Posted on 07/12/2005 5:16:24 PM PDT by CHARLITE
Last week the president admonished conservatives for daring to suggest that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales would be an unacceptable Supreme Court nominee because of an opinion he wrote in a Texas parental-notification case while serving on the Texas supreme court, and because of his role as White House counsel in watering down the administration's brief against reverse discrimination in admissions policies at University of Michigan. Keep in mind, conservatives have been respectful in their criticism of Gonzales. There have been no personal attacks or false accusations. And these are the same conservatives who went to bat for Gonzales when the president nominated him for attorney general.
Meanwhile, this morning, President Bush had breakfast with, among others, Senators Harry Reid and Patrick Leahy — both of whom voted against Gonzales's confirmation and who led efforts to tie him to torture — for the purpose of consulting with them about his nomination to the Court. And, of course, Reid famously called the president a "loser" and a "liar." And Leahy has conspired with leftwing groups in an effort to derail the president's appellate-court nominees for the last four years, including through the use of unprecedented and unconstitutional filibusters.
What's wrong with this picture? President Bush was quick to slap his conservative base, yet he has shown an inexhaustible supply of sensitivity to those who plot to derail his presidency. Early on, the president was solicitous of Senator Ted Kennedy, inviting him to the White House residence to watch a movie and share popcorn. He even named the main Department of Justice building after Robert Kennedy. In return, Kennedy has never missed an opportunity to stick a knife between the president's ribs.
The president named Bill Clinton, along with his father, to head-up the tsunami-relief effort. Bush 41 has taken the relationship a step further, hosting Clinton at his summer home in Maine, among other things. President Bush even brought Clinton along to attend Pope John Paul II's funeral. And in return, Clinton has traveled the world undermining the president in public statements. So, too, have Hillary Clinton and numerous former Clinton administration officials.
Despite Bush’s efforts — and there are countless other examples — the animus and vitriol leveled against him by his political opponents are beyond anything I have witnessed in my lifetime. And I served in the Justice Department during the Iran-Contra matter.
And as I write this, the same people with whom the president is breaking bread want to break Karl Rove's political neck. Is the disparate treatment of friend and foe not bizarre?
President Bush is at an historic crossroads. His supporters — who defended him through the 2000 election court battle, the attacks on his cabinet members, the attempts to undermine the war effort at home, and, yes, the blocking of his appellate-court nominees — deserve better. It's one thing to be demeaned by the liberal media, the Democratic party, and the Inside the Beltway crowd. But it's another thing entirely for the president himself to treat his base like the crazy aunt in the attic when legitimate concerns are raised about something so important as the next Supreme Court nominee.
It is critical that the White House understand how passionate conservatives are about the Supreme Court's abuse of power. Since Dwight Eisenhower, Republican presidents have promised to appoint individuals to the Court who would uphold the Constitution. They've done a miserable job. Yes, there have been occasions when nominees have changed philosophies after confirmation. But too many times Republican presidents have chosen nominees for reasons that have nothing to do with their judicial philosophy but rather with political calculations to appease liberal demands. Among them are William Brennan, Lewis Powell, John Paul Stevens, and Sandra Day O'Connor.
I understand why Democratic presidents aren't sensitive to the conservative base, but not President Bush. The Supreme Court is out of control and President Bush has the chance to do something about it. And, indeed, he promised to do something about it — i.e., appoint justices who share the judicial philosophies of Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. So, of course, the president's base is nervous when he embraces his adversaries and takes swipes at his friends.
And if political calculations are part of the process, as they undoubtedly they are, surely the White House must know that nothing will be more dispiriting and debilitating to the Republican base then yet another fumbled Supreme Court appointment. The consequences to the Republican party and the nation could be devastating. President Bush — please listen to your supporters, not Harry Reid.
Mark R. Levin is author of the bestselling Men In Black, president of Landmark Legal Foundation, and a radio talk-show host on WABC in New York.
William Brennan, Lewis Powell, John Paul Stevens, and Sandra Day O'Connor.
____________________________________________________
All who had to be confirmed by Dim senates. This is a GOP senate. We do not need a stealth candidate. We need a GOP senators with guts.
I think we will get a nominee that will please us. To me the question is will the GOP senate do its job?
If Bush nominates Mark Levin and Alberto Gonzales at the same time, I could live with it. Especially with Ann Coulter in the on-deck circle.
It wouldn't surprise me to see him appoint Luttig or Janice Rogers Brown (Brown is who I would pick)
Surely there are top level RNC officials who read Free Republic, aren't there?
Char (:
Mark is right. Listen to his base! This will decide so much. I hope our President makes the decision good for our country and doesn't cowtow to the dem/libs.
**** ATTENTION DEMOCRATS ****
Ann Coulter
Mark Levin
Ted Olsen
Janice Rogers Brown
Michael Luttig
**** YOU PICK! ****
Mark Lavin YES...Gonzales NO.
Amen!
Janice Rogers Brown would be terrific. It is bogus to say that judges need seasoning on the Circuit bench before being elevated. She is brilliant, and that is enough. But if there is concern about that being a criticism. I think Luttig is solidly grounded and would be a great boon to this country.
I agree with you, but the Dims seem to think W will appoint a moderate like they want cause Bush is ''meeting'' with them. Aren't they going to go absolutely ballistic if Bush as you say appoints an honest to goodness real conservative[I want Luttig] to the bench? Also do you think Bush is consulting with these creeps just to appease them cause its good politic? I hope so!
Thanks to Mark Levin.
Accountability seems a bit impaired these days.
Guess we learned that from the Clintons.
That's a no brainer!
The American people came out in droves to support Bush because they wanted to stop the left wing activists on the benches. If Bush screws this one up, it'll prove the democrats were right - that he is stupid!
Mark Levin pretty well says what needs to be said.
If this president with this Senate won't appoint those who honor the constitution, then who will and when and why? Those will be serious questions I ask myself if this goes awry.
"I agree with you, but the Dims seem to think W will appoint a moderate like they want cause Bush is ''meeting'' with them"
Well, I don't think they are quite that stupid. More likely, they are hoping Bush will have a slip of the toungue and say something they can later use against him in the confirmation fight---or better yet, they will simply lie and make something up.
I like your idea.
Amen. Preach it brother Mark!
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.