Posted on 10/14/2005 6:47:23 PM PDT by quidnunc
I'm beginning to wonder why the political conservatives voted for Bush. I assumed at the time that it had something to do with believing that he would be able to pick better players for the Cabinet and the Court than his opponents (Al Gore and John Kerry, lest we forget.)
At least, that's what they claimed in the Novembers of 2000 and 2004. In this last election, as in no other, the Court was thought to be vitally important.
In religious right circles, at the grass roots level, there was high excitement that the nation might finally get some Justices in who would roll back the tides of misplaced internationalism, judicial invention, and Supreme legislation that have proven so vexing to those in the heartland trying to raise decent families in an unholy world. Because President Bush is a man of sincere faith, whereas John Kerry was clearly a man of pure opportunism and personal religious hypocrisy ("I believe life begins at conception" did not ring true from a pro-choice politician), prayerful people whose participation in politics is normally limited to election day came out in force to actually work for candidates. Phone banks were filled, neighborhoods were walked, parties were held, and registration drives were pursued by massive numbers of people otherwise uninterested in the process.
All this optimism was based not on who would be the likely nominees, but on who would be the one to pick such nominees — a man whose heart they trusted, George W. Bush.
-snip-
Now, don't get me wrong. Most Christian conservatives — like most Americans — don't know much about potential court nominees. They've heard the names of judges the Democrats filibustered, and that's about it. As was the case with John Roberts, most ordinary people on the religious right didn't know who she was, since who the White House Counsel is does not generally show up as a prayer concern to any but those immediately involved. What they knew about John Roberts was that the President admired him and he seemed to be a good man, a good father, a Constitutionalist instead of an activist, and the choice of the President for Chief Justice. The religious conservatives, with no particular knowledge of Roberts, immediately got on board. Why? Because they trusted the man who nominated him.
Although Roberts wasn't on the conservative intelligentsia's wish list, the usual gang of conservative pundits quickly found out enough to satisfy them that the non-selection of Edith Jones or Janice Rogers Brown or Michael Luttig hadn't shafted them. (Though Ann Coulter didn't like him, anyway.) Besides, the Democrats were acting like babies already. All the players were on the sides one expected; all was right with the world.
But Miers is a different situation altogether. Conservatives have occasionally wondered who this president really is. Spiritual conservatives wondered if he could be trusted to do the right thing in the face of long odds, or if he would prove to be merely a consummate politician playing the evangelical card to his political advantage. Economic conservatives have worried that he would some day risk conservative political gains for some deep and unknowable spiritual conviction.
Now we know.
Christian conservatives should no longer doubt this president's sincerity. He has made a selection based on a conviction that flies in the face of pragmatic politics, and he is not backing down. He is risking everything to bring in a nominee that he himself believes is the best available choice, despite the objections of politically-minded conservatives and the opposition of those he considers his allies.
The Miers nomination is the Category 5 hurricane that breaks open the levees of conservatism, exposing its deepest divide: that between those who are conservative primarily for intellectual reasons, and those whose conservatism is a habit of the heart. The president has declared his loyalty; he is, above and beyond his economic theories and his powerful defense of the free market, a True Believer.
These disagreements have arisen from time to time, in the divide between the social conservatives longing for more true believers in the Reagan White House and the political pragmatists urging them to be patient; in the rift between the George H.W. Bush New World Order acolytes and the cultural conservationists on Pat Robertson's team; in the tug of war between hard-line fiscal conservatives and open-handed compassionate conservatives willing to spend a little money to prod the resistant into participating in Bush's visionary "ownership society."
Between the two, there are differing definitions and applications of "trust." It might be said that both subscribe to Reagan's sage advice on the Soviet Union, "Trust, but verify," — but one group considers the trust primary, and the other tends to suspend trust in the hunt for verification.
-snip-
It is important to a purpose-driven Christian to seek a Biblical response to matters of culture, and to follow that response regardless of its pragmatic consequences. Despite the deaths of 45 million babies as a result of the Roe decision, they are called to forgive all those involved and to seek to change the situation through prayer and repentence, rather than anger and action. Where they have no knowledge, they seek advice from people they trust who do. Quite bluntly, they trust Dobson and Warren more than they do Limbaugh and Coulter. And because Dobson and Warren trust Bush on this, they are more inclined to do so.
-snip-
The conservative intelligentsia sees the President's membership in the social conservative club overshadowing their power to control the dissemination of conservative information, and they are having none of it. They can't accept the notion that the President of the United States might have access to better information concerning Court nominees than they have. They can't handle the idea that when he said "I will nominate candidates to the Supreme Court," he really meant "I" and not "my friends in the conservative think tanks." They can't stand it that, after all this time in the wilderness, they might still be "out of the loop" when it comes to the important questions of the presidency — especially when they find out that a doltish nobody like James Dobson actually had a seat in the "kitchen cabinet" this time around. It wasn't the judicial conservative elite invited to that conference call — it was the evangelicals. And that smarts.
