10/4/2005
Coalition of the Chillin’
What on earth is it that people think they know about Bush’s recent Supreme court nominee that has them so absolutely hysterical? Everywhere I look, every blog I visit, it seems people are all about dividing the Republican Party and/or jumping ship.
Tell me. Is this pick the end of the world? Not exactly. Is it that she was once a liberal? Is it that she has little legal background to examine as opposed to Roberts who had a lengthy law background?
How many justices were appointed to the Supreme Court in the past who had a similar lack of law in their backgrounds? From what I gather, to my recollection, at least 9 Supreme Court Justices fall into this category, the main one being Rehnquist.
Don’t you think it’s a little bit premature to be caterwauling about Bush’s failing us in this? I have read some horrible things about Bush on conservative blogs, and frankly, I’d like to see it end. We’re not liberals; we don’t feed on each other at the slightest turn…at least I THOUGHT we don’t until I looked around the blogosphere this evening and noticed how many people were whining and complaining about how Bush let us down AGAIN.
The only issue I’m disappointed with Bush on -is the borders issue. Strategically as far as the war on terror (which I’m so intent upon winning)–open borders is the absolute worst thing we could ever do–but I see a bigger picture with CAFTA, NAFTA, and FTAA –that’s where the open borders issue is taking us…
Bush didn’t let us down on this, actually, how can anybody go so far as to say that? Where’s the evidence?
“In selecting a nominee, I’ve sought to find an American of grace, judgment and unwavering devotion to the Constitution and laws of our country. Harriet Miers is just such a person,” Bush said. “I’ve known Harriet for more than a decade. I know her heart, I know her character.”‘
This should at least count for something. I know, the pundits are crying out that she’s a “crony” and this speaks of Bush simply voting a friend onto the bench while meeting affirmative action quotas and putting another woman on the bench. I ask you, though, to look a little bit closer at just what is happening here and not jump the gun, ok?
So, she gave money to Al Gore. Reagan was a democrat. Reagan actually brought a whole bunch of democrats with him, don’t you remember? They were called the “Reagan democrats”.
Before being named White House counsel last year, Miers served as White House deputy chief of staff and staff secretary, a job where she reviewed virtually every document that went before the president. So I would imagine they got to know one another reasonably well.
Amid so much uncertainty among the president’s own allies, Vice President Cheney was dispatched to interviews with conservative commentators such as Rush Limbaugh, who made plain his skepticism. “I’m confident that she has a conservative judicial philosophy that you’d be comfortable with, Rush,” Cheney said. He added, “This president will have done more to change the court and in fact put on it individuals who share his judicial philosophy than any of his predecessors in modern times.”
Bush chose Miers after seriously considering as many as 15 candidates, including six women, according to White House spokesman Scott McClellan. Bush, he said, met with Miers to discuss her possible nomination three times since Sept. 21. Bush formally offered Miers the job Sunday night during dinner in the White House residence with first lady Laura Bush.
What about everyone else? There is a trend in our courts which has increasingly been in favor of the power of government and dismissing our God given rights.
We are just going to have to wait until we find out just exactly what Ms. Mier’s legacy will be with regard to the health of our Constitution. Most people are just not comfortable “guessing” what that legacy will be….so, I’m assuming that’s the reason for the hysterical outbursts I’ve seen all over the place about leaving the party, about how Bush has abandoned his base, etc..
But how do you know this for sure?
Is “comfort level” really a requirement? Or is it that Bush took people by surprise by not chosing the person they would have thought met the criteria in this war against liberalism and legislating from the bench?
The Constitution has just taken a pretty bad beating lately….The McConnel decision from December of 2003 rendered the First Amendment meaningless at worst and fungible at best, placing the right to broadcast facts and opinions about those in power squarely under the control of the FEC.
Here’s another example, even more recent. Just this past June the Kelo decision rewrote the meaning of the words “public use” in the eminent domain clause and stripped absolutely everyone of any real right of ownership of private property. I could list many more relevant examples of destructive Supreme Court jurisprudence, but those two examples should be enough: without solid and healthy rights to political speech and private property, I suggest that we would have no rights worth speaking of.
This situation, in the minds of many Americans, is a crisis.
