Bush at War With Right Over Court Nomination (And why Rush Limbaugh &c are sadly mistaken)

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.

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.

I enjoyed your post, however you state that "the facts in evidence so far indicate that she will be a conservative Justice, more conservative than O'Connor". HERE is the crux of the dispute between those of us who are anti-Miers, since in our view the facts overwhelmingly indicate that she will NOT be a conservative justice, and NOT be more conservative than O'Connor.

First of all, just seeing how angry and emotional everyone on FR is getting about this nomination both pro and con speaks VOLUMES about just how disastrous a choice this was for the conservative movement.

What I can't understand is why there are still so many conservatives of good faith who choose to ignore the mounting (and mountain of) objective evidence we have about Harriet Miers which indicates that she is no conservative nor likely to vote "conservatively" on the Court.

It should also be noted that the VAST majority of us who oppose the Miers nomination are not from the inside the beltway elite, but faithful conservatives who have not swallowed the Bush Administration Kool-Aid on this nomination.

What's so frustrating is that there appears to be no substance to the conservative defenses of the Miers nomination other than we should "trust" the President on this. Conservatives who support (or do not actively oppose) this nomination appear to be either blinded by personal loyalty to the President, care solely about abortion and nothing else, or are fellow evangelicals defending someone who they think is one of their own. I have nothing personal against Harriet Miers. She's not dumb, and she's not evil...she is simply a very nice, well-meaning woman of average to above-average legal talents who is nonetheless extremely underqualified for a seat on the Supreme Court. She is also clearly a crony of the President. (How many conservatives who support this nomination would nonetheless be screaming bloody murder if Bill Clinton had appointed someone like Lanny Davis to the Supreme Court?)

Perhaps even more importantly to those of us that oppose this nomination is the fact is Harriet Miers is NOT AT ALL LIKELY to vote with Scalia and Thomas. Miers record, what little there is, indicates that she is NOT and has never been any conservative! Even a cursory review of her past demonstrates this. EVERY piece of information about Miers that has been disclosed over the course of the past two weeks has indicated that she is either a "vacillating, unreliable vessel for whatever party or individual happens to exercise power at any given moment", or even worse, a doctrinaire liberal. On the Dallas City Council, she supported the South African divestment campaign, voted to raise taxes, and supported affirmative action in the fire department. She has given money to Democrats and Al Gore (Long AFTER her so-called evangelical conversion). She was PRO-affirmative action in the WH in the Grutter case. She established a Womens Studies department at SMU to showcase far left feminists. She has been active with the very liberal ABA for many years and has shown disdain for the Federalist Society - which is a huge red flag that in and of itself should be enough for conservatives to presumptively oppose her nomination.

Past history has shown that whether or not she is personally religious or pro-life is IRRELEVANT to how she would rule on the bench. Both O'Connor and Kennedy are both, yet have drifted further and further Left the longer they have been on the Court. The fact is, Harriet Miers is NOT a conservative and we would be LUCKY if she ended up voting like O'Connor, though everything in background indicates that it is FAR more likely she will vote with the Stevens/Souter/Ginsberg/Bryer wing of the Court on everything except perhaps abortion - and even that is no sure thing.

How many of us have given a pass to the President and his disastrous open-borders immigration policy and his approval of skyrocketing spending just because we trusted him on this ONE issue? How much time, money, and effort have many of us spent to elect George W. Bush President, only to be rewarded by this blatant betrayal of promises???

Do you even know what a RINO is? You think that hispanichoosier is a RINO because he states he's a conservative first and a Republican second, and he said he wouldn't vote for a democrat, but WOULD vote for a libertarian if the Republican was pro-choice, pro-gun control, and pro-gay marriage? My GOD! A RINO would be the Republican that he would vote against because that so called Republican who is for abortion, gun control, and gay marriage! THAT'S THE RINO!