The conservatives who are crying the loudest — and with a venom and a bitterness usually reserved for Ted Kennedy or illegal immigration — do more than anyone else to convince those who trust Dobson and Falwell and Robertson and D. James Kennedy and Marvin Olasky and Dick Cheney and President Bush that the president, leading with his heart, is right on this. There seems to be more than a little "it's not FAIR" in their whining and braying. Though they were in no way owed a consultation, the fact that they did not get one appears to have driven conservative think-tank mavens into paroxyms of rage.
Tsk, tsk. That's no kind of witness for the world.
-snip-
Rick Warren is fond of saying, "Remember: God is God, and you're not." The conservatives angry that the president actually had the nerve to exercise the authority they gave him to bring up a nominee that will do what they want her to do would do well to remember that President Bush is President, and they're not.
-snip-
Are you trying to say that W is God? Dude, you're in serious trouble.
Dude, my family went to four Bush rallies in Iowa last fall. He said that he wold appoint justices to the Supreme Court in the mold of Scalia and Thomas at each of these rallies.
I am talking about all the abuse coming from the Presidents own party. Notice that the Dims are staying out of the fray as long as we are eating our own.
Wrong, Wrong Wrong. Never said it, nope not once. I've never said that. I do have the right to voice my opinion.
Bush may get another one or two SCOTUS appointments. Bush needs to be on a rising curve in these appointments, but it looks like the quality of his appointments is declining, which does not bode well for the future. Bush needs to be aware of this.
I agree with you. Let's wait and see.
Hardly. He said "The most primary issue is will they strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States." Russert then tries to get him to say exactly what folks like you claim Bush has said. So how does Bush respond... "Well, I don't think you're going to find many people to be actually similar to him. He's an unusual man." He then lists the reasons why he likes Scalia, starting with the fact he knows him well. He goes on to say that he likes a lot of other judges as well.
So where in all that do people draw the claim "Bush promised he would appoint judges in the mold of Thomas and Scalia." The correct answer is...YOU CAN'T. You can correctly say Bush believes the primary issue is that judges strictly interpret the Constitution. You can correctly say he likes Scalia in part because he knows him. But you cannot say, "Bush promised to appoint judges in the mold of Thomas and Scalia." So for the sake of the truth, please don't.
I, for one, am getting sick and tired of holding my nose in the voting booth.
Note that Souter sounded great at his hearings.
Is Harriet Miers a strict constructionist who will not rule from the bench? I don't see any evidence of that in her work or record. Sorry, but the more I look at this business, the more I conclude that the whole business was a sorry mistake, and that the best thing for Bush, Miers, and the country would be for her to drop out.
Let's see, Bush names but two SCJs. Why didn't he name Souter?
Then I'm sure you'll have no trouble finding a reference to support that. As a point of fact, I have attended 4 Bush rallies myself (one in Illinois, one in Wisconsin and two in New Jersey) and I never heard him say it.
Close enough = Horse shoes and Hand Grenades.
"Hello, Kettle? You're Black."
"Well, I'm sorry. Bush is my President, and in general, I support him. But his softened stance on some other issues (borders and spending, to name two) has shaken some of that initial trust. Yes, he's made some good, solid picks for the federal bench, and in John Roberts, as well - but this was readily apparent when he picked them. Miers is still somewhat of a mystery, but more importantly, that breaks with his previous pattern - and whenever a pattern deviates, it is smart to raise questions."
Bingo. And whats "dividing" the party is not disagreement over Miers, its the way her supporters are bashing honest conservatives who have valid questions about her as a nominee. Keep at it and we'll be a minority party again.
A: She Hasn't been shown to be in the past. Who knows about the future - too much risk.
Q: Is Miers more qualified than Roberts, Scalia, Thomas?
A: Nope.
My BS meter regarding your postings is pegged. Apparently yours is busted.
I think that goes both ways. I've seen more bashing of those who choose to adopt the "wait and see" attitude here.
I personally find it all rather sickening.....all this "infighting". I'm sure the Dims are just loving it.
"He is however President, and therefore has the right to nominate whomsoever he pleases."
With that said, the conservative movement is bigger than any one person. Its an ongoing culture, a consciousness that must be sustained and grown. Bush has to go back to texas to live. His relationship with Mexico is very important in his eyes, unlike Clinton whom has no desire to live in Arkansas except to occasionally show up to check on his library.
We have every right to question Bush's nominee to the supreme court. The nominee will remain long after he is gone. If she turns out to be a something less desired during the committee hearings, let the conservative leaders know about it.
What I find interesting about the whole issue is the "de ja vu" ness of this nominee ala Cheney. Here Cheney was supposed to find Bush a VP. After Cheney put alot of candidates through the hoops, Bush looks at Cheney, and says why not? Now here we have Miers putting SC justices through the hoops, we get Roberts, and Bush looks at her and says, why not? It doesn't really smack of chronyism as more of convenience, but qualified.
Of course, Clinton brought a bunch of wackjobs with him from Arkansas. Of course the only one that was halfway decent was Witt for FEMA, and there was that other guy that killed himself in the park. Oh, and then there was that gas CEO guy who became Clinton's chief of staff who turned out to be a joke and was reassigned.
He probably doesn't like Souter (although comments from anti-Meirs folks on this site would lead one to believe Souter must be Bush's hero). But are you really trying to argue that the reference you provided says "Bush promised he would appoint judges in the mold of Thomas and Scalia"?
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.