Conservatives Will Regret the Miers Withdrawal

Washington Post via Real Clear Politics ^ | 10/28/05 | E. J. Dionne Jr.

[muawiyah]

The problem is "W" and Harriett misinterpeted loud air filled noises from the Libertarian fringe as being the voice of an unheard Conservative base.

[conservativecorner]

"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. Conservatives displayed absolutely no deference to Bush when he picked someone they didn't like. The actual conservative ``principle'' was that the Senate should defer to the president's choice -- as long as that choice was acceptable to conservatives. Some principle."

This is so wrong it's laughable. Let me point out that they start out the process with Bush choosing the nominee as is always the case. He was the one who started this debacle without the help or support of conservatives. Do not lay this stupid pick at the feet of concerned conservatives. Defference doesn't mean he's the frigging Pied Piper when it comes to conservatives following his every decision.

If not for Reagen and the conservative movement, George Bush would still be running the Rangers. We have toiled for at least 25 years to reach this point, and we aren't going to allow this President or any other President to run over conservatives like some kind of freight train because we feel the nominee is wrong.

And who are we kidding about Presidential deference. Name the last proven conservative appointed to the court by a Republican while at the same time Ginsburg had bipartisan support to the tune of 96 votes in the affirmative column. Don't act like we get the same deference as Demoncrat Presidents. We work twice as hard as the demoncrats to get anything done because of this double standard. I'm sick of it, and this President needs to come out swinging for his base that energized the party to the tune of a 21-22% increase in Republicans going to the polls in the last election. At the time, and please look this up, social issues actually outranked the WTO in exit polling. People are ready for a shift in this country, and this President needs to remember who brought him to this party in the first place.

[JCEccles]

The problem is "W" and Harriett misinterpeted loud air filled noises from the Libertarian fringe as being the voice of an unheard Conservative base.

William F. Buckley? Laura Ingraham? Charles Krauthammer? Peggy Noonan?

Someone is whacked out alright.

[Cboldt]

Ends do not justify means, and their previous claims that the President's nominee "deserved" the right to a vote will come back to haunt them.

Lots of GOP here defended that the ends (getting "our" nominee on the bench) justified the means, where the means was to advance a nominee with no discernable philosophy.

I submit that government by stealth is inherently bad for the people, that stealth is a dishonest technique, used by power brokers to avoid confrontation, accountability, or otherwise distract the people from the issue that is really at ahnd, which is limiting the power of the Courts, and returning social decisions to the people.

As for the proposition that hearings weren't held, she wasn't given an opportunity to be heard, etc., those complaints demonstrate a shallow and superficial understanding of the political process. Sure, she pulled herself or was pulled in reaction to political pressure. Well, that is the President's prerogative. And he can choose to listen to, or ignore "the voices from outside the WH." But just Ms. Miers was his pick, withdrawing her nomination is also his pick. The process worked fine. There is plenty of historical precedent for nominations to be withdrawn, at various stages in the nominate-confirm-appoint process.

To hold the Miers case (pulled because of wrong-headed objection) out as an aberration is to adopt a DEM tactical argument, aimed again at distracting debate from the core issues at hand.

To the rest of your post - Author! Author! - well said!

[GarySpFc]

No, Cold Heat is not a DU plant. He, like I, simply wanted to see fairness in the process. BTW, that is the purpose of the Constitution, something you rejected.

[Rutles4Ever]

This is the best news I've heard since yesterday. When will Chrissy Matthews add to our vindication with more chimes of doom?

[GarySpFc]

William F. Buckley? Laura Ingraham? Charles Krauthammer? Peggy Noonan?

------

And all four are secularists.

[Cboldt]

How do we plead rightous indignation when the Dems start pounding the next nominee with questions?

We don't! That's the point! We need to defect issues advocacy questions and make them into "I advocate no particular position on the issue, and believe that under the Constitution, the people should decide the issue, not the Courts."

[PhilipFreneau]

>>>Good luck to you all in the next SCOTUS war. I am sitting it out.<<<

Gonna take your ball and go home, huh?

[CaptRon]

their drive to pack the U.S. Supreme Court with allies

What a stupid statement. What? Other Presidents would pick judges who disagree with him? Democrats would be 'open minded' when picking judges?

It beats me why I've seen some convervative writers express respect for this Democrat hack.

[Still Thinking]

This guy is an idiot. Conservatives never said that the Presidents employers, the voters, should keep their mouths shut. What was said was that those whose values and vision were rejected in the last election owed deference to the President's choice. Since their man LOST, deference to the President is deference to those who elected him and employ him. While the voters may or may not owe some loyalty to the man they put in the position, they owe deference to noone. They're the boss.

[Cboldt]

The requests for docs that were mentioned had not yet been made ...

Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) are calling for the White House to turn over internal documents related to Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers's service as White House counsel, breaking with Republican colleagues who say the boundaries of executive privilege must not be pushed.

Perhaps anticipating Republican demands for internal memos, White House staff members yesterday told Senate GOP staffers that the White House will provide evidence illuminating Miers's legal thinking in action.

Both lawmakers are members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will begin confirmation hearings for Miers the week of Nov. 7.

Graham's and Brownback's push for greater disclosure will give Democrats political leverage should they ask for memos and other documents shedding light on Miers's work within the Bush administration's inner circle. It would take only two Republicans to defeat Miers in committee, although that would not prevent the nomination's automatic discharge to a floor vote.

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/101905/news2.html

[A. Patriot]

No, Conservatives would have regretted Ms. Miers voting against them for the next 20 years.

This is the best thing that could have happened short of her never being nominated.

[Cboldt]

Big mistake! New precedents, all the arguments we used before, like a "up or down vote" are all gone now! All credibility gone.

Stop being a defeatist, and put on your history cap and thinking cap.

[Rutles4Ever]

You don't win an all out war with obstructionists in the Senate by capitulating to an environment of fear. Forget a gunshot to the foor - if you think that validating the power of the filibuster by running from the challenge doesn't cut off both our legs, you're wrong.

Bush put his offense on the field and told them to punt on first down. You want the Democrats to respect the GOP? Let them know we're in power. You want the Democrats to filibuster at will? Show 'em it works. Miers was a "please don't hurt us" statement. The Democrats need to hear the words "you and who's army?"

[Cold Heat]

Are you a DU plant?

Is this DU? I'm sorry! I thought I was on Free Republic. ya know, a long time ago, it used to be a pretty good site, with lots of states rights folks, value oriented and the things that make me proud to be in the republican party for all these long years, even back during Nixon when times were really tough.

But I see it has changed. Well, I guess I can't call myself a conservative anymore, because the Libertarians somehow managed to change the definition on me, but I can say that I am a REPUBLICAN!

That word, "republican" is a dirty word at DU and always has been. They call them RePUKES!

I see now, that I am on DU or a DU like website.

I sure hope you don't throw this DU plant of the site, cuz I'd like to aggravate you some more. It gives me great pleasure! And that was not sarcasm Sir.

[The Red Zone]

Filibuster schmilibuster, this is about enough RINOs in the Senate to scuttle all the leading lights that have been suggested.

[Cboldt]

Now I get lectured for being some sort of RINO or lousy moderate who is not conservative enough to please you!

I'm not going to lecture you, but I will point out that your vitriole will not attract or energize voters.

If the party is to win, the burden is on the party to attract and energize voters. It's not the competition's fault when the GOP loses.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

They want the fight with the dems as much as they want a conservative justice.

If you are not fighting Dems then you are one.

[Cold Heat]

Those were pressure courtesy calls. Those requests must be submitted in writing, and they never got that far. The pressure was enough, just as I said.