Posted on 10/07/2005 8:51:48 PM PDT by 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.
My belief is that in this political climate with a weak Senate leader and squishy Republican Senators, the President knew ahead of time that anyone like Luttig or Jones with a long paper trail of Conservative decisions would never even muster 51 votes.
This was Bush's chance to guarantee a mainly conservative Supreme Court. I hope it happens, but it's an if, in my mind.
Okay, Mrs. Agnew, this time I resemble that remark. I call them the way I see them and the way I believe they are.
The last pick was a good 'un. NOT this one, Sorry.
How can you answer that question if the other candidate wouldn't have been confirmed? If he can't get them on the Court, why could they possibly be "better" than O'Conner?
Are you saying that Bush made the decision to go with a mediocre candidate rather than taking the risk of not being backed up by the Senate?
No, I'm saying that he nominated a candidate who is absolutely positive will NOT "drift" once she gets on the Court -- one that will definitely take the Court rightward.
If that's the case, I think it's a bad choice by Bush - I'm not as convinced as you are that it wouldn't be doable.
I'm positive he couldn't have gotten anybody else confirmed with the way the Gang has screwed him; I believe he's going to get another shot at the Court and after Miers is on the Court, you're going to see the next nominee blow the Democrats' collective peabrains; but I don't think it will be anybody who has already been named/listed.
I love laura...I hope she beats cancer!
Make a list of your reasons.
I think just because she helped to pick them, doesn't mean she does.
For the sake of argument, let's say that one of the preferable candidates for this position weren't able to muster a sufficient number of votes to quash a threatened filibuster-a filibuster that is a matter of supposition-it would not be the end of the world.
President Bush could have then nominated Harriet Miers, or any of a number of less qualified individuals, as a replacement, as was the case when Judge Bork's nomination was rejected by a majority of dimwitted, politically vindictive Senators, who did not have even the most rudimentary grasp of Constitutional principles.
You are more then welcome to read my posts.
LOL!!!! Very Funny!
We <3 you, Laura!
:)
Am I supposed to be sad that our President remains alive after that encounter?
Harvard Business School 101:
Know the results before you stick your neck out.
George Bush had a vote count analysis done on
10-15possible nominees and saw he could not appoint a Luttig or Jones and get the 51 votes.
Neither Scalia nor Thomas ( obviously) could be confirmed in today's poisoned partisan atmosphere with a squishy Republican Senate.
Flibuster/nuclear option would never come into play; the 51 votes just aren't there.
The people she helped to pick all had some sort of track record and appropriate experience. She doesn't.
In fact, she wouldn't have been able to pick someone like herself and didn't.
Even if these choices were rejected-and the only case in which we can even be remotely certain of that outcome is that of JRB-he still had the default option of nominating Harriet Miers.
There is no alternate dimension in which Ms. Miers is the best nominee-female or otherwise-for this vacancy, but even that aspect of this nomination is not what bothers me so much about this choice.
No one can honestly expect someone to make the "best" choice in this situation, since that is an entirely arbitrary, subjective standard.
However, I was hoping-and apparently I was much too optimistic in this expectation-that President Bush would choose one of the "better" individuals from his short list.
Unfortunately, he has failed to cross even that threshold.
Thomas always suffered the charge that he never spoke or wrote opinions. He just kept silent and continued to vote for the law and the Constitution.
Perhaps Miers will follow his lead.
If you're talking about that grin he comes up with all too often when seeming inapropriate, remember that the MSM...no friend of George... chooses the sound bite and video clips.
After being royally shafted by Republican presidents who have left horrible Supreme Court picks in their wake, did this president not consider how this weak choice would be received? That proves he isn't a conservative or he would have known. We don't need a Souter-in-a-skirt to sit on the court for the next 20 years, diluting the votes of the real conservatives, Thomas and Scalia. This was a real slap in the face to these good men who have borne the heat and burden of battle all these years, with only haphazard support from O'Connor. Whoever advised the president on this choice should be fired...unless it was Laura, who can't be fired.
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.