Thomas Sowell: Dangerous Moderation

Creator's Syndicate ^ | October 30, 2005 | Dr. Thomas Sowell

[RWR8189]

The choice of Harriet Miers to be nominated to the Supreme Court, and her subsequent withdrawal, shows that caution is sometimes the most dangerous policy.

She was obviously chosen cautiously as a "stealth" nominee -- someone without a paper trail or a judicial record that could ignite controversy -- in hopes of avoiding a confirmation fight that the Senate Republicans had the votes to win, but had neither the unity nor the guts required to make victory certain.

Harriet Miers was a choice made from political weakness. Now she is gone but the political weakness remains. So celebrations in conservative quarters may be premature.

Liberal Senators have already gained from the time lost with the Miers nomination and they have every incentive to stall on the next nominee, to make sure that nominee is not confirmed before Congress adjourns at Thanksgiving. The longer they stall, the longer Sandra Day O'Connor remains on the Supreme Court -- and she is their kind of judge, one who makes policy instead of applying the law.

Obstructionist Democrats in the Senate have had their hand strengthened by this episode. Even those who had their knives out for Harriet Miers can now piously lament her withdrawal and claim that, while they might have voted for her confirmation, they must now oppose an "extremist" nominee chosen in response to the conservative groups that forced Ms. Miers' withdrawal.
Any judicial nominee who has said that the Constitution means what it says, not what judges would like it to mean, is going to be called an "extremist." That person will be said to be "out of the mainstream." But the mainstream is itself the problem.

What is the point of electing a President pledged to appoint judges who are like Justices Scalia and Thomas, if the weakness of his own party's Senators leads him to appoint judges who are like Justices O'Connor and Kennedy or -- heaven help us -- David Souter?

If the Republican majority in the Senate cannot bring themselves to act like a majority, they may no longer be a majority if their base of support stops supporting them at the ballot box.

The brutal fact is that Senate Republicans have not had the stomach for a fight, either during this administration or during the Democratic administration under Clinton.

While Senate Democrats have not hesitated to obstruct the Senate from even voting on some of President Bush's nominees to appellate courts, Republicans gave an overwhelming vote of approval to even such a far left Clinton nominee as Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

While it would have been wrong to obstruct the Senate from voting on Judge Ginsburg, there was no need for the Republicans to vote for her themselves. If they thought that such cooperation would be reciprocated when their party controlled the White House and the Senate, events have shown that they were sadly mistaken.

Democrats understand that they were elected to do what those who elected them wanted. But Republicans seem to think they were elected to make deals with Democrats and gain media applause for doing so.

Senate Democrats are a united minority, while Senate Republicans are a divided majority, with prima donnas and opportunists ready to leave their fellow Republicans in the lurch when a showdown comes -- even if that means risking the whole party's loss of support among voters who feel betrayed.

That is the hand that President Bush has been dealt.

Harriet Miers was his attempt to make the best of that weak hand. Now his conservative base, having rejected Ms. Miers, expects him to nominate someone with a clearly established track record of upholding the Constitution as it was written.

But does the Republican "majority" in the Senate have the guts for the battle that such a nomination would surely set off? Are they prepared to put up a fight and be satisfied with a victory on a close vote, with perhaps Vice President Cheney breaking a tie?

Or is looking "statesmanlike" in the liberal media more important to some Republican Senators, either for its ego boost or for its practical political value in running for re-election or for the Presidency in 2008?

Politically, these can be "times that try men's souls" -- for those who still have souls and haven't sold them.

Copyright 2005 Creators Syndicate

[Miss Marple]

Sowell is spot on. I hope when this nomination is made, that people on FR will pay attention to the Senate, and place pressure on those weaklings who are afraid of a fight.

President Bush has a majority only on paper. The Gang of 14 have effectively taken control of the nomination process. I don't have the answer to this, but surely we can help move some of the cowards into action.

[ComputerGuy]

His last sentence really got to me.
Politically, these can be "times that try men's souls" -- for those who still have souls and haven't sold them
I'd like to see him on SCOTUS

[rawhide]

Sowell is right again. This man has the abiltiy to cut to the chase and tell you like it is. Brilliant thinking man!

[nmh]

"What is the point of electing a President pledged to appoint judges who are like Justices Scalia and Thomas, if the weakness of his own party's Senators leads him to appoint judges who are like Justices O'Connor and Kennedy or -- heaven help us -- David Souter?"

I was wondering that. He OWES his core base a conservative candidate.

[goldstategop]

Simple - if Republican Senators refuse to vote for the President's nominee, punish the party next year by stripping it of its Senate majority. If these Senators do not want to please their President and the voters who elected them, perhaps being in the minority will help to concentrate their minds.

