Posted on 10/05/2005 12:50:24 PM PDT by smoothsailing
Cut Her Some Slack
By Lisa Fabrizio
Published 10/5/05
The fear in the pit of the stomach was palatable; sweat oozed from the brow of every conservative with an Internet connection. On the afternoon of November 2, 2004, online reports of early exit polls posted indicated that John Kerry would likely be the next president of the United States.
In the second consecutive election-year frenzy -- recall the panic in 2000 when TV reporters initially botched the Supreme Court's ruling on Bush v. Gore -- reports of George W. Bush's demise have been greatly exaggerated.
Similar feelings of dread and despair seized the president's supporters on Monday when news of his latest appointee to the high court surfaced. Reacting precisely the way the mainstream media dreams of, those on the right reacted viscerally when the name announced was not Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, or Michael Luttig, but little-known Harriet Miers.
Across the conservative spectrum early condemnations of Miss Miers rang out. Charges of betrayal thundered through cyberspace and accusations of capitulation filled TV screens everywhere. All this despite the fact that the man who nominated Miers is the same man who nominated John Bolton, John Ashcroft, and Donald Rumsfeld.
Though the president has picked a few Cabinet clunkers, he has a stellar conservative record when it comes to judicial appointments; nominating Miguel Estrada, Priscilla Owens, William Pryor, Michael McConnell and yes, John Roberts, who was also initially pilloried by some on the right.
And it is no small detail that Miss Miers was in charge of selecting and vetting these fine judges and that she spearheaded the search for the seat for which she is now under consideration. This fact should not be overlooked by those who remember that Dick Cheney was also in charge of filling what turned out to be his own position.
There are cries of "cronyism" from both sides of the political aisle, implying that her relationship with President Bush somehow makes her less worthy a candidate. But conservatives should revel in this charge as liberals are constantly pointing out that he prefers surrounding himself with like-minded thinkers. Here's hoping she is also a crony of, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Roberts, whom she is said to admire judicially.
To liberals, what's scarier than any space alien is that Miss Miers is an E.C.; an Evangelical Christian. Worse, as president of the Texas Bar Association, she led the fight against the ABA's adoption of a pro-abortion platform back in 1992. There are those who say she merely wanted political matters out of the legal purview, but isn't that the conservative position?
Some conservatives are put off by the fact is that she donated money to Al Gore and Lloyd Bensten during the eighties. A lawyer looking to do business in Democratically controlled Texas during that period generally donated to both parties. The truth is many people supported conservative Democrats until the party took a decided turn to the left with the nomination of the Clinton Twins.
Many fear that her lack of a track record could lead to a Miers defection to the left. One of the reasons many give for the change of direction for supposed conservatives on the Court is that they become corrupted by the Beltway social circle, yet Miss Miers has been on the ground in D.C. for five years and is reported to be no more affected by the atmosphere than is her boss.
Although they were not "stealth" candidates such as Miss Miers has been painted, Justices Kennedy and O'Connor never hung as millstones around the neck of Ronald Reagan in conservative lore. No one knows or ever can know for certain how a justice will act once on the bench, but maybe we should be taking Miers her at her word when she said in her acceptance speech:
"It is the responsibility of every generation to be true to the founders' vision of the proper role of the courts in our society. If confirmed, I recognize that I will have a tremendous responsibility to keep our judicial system strong, and to help ensure that the courts meet their obligations to strictly apply the laws and the Constitution. "
Despite predictions of doom and gloom -- most melodious to liberal ears -- those on the right should respect President Bush's history of outstanding judicial appointments and cut the lady some slack. There will be plenty of opportunity for recrimination should either she or Roberts fail the president and their oath to uphold the Constitution.
'conservative presidents' should read "conservative candidates"
Things do seem to be calming down around here. I'm looking forward to the hearings now. Until then I'll probably leave this topic alone.
"Why is that????"
Because we all trust that Reagan was a true, unabahsed conservative, and we don't have the same trust for either Bush.
Me too. I think Harriet is a "what you see is what you get "kind of person, just like George Bush (43)
Add me to the list also.
Don't be surprised if that does happen. She is no shrinking violet.
Gosh, and wasn't that the same Ronald Reagan who used to be a DemocRAT and probably gave $$ to the DemocRAT party?
The next Klinton will appoint the next Lanny Davis. This pick disrespects ....everyone.
So easy to spot a Bush-hatin' McCainiac. (Your boy McCain will be the Clinton Twin's Ross Perot in the 2008 elections...and you'll probably vote for the egotistical old fool, thus easing the Clinton's pain by one vote.)
Don't bother with a response, you'll get none.
We've been given four stealth candidates over 25 years and only ONE ended up being a conservative. Why in the world do you accept and think this strategy is going to work this time?
He had a stellar record when up for election and re-election. He also appointed Alberto Gonzales to a court in Texas and signed legislation naming a highway after notorious abortionist John Coleman.
The only appointments that matter are to the Supreme Court. We've gotten two maybes rather than originalists with proven track records.
By the same token, GHWB is never given credit by the raw meat brigades for standing by Thomas when it would have been far easier to dump him. It's a one-way street with these 'me, me, me' fair weather conservatives.
ME TOO!!! I owe the Prez and others a appology for my stupid " first glance" reaction!!!
My mind's made up.
But even being a "true unabashed conservative" does not guarantee that your appointees won't turn toward the "dark side" i.e. O'Connor and Kennedy.
Make it three!
W has been good on appointments.
He also doesn't like to repeat the sins of his father. Which is probably why, in the end, he picked someone he has known for years. Because he knows she won't grow in office and is not easily persuaded.
Bush on the other hand has a pretty good track recdord when in comes to appointments in general and jusges in particular so I'm not ready to throw him overboard just yet.
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.