Posted on 10/12/2005 3:30:33 AM PDT by ejdrapes
OCT. 11, 2005: A SINKING NOMINATION There has not been a moment since October 3 when I have not felt sick and sad about this Miers battle, but today may have been the worst day yet. This morning, the president mobilized Laura Bush to join him on national television and accuse critics of the Miers nomination of "sexism." Reading the transcript of the interview, you can feel this kind and gracious woman's disinclination to speak an untruth. "It's possible," she says. "I think it's possible." What a terrible and false position to put the first lady in! And what a sign that the White House has finally understood that it has lost the argument over this nomination. By asking the first lady to defend the nomination, the White House is implicitly admitting that the president's word alone has failed to carry the day: That, in other words, when he said, "Trust me," conservatives said "No." The first lady's appearance was a dangerous confession of personal and political weakness by the president - one that will be noticed and exploited by the president's Democratic opponents. Even more ominously, the Today show interview announces a new strategy of trying to win the Miers nomination by waging war on the president's core supporters. In the first week of the battle, the White House sent out James Dobson to woo evangelical conservatives. That didn't work out too well. So now the White House has switched strategies. It has turned its back on conservative evangelicals and is instead using Laura Bush to woo suburban moderates. But remember: Laura Bush is on record as a supporter - not just of abortion rights - but of the Roe v. Wade decision. Interviewed on the Today program in January 2001, Mrs. Bush was asked point blank about the case. Her answer: "No, I don't think it should be overturned." Is it credible that Mrs. Bush would be endorsing Harriet Miers if the first lady thought that Miers would really do what James Dobson thinks she'll do? It is madness for a 37% president to declare war on his strongest supporters, but that is exactly the strategy that this unwise nomination has forced upon President Bush. And every day that passes, he will get angrier, the attacks will get fiercer - and his political position will weaken. That is why it is wrong and dangerous for Republicans to say, "Let's wait for the hearings." Even if the hearings start in the next couple of weeks, as the White House now says it wishes, the Miers matter will extend itself at least into November. That's a month and more of the president's team accusing the president's supporters of sexism, elitism, and who knows what else; a month of rising tension between this president and the conservatives who elected him; a month in which the president's poll numbers will drop even further. The longer it continues, the costlier this battle will prove for the president. And if forced to its ultimate conclusion, the odds are rising that this is a battle that will end in ultimate defeat for Miers and for Bush. Under these circumstancs, the least bad solution is for the president to withdraw this nomination now, before he does himself further and growing harm. Many readers have asked what they can do to help achieve a good resolution of this crisis. Here are a few suggestions. First, please send an email to Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham thanking them for their brave stance against this nomination. These two broadcasters have been tireless and fearless on this story - but they are under intense and increasing pressure, and it makes a huge difference to them to know that their work is heard and supported. (And let me add: It has made a huge difference to me as well.) Next, communicate with the Republican Senators on the Judiciary committee. Lindsey Graham has already committed himself to the nominee, but the others have not - and Brownback in particular seems to be leaning negative. It will again make a huge difference to these senators to know that conservatives across America will support them if they stand up to White House pleasure. Finally, some friends and I have drafted a petition to the president that we will shortly be putting on a webpage for all who wish to sign. Here's the draft text: "WE ARE REPUBLICANS AND CONSERVATIVES who supported the election of George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004. Today, we respectfully urge that the nomination of Harriet Miers to the United States Supreme Court be withdrawn. "The next justice of the Supreme Court should be a person of clear, consistent, and unashamed conservative philosophy. "The next justice should be seen by all as an independent custodian of the constitution, untainted by any hint of secret pledges or political obligations. "The next justice should be a person of the highest standard of intellectual and juridical excellence. "For all Harriet Miers' many fine qualities and genuine achievements, we the undersigned believe that she is not that person. An attempt to push her nomination through the Senate will only split the Republican party, damage the Bush presidency, and cast doubts upon the Court itself. "Sometimes Americans elect Republican presidents, sometimes we elect Democratic presidents. Whatever the differences between the parties, surely we can at least agree on this: Each party owes America its best. President Bush has a wide range of truly outstanding conservative jurists from which to choose. We believe that on second thought he can do better - for the Supreme Court, for conservatism, for America." Comments on this draft text are welcome, but PLEASE do not yet send signatures. When the site is ready to take and forward your message to the White House, I'll post a note and link here at NRO. Don't worry, we'll act fast.
So, please tell me what hope we conservatives have, given the realities of politics in this country, outside the GOP?
Every person you make reference to is a member of the Council On Foreign Relations...Their ultimate goal if the elimination of Nations' borders and National Sovereignty...They may be steller to you, but not to a lot of us...