("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")

[G.Mason]

" ... But does the Republican "majority" in the Senate have the guts for the battle that such a nomination would surely set off? Are they prepared to put up a fight and be satisfied with a victory on a close vote, with perhaps Vice President Cheney breaking a tie?"

With all due respect to Dr. Sowell, the question isn't "does the Republican "majority" in the Senate have the guts". (we all know the answer to that one)

The question should be why doesn't this President have the "guts" to shove an Atilla the Hun like Conservative nominee down the Republicans throats and hold their feet to the fire?

I, for one, am sick and tired of this "Compassionate Conservatism". With a scant three years left, and little on the horizon indicating a Republican successor, there is precious little time to be dallying about in this confused state.

"Damn the torpedos ... full speed ahead"!

[Dustbunny]

Sowell, nailing it as usual.

[Miss Marple]

Brilliant strategy. When you lose the majority in the Senate, you lose the ability to get anything passed, plus you give the democrat Senators a platform for televised investigations, which we would have wall to wall.

There is more at stake than a Supreme Court nomination. Please try to think beyond one issue.

[patj]

As ususal, Sowell is spot on. Speaking only for myself, I am sick and tired of voting for a R just because he isn't a D. I want a Statesman not a politician. When politics became a career we all lost. I want term limits on everyone in Congress. I want people who have the courage of their convictions. I want to be proud of my vote, I like the way I felt when I voted for Bush in 2000.

[dawn53]

Good piece, and there's one point worth noting.

He said, "Democrats understand that they were elected to do what those who elected them wanted."

He praises Dems for doing what "those who elected them wanted." However, we've seen Senators like Daschle go down during election, and supposedly they were "doing what the Dems wanted by obstructing."

But he (Daschle) was more or less not doing what "his constituency" wanted, but what the vocal wing of the party wanted.

For that reason, I think the Republicans in the Senate are weak. The liberal republicans from the northeast are elected by liberal republicans, and therefore, I think that's why they don't always vote on the "party line." They're playing to their constituency.

McCain, well McCain, has no excuse, other than he knows that the Republicans in Arizona keep electing him no matter how he acts...I still can't figure that out, LOL.

[Born Conservative]

What is the point of electing a President pledged to appoint judges who are like Justices Scalia and Thomas, if the weakness of his own party's Senators leads him to appoint judges who are like Justices O'Connor and Kennedy or -- heaven help us -- David Souter?

Did you hear that, Senator Santorum?

[Cboldt]

While it would have been wrong to obstruct the Senate from voting on Judge Ginsburg, there was no need for the Republicans to vote for her themselves.

It was outrageous when the GOP nearly unanimously supported Ginsberg.

But some people assert that the fact that the GOP supported a moonbat liberal Justice means the GOP was obliged to also support the Miers nomination. That the GOP needs to be consistent, so that the matter of where the nominee falls on the "traditionalist -> living constitution" ideology spectrum is not to be a disqualifying consideration. That any nominee should be confirmed by the GOP out of deference to the President.

It's encouraging that Sowell is not in that "follow bad precedent" camp.

Revisiting the Ginsberg nomination reminds me how useless the GOP is at advancing traditional Constitutional practice. "Talk is cheap."

[jocon307]

"Democrats understand that they were elected to do what those who elected them wanted. But Republicans seem to think they were elected to make deals with Democrats and gain media applause for doing so."

BINGO!

[muir_redwoods]

Moderation is not always a good thing. One must be moderately moderate. For example, who wants a moderately good doctor or a moderately faithful spouse? Do you want your children to grow up to be moderately honest? Or how about a moderately long life?

Moderation in all things, Including moderation.

[Alia]

From Article: But does the Republican "majority" in the Senate have the guts for the battle that such a nomination would surely set off?

Yes. They do. But if they are thinking the Fitzpatrick/Cheney "Damocles Sword" is something to worry over, they lose. No split attention in re nomination, is necessary and required.

[Born Conservative]

Moderation in all things

That contradicts the premise of your post.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

Sowell ping.

[jwpjr]

re: shove an Atilla the Hun like Conservative nominee down the Republicans throats and hold their feet to the fire?

Couldn't have said it better myself!

And while he's about it, how about closing down the borders and going after the illegals who are already here?

I am honestly afraid that if we don't take the fight to them right now and on every front that it will be too late.

It's just a matter of time before the Left comes up with a candidate who's not a flake and has an idea or two, and once that happens we're dead!

[NittanyLion]

All we need to do is convince 2 of the 7 RINOs to vote for the nuclear option in the event of a potential filibuster. If we can do that, a vote will be allowed and even an "extremist" nominee will be confirmed.

Given the political aspirations of some of those 7, I strongly suspect at least two will defect from their "Gang of 14".