Posted on 10/04/2005 7:16:56 PM PDT by buzzyboop
Rush started by explaining his comment from earlier this week that this was a pick from weakness. I believe everybody has heard this before and he made newer, more insightful comments so I won't dwell on his early comments too much other than to summarize them by stating that he believes that there are so many other slam dunk candidates that Bush could have picked, JRB, Luttig, Jones, etc.., who would have brought the debate over filibusters and ideologies and where this country should be heading that nominating Miers was a disappointment.
He then went on to explain that we have to change not just the makeup of the court but the culture, and he advocated continuing to take the fight to the democrats because it will expose them for who they are. Greta clearly seemed stuck on the fact that 7 of the 9 were appointed by Republicans and were "Republican judges" themselves. Rush began to explain why the culture had to be changed and brought up citing foreign precedent as a danger. Greta queried whether Kennedy, a Republican appointee, started that whole notion, and Rush emphatically stated, again, that this is exactly why the culture has to be changed, and why it will take a rock-ribbed conservative to put the ideology discussion before the country to show the democrats, who always get away with coming off as something other than what they really are, as what they really are and what they really stand for. He wants the American people to see these fine jurists and show the country how the democrats villify them.
Perhaps his best line of the night was when he observed that Steven Breyer was on George Steph's show on Sunday hawking some book and trying to sell the idea that the Constitution cannot be interpreted in an originalist manner because we now have things that the founding fathers could not have imagined, like automobiles and the internet. Rush was outraged by this position, and he explained that the founding fathers put the constitutional amendment process in place precisely for the purpose of adapting to changing circumstances, and that WE THE PEOPLE should not be read into WE THE JUDGES for the sake of the convenience of people like Breyer to tell the rest of us what the law is based on his own notion of what our public policy should be. Rush even said that Breyer would go to Mars to find law if he could. I laughed but he's absolutely right. Where exactly would Breyer go and where would he stop? Nobody knows for sure, but its clearly somewhere far outside American jurisprudence and that is very, very dangerous.
In sum Rush is not passing judgment on Miers as a nominee. However, he vies her nomination as a missed opportunity to really put the debate over the SCOTUS before the people, by putting into place the fight that the democrats have threatened, and to change the culture of the court by bringing pressure from outside and influence from within. He believes that its a fight worth fighting, and he's confident we'd win, again. By not picking that fight, he believes conservatives will suffer in 06 but its too early to tell in 08.
I thought he was as sharp as he's ever been, and I agreed with every word.
No, not really, he left open the possibility that Miers could work out well. His main point was that nominating her instead of someone like Brown was a missed opportunity to have a high profile public debate about what we stand for (presumably the founding traditions of America), which would also let everyone also know that the Dems are against those traditions. A missed opportunity for a home run, we settled for a base hit.
Personally, I think they throw hissy fits for the sheer joy of throwing a hissy fit. They are stuck on Hissy Fit. However, I was paraphrasing what Rush said.
Interesting take, though I suspect that with this evangelical Christian label, we can bet that Soros and the gang will be making her out to be Pat Robertson before it is all said and done.
I look forward to the day when Kennedy, Schumer and the like throw a hissy fit right on the committee in front of the whole nation. That to me will be enough proof that she is qualified, and that Liberals survive on emotion alone. I've said from the word "go" that the Left's praise is more or less false praise. Once the dirt piles up, you'll see alot of these same Democrats who've been praising her publically will be doing 180's right before our eyes and ears.
While I agree he should have nominated JRB. Won't happen. President Bush doesn't have a "warrior" in the Senate who will go to bat for him to fight the fight we all long for.
You had it right the first time. That would be hugh and series.
Well, we'll just have to pray that Kennedy's handlers write a hissy fit into his script!
Disagree. I sat through the Senate floor debate over judicial nominees, and many of the speakers on our side were conspicuously absent. Why is that? They don't have the cajones to confront such little minds as Kennedy and Schumer? Kennedy and Schumer were running circles around the few Republicans who bothered to show up to make a floor presentation.
And who's that certain freeper?
The same principle can be applied in the case of President George H.W. Bush, when he nominated Clarence Thomas.
What's the point of enlarging the Republican majority in the United States Senate if it just keeps growing more and more feckless and impotent by the day?
I almost always agree with Rush. And, I understand his point of view here. I too would have liked to deliver a knock out punch to Democrats, but I am now absolutely convinced - and I was an avowed skeptic previously - that Miers is an outstanding, smart pick. I completely believe that she is of the same cloth as Justice Thomas and Scalia.
President Bush said today that he wanted someone that would be the same 20 years out as today, meaning that they would not become a Souter or a Kennedy.
Meirs is a great pick. I just hope that Republicans itching for a fight with Bush will come to see this as well.
I believe HE believes he has nominated a strict constructionist, but only time will tell, as it would with any appointee. Personally I would much rather have a TRACK RECORD that assures me of her beliefs. However, as most people know, past performance is NOT always an indication of future results.
As an aside I have been wondering if CONSERVATIVES everywhere will call the President a LIAR, if Harriet Meirs turns out to be a LIBERAL on the court, as the Leftists called him a LIAR when no WMD were found in IRAQ?
:-)
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.