Posted on 10/16/2005 6:40:03 PM PDT by quidnunc
The White House branded its increasingly vocal conservative critics as "cynical" yesterday as the dispute over President George W Bush's nomination of his official lawyer to the Supreme Court deepened.
Many Republicans have described Harriet Miers as unqualified for such an important job. They are lobbying for an ultra-conservative with an established judicial record.
Critics have seized on correspondence between Miss Miers and the Bush family to portray her as a lightweight.
Mr Bush's top aide, the White House chief of staff Andy Card, criticised the campaign by influential party figures to prevent Miss Miers's elevation to America's most powerful court.
"I'm a little surprised they came out of the box so cynically," he told a television interviewer.
The use of such language by a top Bush aide about prominent Republican party supporters was unprecedented, indicating a growing sense of desperation.
The White House has suffered a dire six weeks during which it has been criticised for the handling of Hurricane Katrina, the Iraq war and its legislative programme.
As Mr Bush's approval ratings have sunk to an all-time low, his chief strategist, Karl Rove, has faced questioning for his role in the leaking of a CIA agent's name.
To add to the Republican's woes, the party's "iron fist" in Congress, Tom DeLay, has been indicted for criminal conspiracy and money laundering.
He says the charges are politically motivated.
Newsweek magazine noted yesterday that the Bush administration was now being seen as "a political machine that has lost its bearings, and even its skill, in a whorl of war, hurricanes, scandal, internal strife and second-term ennui".
Such talk has increased the Bush team's determination not to suffer defeat on the Miers nomination. But many believe the case against her is already overwhelming.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Do you believe that some Principle you believe in is
1. a political goal or
2. a political methodology for achieving a political goal
3. a commandment from God
Moral values and political philosophies and religious beliefs may not be the same thing and people can take different paths and end up in the same place.
Would I go from point A to point B to point C before going for the ultimate goal of point D?...depends. If I have to break one of the 10 Commandments to get to B, probably not. If I have to fool the Dem opposition to get to point B...probably yes. If I have to compromise and take half a loaf now, fully intending to go for the other half later...maybe, depends on the compromise.
I don't believe taxes are a moral issue. Whether a country relies on private incentives or socialism supported by taxes or a lottery to provide medical care is not a moral question to me. These are matters of political philosophy and wisdom.
I happen to believe that socialism is a house build on cards and will fail as a system due to inherent flaws; but if it worked, I don't think I'd be against it. I believe in tax cuts because they work. I believe in sensibly regulated capitalism because it works. I believe in defending the country's borders because I am a patriot. I believe in the second ammendment because I believe it is the only thing that protects the Constitution and the U.S. from a coup. I never get these things confused with my religion.
I am against killing the innocent, because it is a commandment from God. That isn't a political philosophy for me, it is a religious and moral judgment. I believe in feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, housing the poor,and visiting the sick and those in prison because that is what Christ indicated was important to Him. Those beliefs are not a political philosophy for me, they are religious and moral duties.
Should governments be established to fulfill my religious and moral duties? If government takes care of everyone, does that absolve me from fulfilling my religious and moral duties? Doubt it.
If I can't get to everyone and people's needs are not being met, should I vote to involve the government in assisting me and my co-religionists in taking care of the poor? Politically speaking, I don't think that would work very well in the long run. Although some would be helped faster, there is the concern that when the needy do not thank God for the charity of others and think they are entitled to that charity, and get angry if it isn't as good as hoped, and demand that it be delivered at their convenience without any thanks except to thank politicians at the ballot box, and but not God or the taxpayers, then they are denied real blessings that can alter and improve their lives.
"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's."
...and the wisdom to know the difference.
Aye, there's the rub....
So, let's discuss a specific Principle of yours and then I can let you know if I am craven enough to compromise it in the pragmatic pursuit of a political goal, and you can let me know what hellfire of RINOism awaits me if I do that.
When I give my word on something, it gets done. We've held our breath and our nose for years now, through CFR (which I got excoriated for predicting exactly what would happen on this very board), soaring spending, and a majority with as much spine as a cuttlefish.
We are principled and moral, and we all realize that the Supreme Court is where the buck stops in this country at this moment. It is far too important to trust a wishy-washy 'conservative' who clearly values avoiding confrontation above all else.
Miers is a lightweight. Period. As Robert Bork says, she should not have been put up. Our ideology is to try to save this country, though I think it is too late anyway.
Bush got a pass all this time, and it's over. There is no intra-party fight. The wimps and the neocons have already won. We're fighting to get the country back from the moonbats, idiots and commies who are playing hardball while you and the rest of the people on my side lob grenades inside the tent.
I believe in the end I will probably stay home in disgust for the mid-term elections. You should try to prevent that.
As I said, law firms work that way.
I'm busy now, but if you will tell me who the better female picks are and what bona fides they have that make them superior to Miers, then we might have a discussion instead.
I am going to assume that Owens refused to be roasted again, and Brown was too happy with her new job to want to be roasted again this year, and that Bush was looking at names other than theirs along side Miers.
Who were these top lawyers that were better? I don't know a single name on the purported list of the top 50 woman lawyers in the country.
(I'd never heard of Roberts before 2 months ago, and he is touted as having the finest judicial mind in the country.) I need educating here, so I'm holding my flame fire.
Do we fight the in-fight NOW and hope to have her nomination recalled, or do we fight it AFTER she's on the bench and done irrepairable harm???
The thing is you don't know, you probably wouldn't have known with Lutting or Brown, either.
