Posted on 10/06/2005 6:24:54 AM PDT by savedbygrace
OKAY, HERE'S A PRETTY INTERESTING THEORY [John Podhoretz]
From e-mailer A.P., echoing something Hugh Hewitt has been hinting at: "Bush does not really care about conservatism or shifting the court in any direction - he only cares about war. He has a litmus test alright, but it's not "Will (s)he overturn Roe?" (as everybody assumes) but rather "Will (s)he set Jose Padilla loose?". Courts have potential for a lot of mischief in the war against Islamofascism and in fact a district court ruled in favor of bin Laden's driver not long ago. That decision was subsequently overturned by certain Judge Roberts, and that judicial record (rather than his impressive resume - as everybody assumes) earned him the nomination. Since it's been Miers' job to provide legal opinion about actions performed or considered by the Administration, the president must know very well where she stands on a multitude of legal questions pertaining to the war. In other words, the president is not willing to trust anybody's opinion about a candidate (especially remembering how his father was assured about Souter) but rather requires extensive personal knowledge or a proven record on the only issue that truly matters to him (and if my theory is correct you can forget about Justice Brown because of her strong libertarian streak). I'm not by any means endorsing such approach (I'm as disappointed and angry as the next guy), but at least a justice willing to give a lot of deference to the Administration in the prosecution of war is not very likely to be a judicial activist in other areas."
I still have not decided whether or not I will ultimately approve of Miers, but I have this hope. This President does not want to repeat his father's mistakes. Whether it be Saddam, tax cuts, Souter.
While Bush 41 has Conservatives saying, "NO MORE SOUTERS", maybe two years from now Bush 43 will have liberals saying into infinity, "NO MORE MIERS".
Well, since I am pretty much a one-issue voter, and the War on Terror is to me Agenda Items #1-100 for the forseeable future, I guess I should be encouraged by your post...
We can hope, I guess, but there's even less evidence than there was with Roberts.
Personally, I think it's going to prove that there are more mistakes than just the "Souter" kind when it comes to high court justices.
Interesting perspective. A Justice will vote on hundreds of cases and may never hear a Roe type case...
Courts have potential for a lot of mischief in the war against Islamofascism and in fact a district court ruled in favor of bin Laden's driver not long ago.
Hogwash. The "we are in a war" scare tactic just doesn't work on every issue. Here is what Peggy Noonan had to say about this boneheaded reasoning:
"The president would have been politically better served by what Pat Buchanan called a bench-clearing brawl. A fractious and sparring base would have come together arm in arm to fight for something all believe in: the beginning of the end of command-and-control liberalism on the U.S. Supreme Court. Senate Democrats, forced to confront a serious and principled conservative of known stature, would have damaged themselves in the fight. If in the end President Bush lost, he'd lose while advancing a cause that is right and doing serious damage to the other side. Then he could come back to win with the next nominee. And if he won he'd have won, rousing his base and reminding them why they're Republicans.
He didn't do that. Why didn't he? Old standard answer: In time of war he didn't want to pick a fight with Congress that he didn't have to pick. Obvious reply: So in time of war he picks a fight with his base? Also: The Supreme Court isn't the kind of fight you "don't have to pick." History picks it for you. You fight."
There are MANY conservatives opposed to Bush on this nomination and it has become untenable to refer to this volume of opposition as "idiots".
"There are MANY conservatives opposed to Bush on this nomination and it has become untenable to refer to this volume of opposition as "idiots"."
I refer to that volume as "knee-jerk reactionists". Miers could be the best justice ever or the worst. Truth is, nobody knows. The man who knows her better than any of us is the man who nominated her. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
I'm kind of amazed with the Right. Just a few weeks ago we were congratulating ourselves over the absolute brilliance of the President's pick for the SCOTUS. Suddenly the President is unable to pick a good candidate???? Give me a break!
Amen to that. There is nothing as important as fighting Jihadis, and supporting the Young Americans and others who are taking it on. For this reason I would also probaby have to back Rice or Giuliani for pres. as well. They would take it to em.
And the volume of automatons that immediately back Bush on every decision are not "knee-jerk" reactionaries? No, you are right, they're not. Automatons are pre-programmed. :)
Is anyone who has doubts categorized as a Knee-jerk reactionist?
I'm not exactly screaming about the pick, but I certainly have doubts...I don't it's quite reasonable to have some doubts.
"I suspect the Senate leadership might have given him the advice to take into consideration on how hard or how easy someone would be to confirm."
My take is that Bush met with most of the senators, and specifically asked them, "If I send up 'x', will you vote for him/her? If not/if so, would you vote to change senate rules and end a filibuster for him/her?" And I'm betting that he had five or six GOP senators tell him no on the latter.
Yes, but not trying to change the courts will result in the shutdown of GITMO and much more.
He still shoulda picked Janice Rogers Brown...
She is about as anti-activist and pro Constitution as it gets.
grrr
The thing is, we just don't know. In fact, that's the answer to all of the questions about this pick - we just don't know.
I agree.
Right. The point is, anyone you DO know about, can't get past the senate confirmation process.
Miers would have to recuse herself on any case where she either worked with the President or had some responsibility for counseling the administration.
Many of those matters involve sensitive national security issues, including the WOT.
American Prowler is running an article about this Recusal Trap today
As for Jose Padilla and all those people (libs) who want him freed, remember that the OKC "2nd bomber" police sketch looks exactly like him.
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.