I guess that makes me a RINO too huh? And I'm 33, been a Christian since I was 11, registered Republican since the day I turned 18, never voted for a democrat in my life, support the military above all else, hate clinton and what he did to this country, was a delegate at the Texas Republican convention last year, worked on Tom DeLay's campaigns in the past, as well as other conservative Republican's campaigns. I am against all forms of abortion, FOR the death penalty, FOR my right to own guns, FOR traditional marriage ONLY, FOR immigration control, WANT the military on the border to help border control, WANT a larger military, WANT to replace the IRS with a flat tax, WANT to replace the regimes in Iran, North Korea, Syria, Sudan, Egypt, Jordan, and others with representative constitutional republics like the United States is, and I have voted for W BOTH times as President and Governor, and voted for Dole, Bush 41 BOTH times, and had I been old enough, Reagan both times, and was 9 years old sitting in my parents living room hoping Reagan would beat Carter because even then I knew the difference. Am I a RINO as well because I put my conservative values and ethice before some party name!? Being a conservative first and a Republican second does NOT make a RINO! That's why democrats are drones who can't think for themselves because they vote democrat even if 90% of the plank is against their personal beliefs. THAT'S pathetic! Not dedication. Being someone who votes according to REAL conservative ideals and convictions is the kind of principle that helps make sure the Republican party stays conservative, because when REAL RINOS come along, who are against traditional marriage, against life, against the right to own firearms, etc, real conservatives like hispanichoosier and myself will vote against them because they are NOT representing conservative Republican values, even if they do claim to be a Republican on the ballot. You really need to think more carefully before you call someone a RINO. That post of yours was supremely insulting in its suggestion that someone who doesn't blindly vote the Republican ticket 100% of the time is a RINO. I'd proudly vote for a real conservative, even if they be the libertarian or constitution party, in a race, if the only Republican running is some liberal pinko like spector or collins running as a Republican who holds little if any of the Republican conservative values. I'd prefer they were a Republican if at all possible, but I'll not vote for someone who is against all the real pillars of modern conservatism but running as a Republican to skim more votes and get a government job. STOPPING THAT is REAL conservatism! Values and convictions ABOVE AND BEYOND any particular political party. I am a conservative Christian first, an American second, and a Republican third. If that makes me a RINO, then someone must have redefined the word since last I checked.

Disagreeing with President Bush about this nomination is far different than betraying him, Sorry.

I know the difference. I was dismayed by the announcement of her selection as well because I had hoped for Luttig. However I know Bush is the real deal, and that he is entrusted with both the political, Constitutional, and spiritual responsibility to make the choice. He has proven himself reliable with judicial appointments. I accept his choice and support him. His adversaries have shown their character as well. They are not to be trusted with anything. Some of them have repeatedly lied about Harriet Miers out of envy, bigotry, elitism, or some other dark secret. Their treatment of Miers reminds me of the Libs' treatment of Bork and Thomas; yet they have only started. The real base will remember how they treated Harriet Miers. This will be the Canadian traitor's last stand.

Where is the evidence that Miers is no kind of conservative. I sure haven't heard any such evidence. I still believe strongly that all this angst against Miers is doing more harm to the conservative movement than the nomination of Miers itself. If conservatives who are so against her would keep it under their hat and not have created this divide, it would be a non issue. All the complaining in the world can't change it now. I would have preferred Precilla Owens or Michael Luddig or one just like them. But that's not what we got. Can't change it, and such a vicious level of opposition to it only hurts the conservative movement. There is such a thing as polite dissent. Bush isn't running for office again, so all this strident venomous internal bickering is only hurting the conservative movement, not W. Bush. That's the biggest thing that aggrivates me about this.

Additinally, I do not believe that a Luddig or Owens would have gotten through the RINO pink Republicans in the Senate. I have no reason to believe that Specter, Collins, Chaffee, Snowe, McCain, and other moderate/liberal Republican Senators would vote for her in committee, much less on the floor, and to run the risk that a hard known conservative would get through a floor vote, is a dangerous game to play, for if they were defeated, that would immediately turn Bush into a lame duck on this, and he would be forced to pick a moderate like kennedy or o'conner, guaranteeing the court remain liberal slanted. I don't see any good reason to take on that gamble with all the rest of the political heat he's having to fight. Katrina, Iraq, DeLay, Frist, Rove/Libby. The ultimate bottom line that is the most important is how will Miers decide in cases. If she finds the same as Thomas and Scalia, that is all that matters, not where she came from, who she knows, where she went to school, if she was a judge before the nomination. Reagan didn't know Renquist, and he was a strong conservative, and I still haven't heard anyone who knows her who has put forward anything that indicates she would not be a conservative constructionist Justice. I just flat haven't seen that. And the level of anger and venom from people against Miers, towards both people supporting her, and people like me who want to wait until I hear her speak for herself before passing judgment, is NOT helpful. People need to realize that and shut up before they do what the democrats haven't been able to do the past decade. Crumble the conservative movement. Whatever happens with Miers, I believe the Republicans will gain seats in the House and Senate. If anything, this nomination has made a large number of conservatives want to be more active and vote for even more conservative candidates for office. And I haven't heard any reason that someone would vote for less conservative candidates because of Miers. I hope the democrats keep on laughing about this. They won't be laughing next November when they've lost their fifth straight general election.

