Posted on 10/30/2005 2:21:21 AM PST by RWR8189
The choice of Harriet Miers to be nominated to the Supreme Court, and her subsequent withdrawal, shows that caution is sometimes the most dangerous policy.
She was obviously chosen cautiously as a "stealth" nominee -- someone without a paper trail or a judicial record that could ignite controversy -- in hopes of avoiding a confirmation fight that the Senate Republicans had the votes to win, but had neither the unity nor the guts required to make victory certain.
Harriet Miers was a choice made from political weakness. Now she is gone but the political weakness remains. So celebrations in conservative quarters may be premature.
Liberal Senators have already gained from the time lost with the Miers nomination and they have every incentive to stall on the next nominee, to make sure that nominee is not confirmed before Congress adjourns at Thanksgiving. The longer they stall, the longer Sandra Day O'Connor remains on the Supreme Court -- and she is their kind of judge, one who makes policy instead of applying the law.
Obstructionist Democrats in the Senate have had their hand strengthened by this episode. Even those who had their knives out for Harriet Miers can now piously lament her withdrawal and claim that, while they might have voted for her confirmation, they must now oppose an "extremist" nominee chosen in response to the conservative groups that forced Ms. Miers' withdrawal.
Any judicial nominee who has said that the Constitution means what it says, not what judges would like it to mean, is going to be called an "extremist." That person will be said to be "out of the mainstream." But the mainstream is itself the problem.
What is the point of electing a President pledged to appoint judges who are like Justices Scalia and Thomas, if the weakness of his own party's Senators leads him to appoint judges who are like Justices O'Connor and Kennedy or -- heaven help us -- David Souter?
If the Republican majority in the Senate cannot bring themselves to act like a majority, they may no longer be a majority if their base of support stops supporting them at the ballot box.
The brutal fact is that Senate Republicans have not had the stomach for a fight, either during this administration or during the Democratic administration under Clinton.
While Senate Democrats have not hesitated to obstruct the Senate from even voting on some of President Bush's nominees to appellate courts, Republicans gave an overwhelming vote of approval to even such a far left Clinton nominee as Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
While it would have been wrong to obstruct the Senate from voting on Judge Ginsburg, there was no need for the Republicans to vote for her themselves. If they thought that such cooperation would be reciprocated when their party controlled the White House and the Senate, events have shown that they were sadly mistaken.
Democrats understand that they were elected to do what those who elected them wanted. But Republicans seem to think they were elected to make deals with Democrats and gain media applause for doing so.
Senate Democrats are a united minority, while Senate Republicans are a divided majority, with prima donnas and opportunists ready to leave their fellow Republicans in the lurch when a showdown comes -- even if that means risking the whole party's loss of support among voters who feel betrayed.
That is the hand that President Bush has been dealt.
Harriet Miers was his attempt to make the best of that weak hand. Now his conservative base, having rejected Ms. Miers, expects him to nominate someone with a clearly established track record of upholding the Constitution as it was written.
But does the Republican "majority" in the Senate have the guts for the battle that such a nomination would surely set off? Are they prepared to put up a fight and be satisfied with a victory on a close vote, with perhaps Vice President Cheney breaking a tie?
Or is looking "statesmanlike" in the liberal media more important to some Republican Senators, either for its ego boost or for its practical political value in running for re-election or for the Presidency in 2008?
Politically, these can be "times that try men's souls" -- for those who still have souls and haven't sold them.
Copyright 2005 Creators Syndicate
The weakness is, as he goes on to say, that the Republican majority in the Senate is not a majority. We know that at least 7 members of the Republican conference cannot be trusted. We can only hope that McCain's lust to be president is stronger than his lust to be famous,
Well it's a good thing that our impeccably conservative president, George W. Bush, ensured their election to that august body then, isn't it?
The inverse is after getting mugged for their lunch money republicans lose even if they win weakly or strongly... nobody likes a weasle.. except weasles..
