Posted on 10/25/2005 11:57:05 PM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
< /snip>
Those who claim that it is only Washington eggheads and activists who are disillusioned, misunderstand and underestimate the consequences of such Washington-based problems. The current Washington Republican negativity to Mr. Bush is as a stone thrown into a lake -- it will ripple outward until it causes waves on the distant shores of the heartland.
< / snip>
More importantly, the president is perilously close to duplicating the estrangement his father experienced from his congressional allies when George H.W. Bush raised taxes in 1990. Just a year out from congressional elections, Republican congressmen and senators are in the process of making the practical judgment whether to distance themselves from the president to save their skins. I don't blame them. (After all, it's not as if he is currently championing their principles and policies domestically.)
If they decide in the affirmative, their constituents will hear criticisms rather than support of the president for the next 12 months. The most dangerous time for any politician is not when his opponents say rude things about him, but when his own partymen do. They will start out respectfully disagreeing, but will build to more flagrant rhetoric as their Democratic Party opponents start raising and spending more money and start rising in the polls.
< /snip>
First, withdraw the unfortunate nomination of Harriet Miers. Not only is there almost no enthusiasm for her nomination, I have never seen as much outright hostility and even anger at an appointment from a president's own party. Replace her with a highly qualified, full-blooded, proven conservative nominee. (Any number of his appointments to the courts of appeal will do.)
Then he can have a principled fight between conservatives and liberals...
< /snip>
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
I understand your concerns, and I follow your logic. Your concerns are valid.
Where I'm at....I consider abortion so abhorrent that I don't really care how it gets overruled. That said, I think her pro-life views are significant given what they are based on. She is an evangelical, conservative Christian.
That worldview will put her in such turmoil that she will go to the text of the Constitution and see if there really is a right to an abortion written into the constitution.
I find it absolutely unfathomable ethically that liberals today are celebrating the death of the 2000th soldier in Iraq when on their doorstep lie the tiny bodies of some 40 million aborted babies.
This is the moral issue of our age, and it is the basis of any outrage that God has with our culture.
Far beyond anything else, this must be changed.
Susan is smart. Most Liberals are going to realize that Harriet is the best they can hope for under GW.
I agree. There is a decent chance we will be very disappointed by Roberts. The decision by Bush to select two S.C. nominees without a clear conservative judicial track record cannot be dismissed as a "mistake". Bush knew the importance of this pick and his promises to his loyal base. This is a betrayal to conservatives who have given everything they have to the Republican party in the hope and promise of the eventual reform of this S.C.
You need to get it into your head that if you want to appoint SC justices, YOU run for office.
Until then, the President gets to appoint who HE wants to the Supreme Court, and you can agree or disagree.
It will be interesting to see where he lands.
Let's look at the roll-call, shall we?
Pro-Miers:
Bob Shrum, Harry Reid, the ABA, Dick Morris, Arlen Specter, Barbara Mikulski, Lindsay Graham, Susan Faludi, Gloria Steinem, Susan Estrich, Ellen Goodman, etc...
Anti-Miers:
Ann Coulter, Richard Jeffrey, Laura Ingraham, Judge Bork, L. Brent Bozell III, Mona Charen, David Frum, David Brooks, Kathryn Jean Lopez, Mark Levin, Rich Lowry, George Neumayr, Rod Dreher, Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, Concerned Women For America, Professor John Yoo, Prof. Eugene Volokh, Stuart Taylor Jr., Gary Bauer, Phyliss Schlafly, Ken Connor, Confirm Them, Protest Warrior, Michelle Malkin, Professor Glenn Reynolds, Captain's Quarters Blog, William Kristol, John Fund, Dan Henninger, Peggy Noonan, Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, LoneWacko (Immigration), Tom Tancredo, Civitas, the NY head of the Federalist Society, Linda Chavez, Roger Clegg, Jonathan Turley, Andrew Sullivan, The Seattle Times, Human Events, National Review, Jed Babbin, Redstate.org, Jonah Goldberg, RightWingNews, Stanley Kurtz, Paul Weyrich, Bruce Fein, Pat Buchanan, Elaine Donnelly, William F. Buckley Jr., Michael Reagan, the Wall St. Journal, Bob Grant, etc., etc., etc...