But unlike Craig McCarthy, Michelle Malkin, Rush Limbaugh, and countless others, I’m willing to wait and see and have some faith in the future. Who knows? It may turn out to be the most brilliant pick you could ever have imagined. I hear she’s a Christian woman–that’s something the democrats absolutely despise–someone who has values…much like the Founders of our nation.
All I’m saying is–there isn’t enough to know about the woman yet, and all this wailing and chest beating isn’t going to accomplish anything. The thing that is worrying me the most about the conservative hysteria in the sphere is–it looks as though we are getting divided over something that shouldn’t be warranting this much hysteria, angst, or beating up on the President. Don’t you think he’s had enough over the past few years? I have seen so much hatred focused on this one man–and I can guarantee you Bush didn’t make this decision on his own. He has a lot of people advising him–there’s probably much more to this story than the general public will ever know.
And let’s not forget–Rehnquist himself didn’t have background as a judge before he was appointed, either.
I’m hearing good things about Ms. Miers from people, like she’s a strong, pro-life evangelical Christian, a conservative’s conservative, an originalist and a very capable lawyer. If that turns out to be true, I will enthusiastically support her — and the Left will go to war against her. We should plan to welcome that fight and stop arguing amongst ourselves.
Thanks to Jay at Stop the ACLU for calling me and talking about this this evening.
See also Cassandra at Villainous Company.
….the critics, both Left and Right, do an injustice to the president as well as to Miers. The constitutional design is that the president selects judges. He selects judges he has confidence in. We vote for the president we trust, and he gives us appointees he trusts. The president told us what sort of judges he was looking to appoint and the American people elected him — after his opponents made this a key campaign issue. The fact that the president has worked closely with Miers, knows her well, and has faith in her is a good thing. It is good for conservatives, as the president has made clear his own embrace of conservative principles, and we can expect that someone he has such great comfort with shares those principles. It is good as well because the president has made clear as well his commitment to judicial — as opposed to political — conservatism, to having judges respect their circumscribed role. The Constitution gives the president primacy on appointments of officers of the United States, including judges. It gives the Senate a far smaller role, following nomination, in safeguarding against misuse of the appointment power. It does not give the Senate an equal voice in appointments. As so ably stated in Federalist No. 76:
In the act of nomination, [the president’s] judgment alone would be exercised; and as it would be his sole duty to point out the man who, with the approbation of the Senate, should fill an office, his responsibility would be as complete as if he were to make the final appointment. There can, in this view, be no difference between nominating and appointing. The same motives which would influence a proper discharge of his duty in one case, would exist in the other. And as no man could be appointed but on his previous nomination, every man who might be appointed would be, in fact, his choice.
The rest of the essay is here. Thanks, Cass.
Thanks to Stop the ACLU, the Political Teen
California Conservative linked with Memo To Conservatives: We Are Helping The Other Side. Pass It On.
October 4th, 2005 at 7:26 pm
I liked Roberts, but I’m worried about Miers.:?:
October 4th, 2005 at 9:56 pm
It’s great to see you not flipping your lid. You’ve just replaced Michelle Malkin as my favorite Conservative feminist. Thanks!
October 4th, 2005 at 10:12 pm
Ya, when it’s too early to know what will happen, why freak out about it. I made my own list of judges yesterday because I think some people have gone a little nuts worrying.
October 5th, 2005 at 12:11 am
Weren’t there better people to pick? That is my contention. And the answer to that is yes? There was a stable of people with better credentials, that is obvious.
October 5th, 2005 at 12:56 am
Well, I’m sure I’m one of the conservatives you are referring to in regards to jumping ship. There is no doubt that Harriet Miers is a great woman. She has been a pioneer for women in the legal system but the fact is this was Bush’s last chance to prove he wasn’t selling out the party and he essentially said “screw you” to his constituents. And it’s not just about the nomination. This was simply the icing on the cake. He’s abandoned us by ignoring the border issue, indeed, encouraging the problem, vowing to take down, so called, racial and economic inequalities, and now this. We had the Dems by the throats and what does Bush do? He nominates his attorney further deteriorating his reputation with more cronyism. With all due respect, Cao, in my opinion, the GOP are the ones that have “jumped ship” on us. But to each his own. While you may think me a coward for jumping ship, a wise man once said:
All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
His name was Thomas Jefferson.
October 5th, 2005 at 4:44 am
Why does everyone think that they know better than the president and his many advisers? I’m sure there were “better people to pick” than Rehnquist, too. What ever happened to the simple concept of “have faith”? People these days don’t understand the meaning of the word…and that’s a shame.
