Posted on 10/07/2005 12:02:21 PM PDT by Betaille
They are angry, dismayed and disheartened, but, more importantly, concerned for the fate of the Supreme Court.
The conservative reaction against President Bush’s nomination of untested White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the U.S. Supreme Court was so universal and intense that it erupted at each of the two separate meetings of activist leaders held Wednesday by Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist and Free Congress Foundation Chairman Paul Weyrich.
At the Norquist meeting, conservatives targeted their ire at former Republican National Chairman Ed Gillespie, who is working with the White House on Supreme Court nominations. At the Weyrich meeting, Republican National Chairman Ken Mehlman and Tim Goeglein, White House liaison to the conservative community, found themselves in the crosshairs.
(Excerpt) Read more at humaneventsonline.com ...
"Weyrich lectured Mehlman that he was finished with trusting Republican Presidents on Supreme Court nominations. He had already done five “trust-mes,” Weyrich said."
Let me tell you a story from my own personal experience. My boss once needed to pick someone to represent our organization at headquarters. He selected a marginally competent and extremely loyal guy who had worked with us for years. When I asked the boss why, he said, "this guy may not be the best, but he'll do exactly what we want." Well, you already know the rest of the story. This guy got promoted into the headquarters job and was extremely loyal...to his new boss. We held no sway, and our old crony worked tirelessly against us.
Facts are, you really don't know how someone is going to act until they are placed in a position of authority, but you can increase your odds by picking a person who has fought for your goals on their own. Harriet Miers, no matter what the president says, is not the best pick for the job. She isn't even close. If she WAS, we wouldn't be having these heated discussion on FR.
No, it's not. There have been plenty of conservative pundits coming out for Miers. Sowell wrote a very good piece on the subject, and his analysis tends to be very rational and sober, unlike folks like Norquist and Weyrich, who have their own power bases and interests.
What is really bothering me more and more is the Administration pushing her history with the ABA as her most impressive accomplishments.
The ABA is a very liberal organization and in many ways holds opposite views of the Federalist Society.
How is this supposed to comfort Conservative?
Unlike the loyal guy in your story, a new Supreme Court justice will not have a new boss. She won't be "working" for anyone. Who could she be loyal to except her friends, who will mostly be former Bush administration people (once the Bush term is over).
I seem to recall discussions on Roberts on FR. NO one can say with certainty how anyone is going to change over the years.PERIOD
This is not a glowing endorsement, it is the third stage of grief (denial, resentment, bargaining, depression,acceptance)
"Unlike the loyal guy in your story, a new Supreme Court justice will not have a new boss. She won't be "working" for anyone."
She will be surrounded by liberals who have far more experience and intellectual weight than she does. The DC media/party circuit culture all by itself is enough to turn some.
dirtboy wrote: "unlike folks like Norquist and Weyrich, who have their own power bases and interests."
So let me get this straight...anyone who opposes her is irrational and serving special interests, while those in favor of her are rational and sober?
Personally, I studied the arguments on both sides. They both make good points. However, the very fact that there ARE two sides within the conservative base makes this nomination stink. We are at war with each other instead of the libs.
In my opinion, Bush should have picked a nomination to unite his base. Even if we would have lost in the Senate, sometimes it's important to fight the fight. Who knows? We might have even won the fight, but you'll never know since he picked a lackluster crony instead.
"This guy got promoted into the headquarters job and was extremely loyal...to his new boss."
That's an excellent analogy. What is Miers going to do when she's surrounded by liberals who have far more experience and qualifications than her, as well as the DC media culture.
BECUZ; we need 60 votes and there are only 55 so-called Republicans.
BECUZ; we need 60 votes and there are only 55 so-called Republicans.
A bit off. It is rather the conservative voters who are blindly betting on an untested aide for the next couple of decades. It's like betting on a horse who has never won a race and is touted by the jockey.
Wasn't Gillespie the waterboy for the administration's open-borders immigration position? I'm starting to not like that guy.
"those in favor of her are rational and sober?"
Not to mention the fact that Sowell didn't really come out in favor, he just tried to rationalize Bush's pick while noting his personal dissapointment. The verdict from the conservative intellectual and legal communities has been absolutely overwhelming on this. Bush is going off this cliff regardless it seems... I just hope conservative Senators don't go with him and get us destroyed in 2006.
Don't underestimate peer pressure. SC justices aren't immune from it. Washington is a viciously liberal place, and just like any other club, she's going to be under alot of pressure to "fit in."
Thomas Becket was loyal to Henry II until he became Archbishop of Canterbury. Then he became loyal to the Church, to Henry's great woe.
I've heard that argument. However, she's been in DC for some time now and knows the ropes.
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.