Posted on 10/06/2005 6:51:14 PM PDT by George Stupidnopolis
In the blue corner were the Democrats. Utterly bereft of issues, the old guard of the party had been usurped by the likes of Michael Moore, Geroge Soros, Cindy Sheehan and Howard Dean. All they could do was whine and complain, their every move contributing further to a reputation of stagnation, false posturing and utter wuss-hood.
In the red corner were the Republicans. They didn’t look as fit as they had a few years previous, a visible paunch and a few bruises were evident, but for the most part the oddsmakers bet 100 to 1 that the right cross would render the left hook impotent. All that George Bush had to do was to nominate a proven warrior for Supreme Court Justice. We just knew he would honor his promise to provide us with a cultural commando in the mold of Scalia, Rhenquist and Thomas. He wouldn’t dare roll the dice or abandon a working strategy. He would never take a dive.
Like most people whose feet are firmly planted on the right side of fence, I wanted a fight. It seemed we had the liberals on the ropes, and this was to be the battle for the crown. We wanted to see Biden, Feinstein and Kennedy brutalized and bloodied. We wanted a knockout. We wanted to burn their ideological cities and sow the ground with tequila salt.
Instead, George did the unthinkable. he didn’t take a dive, but with the surprise nomination of his personal lawyer Harriet Miers, he might have done something far worse. In socio-pugilistic terminology, it appeared that Bush “took a Souter.”
Or did he? I’ve been thinking about this in the days since the nomination, and suspect there might be a grand plan behind Bush’s pick. Perhaps it’s wishful thinking on my part, but I’m beginning to think that the President adopted a very devious “strategery” to make the left look like fools, to force them to hang themselves with their own rope.
In the immediate aftermath of the nomination, Democrats were thrilled. Unable to contain themselves, they ran to the ever-supportive network cameras. They gave Miers praise - Harry Reid acted like he was ready to marry the nominee he himself had suggested. They puffed their chests over the fact that they’d made Bush back down and select a nominee of the wishy-washy O’Conner genre. They believed that low approval polls, two hurricanes, an ongoing war and non-stop media propaganda had forced Bush to comply with their wishes.
Not being a far-seeing bunch, the Democrats perceived Miers as a moderate. They saw here as someone who was once a Democrat, that had given $1,000 bucks to Al Gore. They saw her as someone who could be swayed by the leftist pressures of Washington DC, who would eventually crumple under the pressure and side more and more often with the liberal members of the court.
At this moment the likes of Reid and Feinstein are wishing they could take back their initial gloating. The press, eager to help the left, trumpeted the news that Miers is moderate. The general public now believes it. What the Dems didn’t know, and didn’t bother to check out, is that it’s becoming clear that Miers is extremely anti-abortion.
Liberals have but one true issue. That being, their support for the pro-choice movement. They’re obsessed with the topic. Armed with this fact, and again, I’m hoping this hypothesis is correct, Bush may have painted a master stroke.
If Miers is as strongly pro-life as reported, what are the Democratic members of the judicial committee to do? They already given her praise, and the press has already convinced America she is a moderate. If the Democrats approve her, allowing an up or down vote, they will have abandoned their pet issue and will suffer at the hands of disgruntled lefties in the 2006 Congressional elections. If they don’t approve Miers, fearful of antagonizing their base by disregarding their most cherished talking point, they will be painted as the ultimate obstructionists.
Remember, thanks to the left’s own words and massive media support, America now sees this woman as a moderate. If she is forbidden a fair vote on the basis of a single issue, the public will feel Democrats truly have no mission in life but to disagree with Bush. This will galvanize the Republican base (and more importantly, the always disgruntled and fickle independents) to vote against Democrats in 2006.
Had Bush nominated a hard-core conservative judge, say a Michael Luttig or and Edith Jones, the fight would have indeed been to the death. The all-important swing voters, the independents, would have been convinced by the media that the nasty Republicans were attempting an ideological coup. The 2006 swing vote would go to the left. While I’ve not yet determined if Bush is brilliant or a bumbler, I am intrigued by the impending fireworks
If the President is truly attempting this strategy, it is a bold gamble. If he is, and if it works, he will KO the Democrats without ever throwing a punch.
Many of us would have preferred a fight. We wanted to give the left a black eye, to see them lying on the canvas beaten and destroyed. We wanted to win the battle.
But maybe, just maybe, George Bush is looking to win the war.
Dittos.