I agree with you. I am not happy at all with how Bush has handled the budged, or the borders, or immigration. But what to do? He's not running again, so to what end is this flaming opposition of him that is creating a rift among real conservatives? It would be better to hold that kind of anger until the next elections to make sure that stronger conservatives are elected. What is the upside to all this open angry opposition against Bush and Miers? The nomination won't be withdrawn. If she is going to vote liberal as a justice, then the damage is already done. I still don't think it can be credibly said that she will vote moderately or liberally. That just can't be known ahead of time. I wish it had been Luddig or Owens, what I wish for doesn't make it so. I am hopeful that there will be two more openings the next three years, Preferably stevens and ginsburg, and God willing Bush will do what the base wants before he retires from politics and nominates Precilla Owens and Michael Luddig, and let the chips fall where they may. I can't say it enough that were it me, I would have nominated a Owens of Luddig, but it wasn't, and even though he didn't do what I wanted, and it makes me nervous, vocal visible infighting among conservatives does not help the situation. It just doesn't. It seems a better course to take our lumps, decide to be even more determined in future elections, and move on, however this turns out. All the fighting just doesn't seem to have an upside to me, so what's the point? In any case, we're certainly getting a more conservative Justice than we'd get from f'ing kerry. I don't know what else to say. Not liking something and being able to change it are two different things, and not liking something loudly and starting a fight only hurts what all conservatives want. More conservatives and less liberals.

Attention to details, and getting things done are administrative staff pluses, that's not what you look for for senior leadership, or analysis positions.

Actually, Miers doesn't appear to even possess decisive administrative talent. A former colleague has stated that when a matter or case went into her office, that's when the hand-wringing began. The account suggests an inability to commit to a position firmly and to waver while compromising and kissing people's butts. Her whole career has the whiff of this. Reportedly, the problem was so pronounced that, while on Andy Card's staff, he lobbied to get her promoted to get her out of his office. And when experienced senior Republican lawyers met with her when she was appointed to counsel, they said she needed a very strong deputy, not exactly a recommendation.

Not the picture of fiercely independent judgment and commitment we were hoping for. Sounds like a neurotically insecure O'Connor to me. (I know, it's hard to imagine anyone beating our Sandra at that one but one gathers that Harriet possesses a special genius in this one area...)

RINO (Republican In Name Only) can only be applied to they who would vote something other than GOP if dissatisfied with the GOP's candidate.

Originally when we heard the term used, it was applied to liberal Republicans who would vote Democrat to avoid a conservative Republican being elected.

Now you want to redefine it to include all who haven't had their brains squashed by an elephant stuffed with Beltway pork and spread-eagled in Bush-love.

Face it, Bush is already lameduck. Prematurely but that's his own doing. Some of us are looking to the future of the party and its suitability to press forward a conservative agenda. If they aren't interested in us, then why exactly should we be interested in Socialism-Lite which is what they're offering us? More specifically, for the large numbers of conservatives who have tolerated the wild spending and the continuation of programs we've fought to kill for decades (NEA, PBS) and the RX disaster and the nationalization of education for the sake of promised Scalia-type Supreme Court justices, exactly what is the coin that is supposed to buy our loyalty with Roberts still unknown and Miers quite obviously a weak nominee by any rational standard? If Miers is the reward for our loyalty (following upon the still-questionable Roberts pick), it really makes conservatives wonder why we've fought for the GOP.

Whatever the question is, clearly Miers is not a suitable answer.

I expect a rejoinder that the GOP is the only game in town for conservatives. I say that's backward. For the GOP, conservatives are the only game in town. And a party whose wartime incumbent barely squeaked out a victory against a fruity gawky snob from Massachussetts isn't banking on a very sure thing. They'd better look at the ranks and stop looking at the White House for cues on what to do. The Miers disaster is a clear sign of a legislative majority blindly following an out-of-gas executive branch for too long.

This evening, for instance, I'm working on my letters to my Dim and GOP senators, both party mavericks (one from my own hometown) to insist that they must oppose Miers. And since most of you groupies don't even bother to write real letters, that leaves a clear field of fire for me...

Most conservatives wanted Janice Rogers Brown, a black female, well qualified for the Supreme Court with excellent conservative credentials who is very religious.

Therefore, most of the criticism of Harriet Miers does not stem from elitism, sexism and bigotry.

Harriet Miers has no constitutional and Judicial experience what so ever and apart from working with GW, no ties to the conservative movement. Among the known nominees, she was the LEAST qualified.

