>

First, withdraw the unfortunate nomination of Harriet Miers. Not only is there almost no enthusiasm for her nomination, I have never seen as much outright hostility and even anger at an appointment from a president's own party. Replace her with a highly qualified, full-blooded, proven conservative nominee. (Any number of his appointments to the courts of appeal will do.)

Then he can have a principled fight between conservatives and liberals...

< /snip>

[trubluolyguy]

he'll find the real Americans don't have his pessimistic view of the future.

---

As opposed to those damned plastic ones! And don't even get me started on those wooden bastards!

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

[AFPhys]

You will NEVER see proGun legislation from the Demodogs.

You will NEVER see proLife legislation from the Demodogs.

You will not any time soon see a conservative Republican from NY State, CA, or any of the NorthEast States... you have to live with that until it can happen.

Whether you like it or not, the Republican party is not a conservative party, but it is far more conservative than the Demodogs. A "RINO" is the best you're going to do as far as getting R's elected from these states. However, a Collins or Snowe voting against the Demodogs 50% of the time is FAR more productive than the Demodog alternative.

These states are changing (glacially) slowly to becoming more conservative over time, and you're going to need more patience.

Instead of losing your faith in the Republican party because they aren't "conservative" enough, you will get our conservative agenda further down the road if you do what you can to help elect a marginally more conservative RINO in one of the otherwise "blue" states.

[Constantine XIII]

It would be a shame if he couldn't get re-elected. :P

[swarthyguy]

Don't forget Nancy Pelosi's statement in Boston that she was happy and gratified to see a woman nominated.

[Bommer]

We elect people who we ask to do the best in THEIR judgment, not to ask them to take a poll of what WE want before they act.

Then I guess your a big fan of Bush's immigration policy?

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

And the legal affairs correspondent for that venerable, conservative publication, USA Today.

(Prolonged eye roll.)

[AFPhys]

In the 2000 election campaign, President Bush clearly and repeatedly stated what his immigration policy was.

The American people elected him.

He has not waivered on his stated policy, though.

Whether or not I like it, WE elected him to propose the type of legislation he favors - all of it, not piecemeal. All of the nominees he chooses to put forward, he was elected for this purpose. I favor following the Constitution in such matters. I therefore favor giving his nominee a fair up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate, as is clearly Constitutional. I similarly favor giving his legislative proposals an appropriate vote in the Senate, as is similarly Constitutional, after the due process.

[kjam22]

It is a political court. It is an oligarch that Jefferson feared. The cat is out of the bag, and there is no putting it back (without a few constitutional ammendments). The court is about counting votes. That's all it is. If our president has nominated 2 people that will vote with Thomas and Scalia.... then we'll be fine.

[counterpunch]

Compare Harriet Miers's answer to question #28 on the Senate Judiciary Committee's questionnaire to the wording of III(A) of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 case which reaffirmed Roe v. Wade and expanded abortion rights:

"Any decision to revisit a precedent should follow only the most careful consideration of the factors that courts have deemed relevant to the question. Thus, whether a prior decision is wrong is only the beginning of the inquiry. The court must also consider other factors, such as whether the prior decision has proven unworkable, whether developments in the law have undermined the precedent, and whether legitimate reliance interests mitigate against overruling."

—Harriet Miers


"So in this case, we may enquire whether Roe's central rule has been found unworkable; whether the rule's limitation on state power could be removed without serious inequity to those who have relied upon it or significant damage to the stability of the society governed by it; whether the law's growth in the intervening years has left Roe's central rule a doctrinal anachronism discounted by society; and whether Roe's premises of fact have so far changed in the ensuing two decades as to render its central holding somehow irrelevant or unjustifiable in dealing with the issue it addressed."