I would have thought that you would have learned by now that our President's faith in a higher power is his guiding principle. Hopefully, in everything. And yeah, though I know you meant it sarcastically, I DO HOPE IT CROSSES HIS MIND WHEN HE CONSIDERS A SUPREME COURT NOMINEE..it certainly CROSSED the MINDS of our FOUNDERS.
Which is why, congress is OPENED everyday with a prayer.
And which is why, our money says IN GOD WE TRUST.
Which is WHY our national pledge says UNDER GOD.
And which is why, we pray, and deeply, for Supreme Court Justices who understand that ALL FAITHS are relevant and important. That tho our foundations determine that no state sponsored religion is to grab a foothold, all religions are important and provide a moral and cultural rock for our nation.
Just so you're clear -- five of them said so. O'Connor dissented, with Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas.
Oh hogwash.
You can always put me on ignore. You have grossly misread my intentions.
LLS
However, I will tell you this: the democrats are not fools. When seeing the conservatives having a hissy fit about this nomination, they are not above feigning support so that the flames go higher, in the hopes of seeing a court nominee scuttled by the right. They get a conservatives trashed and they don't even have to put their fingerprints on it.
I have held my position since Miers was nominated. I want to see her at the hearings, and then, if she is incompetent and/or shows liberal tendencies, I will withdraw my support. I like to have all the evidence before I make my decision.
I quoted your own statements......the stuff in quotes is what you said. I did not make it up.
Gee, did I just hear you right?
Did you just ask for this President...who has forgotten he has a Veto pen...who supported Specter over Toomey....who is NOW working for Lincoln Chaffee in Rhode Island...who let TED FRICKIN' KENNEDY write the Education Bill, then attack the President over it...you want HIM to now "discipline" Conservatives who are tired of BOHICA-ing?
Let me paraphrase this....
"Will NO ONE rid em of these meddlesome Conservatives?!" sound about right?
Interestingly, the original statement "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest" was uttered by another Ruler...out of touch and demanding his way...King Henry II and Thomas Beckett. The paralells are striking...and a bit scary!
"Becket's big break came in 1154, when Theobold introduced him to the newly crowned King, Henry II. The two hit it off immediately, their similar personal chemistries forming a strong bond between them. Henry named Becket his Chancellor. Archbishop Theobold died in 1161, and Henry immediately saw the opportunity to increase his influence over the Church by naming his loyal advisor to the highest ecclesiastical post in the land. Henry petitioned the Pope who agreed. There was only A Medieval Massone slight hindrance. Becket, busy at court, had never been ordained. No problem, Becket was first invested as a priest. The next day he was ordained a Bishop, and that afternoon, June 2, 1162, made Archbishop of Canterbury.
If King Henry believed that by having "his man" in the top post of the Church, he could easily impose his will upon this powerful religious institution, he was sadly mistaken. Becket's allegiance shifted from the court to the Church inspiring him to take a stand against his king. In those days, the Church reserved the right to try felonious clerics in their own religious courts of justice and not those of the crown. Henry was determined to increase control of his realm by eliminating this custom. In 1163, a Canon accused of murder was acquitted by a church court. The public outcry demanded justice and the Canon was brought before a court of the king. Becket's protest halted this attempt but the action spurred King Henry to change the laws to extend his courts' jurisdiction over the clergy. Becket vacillated in his support of the king, finally refusing to agree to changes in the law. His stand prompted a royal summons to Henry's court at Northampton and the king's demand to know what Becket had done with the large sums of money that had passed through his hands as Chancellor.
Seeing the writing on the wall, Becket fled to France where he remained in exile for six years. The two former friends appeared to resolve their dispute in 1170 when King Henry and Becket met in Normandy. On November 30, Becket crossed the Channel returning to his post at Canterbury. Earlier, while in France, Becket had excomunicated the Bishops of London and Salisbury for their support of the king. Now, Becket remained steadfast in his refusal to absolve the bishops. This news threw King Henry (still in France) into a rage in which he was purported to shout: "What sluggards, what cowards have I brought up in my court, who care nothing for their allegiance to their lord. Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest."
The king's exact words have been lost to history but his outrage inspired four knights to sail to England to rid the realm of this annoying prelate. They arrived at Canterbury during the afternoon of December 29 and immediately searched for the Archbishop. Becket fled to the Cathedral where a service was in progress. The knights found him at the altar, drew their swords and began hacking at their victim finally splitting his skull.
Again...those who ignore History are DOOMED to repeat it! Can you say Kennedy, O'Conner, Souter?!?!
Two additional points. First, it is possible for strict constructionists to disagree. Second, Gonzales is, apparently not a strict constructionist and Bush didn't name him for the courts.
I don't recall them myself, but I've read that O'Connor's votes were conservative for the first eight years she was on the bench.
My statements did not mean what you said. I stand by them 100%. I am arguing for civility, not divisive rhetoric.
