Posted on 10/28/2005 4:30:00 AM PDT by linkinpunk
Edited on 10/28/2005 6:49:30 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
By E. J. Dionne Jr.
WASHINGTON -- The damage President Bush and the conservative movement have inflicted on their drive to pack the U.S. Supreme Court with allies will not be undone by Harriet Miers' decision to withdraw her nomination.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
What a wonderful day in America!
"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. And whether abdication to courts to make the hard decisions is not a too prevalent tactic in today's world: Politicians who are too concerned about maintaining their jobs."
As you say, no regrets are necessary
They never requested those docs, they simply defected. The threat was enough.
Had they done what they should have done, and closed ranks, while telling all of you to fly a kite, the process would have worked and possibly led to a denial, but we will never know will we?
Big mistake! New precedents, all the arguments we used before, like a "up or down vote" are all gone now! All credibility gone.
Political school will be starting soon. I sure hope you discover what happened here and how much damage this will do to the party. It is not going to be pretty when the coalition readjusts because the candidates demand it and lots of folks will be looking for a new home. They will not be able to trust this coalition any more they will move farther center just like they did the last time, and the time before that.
But it was neither gauche nor inappropriate for conservatives to demand that Miers clarify her views on a slew of issues, notably Roe v. Wade. When liberals asked for clarity, they were committing a sin. When conservatives asked for clarity, they were engaged in a virtuous act. Thus are conservatives permitted to alter their principles to suit their own political situation.
*snip*
The willingness of conservatives to abandon what they had once held up as high and unbending principles reveals that this battle over the Supreme Court is, for them, a simple struggle for power.
This is a classic confusion of 'conservatives' with 'Republican politicians' when they are not the same thing. It is hardly a surprise for that latter group to be hypocritical. But real conservatives have *always* said that a nominee's views are relevant to their confirmation. It is only beltway politicians who decry 'litmus tests.' Rank & file conservatives do not deserve to be painted with the same brush.
In case you haven't noticed, the Democrats have been pounding Republican SCOTUS nominees unmercifully since the verb "bork" was added the American lexicon.
The other side has been playing hardball for over 20 years. Republicans have at long last suited up.
It's about time.
Complete nonsense. Miers voluntarily withdrew. If she'd chosen otherwise, she'd have gotten an up-or-down vote (preferably down).
"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. And whether abdication to courts to make the hard decisions is not a too prevalent tactic in today's world: Politicians who are too concerned about maintaining their jobs."
As you say, no regrets are necessary
LOL! Now look up the quotes from Scalia the past couple of years where he has spoken on this subject.
You will find them nearly identical in substance, if not language.
It does not matter that she withdrew, but it does matter why!
You shot the party in the foot.
I agree that the Libs did not derail Miers, but they are not happy now that she has withdrawn because they are afraid of who the new nominee will be.
S'okay. I truly believe that 1) we didn't do it and 2) it's better fo us to not take credit and let it fall on the senators. I'm willing to bet a sizable number of the base (outside of FR, Blogosphere, and not heavily politically involved) are a) extremely happy with the President and his choice or at least willing to wait and see and b) distrustful of extremist anything, including us. If we don't staunch the bleeding, we may have an angered, discouraged, and disillusioned base. More importantly, we may have handed the Dems a couple more mods. They don't like extremism on either side and remember, the Dems had 60 years to pretend to be moderate. We've had less than two decades to win over the mushy middle.
In picking such a vulnerable nominee, Bush single-handedly undercut the conservatives' long-standing claim that the Senate and the rest of us owed great deference to a president's choice for the court.
It may be that the process is improved over "back to normal." The GOP has been derelict in not opposing activist nominees. The process has been sidetracked to issues advocacy, instead of to the core question of whether or not the nominee sees the court as a sort of super-legislature.
Isn't it true that conservatives in fact DO want to "go backwards," to return to the traditional role of the court in our Republic? It is change that we seek, from the popular modern and liberal view that the Constitution is a living, breathing set of guidelines; to the strict constructionsit, traditional conservative view that teh COnstitution sets out limits on the Federal government's power, and leaves social issues in the hands of the people and the states to the greatest practical extent.
Now, if the GOP would stop permitting the DEMs and liberals to set the terms of debate, we'll really be getting somewhere. SCOTUS picks are NOT about conservative/liberal issues advocacy. They are about returning control of the issues debate to the people, without setting out a resolution to those debates one way or the other.
BUSH shot the party in the foot. And in any case, my allegiance is to the U. S. Constitution, not some political party.
The litmus test of conservatives is "struict constructionism," or "follow the separation of pwoers laid out in the Constitution."
Do you have a problem with that litmus test?
Ummmm, Miers was not borked. She was not qualified nor was she even close to what Bush PROMISED us during the campaign. Simple, but how dare we try to hold him to his promise... the arrogance of us supporters!
How many presidents do you think conservatives have gotten elected?
Before you answer, I'll tell you! In modern times, you elected a single one.
Reagan was elected by the middle. the conservatives could not stomach him. They fought him for eight years! neither Bush 1 or two were either. Nor Nixon!
So who do you think you elected?
Try Clinton!
Not once, but twice! The first time you stayed home and did not go to polls and the result was Clinton for four years!
The next time, you would not hold your nose and vote for Dole, or you voted third party, and it was Clinton for eight!
Now I get lectured for being some sort of RINO or lousy moderate who is not conservative enough to please you!
Ha! LOL! Conservatives my butt!
No wound. Not even a scratch.
Are you a DU plant?
quit spamming
quit spamming
quit spamming
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.