I've stopped posting for the most part on these Miers threads because it easier having a productive converstaion with a brick wall.
You'll admit that Bush has been stelllar with his judicial picks and has a known trackrecord, but you guys go nuts, despite the evidence GW Bush has shown so far on judivial picks.
I've been thinking the same thing. As long as it stays in the National arena, the Republicans get the votes.
Overturning ROE, by the way, only changes the venue for making abortion policy. Instead of at SCOTUS, each state Court will do the same thing. The big battle just splits into 50 little battles. See, e.g., Massachusetts Supreme Court mandating the Legislature to pass a law that codified gay marriage.
Yep, and it should be up to the states. Even if it was legal in a certain state, at least they would have the power to regulate it as they see fit. I don't see very many states making it illegal totally.
And it makes me mad what the Mass Supreme court did. They took the power away from the people.
You make an excellent point, and I think most conservatives share your desire for a more ideologically conservative party. Here's what worries me about your position, though: even if you are correct and ultimately true conservatives prevail in an intra-party fight, what if the price, short term, is something like a Hillary Clinton presidency? I don't think the kind of fight you envision is something resolved within a year or two between elections. Is the long term victory worth the shorter term losses from a divided party that would put government control with the left? And if so, how long would it take the conservatives, assuming they prevail intra-party and electorally, to undo the damage from Democrat control? There are high prices to pay no matter which course of action one favors, I think.
Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen to name tow. Others have abetter handle on the pool than I do, but there are probably a score (20) to start with, and that list might narrow to half a dozen.
There have been rumors all over the place about who was considered, who withdrew, and who was left over. The Miers defenders are saying that this pick is the best of all who were considered, who agreed to run. Some imply that if this pick is not confirmed, the next one will be worse (that argument is a head scratcher to me)
I am going to assume that Owens refused to be roasted again, and Brown was too happy with her new job to want to be roasted again this year, and that Bush was looking at names other than theirs along side Miers.
Rumors abound. We just don't know. Assumptions are a fun tool for hypothesizing alternative scenarios, brainstorming, etc., but don't illuminate Miers, the nominee. The "last woman standing" story only gives cover to Bush for this pick.
If Miers really is the best woman judge that this country can produce and set on the SCOTUS, .. now think about that ... if she's the best, then we have a serious problem. If the barrier is DME meanness, if that is what keeps qualified women off the bench, then the DEMs ought to be called out on it. But no, we're calling out conservatives because they want better.
Anyway, as I said, there are others who have more comprehensive lists of woman judges/lawyer candidates. I've seen 4 or 5 names (Owen and Brown being 2 of them), but they aren't in my recall at all.
Are you implying a definate carreer track for a SCOTUS justice, which the US Constitution does not state?
We complain about how stupid the DU Dummies are, but then hurl insults at one and other like a bunch of school kids. I'm a huge backer of George Bush, and have been since he announced his plans to run for national office, but it doesn't mean I'm not going to ask questions or give my opinions of his various decisions. Since when did FR turn in GW?
Thursday :: July 21, 2005And here is another snippet ...
Sandra Day O'Connor Comments on John Roberts
But retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor quickly weighed in on the president's nomination for her replacement, calling Judge Roberts "good in every way, except he's not a woman." Justice O'Connor made the comments in an interview on Tuesday after a fly-fishing trip with the outdoor editor of The Spokane Spokesman-Review, where she was also quoted as saying that she was almost sure Mr. Bush would not appoint a woman to replace William H. Rehnquist because she did not think he would want a woman as chief justice.The article also has details about the interview process Bush went through. 4th Circuit Judge Harvie Wilkenson said he wasn't asked his opinion about Roe v. Wade or any other issue:"So that almost assures that there won't be a woman appointed to the court at this time," Justice O'Connor said.
Judge Wilkinson said he was not asked about his views on issues like abortion or even a particular legal case in his interview with Mr. Bush as well as in interviews with others on the White House staff; he would not say if he had talked to Vice President Dick Cheney. "I wasn't crowded in any way," Judge Wilkinson said. "There was no litmus test applied." Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, said in a briefing on Wednesday that neither Mr. Bush nor White House staff members asked any of the finalists about their positions on issues.The White House isn't saying who else was interviewed by the President, but sources say at least one woman was in the mix. Speculation is that Edith Jones and Edith Clement were interviewed.
The editorial also makes the common error of characterizing the Supreme Court as the "ultimate arbiter of justice." In some cases it is, but in many more cases it is not. In the United States, the ultimate arbiter of justice is generally supposed to be the people, acting through our representatives who make the laws. There are plenty of very qualified women who seem to understand this: e.g. Judges Jones, Owen, Brown, Corrigan, Batchelder, and Williams. But I guess they have too much judicial experience.BTW, the breadth (number of possibilities, issues, etc) of analysis at confirmthem (link above) is a cut above the banter here at FR. We're "in the trenches," those guys are the elitists ;-)
You do remember Reagan, don't you? He compromised much less than Bush41 or Bush43, and won much more easily.
It is not only possible to win with less compromise, it's possible to win in a landslide or two!
Someone who is going along with the Republicans for now but will desert the GOP and vote third party if all their issues are not implemented immediately could also merit the term RINO.
Lakoff is everywhere - please see post 126.
It's the other way around. Reagan won much higher vote totals than the Bushes, especially Bush43. The RINOS used the conservatives to get elected, and then shafted them. Run a conservative, Reaganite candidate and we don't need to compromise with the RINOs.
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.