They say it's Harriet Miers but I keep thinking "Miss D. Opportunity"
Nonsense. Here's the legal bio for Rehnquist:
Rehnquist received a B.A., M.A., and LL.B. from Stanford University and an M.A. from Harvard University. He served as a law clerk for Justice Robert H. Jackson of the Supreme Court of the United States during the 1951 and 1952 terms, and practiced law in Phoenix, Arizona from 1953–1969. He served as Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel from 1969–1971.
No judicial experience here other than being a law clerk. No paper trail of his own -- just papers he claimed were opinions of Jackson. No more was known about him than Miers. He just worked in the Nixon White House for two years.
Would you say Nixon goofed with that nomination?
"Centuries" and "mediocrity" might be laying it on a bit thick. I'll settle for decades. As for "mediocrity": Miers may be very capable as a personal attorney (and let us not forget, Head of the Texas Lottery Commission) and staffer. As a Supreme Court judge?
Otherwise, I agree with your statement.
That's pretty convoluted reasoning.
I prefer her evangelical Christian status as a sign that she is a Right to Lifer.
GWB has done a good job with his judicial picks so far - Federal and SCOTUS - why is everyone so sure he's suddenly lost his mind?
Oh, and the "pill" received FDA approval in 1960.
So did I -- that's why I loved the Bork nomination. When he couldn't get through, we ended up with Kennedy. So Bork wasn't such a good pick after all -- brilliant or no.
If you can't get a nominee past the Senate, it's worthless.
I was laying it on a bit thick. I'm disappointed, to say the least. She may be a great person and a splendid attorney, but I think we should expect a better nominee.
So it is better get a worthless nominee past the Senate?
This, as they say, is the rub.
But Rehnquist clearly had more of a track record in constitutional law and evidence of brilliance than Miers does. No one is saying that Appeals Court experience (or even an Ivy League degree - well save Ann Coulter) is necessary. We just want evidence that she has spent sustained time thinking about and articulating constitutional law and a philosophy of how to understand it.
Asst. Attorney General is a considerably different job than White House Counsel. And clerking for a Supreme Court justice a great deal more on point than the Texas Lottery Commission.
I'm not trying to trip Miers unduly here, because I honestly don't know anything about her save her bare resume. Maybe she's really a brilliant justice in embryo. But as for qualifications, she's the least qualified nominee since Abe Fortas.
Where are Miers degrees from first-class schoola and her experience clerking for a Supreme Court Justice( and no one gets to clerk for two years if they don't do the work)?
I mean, if lack of judicial experience is the only qualifier, then Bush should nominiate me---and I had to drop out of law school (family crisis).
"This is the lynchpin of the pro-Miers argument. I don't think it holds water."
Don't you know? There's no such thing as the new media, drudge, rush, the blogoshpere to dispute those lies.
Just look at how everybody bought the Dan Rather Memo...we're doomed, I tell you!
I do know. I started college as a Math Major and graduated with a degree in History. You can imagine what happened in the intervening years.
If confirmability is your concern, McConnell would have been a lock.
"Would you say Nixon goofed with that nomination?"
If Bush nominated a younger, more ideologically clear candidate, who like Rehnquist clerked for a US Supreme Court Justice and who was working on Constitutional issues in AG offices, I'd be reasonably happy. Rehnquist nomination was an equivalent to nominating Roberts if he were ten years younger. Note also that Nixon had a Dem Senate, and it was an era before Roe v Wade existed, different dynamic.
Comparing Rehnquist with Miers is apples v oranges. Miers never clerked at the USSC, as both Roberts and Rehnquist did.
LOL! At least History of Math did double duty.
Most people really have no concept. Engineers, who are often considered among the most intelligent people in the university are weeded out by the Calculus sequence. For everybody else reading this, Abstract Algebra is a whole different animal. Much much harder.
And then there's grad school.
"When he couldn't get through, we ended up with Kennedy"
What's so bad about Kennedy? I rate the justices thus ... best to worst:
Scalia - Thomas - Kennedy - OConnor - Breyer - Souter - Stevens - Ginzberg
So Kennedy is 3rd out of 5 latest GOP picks, middle of the pack... Not bad for the 3rd choice after Bork failed.
I don't fault Reagan for trying for Bork at all. He proved he gave it his best shot. They should have shaved Bork and told him to use small words and flatter the Senators and STFU and we'd have Justice Bork, but it was not to be so.
I dont fault the pick, I fault their failure to pick up on how the Democrats were willing to demagogue it. Pre-internet, so they succeeded.
And as a 3rd choice, Kennedy is better than Blackmun turned out. The unforgivable picks are the 1st time boners, like Souter.
So what you are saying is that Harry Reid & Ted Kennedy know Miers better than the President. How did they find out so much about her? You have some evidence or information about this, or are you just totally delusional?
Oh ye of short memory:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZS.html
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.