Krauthammer: Retreat (on Miers' nomination to SCOTUS)

Townhall.com ^ | 10-7-05 | Charles Krauthammer

[cgk]

WASHINGTON -- When in 1962 Edward Moore Kennedy ran for his brother's seat in the Senate, his opponent famously said that if Kennedy's name had been Edward Moore, his candidacy would have been a joke. If Harriet Miers were not a crony of the president of the United States, her nomination to the Supreme Court would be a joke, as it would have occurred to no one else to nominate her.

[jpsb]

Howlin you have been critical of our president on a policy issue? I must have missed that, can you refresh my memory?

[jess35]

What are you Bush hacks..

Wow...for a moment, I thought I'd stumbled onto DU...but it can't be since they'd never allow me to post.

As for what you believe you've been promised....your words couldn't be clearer. You're under the mistaken impression that the President promised he'd send up a "distinguised" (read...ELITE) candidate who would sit and ponder the various penumbras and discuss the nuances of the meaning of the word "right". In other words, you wanted exactly what the democrats want...but for different reasons.

[bigeasy_70118]

How are the University of California and University of Virginia, third tier law schools?

[jess35]

Can you explain how what you were apparently taught differs from the plain meaning in the constitution?

[jpsb]

Best argument I read yet in favor of the not quite the best and not quite the brightest. One point for you.

[FastCoyote]

"I think Bush knows what he's doing."

Isn't that just dandy. You're in the trenches, ready to storm a pillbox, your life is on the line. Your sargeant gets the order from the commander in chief to go.

"Over the top boys, into the jaws of death, I THINK OUR LEADER KNOWS WHAT HE'S DOING!"

Oh yeah, those are inspiring words if I ever heard them.

"You've been fighting for judicial restraint all your life, now it's time to give your life for Harriet Miers, the best candidate!"

Oh yeah, I'm a happy camper now.

[This unpaid advertisement for Harriet Miers sponsored by Harry Reid]

Now I feel better.

[safisoft]

Is it any funnier than those of you who actually believe you have the market cornered on principles to the exclusion of all others?

I know that many on FR are principled. I am convinced that you are.

Some are principled in regard to conservative ideals, some are principled in regard to loyalty to the President. I laud your principles - but please don't think we share the same principles because we don't.

[Howlin]

Keep dreaming; you're not somebody I'd even discuss that with.

[Iwo Jima]

Source?

[Rodney King]

How are the University of California and University of Virginia, third tier law schools?

Perhaps a bad description, but they are not snotty elitist schools.

[glory2]

I have a great deal of respect for Krauthammer. Reaching down to the depth of my anger is yes, we didn't get to pronounce why we want a conservative justice. We didn't get to argue the fact in the senate. The nation needs to know why Republicans vote the way the do. But then, the co-chair of the GOP / Republican party, Jo Ann Davidson is proudly pro-abortion, so possibly the shift in the party has started and this is payoff for Ms. Davidson delivering Ohio to President Bush. Nothing is beyond the imagination at this point.

But, the point that galls me the most is this: When I heard the nomination of Harriett Meirs and I listened and read the conservative frustration and anger I thought to myself immediately. How would the White House calm down the conservatives? They would put out a story she is an Evangelical Christian. What infuriates me the most is that is what the White House did! They used the Christians by not telling us why she is qualified, but that we should accept her because she is in 'our club'... This is the most appalling of all. I feel used in the election and used now. You put pro-abortion Davison in the head of the party, you put out a Supreme Court Justice candidate that the Democrat leaders love...

I have a daughter who is really questioning why she shouldn't be a Democrat. I told her in August to watch in the coming months the debate in the Senate will explain in all over the Supreme Court choice. It will clearly define black and white and why Republicans stand for something different. There will be no debate, President Bush saw to that. The lines are becoming so blurred I am becoming to be at a loss to what to tell her now. We aren't standing for those principles the party once did. The party has been taken over and the Meirs is most likely the nail in the coffin.

[Dat Mon]

I think some are missing the big picture here...and its not a pretty one.

For any political movement to be effective, it demands the unity of three elements.

a) An active base of footsoldiers who provide money, time, and walk the streets, work the polls...etc.., and most important...VOTE regularly.

b) An intellectual or pundit group who provide inspiration and encouragement to the base. The base usually follow the pundits religiously...as the many listeners to Rush have over the years. Politically active people not only lurk on FR, they also listen and follow these "elitist" pundits.

c) A political party who incorporates the policies of the pundits, and are voted into office largely due to the efforts of the base group. For example, the foundations of the Reagan revolution were established not by Reagan himself, but by Bill Buckley (an elitist pundit) who inspired Reagan. Up until now, for the conservative movement..the conservative party has been synonymous with the Republican party.

When you are lucky...an inspired political leader comes along who not only leads the base...he or she attracts other outside groups into the movement...as Reagan did with the so called Reagan democrats...and as Bush did post 9-11 with many social conservatives such as Jews and Catholics and fundamentalist blacks who normally voted democrat.

Now...we have a situation developing which is very serious...a schism of sorts is forming....and it is being led my an overwhelming majority of the same intellectual punditry class... many here are calling the "elitists".

And the base is slowly becoming aware...watching and listening...and getting alarmed.

Overtime...this schism will seriously weaken the conservative movement... or lead to the establishment of a third party alternative. It has happened before...it can happen again.

If people step back and look around...they will be very concerned, as I am...unless of course they are 'moderates' who dont particularly care about the viability of the conservative movement.

[Graymatter]

Would it help to revisit my original post or are you being deliberately...non-porous? I was not defining elitism, but pointing out that those who are calling the skeptical ones "elitists," are dishonestly avoiding the actual complaint of lack of obvious merit. They would rather recast the issue in terms of elitism, because they can't effectively answer the charge of lack of obvious merit.
Hope that helps; if it doesn't I'll assume you don't want to understand me.

[Howlin]

Some are principled in regard to conservative ideals, some are principled in regard to loyalty to the President. I laud your principles - but please don't think we share the same principles because we don't.

Yet again you feel the need to denigrade anybody whose principles you think aren't the same as yours.

You're a wonderful American and I'm just a sucky Bush Bot.

Telling.

[Sabramerican]

He had made no effort to determine if the President was actually slow to respond or not

The slowness of Bush's response was obvious to everyone sans blinders. He admitted as much.

On the other hand, what compelled the White House to condemn Bill Bennett on a reputation destroying charge without a second thought to Bennett's meaning or purpose.

[Taliesan]

You seem to think I'm arguing there is no need for judges or lawyers.

I'm arguing that judges don't need to be brilliant as the Beltway defines it. And that the entire conservative movement was implicitly making that argument before, oh, just the other day.

Somebody made the point that it is easy to think the law is not complex until you go to court. I guess it has gone out of fashion for lawyers to argue to juries that the case before them is simple and clear. In every lawsuit, at least one highly trained legal mind disagrees with the poster's argument.

You're an attorney? Knowing the American courtroom as you certainly must, maybe you could elucidate how the jury system strengthens YOUR apparent argument that we are all lost unless brilliant minds protect the law from the rest of us.

You may be a credit to your discipline, but your profession as a whole does not have the credibility to make that argument.

[jwalsh07]

Source for what?

[jpsb]

LOL, admit it, you know you like me.

Also a good vetting of Ms Miers does no harm, not in the least. So COME ON JOIN THE FUN!

[Iwo Jima]

That Ms. Miers has publicly stated that the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.

This is a very big issue with me, and I would like to have as much information about her views as possible.

[Graymatter]

I thought you would be interested, that's why.