Mona Charen ping!
Posted on 10/28/2005 1:31:13 AM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
If there was a single thread that ran through President Bush's two very different picks for the Supreme Court, it was stealth. Neither Roberts nor Miers had committed themselves on Roe v. Wade. Is the president ducking a fight? If so, in this he is not his best self. He hasn't shrunk from confrontations over taxes, or war, or medical research, and his forceful arguments in those areas have amounted to leadership.
Seeking a stealth candidate for the most important seat (i.e., the swing vote) on the Supreme Court certainly looks like weakness. And it's borrowed trouble. Despite the accumulating woes of the past month, the president is not actually feeble. Republicans have a 55 to 45 majority in the Senate. President Bush was recently re-elected after promising to appoint justices like Thomas and Scalia to the high court. There is little constituency for a liberal-leaning Supreme Court. A Gallup poll in June asked in which direction voters would like the president's appointee to move the court. Thirty percent wanted it to move left. Forty-one percent wanted it to move right. And 24 percent preferred that it remain the same. An entire generation of highly intelligent, well-grounded and scholarly legal minds have been credentialed in the past 20 years. Further, as the Roberts precedent revealed, a superior candidate is difficult for at least some Democrats to oppose, which diminishes the filibuster threat. So, lesson one: Don't act from weakness -- particularly when you are not weak.
As the president discovered with the nomination of Harriet Miers, the second trouble with stealth nominations is that people with little or no paper trail can surprise their own side as much as the opposition. The president had confidently declared that Ms. Miers shared his philosophy on judging -- and he must have believed this since (leftist fantasists notwithstanding) he is a man of his word. Yet a series of Miers speeches from the 1990s unearthed by the Washington Post's Jo Becker revealed a woman who was downright enthusiastic about judicial activism -- even justifying it in an extreme case. The Texas Supreme Court had threatened to cut off most school funds if the legislature did not devise a funding scheme the court decreed to be "fair." Miers defended the Court, saying, "My basic message here is that when you hear the courts blamed for activism or intrusion where they do not belong, stop and examine what the elected leadership has done to solve the problem at issue."
No. No. No. The courts are not justified in making policy choices when legislatures fail to uphold their responsibilities. They are not justified in making policy choices ever! If legislatures are lazy or stupid or incompetent, the voters can fire them. But judges sit for life. If they choose to legislate on matters like abortion, homosexual "marriage," school funding, or anything else, they are behaving as monarchs, not jurists.
This is the key point that liberals so often fail to grasp: This debate is about democracy. It is about republican accountability. It is about process. It is only tangentially about outcomes. Those who endorse originalist jurisprudence are not looking to pack the courts with conservative judges who will declare minimum wage laws unconstitutional or "find" a constitutional right to a flat tax. They (we) endorse original intent jurisprudence because it is the only way to anchor judges to the Constitution they claim to revere. In order to adjudicate, for example, what "unreasonable search and seizure" means in the 21st century, judges must ask what the founders understood by the idea, not what Justice Breyer or Souter thinks is fair or appropriate. If justices of the Supreme Court are simply going to legislate their policy preferences, why not simply close down the other two branches, and while we're at it, tear up the Constitution? So lesson two: Avoid anyone who is not an explicit, marrow-deep originalist.
Finally, by choosing a stealth nominee, the president does an injustice to the conservative cause. We are ready and eager to show off our judicial talent. They come in all colors and both sexes (not that we countenance set-asides). Conservative grass-roots groups stand ready to campaign on their behalf -- and more important, to counter any smear attempts by the liberal claque. So lesson three: Mr. President, be of stout heart. A strong originalist like Alito, Luttig or McConnell will do you proud, unite the conservative movement behind you, and chisel a key triumph in your legacy.
I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure...
However, the Republican Senators are now placed in a position of deciding whether they will defend the principles of the Founders' Constitution and back a strong conservative nominee, or whether they will be cowered by the threats of Durbin, Reid, et al.
The Far Left adheres to the "living constitution" school, meaning that, as one liberal university professor proudly boasted a few years ago, "what we have had is a 'sitting constitutional convention.'"
There is no middle ground between liberty and tyranny, and that is what this is about.
Of the Constitution, James Madison observed that, ". . . every word. . . decides a question between power and liberty. . . ."
If future generations are to enjoy the liberty previous generations considered their birthright, and for which so many have sacrificed their lives, then now is the time for naming Supreme Court justices who will limit the Court to interpreting the Constitution. If changes are to be made, the Constitution has prescribed the only legitimate method by which they may be made--by act of "the People" themselves through the Amendment Process.
>>>Can't you vultures even let the ink dry on the Miers withdrawal before you promote your "perfect" pick?<<<
Ink dries pretty fast. What't the point of your snippiness?
This is insane. Some of you would rather put up an unknown quantity (Miers) with no qualifications whatsoever and with highly questionable views who "can be confirmed" as opposed to fighting for true conservatives? What the heck is wrong with you people? No stomach for the fight to do what is right?
I think it has something to do with electronics.
If.
The spineless Senators are a disservice to the conservative cause, and can only be exposed by forcing them to take a position.
The conservative-liberal war will not be won in a single battle, but conservatives WILL lose the war if they avoid the battles.
I think the GOP has egg on its face now, for adopting a go-along/get-along approach with its sworn enemies in the DEM/liberal movement.
AMEN!
Gosh Mike, your equating us with Nazis is so original. And we have hardly called you people Bushbots, lemmings, or Rino's all day today.
You lost this battle. Why you (and the prez) wanted a liberal but female version of Souter still mystifies a lot of us.
So let's get ready to support a good, solid conservative for the next one, unless you want a moderate of course. I think the president will get the next one right.
I read the stuff too, and it gave me a headache just trying to discern a coherent thought in it.
In comparison, her withdrawal letter is well written. If she wrote it, I suspect she allowed it to be heavily edited.
I called no one a Nazi nor equated anyone with being a Nazi, retract that or be known for what you are, a mewling piece of crap. That is not a joke moron.
From the beginning, even before John Roberts, Michael Luttig was the best choice. He remains the best choice.
"Courage is lacking in would-be leaders many times today."
Lucky for you, we roll back the clock one hour this weekend. :)
Nothing could be further from the truth...
Fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on... I won't be fooled again.
You don't know if she was the liberal but female version of Souter. You don't know anything about her because she had not had a hearing. If you had not insisted on your own narrow minded way and waited until the hearing, you might have discovered that she was Scalia in a skirt.
But no! You were too busy pounding your chest with outraged conservative indignation and declaring that you've been betrayed.
How melodramatic and childish!
How silly and destructive!
I love the mind of Mona Charen. I wish she still did TV. Brava!
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.