Since when was merit NOT a consideration in hiring among conservatives who oppose affirmative action and quotas precisely because merit is NOT important in such instances, especially to one of the most prestigious jobs in the land, and a life time appointment? Ironically, Janice Rogers Brown and other Black women on the list are far more qualified than Harriet Miers. One would think President Bush and Republicans have reversed the trend and are now promoting affirmative action for whites over blacks with this nomination.

There may be a few bad apples who oppose Miers for some of the reasons you state but hardly the majority of conservatives who are against her nomination for the reasons I have posted. To have some conservatives and Republicans making the same claims and accusations against other conservatives and Republicans normally charged by the left, is an outrage.

That people could have been more tactful in conversations about Miss Miers lack of qualification in comparison to other nominees is a given, but it is impossible to discuss this nomination without specifically highlighting Miers weaknesses in comparison to the other known candidates on the President's list. The future of our country and our court, demanded this dissent, and both are imminently more important than Harriet Miers as important in God's eyes as she may be, who in my humble opinion, unlike Judge Bork (a most qualifed candidate who suffered far greater slings and arrows than Harriet Miers thus far), will probably be confirmed.

The difference between this nomination and other's made by the president is the fact Miss Miers is the President's friend. His other appointees were not. And one of her most outstanding traits is her ability to reveal little about herself. In this instance, the president could not possibly be objective. She wasn't even vetted in the manner and degree to which other nominees were. Therefore, this time, (and I did support Roberts), I do not trust this presidential decision.

Thank you for your civil response.

It would be better to hold that kind of anger until the next elections to make sure that stronger conservatives are elected. What is the upside to all this open angry opposition against Bush and Miers? The nomination won't be withdrawn.

So we can tolerate the withdrawal or filibuster of other nominees or their recess appointments but it is unthinkable to have the same happen with Miers, a lawyer without any qualifications or constitutional writings comparable to any of these same nominees?

No.

She can be withdrawn or defeated. And Bush can send up a proper nominee. And this nonsense about how we can't resist it effectively renders the entire Senate role of advice and consent on nominees to be a moot point of the Constitution.

Again, this is false. And the provisions for the Senate confirmation role apply more readily to Miers than to any other nominee in living memory (obvious cronyism toward a nominee who is a personal friend and from the home state of the president and who possesses no other discernable merits for the office). Read the Federalist Papers No. 78 for more on this cronyism concern of the Founders.

Keep in mind that this is life-and-death. The Court overturned Thomas' order to prevent that Missouri abortion. But with O'Connor on the Court, it was sure that the child would be murdered by order of the Court. Roberts did participate in his first abortion ruling but the vote was not disclosed, merely that all justices did vote.

Another murder for our bloodthirsty Sandra. Another 'trust-me' nominee like five others who have stabbed the right-to-lifers and conservatives in the back for decades and leaving a trail of blood in their wake.

A child was murderered again today because we have been too trusting of White House promises for too many decades. Let's not betray the brave conservative judiciary who have suffered so much abuse by the libs and the press by handing them a futile nominee to set their purposes (and ours) to naught.

No, a pragmatist looks to see if there is anyway at all to eke out a win, or any education to the public upside even if we lose, before donating money.

There are lots of good causes. I get 4-6 solicitations every day. I'm not rich, so I have to have some way of winnowing the number down. I choose to go for races where my little bit may make a little bit of difference.

I don't give to races where they are way ahead and flush with cash. I don't give (well, not anymore) to hopeless crusades.

The nice thing about freedom is that you can do it differently if you choose.

Right now I'm looking at Tom Delay's solicitation for supporting conservative student groups on college campuses.

This seems worthwhile. Does anyone know about this organization called The Leadership Group?

There are also solicitations here for donations for State races for Lt. Gov, Treasurer, Atty General, Controller, and from the Reagan Ranch (Young Americans for Freedom), the Salvation Army, Teen Challenge, Jim Talent for Senate, Asa Hutchinson for Governor, Katherine Harris for Senate, The Billy Graham Evangelical Association, etc...

Which would you choose to support if you could only afford to send money to say...three?

I certainly don't know if Miers would be another disappointment like O'Connor, or worse, a complete disaster like Souter. Who knows, she may even wind up joining Scalia and Thomas as a consistent conservative voting block.

And to be fair, you can't know how anyone will decide cases until they are safely on the High Court with the comfort of a lifetime job to let their true nature prevail. And you can't say for sure if someone will change once in such a position.

