Posted on 10/27/2005 6:09:25 AM PDT by procomone
WASHINGTON - Harriet Miers withdrew her nomination to be a Supreme Court justice Thursday in the face of stiff opposition and mounting criticism about her qualifications.
Bush said he reluctantly accepted her decision to withdraw, after weeks of insisting that he did not want her to step down. He blamed her withdrawal on calls in the Senate for the release of internal White House documents that the administration has insisted were protected by executive privilege.
"It is clear that senators would not be satisfied until they gained access to internal documents concerning advice provided during her tenure at the White House — disclosures that would undermine a president's ability to receive candid counsel," Bush said. "Harriet Miers' decision demonstrates her deep respect for this essential aspect of the constitutional separation of powers — and confirms my deep respect and admiration for her."
"I would point to Scalia's siding with the majority in Gonzales as an example of being an activist conservative, whereas Thomas was a paragon of judicial restraint and originalist thought with his dissent in such."
Personally, I agree with Thomas, but this decision has not reduced my respect for Scalia, because I never regarded him as anything more than human. And, as we all know, even Homer nodded.
One can also argue, in the absence of any explanation from Scalia, that it could have been his respect for stare decesis that guided his opinion.
Be all that as it may, since Scalia's opinion was in line with precedent, it cannot by any reasonable standard be called "activism."
Stupid, Stupid, Stupid
Correct, but now they will see the real base.
"However, it would also deny federal activism to those on the right who seek to harness such for their own agendas."
Pray tell, who might that be, and what are their agendas?
No my friend I do not expect you to sit down or shut up.. I expect you to read the facts and take a page from the play book that worked for us with Roberts.. Most of the folks on this forum would love to have Bush choose any of the judges he has already put on the courts.. He knows this is legacy, why would he throw it away.. Further, as you know, we have a extremely weak position in the Senate, there are 10 Senators that will reject a obvious right-winger.
More than enough of these freaks would pull a Jeffords if Bush tried to shove a conservative firebrand down their throat, which means a Democrat Senate.. Do you think President Bush will have an easier time getting a conservative nominee passed a Leahy lead committee? Get real..
Well, with all this new information coming out about her past speeches (support for affirmative action, can't legislate morality, etc.), I'll just honestly ask how you think Bush could have ensured the survival of her nomination.
"Bill Clinton and others have Ivy League ( I count Oxford as a hoidy-toidy college ) educations"
Let's not forget that Klintstone didn't finish his Oxford program.
Sorry, but Scalia took the Necessary and Proper clause to new levels in his concurrence.
And if Roe is precedent, is overturning such activism? Or originalism?
You can't have it both ways. IMO ignoring stare decesis in ruling against previous decisions that were activism (and therefore ignored stare decesis in their time), is not activism, but a return to original intent - it is a corrective action to scale back usupred federal powers.
IMO Scalia agreed that the feds should have the power to prohibit states from legalizing medical marijuana. His reasoning in justifying such was as convoluted as many liberal activist decisions. So I put him in a category separate from Thomas - someone who will succumb to the temptation to justify federal power when it suits their views. In other words, an activist conservative.
I agree with this sentiment. It is obvious that when the coalition of different types of conservatives ("the base")is disillusioned, unsure, questioning, that the presidents power is dilluted as well.
The president needs the support of his base. Without the support of the base this nomination collapsed.
Infighting, name calling, evil done to that lady....call it what you will.
Ultimately, I think we could call it a political mistake. We might be wrong, as we don't know all the facts. I don't believe that Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Bill Kristol are any different. They echo the base and tell it what they KNOW it wants to hear. That's how they make their money.
Ultimately a decent idea to move a stealth originalist thru the process. I think he chose the wrong person. I thank her for all her service to the President, and respect her, but, she was the wrong person for this fight.
Whoever is chosen needs to have universal trust of the base or it will be the same thing again. I'm not celebrating this failure. I think a lot of momentum was lost. W was on a roll with Roberts. That was a stroke of brilliance to which we owe Harriet much thanks. Thank you. We move on and find the next Roberts now, and continue are fight against Commie SCUM and CINO's for that matter.