We simply don’t have enough data right now to condemn or celebrate this, and going so far as to say this is the wrong choice at the wrong time sounds like the democrats. Jumping to conclusions will only serve as a wedge between us…and the democrats will celebrate the fall of the party due to–peoples’ inate uncontrollable paranoia.
Even Polipundit has an interesting take:
To me, the attitude of “taking my ball and going home” helps no one. We should be standing united even though we may have differences on issues, or may disagree with a decision the president has made, he is just a man. I don’t believe this choice has proven yet to be a disaster; in fact, I agree with Polipundit when she says we don’t have enough evidence to convict the president on a bad decision.
But let’s go down that road for just a second. Considering all she stands for, could this nomination be as bad as that of a choice the democrats would make? As bad as you may think this decision of the President’s is, it seems to me this is a control issue for those who are disappointed that he didn’t chose who they thought was going to get picked on a short list, because the President didn’t do what he wanted them to. That is not the spirit of Federalist 76. And the other point is–this decision could nowhere and in no way compare to what the democrats would have served up as a nominee, particularly with how far left they’ve wandered.
I was watching O’Reilly’s “talking points” last night and there is a judge who just ruled a soft ruling on a child molester. Apparently it wasn’t her first time, and she’s considered a very liberal judge who has been soft on all child molesters–one of whom burned a 6-year old child with an iron, another was a repeat offender who molested an 11-year old girl. This kind of judge is the kind of judge the liberals would appoint to legislate from the bench, and after hearing some of the horror stories (like those) about liberal judges, I am relieved that the President made a choice based on principles, a moral code, and most specifically, who isn’t a liberal!
On the subject of feminism, I am an anti-feminist and support the sentiments of Phyllis Schlafly on this. I have been actively opposing feminism since I was a teenager, including talking on the radio about what the Equal Rights amendment would accomplish (which was far away from ‘equal pay for equal work’ -which is what most people supported it for)-and writing letters to the editor, and writing my elected representatives. Schlafly has some great articles over at Eagle Forums such as:
Women Don’t Belong in Ground Combat
How to defund Feminist Pork
October 5th, 2005 at 5:59 am
Everyman, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” (Edmund Burke)
That is true, and if you turn your back on the party you will be guilty of giving up and by extension, doing nothing and doing everything to further divide the party. That’s all I’m saying. We have a basically two-party system, and if you jump ship and go in another direction, you’re going to divide the conservative base and support dividing the conservative base and give the democrats the edge.
I’m all for doing the work and making our elected representatives responsible for carrying the torch for the values of their constituents or they can look forward to not getting elected the next time.
It basically boils down to this:
United we stand, divided, we fall.
The Apostle Paul said: “If ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another” (Gal.5:15).
The Lord Jesus once said: “If a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand” (Mk3:25). This makes sense and has been proved true throughout the years in families, businesses, political parties, and nations. If people are always fighting and arguing with each other they cannot and will not stay together for long.
To me, the issue of border control and the President’s lack of addressing it is not enough to force me to abandon the Republican party. There will always be disappointments, we just have to make sure he hears us on this issue and any others with which we don’t agree with him on. If people feel their elected representatives are not representing their value system, it’s their duty and responsibility to let them know about it–repeatedly–until the message gets across. The solution should never be to give up the good fight and throw in the towel.
Any way you look at it, Bush has proven to be a much better President than John “I surrender” Kerry ever would have been. In the election, I’m sure people voted for Bush overwhelmingly because they recognized Kerry’s track record in the Senate was not about keeping the U.S. strong on defense–he would never have been effective on the war on terror or supportive of our military or national defense–he would have given control of our military over to the U.N.!
I think we have to consider everything before jumping to conclusions and there isn’t enough information on Miers to turn our backs on the president now. He needs our prayers and our support now more than ever.
October 5th, 2005 at 8:11 am
Cao, you do have a point but it’s hard for me to sit and read everyday about people like Julie Myers being named head of the ICE and then this “guest worker” nonsense. Then he lifts the federal regulation barring illegals from working under federal contracts in the wake of Katrina. I see your point and the scripture is right. A house divided against itself cannot stand. At this point, that has happened in this party. Harriet Miers could turn out to be the greatest justice since Reinquist. What bothers me about her nomination is the fact that we really don’t know and it stinks of cronyism. There were so many other judges which could have taken us back in the right direction. It’s a hard time for all. As I said in our email conversation earlier, if the right GOP candidate ran for President I’d probably vote for them but as it stands now, I don’t think the GOP is on our side anymore. I hope that changes.
