Posted on 10/07/2005 7:35:42 AM PDT by NCSteve
With Harriet Miers's nomination to the Supreme Court, George Bush has touched off a conservative hurricane that is snapping political power lines across the Beltway as this is written. On Wednesday, the anti-Bush tempest blew into the Senate, which by a 90-9 margin voted to impose Marquess of Queensberry rules on interrogations of terrorist detainees. All those Republican defections mean that the first clear victim of the Miers nomination is the president's freedom to wage war on terror. There will be others.
How did this run out of control so fast?
We'll start, before the match was struck, with the easiest way to understand the Miers nomination: George Bush decided to nominate himself to the Supreme Court.
Harriet Miers is to be George Bush's surrogate on the Court. Through her he guarantees, to the extent such a thing is possible, that he will deliver his promise to move the Supreme Court toward decisions based on the Founders "original" meaning of the Constitutional text.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
That 90-9 vote was NOT a "conservative hurricane."
If that's the reason W did it, he needs to read up on Henry II and Thomas a Becket.
The retort to conservatives in pain over Harriet Miers is: So what? She has publicly aligned herself with Originalism, the Bork school. Her first decision will be an Originalist home run into the upper right-field deck, and all this abstruse caviling will fade. With the Court still split 5-4, you need the Bush guarantee: "She knows the kind of judge I'm looking for." Just win, baby. The Left has it coming.
Gosh I like it when other people say what I've been saying. :D
Well done. Worth reading.
Hm. The real money quote usually comes near the end, in this case:
"With the Miers nomination the Court remains a political Colosseum. We'll win, but the price is a politics of permanent payback."
Quag-meirs
was what I saw on a thread last night.
A good point worth repeating is that Bush has indeed been true to his word thus far.
I don't like his stand on immigration and spending, for just two examples, but he has not lied about his stands on those.
So when he says he's positive that Meirs is an originalist, I have no good reason to think otherwise.
You'd think so, but it ain't.
That depends on your acceptance of this statement:
The right answer to this is that U.S. politics is scuzzier now than during the Bork nomination. The Senate Left's destruction of Miguel Estrada's nomination proved that. Replacing Justice O'Connor with a recognized judicial conservative--which by definition means risking an occasional nonconservative decision--would have helped restore the Court as the institutional tabernacle of the Constitution.
I don't believe the nomination of 9 successive "John Roberts" would change the Democrats intent on nominating and insisting on "Ginsbergs".
Miers is an Originalist. That's what we want. Go ahead and accept your win and be happy.
Hm, well, no, not in this decade, at any rate. But there are such things as principles and long term views. And the by-no-means certain defeat of a first-class nominee could always have been followed by a 2nd tier choice, a la Bork and Kennedy.
George W. Bush on Budget & Economy
Limit discretionary spending; cut 150 non-essential programs. (Feb 2005)
Pay-as-you-go means you pay, he goes and spends. (Oct 2004)
The middle class will have to fill the Kerry tax gap. (Oct 2004) Kerry is not credible as a fiscal conservative. (Oct 2004)
Kerry will not be able to pay for $2.2T in new spending. (Oct 2004)
Bush ties growing economy to his tax cuts. (Mar 2004)
Investment and aid to states will help economy rebound. (Aug 2003)
Provides assistance to new small businesses. (Aug 2003)
Restore consumer confidence with tax cuts & new oil supplies. (Mar 2001)
Prosperity results from entrepreneurship & ingenuity. (Oct 2000)
Private sector responsible for economic boom. (Aug 2000)
Make budget biennial; reinstate line-item veto; target pork. (Jun 2000) $46B in new spending on health, education, & defense. (Apr 2000)
New Prosperity Initiative: remove obstacles to advancement. (Apr 2000)
Simplify tax code to stimulate economic growth. (Apr 1999)
Budget Deficit
Haven't vetoed any spending bills because we work together. (Oct 2004)
Will cut the deficit in half in the next 5 years. (Jan 2004)
Proposes to shrink federal budget to 16% of GDP. (Mar 2001)
Cut national debt by $2T in 10 years; leave $1.2T in debt. (Feb 2001)
Too much government spending will end prosperity. (Nov 2000)
Thank God we reinstated the line-item veto, huh?
(Prolonged eye roll.)
Judge Ginsburg-the good one-withdrew his name from consideration after the idiotic, diversionary, media-generated uproar concerning his use of a joint sometime during the Pleistocene Era.
. . . We'll win, but the price is a politics of permanent payback.
All true, but what is the alternative? Nominate a principled conservative and have the Senate deadlock in a filibuster for the remainder of Bush's term? Try the nuclear option and have it fail? Then have every SCOTUS nominee filibustered for the remainder of eternity?Perhaps the Democrats rightfully should have been given an ultimatum - yield on the filibuster issue or see the senate melt down. But then, their rule being rule or ruin, the Democrats wouldn't respond to that.
I'm not the one threatening to leave the party
If I recall correctly .. the same Senators that slipped that 11th hour amendment into the Defense Spending Bill
Are also part of the Gang of 14 ... the same bunch that tied our hands a few months back with regard to the Filibuster
And if I recall .. many of us warned folks that it was a bad idea then .. because we would have a problem now
Neither am I.
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.