LLS
Yep. And they're qualified and we're not, so what they say goes.
>>>It isn't 1973 any more. Even if Roe were overturned tomorrow ... <<<
There is much more at stake than Roe. The Supreme Court has usurped power in a large variety of areas that negatively affect nearly every aspect of our culture, our national security, and our lives.
However, some people might wonder: could Bush really get a top notch conservative with a track record through the Senate? Absolutely he could, especially after the furor the Miers pick has created.
Without question, the 51 votes necessary to confirm a judge like Janice Rogers Brown, Michael Luttig, or Priscilla Owen would be there. Moreover, Bush could get the 51 votes needed for the nuclear option as well. Keep in mind that there were 48 Republican votes for the nuclear option initially, which means that the GOP only needs 2 members of the "Gang of 14" to change sides, along with a vote from Cheney, to win the day.
Out of the 7 Republicans who were against the nuclear option last time, at least 4 of them would be highly likely to change their tune this time around, especially after seeing the raw fury the base has unleashed over the Miers nomination. Mike DeWine is up for reelection next year and Lincoln Chafee has a credible opponent for the Republican primaries. If either of them would like to be reelected as US Senators next year, they would vote for the nuclear option. Then there's John McCain, who can kiss his dreams of being President good-bye if he goes the wrong way on the vote and Lindsey Graham who has as much as said he'll vote for the nuclear option if the Democrats filibuster a SCOTUS nominee over ideology. Given the way that the votes are lining up, it's doubtful that Harry Reid would even want to pursue a filibuster he'd be guaranteed to lose, but if he did, the GOP would come out on the winning end of the fight.
That's why those who say the President would be seriously harmed politically by withdrawing the Miers nomination have it exactly backwards. The political damage is being caused by conservative infighting and it would stop if Miers were withdrawn. Furthermore, if the President decided to replace Miers with a credible nominee, many of very same people who are slamming the nomination today would turn around and enthusiastically support Miers' replacement.
Dont be so quick to criticise others when you live in a conservative state with a DEM Senator who is running for President. Have you been sitting on your ass waiting for the ideologically pure candidate to arrive on his white horse?
If he says he is going to nominate "strict constructionsists," then doesn't nominate "stict constructionists," then in -SOMEBODY's- mind, he has broken a promise. Othere will see it differently, no doubt.
Two additional points. First, it is possible for strict constructionists to disagree. Second, Gonzales is, apparently not a strict constructionist and Bush didn't name him for the courts.
Bush named him to the Texas Supreme Court, where he rendered the opinion I directed you to.
As for "strict constructionsists" being able to agree on the meaning of that term, that is exactly the point I was making. George Bush may think it's one thing, while I think it's another. More research is required, and I provided some.
It is not possible to research Miers in a similar fashion. That bugs me on many levels.
The best-case scenario-right now-is a Miers withdrawal, followed up immediately by the nomination of an ideologically ambiguous-but slightly more palatable-nominee like Judge Edith Clement.
I don't think Miers is the single most qualified human being on the face of the planet earth to be on the SCOTUS, I would've preferred that he roll the dice with Janice Brown, but if it's useless, do you fight just for the sake of fighting? People were saying here yesterday "make the Dems say how they can reject someone for SCOTUS that they've already confirmed for a district seat." Hello? People out there actually think they wouldn't do that in a heartbeat and without an ounce of shame? And pull it off quite nicely?
Again, the circumstances are different now than they were at the time when the constitutional option was a valid and achievable option.
My .02, for what it's worth, about that much, is that people here are enraged about this not so much because of cronyism, or where she went to school, or whether she's a brilliant legal mind, but because they're not sure that she's going to be a vote to overturn Roe because of some of the folks she's run with in the past. Frum, Coulter and all of them are acting out of elitism, especially Coulter, whose last column about this was ridiculous IMHO. But I think the folks here, who are the president's base, put all their eggs in this president's basket that he would appoint justices who would overturn Roe ... people talk about "originalists," etc., but let's get real; IMHO this is about Roe ... and he seems to be wussing and everyone is about to blow a gasket.
Well, you know what? Everyone is singing Roberts' praises here, but I'm not convinced that he would be a vote to overturn Roe. I am absolutely not convinced of that. And if that happens, are we going to bring out the impeachment petitions?
As I said, this is taking on a life of its own. I mean, in another thread people are calling Jim Dobson a liar because he says that some of the other potential candidates took their names out of the running because they didn't want to go through this process. What possible reason would Dobson have to lie about that? And can people not understand that everyone isn't a Freeper ... we're actually a minority in this country, IMHO ... and not everyone is itching for and spoiling for and ready to go to the mattresses and be examined with a proctoscope in this kind of fight?
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.