Posted on 10/04/2005 8:05:40 AM PDT by Constitution Restoration Act
Rush Limbaugh is none too happy about President Bush’s nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, saying it’s a selection "made from weakness.”
"There was an opportunity here to show strength and confidence, and I don’t think this is it,” Rush told listeners of his show, America’s most widely heard talk radio program.
"It seems to me from the outset that this is a pick that was made from weakness.
"There are plenty of known quantities out there who would be superb for the Court. This is a nominee that we don’t know anything about. It makes her less of a target, but also doesn’t show a position of strength.
"I have a tough time believing that if the White House didn’t feel embattled over all of this stuff with Hurricane Katrina and the war in Iraq and these poll numbers, the choice would have been somebody different, somebody that could immediately be tagged as an originalist, somebody who was in the same mold of Scalia and Thomas, who the president once told us were his ideals for the Supreme Court.
"The Democrats are saying some favorable things about Harriet Miers right now, led by dingy Harry (Reid), the Senate leader. He likes her very much. Almost like he’d like to marry her, he likes her so much.
"And when you start hearing the President’s opponents start talking about this in the way they’re talking about it, you have to have a red flag go up.
"But the main reason I don’t like this pick has nothing to do with Harriet Miers, because I don’t know her. I think the pick makes President Bush look weak. I think the pick is designed to avoid more controversy, to appease.”
Rush said Miers’ nomination "disappoints” him because he feels Bush might be losing a historic opportunity to take the Court in a definitely conservative direction.
"As I’ve said, the Court is the last refuge for the left. It is where they hope to institutionalize their beliefs and get their beliefs out of the arena of debate.
"This woman could end up being fabulous,” Rush acknowledged, but asked: "Why do we have to take the risk? Why do we have to roll the dice?”
Christians in Politics: The Return of the 'Religious Right' by ...
Cal Thomas continues the story with how pragmatic compromises began to creep in for the Religious Right: "The subordination of conviction to the pragmatic was also evident in politics – which is one of the great dangers of too close an association by the church in affairs of state. Politics is all about compromise. The church is supposed to be about unchanging standards...
"The temptations occurred early for [the] Moral Majority. Not only were we forced to say nothing about Ronald Reagan's selection of the previously pro-choice George Bush as his running mate, but only one month into the Reagan presidency, we were faced with the ultimate litmus test. Associate Justice Potter Stewart announced his intention to retire from the Supreme Court. Conservative groups had long believed that the Court had acted as an unelected legislature. We thought that Reagan's presidency offered a possible once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to reshape the Court in a conservative, or 'strict constructionist,' image.
"Reagan nominated a relatively unknown Arizona Appeals Court judge and former state senator, Sandra Day O'Connor, to replace Stewart.
"...because of Judge O'Connor's questionable record on abortion, many conservative groups immediately opposed her. They felt the conservative movement had not come this far only to be compromised at the moment of victory.
"In an interview with Gerald and Deborah Strober for their book, Reagan: The Man and His Presidency, Jerry Falwell revealed how politicians – even Ronald Reagan, who supposedly was above compromise – can use the prospect of future access to cause one to compromise a principle.
Said Falwell, "I was at Myrtle Beach (South Carolina). The president called me and said, 'Jerry, I am going to put forth a lady on the (Supreme) Court. You don't know anything about her. Nobody does, but I want you to trust my judgement on this one.'
"I said, 'I'll do that.' The next day he announced the nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor. About two weeks later he called me again and said, 'Jerry, I've had a chance to talk to her, and my people have, and I can tell you that her views will not disappoint you, and I hope you can help me bring the troops in.' So I began calling conservatives, asking them to back off."
First, I believe Rush is wrong on this and she will turn out as a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Second, I also believe Bush will have the opportunity to select one more Justice before his term is over. Just a hunch...
Maybe Bush will let Rush select a justice!
As long as he doesn't select Rush. We need him where he is :0)
Cal Thomas was the one who wrote the book Blinded by the Right.
He claims that Christians should drop out of the political areana.
He POV carries no weight with me.
Mega Dittos to Rush for once again speaking the truth. The choice absolutely sucks. PERIOD!
I'm on record with two....
With Ginsburg having health problems and Stevens at age 85, that prediction is really going out on a limb. ;-)
I agree.
And remember, Rush is a warrior. He wanted a fight with the Dems.
Plus, if there was a Clarence Thomas / Robert Bork kind of fight, his ratings would go through the roof.
If there is not a big battle, then his ratings stay at a traditional off-election year level.
O'Connor was a loser but trust we did.
Did Bush by chance appoint the Supreme Court chef, who makes meals for the justices? Hope the cook is Republican.
I think that Karl Rove is responsibible for the meals for the next couple of years. ;-)
Rush is going for the "drama and pathos" quotient. He is, after all, an entertainer.
After Katrina, Iraq, the virulent Democrats who have to fill our days with vitriol and snarky, Normal would be nice.
A quiet, gracious lady of the law.
Yeah - that's the ticket;)
sp
Most people forget the role that Rehnquist played in the O'Connor appointment. They went to Stanford Law together, graduated # 1 and # 3 respectively in their class, dated while in law school, and remained friends after that. Rehnquist vouched for O'Connor. She wouldn't have gotten the nomination otherwise. Wish people would stop trashing Reagan for trusting Rehnquist.
"Why do we have to take the risk? Why do we have to roll the dice?”Why indeed?
See post # 14. Rehnquist was responsible for O'Connor's nomination.