You gotta figure President Bush talked with a lot of the players... including McCain etc.
Then she has fallen into the trap set by the DEMs. The trap is to view judicial appointments as another venue for issues advocacy.
The GOP has fallen into the same trap. But courts are not supposed to be the final battlefield for issues advocay.
The WH is giving her the only advice they can... be vague. Just like Roberts was vague. He was just smarter about how he did it.
My premise is that judicial philosophy can be discussed without deciding the underlying social hot button issues. And I vigorously object when a nominee is vague on judicial philosophy. Government by secret code - ugh.
If the GOP stoops to that, and it has, then it can't object when the DEMs do it. Stealth, it's the wave of the future, brought to you by the GOP, who seems unable or unwilling to advance an argument or a nominee based on principle.
I agree with you. But I also believe that most ideologues lose the battle. The reality is that in this day and age, the courts operate in a manner that our founding fathers didn't intend. It is an oligarchy. It is what Jefferson feared. That being true... we've got to nominate people on our side. People who will vote the way we want them to.
I remember getting my first speeding ticket in 1976 and telling my dad "that cop made a comment about the length of my hair and then wrote me at ticket. I wasn't going that fast and he would have let me off if I was older or more clean cut". And my dad says... well welcome to reality. You can complain about the way things are suppose to be or you can accept the way they are, and then work within that framework. These days.... I'm an accept they way they are, and then try to win within that framework type of guy.
Most pro-life advocates do not grasp the nature of the legal battle.
Assume for a moment that Casey & Roe are overturned. The outcome STILL depends on the rationale used by the court (now 50 state courts instead of the Fed apparatus), and the end result might be just the same.
For a flavor of the statutory construction route for turning legislative intent and the will of the people on its head, see the Florida Supreme COurt's decisions in the 2000 election and end of life issues, and the Texas parental notification case, which is summarized, with links, at ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1507174/posts?page=267#267
>>She is an evangelical, conservative Christian.<<
So claims Jimmy Carter.
Carter never claimed to be an evangelical conservative Christian. He always aligned with the moderate wing of the SBC, and when they got a bit too conservative for him, he left them.
He is an evangelical LIBERAL Christian who will tolerate moderates, but has nothing good to say about conservatives.
Most people forget that part.....
Note the new tagline. Suggestions welcome.
If advocating open government, and decisions based on knowledge and reason instead of stealth and emotion, then I am proud to wear the label "ideologue." I'm in the company of the founders, who advocated a limited and transparent government that operated with the blessing and support of the people it serves.
If that battle is lost, we will become mere subjects of an impenetrable system. And you may well be right. The battle may well be lost, hustled on its way by well intentioned people who are willing to stoop to stealth to "get their way."
These days.... I'm an accept they way they are, and then try to win within that framework type of guy.
I urge you to reconsider accepting "stealth" as a legitimate social/political tactic, and consider that perhaps reasoned discussion of issues and process on their merits is better for the health and well being of our social structure.
My memory says that most of what I've read says the abortion decision will go down to the individual states if it is overruled by SCOTUS at the national level.
One step at a time.
I agree.
Maybe it's just because we pay attention to religious issues.
Fair enough.
We really do agree... I'm serious. The only problem is that it takes two sides to have a reasonded discussion of issues etc. You and I can do that all day... but if the other side doesn't ... we just lose.
I would not advise Miers to be upfront and transparent with this committee if she wants to be on the court. I would advise her to do just what Roberts did. Be vague. Roberts was smart about it. Miers is going to need to rely on social skills. That's the bottom line I think.
The left is waiting for her. They saved all of their amo for this nominee. She's got a tough fight after being shot up by our side too.
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.