| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 10/07/2005 10:39:51 AM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Duplicate: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1498291/posts |
Posted on 10/07/2005 10:13:59 AM PDT by American Quilter
Conservatives who have for years contributed time, money, and sweat to help elect Republicans have often been justifiably outraged at the way the Republicans have then let them down, wimped out, or even openly betrayed the promises on which they were elected.
Much of that frustration and anger is now being directed at President Bush for his nomination of White House counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. Why not someone like Judge Janice Rogers Brown or any of a number of other identifiable judges with a proven history of upholding conservative judicial principles under fire?
Looming in the background is the specter of people like Justice Anthony Kennedy, who went on the High Court with a "conservative" label and then succumbed to the Washington liberal culture. But while the past is undeniable, it is also not predestination.
This administration needs to be held responsible for its own shortcomings but not those of previous Republican administrations.
Rush Limbaugh has aptly called this a nomination made from a position of weakness. But there are different kinds of weakness and sometimes the difference matters.
President Bush has taken on too many tough fights -- Social Security being a classic example -- to be regarded as a man who is personally weak. What is weak is the Republican majority in the Senate.
When it comes to taking on a tough fight with the Senate Democrats over judicial nominations, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist doesn't really have a majority to lead. Before the President nominated anybody, before he even took the oath of office for his second term, Senator Arlen Specter was already warning him not to nominate anyone who would rile up the Senate. Later, Senator John Warner issued a similar warning. It sounded like a familiar Republican strategy of pre-emptive surrender.
Before we can judge how the President played his hand, we have to consider what kind of hand he had to play. It was a weak hand -- and the weakness was in the Republican Senators.
Does this mean that Harriet Miers will not be a good Supreme Court justice if she is confirmed? It is hard to imagine her being worse than Sandra Day O'Connor -- or even as bad.
The very fact that Harriet Miers is a member of an evangelical church suggests that she is not dying to be accepted by the beautiful people, and is unlikely to sell out the Constitution of the United States in order to be the toast of Georgetown cocktail parties or praised in the New York Times. Considering some of the turkeys that Republicans have put on the Supreme Court in the past, she could be a big improvement.
We don't know. But President Bush says he has known Harriet Miers long enough that he feels sure.
For the rest of us, she is a stealth nominee. Not since The Invisible Man has there been so much stealth.
That's not ideal by a long shot. But ideal was probably never in the cards, given the weak sisters among the Republicans' Senate "majority."
There is another aspect of this. The Senate Democrats huffed and puffed when Judge John Roberts was nominated but, in the end, he faced them down and was confirmed by a very comfortable margin.
The Democrats cannot afford to huff and puff and then back down, or be beaten down, again. On the other hand, they cannot let a high-profile conservative get confirmed without putting up a dogfight to satisfy their left-wing special interest groups.
Perhaps that is why some Democrats seem to welcome this stealth nominee. Even if she turns out to vote consistently with Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, the Democrats are off the hook with their base because they can always say that they had no idea and that she stonewalled them at the confirmation hearings.
The bottom line with any Supreme Court justice is how they vote on the issues before the High Court. It would be nice to have someone with ringing rhetoric and dazzling intellectual firepower. But the bottom line is how they vote. If the President is right about Harriet Miers, she may be the best choice he could make under the circumstances.
He doesn't address the issue of her qualifications. If Bush nominated another John Roberts (i.e. blank slate, unsurpassed qualifications), there would be grumblings of discontent, but not complete outrage.
Dr. Sowell always make sense!
That's because this is the plain, unvarnished truth of the situation clearly stated!
Miers may not be Scalia, Thomas or Luttig, but she is qualified to sit on the SC. When Nixon appointed Rehnquist to the SC, the future Chief wasn't a judge. Rehnquist was a well known GOP politico in Arizona. Miers appears to be pro-life and that should go a long way with conservatives. Miers has said she would interpret the Constitution keeping the Founders original intent in mind. Sounds like this woman will do just fine.
"It sounded like a familiar Republican strategy of pre-emptive surrender."
Sowell hasn't missed a good left jab in 30 years : )
She has an undergrad degree in mathematics. Better than Harvard Law in my book.
Sowell's books, articles and columns are always dead on target. As the likes of Russell Kirk and his generation have passed from the world in the last dozen years, Sowell is the senior dean of conservative thought, IMHO.
I only hope Mr. Bush reads this and starts leading like he has the majority - not a coalition.
Sowell (no patronizing "Dr" in front of his name just because he's black!) is turning French!
*****************
Good article.
Through respect, I am trusting the president on this one. If she turns out "bad", I can always hate Bush in the future.
Yes, it sounded like pre-emtpive surrender because it was.
What Dr. Sowell is saying is that the GOP leadership is too weak to enforce any kind of party discipline. That is especially annoying in the case of Arlen Specter, considering how the president went to bat for him in the primaries.
. . . The Democrats cannot afford to huff and puff and then back down, or be beaten down, again. On the other hand, they cannot let a high-profile conservative get confirmed without putting up a dogfight to satisfy their left-wing special interest groups. . . Perhaps that is why some Democrats seem to welcome this stealth nominee. Even if she turns out to vote consistently with Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, the Democrats are off the hook with their base because they can always say that they had no idea and that she stonewalled them at the confirmation hearings.
It is a mistake to let the Democrats off the hook this way. The GOP should force them to take a stand on controversial issues. Unless there is a political price to pay for opposing the president, the Democrats and their RINO allies will continue their obstructionist tactics.
What, then, in your estimation, makes one qualified to sit on the Supreme Court of the United States. You state without equivocation that she is qualified, so surely you can tell us what a) what are the qualifications (specifically), and b) how she meets them.
People a lot closer to the situation than you (not a knock, just the reality) don't know anything about her, how is that you know that she is qualified. (And no, saying that you trust Bush is not an objective reason).
One of the smartest men of our time, IMO.
As usual, Dr. Sowell is brilliant and correct.
Sowell regularly makes more sense than anybody, and this article is no exception. He is my favorite columnist.
bttt
. . . she [Meiers] is not dying to be accepted by the beautiful people, and is unlikely to sell out the Constitution of the United States in order to be the toast of Georgetown cocktail parties or praised in the New York Times.
Have I missed something, or is it pretty well established that Justice Kennedy was just wooed by the Washington elite cocktail crowd. I've never seen this assertion made directly, but certainly hinted at by the likes of Limbaugh (who we KNOW keeps company with Justice Thomas) and others.
Just curious.
I agree.
His Vision of the Annointed (and others) was a real eye-opener for me. I find many of his early arguments echoed in today's commentary.
If she gets on the court, though, I wonder how she might vote to win the praises of the other justices.
For the rest of us, she is a stealth nominee. Not since The Invisible Man has there been so much stealth.
That's not ideal by a long shot. But ideal was probably never in the cards, given the weak sisters among the Republicans' Senate "majority."
HUA!
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.