A party with some fight in it would galvanize the republican party.. A wimpy party only receives a little sympathy.. and coy embarassment.. i.e. even if BEAT UP republicans win.. the bullys lose.. {electorally} like in 1992-4
One of them - Specter - is wholly owned by the President now. So he will be with us when the pressure is applied - he owes his seat and his chair to the Prez, and without that support the caucus could boot him from the Judiciary Chair any moment.
The solution is to vote the RINOs out in the primary and then have the conservatives win the general elections. Letting Dems win the majority is insane. In some states in the Northeast, conservatives can't win, so electing a RINO is better than electing a Dem. In the Red sates, we need to do a better job of selecting conservatives, not RINOs, in our primaries who then get elected. Think especially of the Dakotas where 3 of 4 senators are Dems. That must be turned around.
Maybe. Miers was about the most conservative candidate that Specter could support. Maybe the gal from South Carolina, who would be supported by Garham and McCain. That would be the three votes Bush needs. The question is: How conservative is she?
That is a ludicrous statement.
Arlen Sphincter has acted more RAT-like since Bush and Santorum did their dirty deed and handed the Senate seat to this Marxist Sphincter instead of supporting the conservative Toomey in PA.
Have you not been following Sphincter? How can you make such a statement? Bush does not "own" Sphincter. Reality is Bush gets down on the knees in front of Sphincter the same as Bush gets down on his knees in front of Harry Reid.
You must be looking through a mirror and seeing opposite--a more accurate statement is that Sphincter own Bush!
My concern is that the elites in the United States are 80% liberal. Forty years ago there was a book out called "the Protestant Establishment." By the time the book was published, it has become totally liberal and was anti-communist only to the extent that Communism threatened profit. Now their sons and daughters, and the new management leadership, don't even bother to put on a religious facade. Look at the wreck of the Episcopal Church, which has been taken over by New Agers.
I agree with everything you say- but if Bush doesn't nominate a strong conservative, that's a weak stance in itself.
Let the Senate take their expected position. The nominee him/herself will do just fine making them out to be buffoons the same way Roberts did. People aren't stupid. They know when someone is a decent nominee.
The Senate could effectively filibuster lower court nominees because those hearings aren't covered as heavily. But with the SC, everyone will see the slimy political crap, if the libs choose to go there.
After all is said and done, sticking boldly to principle is the best strategy. Sure, you have to choose your battles, but this is definitely one worth choosing.
There is nothing in the Constitution that requires Senators to restrict themselves to voting only on a nominee's qualifications. It's incorrect to pretend ideology is irrelevant to judicial confirmations or that it may not be a factor in one's decision. I think we all know that Senators can usually be counted on to behave in their own best political interests. We can't expect national level politicians, for whom all decisions and actions are political, to suddently lay all this aside when it comes to judicial nominees.
I heard Dick Morris on his Condi vs Hillary book. Condi for President in 2008 is sounding better. I'm concerned that anyone who sees a typical Republican candidate that labels himself 'Conservative' will appear to the general public as just another 4 years of George Bush. He squeaked by in 2000. I think it was mainly the WOT and Iraq that people were voting on in 2004. Most people who voted for W knew we could not afford to lose there and were pretty sure Kerry would screw it up. This may not be as much of a factor with Iraq winding down. There seems to be a pattern historically of the public alternating between parties. They get tired of one and try the other for a while (after enough time has passed to forget how much they screwed things up). Also, the idea of a Republican Congress and a Democratic President could be attractive to some as they could be seen as counteracting each other.
Checks and balances were not just for the three branches of the Federal government. It's my understanding that Senators were intended to be essentially ambassadors for the separate state to the Federal government. Allowing the state legislature to select the Senators placed more power at the State level. In part because of the 17th amendment, Federal government becomes more powerful while State goverment becomes less so relatively speaking. The selection of Senators was the main check against encroachment on the States by the Feds. State governments are becoming not much more than extensions of the Federal government. I don't what the pre-17th situation was or if it had the effect its proponents expected.
