That's okay. Those "conservatives" will never vote for GWB again.
BTW ... Tom Bevan takes a nice smack at George Will. ;)
Stratergery, anyone?
Will is inclined to this sort of snobbery. I didn't even approve of the way he took after Jimmy Carter. The Olympian tone, I mean.
A church-going woman will never be a Trojan Horse as far as the Left is concerned; nothing would raise their suspicions so quickly.
Of course, it would be against the laws of this nation to subject ANY nominee to a religious test. The libs in the Senate will only be able to use their usual anti-Christian code language in this case, lest they violate their own oaths of office.
And after all is said and done, the so-called conservatives who unloaded ammo this week need to sit down and figure out how much damage they have done to themselves and their causes with this White House. GWB still had 3+ year left in his term. He will almost certainly get another SCOTUS position to fill. He will be kingmaker for the 2008 GOP nomination. Anyone seeing a McCain/Guiliani, McCain/Rice, Guiliani/Rice ticket?
This is probably correct.
And Miers probably will be a very social conservative vote on the Court. Which means that in Miers, Bush has probably given conservative Republicans precisely what they have pined for and worked towards for all these years.
The same is probably true of Roberts.
With these two appointments, the Supreme Court will probably be 4-4 conservative-liberal, with Kennedy as the "swing vote", and the conservatives will get their wishes.
The problem with all of that is that word "probably".
Conservative Republicans haven't fought for 32 years to get a pair of "probablies" and "wait-and-sees" out of a Republican President and a Republican Senate.
What was supposed to happen was a pair of "certainlies", which would have required nuclear war in the Senate, but which would have then established a certain outcome.
Because if even one of that string of "probablies" goes awry, the conservatives will have worked all these years to have been played like chumps by the Republican establishment. That social conservatives have to "wait and see" on this reduces them to the status of being the Republicans' "Black Bloc". And that is just not good enough for the foundational cornerstone of the party. It assumes too much discretionary power on the part of the elected leadership. Conservatives did not elect Bush to act this way. He is doing it "his way", which reposes on "probably".
He failed his base, even if the "probablies" turn out right.
It should come as no surprsise the the President isn't an ideological purist - he never claimed to be.
No spending vetoes, and no questions of judge appointees about abortion (so he says) should prove he's not a purist.
I've never heard the President describe his vision of judicial restraint, other the mouthing catchphrases.
Considering the Senate, the President may have concluded that conservatives are still underdogs (who need stealth) instead of proven electoral winners.
You know how important loyalty is to the president. This woman is one of his most trusted. She will carry the torch that Bush held when we elected him.
The "Church Lady"? Isn't that special.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. -- Albert Einstein
In the past 25 years, only one of the four stealth candidates appointed by Republican presidents ended up being a conservative originalist.
Why should we except the direction of the court change when the same failed strategy is being used once again, this despite having 55 Republican seats in the Senate?
Flashback to 1981:
United Press International
July 8, 1981, Wednesday, AM cycle
SECTION: Washington News
BYLINE: By WESLEY G. PIPPERT
DATELINE: WASHINGTON
In Texas, television evangelist James Robison expressed his support for Mrs. [Sandra Day] O'Connor based on a conversation Tuesday with presidential counselor Edwin Meese.
A Robison aide said Meese told the evangelist:
''Sandra O'Connor thinks abortion is abhorrent and is not in favor of it. She agrees with the president on abortion. There was a time when she was sympathetic toward the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) movement, but the more she studied and found out about it, the more she changed her mind.
''She is very conservative ... Sandra O'Connor assured the president that she was in agreement with him and she totally supports pro-family issues and the Republican platform.''
FINALLY!! Someone is beginning to sound rational about this appointment. I am sick of the Ann Coulters, G. Wills, etc., elitism and comments that only people with certain pedigrees should be on the Court. Give me a break! I was an EA to a Fed Judge for 25 years and I used to "oversee" law clerks as one of my many duties. Without exception, the ones from the Ivy League schools were a royal pain in the bunns (arrogant, rude, drunks, lazy, spoiled, undependable). The ones from smaller, more conservative law schools were like angels from heaven to have around (dependable, flexible, clean, well-dressed, nice manners, good writers/spellers and determined to succeed)(and not drinkers).
In my estimation, anyone endorsed by Harry Reid, who supports gay marriage and who has contributed to Algore and Lloyd Bentson is not likely to be to the right of Scalia and Thomas.
Democrats arguing lack of intellectual horsepower (ANY DEMOCRAT) would be a comedy routine worthy of observing.. Yes even Zell Miller.. If Zell was smart he wouldn't even BE a democrat..
That's okay. Those "conservatives" will never vote for GWB again.
BTW ... Tom Bevan takes a nice smack at George Will. ;)
I am of the opinion that what makes judges tack left once appointed is that they come to believe that their intellect is superior to written and stated matters of law. They seek to create profound meaning where none is required or exists. Roe v. Wade a case in point. There is no right to privacy in the constitution. The intellectual struggle in Roe v. Wade was not in creating the right that didn't exist, the struggle was creating the numerous pages of BS around the ruling trying to convince everyone that the right did exist.
To me, the excerpt from Will's article would seem to point out the source of the problem, not the solution. I am sure some of these intellectuals are still trying to figure out the meaning of "is".
years of practice sustained by intense interest
- to me, this defines a fanatic - someone that won't change their mind and won't change the subject.