READ MY LIPS: THOMAS AND SCALIA

Me | 10-7-02 | Me

[Urbane_Guerilla]

Don't you remember the utter let-down when elder Bush broke the fundamental promise he made, "No new taxes"?

The promise was not merely a bow to the Laffer curve, it was an emotional and pyschological statement to the many people in this country who still believe in constitutional goverment, and who knew that taxation was the means to undermine constitutional government, liberty and freedom, to put it another way.

The younger Bush promised a Thomas or Scalia for the same reasons: to tell the believers in constitutional government that supporting him would mean a definitive change in the jurisprudence of this country, jurisprudence which adhered to the basic concepts in our Constitution, not to a sort of current intellectual church of what's happening now.

In both cases, there was an even deeper issue, the issue of integrity. Integrity is the first principle of conservatism. Integrity means an unflinching openness to the facts and faithful adherence to principle.

"No new taxes," "Thomas and Scalia."

Unlike the Left, conservatives usually have the integrity to call out their own, regardless of political cost. The subtle political benefit of integrity is that there are so many people (conservatives) who vote for the politician who is actually honest.

Now, it is not a matter of calling out one of our own. It is a matter of calling out a charlatan, who pretended to be one of our own.

[sinkspur]

Harriett Miers is not a question mark. She is a strict constructionist. Bush has said she is, and she will have a chance to prove it, during the hearings.

Do you oppose giving Miers a chance to have her hearings?

[Urbane_Guerilla]

One might even consider the fact that that one has an agenda and/or is being paid.

Howlin, I have been reading you for years. You are superb in your posts.

Let me assure you, we do not disagree all that much in principle; we may only disagree in how principle is applied.

[Iris7]

I am bothered by your extraordinarily sanctimonious tone. It makes one wonder.

If the President were to nominate an overt Rightist to the Supreme Court he could rationally expect the nomination to be defeated. Therefore, he must nominate either a Leftist of a cypher. As you certainly know.

[Howlin]

By "our own," I mean a person who favors a jurist who believes in the original intent of the Founders.

So anybody who isn't slitting their wrists and setting their hair on fire over this nominee does favor originalists, have I got that right?

Same for the last two paragraphs; you're basically saying that if we aren't bloodletting right now in agreement with you that we couldn't possibly believe in any of those things you have listed?

[Iris7]

"But we do know she is not a nominee in the mold of Thomas or Scalia."

Actually no, we don't know that. See my previous.

[Howlin]

I think Bush has let a large portion of his base down.

You speak for yourself and no one else.

[Howlin]

even with a sub-par showing and that will be that.

IN YOUR OPINION, right?

You'll be the judge of whether she does a good job or not?

[McGavin999]

What you are seeing is the lie put to the "true conservatives" assertion that they want judges that are not activists. The truth is they want their own Warren court and they are every bit as willing to destroy any nominee that does not share their zeal

I'm pretty sickened by it too. Wonder what these "leaders" are going to think when they find out they've lost most of their "followers". Pretty hard to sell books and give speeches when nobody care what you have to say anymore.

[Howlin]

Actually, I'm currently looking for gainful employment.

If I were you, after the rest of that post:

If I were getting paid for each cogent reply that I've made to a poorly-conceived argument in favor of the Miers nomination

I'd be looking into the field of argiculture; specifically shoveling sh&t. You could probably get some fine references right here at FR.

[Howlin]

You're like a damn broken record.

[BigSkyFreeper]

And the president didn't promise someone who MIGHT somehow, miraculously be a justice in the mold of Thomas and Scalia

Sure he did, and he came through.

[Howlin]

we may only disagree in how principle is applied.

What the hell is that suppose to mean?

[TheForceOfOne]

Loose lips sink ships. lol

[John Lenin]

Her biggest drawback is she is a Christian and that is what the stink is about.

[quidnunc]

Have you noticed that Rush has been waffling and backtracking some on Miers since Monday?

[JerseyHighlander]

This was not an intellectual decision by Bush and his advisors. It was a political decision. Everything that occurs from the moment Bush and advisors decided to trial balloon this with Dobson et al, has been a political move, with the ensuing political discussions.

There is no intellectual discussion possible, with no substantive background dating before her nomination, for the talking heads on FR to discuss.

[Howlin]

Sometimes they just can't help themselves. :-)

[Howlin]

I don't listen to him very much, as I'm not usually in the car at that time, but from what I've seen on FR, it appears so.

So did Gingrich.

[Iris7]

Good Lord, man. Sanctimonious cant. "By "our own," I mean a person who is fundamentally influenced by the joy of being a free person....."

Sophomoric, perhaps even puerile.

[McGavin999]

There is no intellectual discussion possible, with no substantive background dating before her nomination, for the talking heads on FR to discuss.

That's because the hearings haven't even been started yet, but that doesn't seem to stop people from making up their minds. They don't need no stinking facts, they're basing it on "feelings", just like the liberals, and on what they're being told to think by their "heroes" just like the liberals.

Everyone needs to just hold their fire until the hearings.