And I agree with the criticism of the criticism of Miers that centers around an air of elitism. I agree that its a mistake to elevate the Sup Court above the other branches, and to treat the justices as somehow possessing a higher wisdom than us rubes, because that plays into the Left's vision of the Courts and the Left's attempts to bestow it with such gravitas that it lends legitimacy to their absurd liberal decisions that have no Constitutional justification. I don't think that the candidate must come from an Ivy League law school (though it must be said that many of the top conservative candidates did not attend such schools, like Brown and Owen, and I'm sure even Ann Coulter would have supported Brown).

But I also agree that one of the biggest shames of the Miers nomination is that Bush has failed to take advantage of the oft-mentioned deep bench of proven conservatives that has been developed over the last few decades. In failing to pick among these more proven candidates, one could also argue that Bush has sent a chilling and disheartening message to conservatives aspiring to serve on the courts; i.e. don't dare make any of your thoughts public. Contrast that with the extremist Ginsburg, whose radical ideas were out in the open at the time of her 90+ vote approval from the Senate.

Listen, think whatever you want to think, it's your right, as it is mine to think whatever I think.

Yet, the fact remains that in politics, the term "Republican" is associated with membership in, and loyalty to, a political Party.

If that loyalty can be swayed, for whatever reason you wish to use to excuse the fact that you can be swayed away from voting for the Party's candidate, then, even with all your qualifications listed, you are a Republican in name only.

It's a bitter pill to swallow, but it is the truth.

Let me give you a great example...

No one who walked away from the GOP and voted for Perot can honestly call him or herself a Republican...fact.

Those who did, accomplished nothing more than facilitating a victory by the DNC, and eight years of Bill Clinton. NO one who does that can claim the title of Republican.

It's like being part of a family; you can't consider yourself a member of that family when times are great, but refuse to acknowledge the fact that you're part of it when you find out that Crazy Aunt Hildy fell off the wagon one more time and she's back chasing the bag boys at the Piggly Wiggly, Cousin Bobby is back in jail for his "peculiar habit", and your twin nieces are doing their amateur video camera gig with Uncle Harvey again.

You're either in, or you are out, and whatever ails the family, you stay in and fix.

You can't fix it by leaving it, so if you decide to pull out of the Party because you don't like the current candidate, you go right ahead...just don't call yourself a Republican when you return.

The real Republicans are those who stayed behind and fixed the Party while you were gone, facilitating your return.

Do you have any informatation about Judges Jones, Corrigan, Batchelder, and Williams?

No. I've never researched them independently. Should be easy enough to find if/when the need arises; or if you're just curious, try that confirmthemnow link.

It occurred to me that by appointing what would appear to be "reasonable" choices by the standards of a Democrat that Bush may entice one of the older liberal Justices who is weary to go ahead and retire rather than dying with their boots on without enjoying retirement while waiting for a Democrat President.

But if Miers is the best we can get, all the rest are going to be worse anyway. ;-)

The Justices are very independent. They'll do as they see fit, and I can't imagine a liberal getting off the bench, no matter WHO was in the WH.

"The Clinton presidency was fine for the country. It brought us control of the house, the economy grew, welfare was reformed, the budget was balanced, etc. The Bush I tax increase was not, and nearly derailed the developing conservative ascendency, caused a recession, threw away 90% public approval, risked a proper wrap up of the cold war, etc"

Jason, you truly need to quit reading liberal papers.

The economic boom experienced during the Clinton administration was the culmination of Reagan's economic plan, the budget was balanced as a result of Bush I's reluctant agreement to break his campaign pledge of no new taxes; Gramm-Rudman, signed into law by Ronald Reagan, called for reduced Federal deficits, and Bush I gained major spending cut concessions from congressional Democrats in exchange for new taxes.

An economy the size of the United States does not turn in a year, nor do deficits to the tune of $200 billion disappear overnight.

As for welfare reform, it was a Republican Congress that put the plan on Clinton's desk to sign, and many Democrats were critical of Clinton for signing it.

FYI...Bill Clinton represented the right wing of the Democratic Party.

"I expect a rejoinder that the GOP is the only game in town for conservatives. I say that's backward. For the GOP, conservatives are the only game in town. And a party whose wartime incumbent barely squeaked out a victory against a fruity gawky snob from Massachusetts isn't banking on a very sure thing."

The GOP owns the White House, both Houses of Congress, the majority of governorships, and the majority of the State Houses.

Bush was re-elected with a majority of the popular vote, the first time that's happened since Bush I, and his popular vote total, 62,000,000+, is the largest number of votes ever received by any President in an election. President Bush carried 31 out of 50 States, with 286 electoral votes.

You've never bother to hide your animosity for President Bush, but you won't get away with distorting facts in order to make a point.

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.