I guess I'm just still pi$$ed at Ricky for 1. Voting against the Coburn Amendment and 2. Supporting Specter over Toomey (although Bush did the same). Also, if you look at the FR Pennsylvania board, you will see several that are also not happy with Ricky (granted, that may not be representative of a large number of people). And I agree that Ricky will have a very difficult time winning re-election.
They carp about unfunded mandates, but never turn down goodies from Capitol Hill.
One of the chief complaints from New York politicians-and this was an essential element of the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan's platform-was that we pay an exorbitant amount of federal taxes without receiving commensurate benefits and services, i.e. handouts, from the federal government.
And to a great degree, this critique is born out by the facts.
However, it has never led New York officeholders or officeseekers-with a few notable exceptions-to lobby for the elimination or reduction of confiscatory tax rates, or to generally embrace the concept of devolution of powers.
If anything, it's prompted them to go in the opposite direction.
I honestly don't see how investing rapacious state lawmakers with more power would solve any of our problems.
For more info about the relative merits of the 17th Amendment see my comment in post #57.
I have thought that Condoleeza would be an excellent choice.
She appears well suited for her present position and there is no reason to think she couldn't handle the pressures of being President.
Her nomination and election would make black Americans sit up and take notice and try to emulate her, bringing them closer to assimilating, and do a world of good for race relations in this country. It would also destroy the Democrat hold on the black American.
We shall see.
Years ago both parties had liberals and conservatives. Southern Democrats were quite Conservative and northern Democrast were quite Liberal. Western Republicans tended to be conservative and north eastern Rupublians were liberal.
These days the Democrats are pretty much united. There are no more conservative Democrats in the Senate and very few in the house. But the Republicans still have several liberal Senators and house members. With out the liberal Republicans the Republicans would be in the minority in the Senate.
So no leader of a group made up of Conservatives. Moderates and Liberals can hope to openly implement a Conseravative agenda. The moderates and liberals in his own party will block him. Just like moderates Graham and Brownback torpedoed Miers. The moderate and liberal Republicans sill not let bush appoint and confirm a conseravative supremec court nominee.
Those that think Frist or Bush can use their 55 votes to over power the 45 Democrats in the Senate are just unknowning about the real situation. At best the Republican leadership can count on 46 or 46 relative conservatime votes from thire parties senators. The leadership has to find a way to get some of th moderate and liberal Republican senators votes.
There was a time that Republicasn could reach across the isle for a few conservative Democrat votes. But there are no more conservative Democrats in the Senate.
Those that think there is a way to get the RINOs to support a Conservative supreme court nominee, are just dreaming.
Leaders have to work with what they have. The problem the Presidnet faces is, if he tries to fool the left, the right destroys him. And if he tries a frontal attack on the left his left leaning party members will destroy him.
The supreme court control will likley be delayed until President HIllary gets to decide who will be the next justice.
Re: http://www.dartmouth.edu/~govt/docs/Schiller.PDF the paper by Wendy Schiller of Brown University you listed in post 57, and your subsequent response to me in post 58:
I suggest that you at least take the time to look at the document I've offered for your perusal. It is edifying, especially for those of you who hew to this ridiculous-not to mention, unverifiable-conviction that repealing the 17th Amendment is some sort of panacea that will return the United States to its Constitutional roots.
First, I did look through the document, briefly this morning, and more thoroughly this evening. I thought it was quite impressive, and that Ms. Schiller did a commendable job in support of her argument. The problem is that while her premise is certainly interesting, from an academic and historical perspective, it is not of primary importance or relevance to the problem at hand: how to rein in the various out-of-control entities comprising our government. The Senate is only one of many. I'll have more on this point shortly.
Second, while it is true that another poster in this discussion suggested that repealing the Seventeenth Amendment might be helpful, no one claimed that it would be "some sort of panacea that will return the United States to its Constitutional roots". Hyperbole such as this is unhelpful. I certainly made no such claim.