October 5th, 2005 at 8:39 am
Memo To Conservatives: We Are Helping The Other Side. Pass It On.
“[A] politically weak Bush was unable to pick a nominee that would appeal to his extreme right-wing base. Already this morning conservatives are up in arms over the nomination.” — DNC.org
Since news of the Miers nomination broke thi…
October 5th, 2005 at 9:06 am
Read the California Conservative:
Memo to Conservatives: We are Helping the Other Side. Pass it on.
Mark Noonan concludes: “I don’t like 100% of what the GOP does, but the alternative is Democratic disaster.”
Don Surber says: “Grow the hell up”
October 6th, 2005 at 1:14 am
Have to disagree with you on this one. We are being asked to trust Bush’s judgement on judicial matters.
Trust Bush?
Bush signed into law the unconstitutional campaign reform law.
Bush pushed his Justice Dept into supporting affirmative action before the Supreme Court.
Bush has nominated this woman who has supported an international criminal tribunal and *** adoption rights.
Trust Bush?
October 6th, 2005 at 3:14 am
Most people know that chosing Bush over Kerry was simply chosing the lesser of two evils; Kerry would have been a socialist disaster and would have given authority of our military over to the UN, among other disastrous things.
IMO, we’re in a fight for our very survival in the WOT, and you know damned well the democrats are not in support of our fighting it. They’d rather fight like the french–with a white flag.
So now I guess just because Bush isn’t conservative enough, it’s time to throw in the towel instead of make our voices heard about the things you mentioned above. Actually, I could add a few things to that list like the open borders issue, his pushing FTAA and CAFTA, his support of civil unions for ****, etc.. I wonder why. Is it too daunting a task? Is it too much work? Since when is fighting for our very survival, our way of life, our belief system and capitalism–too much work?
Campaign-finance reform, was instituted ostensibly for the purpose of reducing the influence of big money in politics. Considering the fact that the big five fat money donors to the democratic party were George Soros, Progressive Insurance chairman Peter Lewis, Hollywood mogul Stephen Bing, and the California investors Herbert and Marion Sandler…I think trying to do something about them was a good idea. Now whether or not the campaign finance reform bill works in practice, I suppose that’s another question…because these guys just turned around and flooded 527’s with their money, spending somewhere in the area of $78 million in their effort to defeat Bush. What I’m amazed about is–all that money just went into the tank. And I’m grateful that it didn’t work…although you can still see their money working in the system.
The caveat is the C4 organizations–so a red herring has emerged which is disturbing. C4s are allowed to engage in unlimited lobbying, and can also engage in partisan campaigning, as long as that campaigning is not the group’s “primary” purpose, according to the law. In the next few months and years, experts believe it is likely that new C4s will arise that engage in partisan political activity but which claim that such activity is not their “primary” purpose.
None of the issues you cite (together or individually) are enough for me to hand the levers of power over to the democratic party which is run by socialists (and elitists) right now. We have control; we should be pushing for more conservative candidates who live up to our values and don’t give into the left…the solution is not just give up the fight. We should strengthen our grassroots movements and continue putting pressure on our representatives to more fully represent us!
I can find nothing on Miers supporting an International Criminal Tribunal–but the UN already has one. I don’t support the UN; I think it’s a complete waste of time and money, but I’d be interested in seeing more about Miers’ support of that. Even Sandra Day O’Connor supported bringing international law into our courts–something I vehemently oppose, but I don’t see anybody complaining about HER.
If you’re talking about this document, I would agree with you if the adoption document says what you say it says. But it turns out that Miers did not support *** adoption — the document to which you refer, referred to proposals on which Miers’ committee did not take a stand. It was a list of possibilities without recommendations…and in the 1980’s.
I guess according to some people, nobody invested in the *** rights debate will be satisfied with Miers’ answers to the 1989 questionnaire. To *** rights supporters, it’s unforgivable than she wanted to declare **** criminals. To religious right folk, it’s unforgivable that she filled out the form in the first place and said anything vaguely supportive at all.
(excerpted from comments at Volokh Conspiracy)