U.S. Supreme Court
PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PA. v. CASEY, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)


The court must also consider other factors, such as whether the prior decision has proven unworkable
So in this case, we may enquire whether Roe's central rule has been found unworkable

whether developments in the law have undermined the precedent
whether the law's growth in the intervening years has left Roe's central rule a doctrinal anachronism discounted by society

and whether legitimate reliance interests mitigate against overruling
whether the rule's limitation on state power could be removed without serious inequity to those who have relied upon it or significant damage to the stability of the society governed by it


This shouldn't be giving anyone comfort.

 

[You Dirty Rats]

Let's be fair to Harriet.

Before or after she's lynched?

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

No, we will not be "fine."

And this is not about "votes."

First of all, even if Miers is a firm anti-Roe vote that execrable, ill-conceived decision will remain intact, since the majority of the Court will still be irrevocably committed to preserving Roe.

Secondly, even if there were a majority to reverse Roe, it would not matter, if there were not a correspondingly legally sound basis for its reversal.

Whatever victory you will have achieved will be ephemeral, and only last as long as those jurists are on the Court, the tortured constitutional interpretation that led to Roe arising-de novo-once a more liberal president was in power.

Our current lamentable jurisprudence with regard to the Constitution did not manifest itself spontaneously.

There was a concerted effort-undertaken with malice of forethought-by radical legal scholars to pervert the original intent of this nation's bedrock legal document.

This is an endeavor that has been sculpted over the course of four decades, which has led to an imposing-but intellectually bankrupt-edifice that will be incredibly difficult to disassemble.

In order to reshape the Court you need a keen intellect, a cool temperament, and an unstinting courage that God only endows a chosen few with.

Harriet Miers is not equipped to fulfill the mission she's been tasked with.

[You Dirty Rats]

set the example for President Bush and show him how to surrender gracefully.

Now you want our President to act French.

Good luck with that.

[JeffAtlanta]

If our president has nominated 2 people that will vote with Thomas and Scalia.... then we'll be fine.

You missed the point. There is no way to know if a person will vote "with Thomas and Scalia" unless you have a lot of judicial rulings to analyze.

Republicans have done it your way for too long and have been continually disappointed. When you appoint a judicial activist, you never know how they are going to rule long term. The only thing you can be sure of is that they will eventually veer to the left.

The republicans should face reality and realize that there methods of just looking at results and asking questions just doesn't work.

When we start picking justices because of their activism and political leanings, that is when we get into trouble. Why continue the bleeding? Why not pick someone with a sold judicial philosophy track record of being an originalist rather than just taking a person's word for it?

[You Dirty Rats]

Note the new tagline. Suggestions welcome.

Kennedy, Kerry and other Leftist 'Rats voted against Souter because they along with everyone else in Washington thought he was pro-life. So what Estrich and other feminist columnists think about someone they don't know is irrelevent.

[You Dirty Rats]

Let's look at the SENATE roll-call, shall we?

Pro-Miers:

Anti-Miers:

[gogogodzilla]

You don't get to be President without the majority support of the voters.

Lose that support... and you, your party, and its hold on government fall.

But that's all right for you, Bush is worth it, yes?

[kjam22]

In order to reshape the Court you need a keen intellect, a cool temperament, and an unstinting courage that God only endows a chosen few with.

I agree with you here in part. But the keen intellect need not be on constitutional issues. It needs to be on small group management. It needs to be a keen intellect based on management of human resources. This court operates like a city council, except it's members are there for life. It is aboslutely critical that we nominate people who will vote the way we want them to. (however that happens to be). That's the only real qualification for this court. When you have a body that consists of 9 votes, your priority is to get 5 votes. This idea that we're going to nominate these intellectual giants who are going to sway the court and all that is just wishful dreaming.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

Bob Shrum does know Harriet Miers, and he's one step removed from coming out with an unqualified endorsement of the woman.

Think on it!

[Cboldt]

There was a concerted effort-undertaken with malice of forethought-by radical legal scholars to pervert the original intent of this nation's bedrock legal document.

It is an ongoing concerted effort, with success made assured by dumbing down the electorate and feeding it propaganda, bread and circuses.