Rush is simply blustering. He will support her as he does everything else Big Government George proposes, either explicitly or be his silence.
RINO.
Rush is a warrior? I'll be you dollars to donuts this warrior drinks his kool aid like a good boy when the time comes for a vote.
Ike compromised and we got Warren. Too many of such people.
I agree two. Ginsberg and Stevens
I agree with Rush.
I think that W has learned from his mistakes, such as Charles Pickering. You won't get a self-proclaimed conservative past the likes of Specter, Chaffee, and Collins. You need to give the RINO's, as well as some democrats cover in voting for judicial nominations. As Sun Tzu says, if you can win the war without a battle, that is the best. I like the fact that she is an evangelical Christian with a long history with W. That's good enough for me at this point.
Good one! Of course you're right.
"Plus, if there was a Clarence Thomas / Robert Bork kind of fight, his ratings would go through the roof."
"If there is not a big battle, then his ratings stay at a traditional off-election year level."
Apparently even the top conservative talk shows have been hit w/less audiences after the election. The left wing shows have been hit even harder.
Also...O'Connor was pretty good for a long time. It was only when it got to Casey did she start "growing". After that, she was pretty mixed and on the big cases she was a flop.
Why do we keep getting nominees that may or may not become "pleasant suprises"? We voted President Bush in because he promised us judicial nominees in the mold of a Thomas or Scalia. There were plenty of qualified people who fit the bill and were not "stealth" nominees. Why is our President so prone to being cowed by the dems and rinos in the senate?
I respectfully disagree. The American public wants a justice who believes "homosexual marriage" should not be imposed by judges, for example. If Bush took his case to the public, a majority would back him, and he would have the 51 senate votes he needs. He's shown he's not willing to make the case to the public, and that makes him look "weak," as Rush says.
That's what I mean - name calling is so tiring.
I agree with you, Rush MAY be wrong on this one. To his credit, and a fact everyone seems to miss, Rush stated he did not know this person and knew very little about her. I wouldn't want to be in a poker game with George Bush. This may be an end run around a terrible Senate blast with the result being a true constructionist nominee gaining a seat on the Supreme Court.
tiring
Was Souter considered a "stealth" nominee?
tiresome
Rush will support her starting today, listen and learn..
"I think that W has learned from his mistakes, such as Charles Pickering. You won't get a self-proclaimed conservative past the likes of Specter, Chaffee, and Collins."
Listen RINO, it was probably people like you who convinced some PA conservatives to vote for Arlen Specter last year. Bush pledged his support in the primaries, and also in the election.
IF god-damned RINOs like you didn't help to push Specter over a principled conservative like Toomey, then obviously Bush wouldn't need to worry about Specter's support. It is these watered down compromises that will destroy the base.
Conservatives are not in love with big spending, and legislating from the bench. If Bush can't get the important things right, there will be a major fallout. For *MANY* people - ie. enough people to determine whether Republicans win or lose elections - judicial nomination is the *ONLY* reason they have stuck with the Party.
Bush is the unholy love child of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon. God damned RINO tory.
God bless Rush Limbaugh!
All this "Trust me, she'll turn out to be a good pick" is reminiscent of a line I heard a lot in 2000:
"Trust me, GWB is a conservative."
" also believe Bush will have the opportunity to select one more Justice before his term is over"
That's the inside-the-beltway buzz.
YES, weakness of a few of the Senate Republicans who cannot assure us that a nuke option will be used if the Dems fillibuster.
"Why do we keep getting nominees that may or may not become "pleasant suprises"? We voted President Bush in because he promised us judicial nominees in the mold of a Thomas or Scalia. There were plenty of qualified people who fit the bill and were not "stealth" nominees. Why is our President so prone to being cowed by the dems and rinos in the senate?"
We should have expected these kinds of nominations from Bush if the Republicans had a minority in the Senate. He is acting like a President without the votes needed. If that's the case, it reflects his lousy leadership. But what do you expect from the Schoolboy President?
I have cast my last vote for any "trust me" republican.
No sir, Dem's in elephant clothing is what's tiring.
I was thinking the same thing yesterday when I was steamed at the announcement. I was spoiling for an ideological battle. However, I've had some time to think about it. The radical left loves to get in your face all over the tube with help from the media. They fight loudly, but their record is lousy. Meanwhile, W turns the other cheek and gets most of the things he wants. Is it better to die on a hill beating your breasts, or to win most of the battles in silence. I hope the next Republican presidential candidate is more of a fighter, but W is kind of a transition president. During his time in office, normal people found out that conservatives did not eat children, but liberals are just plain looney. Miers still has to prove herself, but you could say the same thing about any nominee, even Bork.
This title mischaracterizes what Limbaugh said. I listened yesterday.
A proper title would be: "Limbaugh urges conservatives to get more information before passing judgment."
LOL!
"If it weren't for Rush, the success that conservatism and being a Republican have enjoyed recently would not of been possible...Somehow this damn stupid Party always manages to grab defeat from the jaws of victory. Why in the Hell did we work so hard to elect a majority of 55 Rep. senators, if this is the kind of pick we get."
Bush, in five years, has managed to squander over three decades worth of work and inheritance from the conservative movement. He is a *taker*, and wholely undeservedly so.
I wanted Tomey, hothead. It's good to see spirited discussion, but we never won anything with flamers like you. The success of conservatives comes from people who think before they speak.
Rush was very wrong about the "Gang of Fourteen" deal being bad for Republicans.
He's wrong about this, too.
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.