With these two points in mind, let's get to the crux of the matter. As I acknowledged, Ms. Schiller has produced an impressive and useful piece of academic research. However, the ostensible purpose of her study is only secondarily related to the problem and her results don't support or justify your hostility toward the idea of repealing the Seventeenth Amendment. One need only read the very first paragraph of the document to readily see that:
Abstract - Using a sample of senators from the 51st, 55th, 57th and 60th Congresses, this paper analyzes U.S. senators’ careers, from elections in state legislatures to legislative portfolios, to estimate the extent to which Senate careers were built on different components a century ago than they are today. The findings suggest that although the electoral dynamics in state legislatures’ selections of U.S. senators were very different than the electoral environment senators face today, Senate legislative behavior in the 19th century bears striking similarities to modern day Senate behavior. The indirect mode of election did not succeed in insulating senators from electoral pressures generated by constituent interests in their states.
The last statement in the paragraph above encapsulates the fallacy of your argument. The primary reason the Founding Fathers had for having US Senators selected by the state legislatures was to have the Senate represent the States (state governments), not the People, in the US Congress. They provided the House of Representatives to represent the populace. The intent was to limit the power of the federal government by empowering the states. It was an effort to maximize, through institutional structure, the benefits of decentralization of power and the efficacy of the checks and balances built into the Constitution.
Now the Founders never claimed it was a perfect system, and neither do I. There is no question that it did not succeed completely "in insulating senators from electoral pressures generated by constituent interests in their states". They never expected it to; they just did their best to minimize it. However, to try to address the problem of "constituent pressure" on senators through the state legislatures by opening them up to pressure via direct election is illogical and disingenuous. The "pressure" is still there either way, the only change is you destroy the power of the state governments (but then that was the intent).
The Founding Fathers knew that the fallibility of human nature was a constant, beyond their ability to change. Flawed men would always find ways to insinuate their corrupt nature and influence into the institutions of government. This truth did not change with the adoption of the Seventeenth Amendment. In fact, it exacerbated the problem.
The Seventeenth Amendment did not succeed "in insulating senators from electoral pressures generated by constituent interests in their states", it increased them. Moreover, it opened them up to pressure from a whole new range of interests from outside their states, such as multinational corporations and advocacy groups like Moveon.org, or George Soros' various front organizations, etc.. Frequently these groups have interests and goals which contradict the desires or best interests of a Senator's constituents, but the money they provide for his campaigns enables him/her to overcome the difficulties this causes and continue, with the power of massive media, to stay in office. In some cases, Senators become "national figures", with such a broad base of media, national and international support they effectively independent agents, e.g. Hillary Clinton.
This has run longer than I intended, so I'll wrap it up quickly. Human nature did not change with the adoption of the Seventeenth Amendment, and it did not solve the problems its proponents professed as their intent. In fact, their professed reasons for it were lies. What it did accomplish was the destruction of the influence of the state governments to restrain the centralization and consolidation of power in the federal government. That was its purpose.
Repealing it is not a "panacea", but it's a good start. Even if it can't be done right away, raising the argument and discussing the idea is good because it helps re-educate a citizenry who have forgotten the history and the principles upon which the country is founded.
Of course there are other issues which merit a higher priority, as you mentioned in your post, such as "lobbying for the modification or eradication of the income tax, clamoring for the repeal of the disastrous congressional expansions to Medicare-and every other "entitlement" program under the Sun-and campaigning for the imposition of firm, low numerical quotas on the thousands of tax-eaters that are given carte blanche to enter this country on an annual basis".
I agree with you, these are all necessary efforts. I have personally given away a dozen of "The Fair Tax" books. However, public discussion of the merits and rationale of repealing the Seventeenth Amendment also deserves a place in that list, even if not necessarily at the top, and your derision and disdain for those who wish to do so is misplaced and unworthy.
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.