.. and how really thin that base is when the sh#t hits the fan.. :)
Excellent column, Dan. Now, start praying. Pray that Bush nominates a true conservative and a believer, and we'll bind Alberto so that he cannot even be nominated. I set myself in agreement with you in the Name.
"Sorry, but Scalia took the Necessary and Proper clause to new levels in his concurrence."
You're the only one I've heard say that.
"IMO ignoring stare decesis in ruling against previous decisions that were activism (and therefore ignored stare decesis in their time), is not activism, but a return to original intent - it is a corrective action to scale back usupred federal powers."
I agree with that completely. However, I'm not willing to judge Scalia based on this one decision. In addition, there is more urgency in the matter of reversing Roe than in reining in the commerce clause.
You're the only one I've heard say that.
The Ninth Circuit’s Revenge In Gonzales v. Raich, the circuit court won big.
"What about Justice Scalia? He did not join the majority opinion, resting his decision on the Necessary and Proper Clause, which he had previously described in Printz v. U.S. as "the last, best hope of those who defend ultra vires congressional action." In his concurring opinion in Raich, Justice Scalia appears to put his commitment to majoritarianism over his commitment to originalism. Yet this decision does run counter to his oft-expressed insistence that the people should act to protect their un-enumerated rights in state political processes rather than in federal court. Here this is exactly what the citizens of California and ten other states have done, but Justice Scalia's new stance on the Necessary and Proper Clause leaves citizens little, if any, room to protect their liberty from federal encroachment in the future. It has always seemed significant that he never joined Justice Thomas's originalist concurrences in Lopez and Morrison. Nor does he explain why Justice Thomas's originalist dissent in Raich is historically inaccurate, which would be incumbent on him as an "originalist justice" to do. Instead, Justice Scalia now joins in expanding the reach of the Commerce Clause power beyond even that which the Court had endorsed in Wickard v. Filburn. In oral argument he admitted, "I always used to laugh at Wickard." Now it's Judge Stephen Reinhardt and the Ninth Circuit's turn to laugh.
I don't think that Rod-baby and his ilk are wired that way.
"What are we conservatives to do now? We are busy trying to change the face of the SCOTUS, for the better and now we have the burden of knowing you may NEVER forgive us...."
It's kind of amusing that you took the time to respond, what with the burdensome SCOTUS-building and "making the world a better place" that you must have on your schedule today. But trying to minimize the harm the ultra-right has done to themselves by attributing the disappointment in "conservative" behavior to "just little old me" (probably a girl .... snicker, snort, giggle) is ... while interesting, a misunderstanding, I think, of how that behavior has been perceived.
Here's where you provide a mature response, something like: "BWAAA HA HA HA HA !!! ROTFLMAO!!! LMBO!!! BWAA HA HA!"
Go for it. By all means.
LOL It seems there is always someone claiming Bush 'turned on' his conservative base. But which 'conservative base' are you talking about? The anti-spend 'base' or the socially conservative 'base', or might it be the 'I'm upset about illegal immigration' base? I'm sure I could think of other 'bases,' but it's not worth my time.
Not sure which 'principle' you are refering to. There are many.
But hey, if you want to leave (whatever that means), go for it.
Oh good grief. What a stupid question. It's certainly obvious YOU aren't infallible.
While I sure hope you are right, Roberts is still not on my "safe" list yet. He did handle the hearings masterfully, there is no disputing his qualifications to serve, and were I a senator I would have voted yes to support a president of my party. However, one thing that scared me was his answer on the Griswald case. (He felt free to comment because no one is going to challenge whether contraceptives should be legal.) I thought he said that he agreed with the reasoning that there is a privacy right in the Constitution covering contraceptives. Wasn't this reasoning used strongly to support the Roe decision? Please correct me if I am wrong, but that definitely made me nervous.
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.