Posted on 10/07/2005 6:05:08 AM PDT by slowhand520
Conservatives can trust in Miers
By Newt Gingrich
Originally published October 7, 2005
WASHINGTON // Conservatives should feel confident with the selection of Harriet Miers to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court for a simple reason: George W. Bush selected her. Much has been made in the press about conservative unhappiness with the White House on issues such as spending and immigration and most recently with the selection of Ms. Miers. However, while these tensions are not insignificant, the president has stayed remarkably true to conservative principles on every major decision he has made since winning the Republican primary.
He unabashedly ran as a conservative in the election and even selected Dick Cheney - a man of impeccable conservative credentials - as his vice president. Once elected, he assembled a Cabinet of conservatives, including Donald H. Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft and Condoleezza Rice. He proceeded to cut taxes as promised, and did it again in 2002.
After 9/11, President Bush resisted the prevailing wisdom in Washington that terrorism should be dealt with as a crime, instead treating the attacks as acts of war that required a military response. And after the 2004 election, Mr. Bush put himself front and center as an impassioned advocate of transforming Social Security into a system of personal accounts.
(Excerpt) Read more at baltimoresun.com ...
bump to read in a few
I keep reading that there is a pretty deep bench of well-qualified conservative jurists. Why not send one up and if he or she is not approved, send another one...and another one?
I think this nomination, after his explicit promise to seek Salia and Thomas-like nominees, is equivalent to his father's broken promise on "no new taxes." I'm amazed he did not expect the reaction he's getting.
Because not one of this group has held elective office and been repeatedly elected to same as a solid conservative. Newt was the principle architect of the Contract with America that regained Republican control of Congress that has led us to this decision point. His point of view should be given serious weight. His credentials as a conservative are a good deal better than the eliteist DC "pundit core"
Exactly! This whole argument is based on what a person's philosophy is on a document written over 200 years ago. Since the framers haven't held elected office in 200 years I guess we should disregard them as well?
Quite an elitist argument, and precisely the issue. Would that Mr. Bush would learn to waltz with those who brought him to the dance.
In any case, I have no intention of supporting an unqualified nominee. If persuasion of wobbly or Dem senators is required, Mr. Bush is on his own. And to that extent, yes, I do have a vote.
Perhaps it will make no difference, but it is a far more principled stand, in favor of seeing that this country has the very best available, than that taken by Mr. Bush.
He *did* run on cutting taxes, and to some extent on school choice (too bad we haven't seen any progress there, huh?). He said he supported "affirmative access", whatever that is, and he never proposed privatizing more than a small fraction of Social Security.
AND he also ran on free drugs for old people, expanded spending & federalized control of education, increased unconstitutional charitable spending, etc.
Perhaps. Let us hope that it is just a moment of weakness rather than something far less honorable. Moreover, it is almost always better to actually be defeated before acting defeated.
I doubt that an excellent nominee would have been defeated, but I recognize the possibility that others could disagree on this point. In any case, I rather expect that there are a good many constructionist who would have been willing to take the personal and professional risks involved. Their dedication compares most favorably with that displayed by Mr. Bush.
I agree with this. May I just add that I hope that what he has nominated in a "Thomas" rather than a "Kennedy" or a "Souter?" And may I likewise register my disappointment that I even have to wonder about it?
That said, I do appreciate your ideas, and the courteous manner in which you have expressed them.
"He ran on cutting taxes, privatizing Social Security, school vouchers, and against Affirmative Action"
Okay, so dont have privatized Social Security but we do have a huge newdrug entitlement;
we dont have school vouchers but we have "NO Child Left Behind", a huge Federal mandate that our state GOP school official points out is *unconstitutional* ("Please tell me where in the constitution is says Congress can tell states how to run education?").
We dont have an end to affirmative action, we have SCOTUS upholding it for U of Michigan with Bush white house agreeing to that.
We had a promise of Thomas/Scalia-type picks and now the reality of ... Roberts (good) ... and Miers.
Dont you see why some of us are concerned?!?
FWIW, I think Roberts will turn out to be as stellar as Scalia, and perhaps even better for us since he is a CJ.
Yes, I think that is, indeed, a real possibility. We shall see.
It's infuriating that, with 55 Republican senators, Bush can't openly name a Scalia the way Reagan was able to - but that's the senators' fault, not Bush's.
Why do I get the feeliung that if Jesus Christ, himself, ascended from the heaven and proclaimed Harriet to be a good judge, a large group of those here, and those pontificating on the tube, would still be complaining that Jesus hadn't been involved in politics for awhile and didn't have a law degree, so what does he know!!
And for the last 5 years, there was unaminity on this forum that who ever the president picks should be given a full hearing and a vote.
Now it seems some folks want to change the rules.
I disagree with your premise that opposing the pick is equivalent to behaving like a hypocritical Democrat.
No, I don't. Not at all.
Because for the last 5 years, Dubya has been batting .1000 on judicial nominations (with Miers's assistance by the way). You are making trouble for yourself in worrying about this now. Furthermore, those who are attacking this *fully qualified* nominee, are looking hypocritical since in the past they have said judicial nominations are the President's choice and they should get a fair hearing and an up or down vote.
It really shows the weakness of the position is all they have is to attack people who disagree.
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.