Don’t know if it’s true or not, but I suspect that this morning’s rather hastily-called press conference was intended by the President and his advisors to reassure conservatives about the Miers pick, with Bush relying on his personal charms and the good will he’s built up with Republicans (85% of whom approve of his performance), to shore up support for his pick, if not necessarily for Ms. Miers herself—who many on the right still consider hugely unqualified.
Whether or not it will have any effect is another question, though I suspect the performance, coupled with cooler heads prevailing, will keep things calm(er) on the right for the time being.
However, I do think Republican strategists—who have been sent out to push Miers’ “real world,” anti-“academic” credentials on the political talk shows—are taking the wrong tack: many legal conservatives on the right want a brilliant legal theorist and thinker precisely because we believe that such a nominee would naturally support our view of how the judiciary should function, and of how the Constitution ought be read.
As I noted yesterday, I’m far less interested in someone bringing a unique perspective to the Bench than I am with someone bringing a proper perspective to the role of Judge.
Miers might be that person, I don’t know. But I think the strategy of pushing her as a “judicial outsider” is shortsighted; after all, we just got done hearing about all of John Roberts’ qualities, which proceeded from the very kind of background this current PR campaign seems to be offhandedly criticizing.
Jonah Goldberg has a nice post about this at the Corner. Says he’s getting e-mails from readers that basically amount to a “celebration of hackery.” Indeed.
On the other hand: GOOD ENOUGH FOR HUGH HEWITT, GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME!
*many legal conservatives on the right want a brilliant legal theorist and thinker precisely because we believe that such would naturally support our view of how the judiciary should function, and of how the Constitution ought be read. *
YES ! But it appears, on first blush, that Bush ain’t listenin. I hope thats not the case.
I’m reserving judgment till we know more.
”…rather hastily-called press conference…”
Indeed, even after Cheney appeared on Limbaugh’s broadcast, offering up a big, frosty pitcher of Kool-aid, saying trust us, in 10 years you’ll see.
I think the President found the perfect choice for Joe Public; a pro-life & pro-gun choice.
What was it Reagan said?…”Trust, but verify.” Well there’s no way to verify this candidates qualifications… so how can we trust GW? I’ve sent a lot of time defending GW to friends, family etc.
I’ve got to say that this nomination is KILLING me. It won’t make me vote Democrat…but it sure as hell has opened the door for an independent. I want MY party back…
The Dems have been shanghaied by nut cases and the Repubs have decided to abandon fiscal restraint. And now we get a SCOTUS nominee that isn’t..well, isn’t all those that were passed over.
Trust, but verify, GW. You are leaving your party swinging in the wind.
Let’s think about it a little more. If he publicly provides us with a good defense of Miers, one that satisfies most conservatives, he’ll be providing the Dems with reasons to oppose her, something they don’t really have yet. If he somehow assures us publicly that we’ll be giddy with glee, she’s in hot water.
What are the options? If (1) Bush doesn’t know what’s at stake, we’re screwed, plain and simple. But what if (2) he does? Let’s go with that for the sake of … optimism, and common sense – someone in the past 30 days has reminded (or, worst case, informed) him of the stakes, right?
OK. He knows the stakes. Now, absent an extensive paper trail detailing her views, what does he have to go on? His personal knowledge of her character and mindset, we would hope. There is something in that area that reassures him that she’s the right choice. But he can’t tell us that yet. All he can do is say, trust me.
Is this scenario too hard to believe?
You guys should give the president a little more credit. He knows what he is doing; just look at the record. Have a little faith.
Jeff,
You are correct, we need someone that has the correct perspective on the intended role of the judiciary. I think that is probably the number one priority of the President’s selection processes that we have seen the last 6 years.
When you find a jurist candidate that has an understanding and a BELIEF in and COMMITMENT to the constitutional role of the judiciary, you find that you have a strict constructionist.
If what we have read about Miss Miers is correct, she, as a person of public faith, has a capacity to believe in something more than just herself. As her reputation in the White House has been exposed, she is one of the most committed members of the staff, working a tremendous amount of hours to accomplish the tasks that the president has put in front of her. So, as long as the understanding of the judicial role is there, the capacity to believe in it and to be committed to it are there.
One of the most important tasks she has been given for several years is interviewing and researching candidates for the federal bench. During this time, she has briefed the president on potential candidates, with the discovered facts and her opinion of the candidate. Is it such a stretch to think that there is a possibility that the President was to have seen in her the temperament and commitment to the Constitution that he was searching for in others. I think that is extremely likely.
Myself, I would not have chosen her, but then I don’t have the facts and experience available to me that GW has. He’s usually made me proud of the important choices he has made. I expect the end result of this decision to turn out to be the correct one, too.
Like a friend of mine said yesterday, “she can’t be any worse than Sandy O’Connor and chances are with the relationship she established while vetting Judge Roberts, he will be influential in her development as a jurist.”
If the Dems have any working brain cells left they’ll jump on the “She’s not qualified!” band-wagon and leave her political leanings as a secondary issue. There are so many Republicans scratching their heads over this nomination, I can see Miers NOT being confirmed, and for good reason. She simply has not shown she has the chops.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, I’m sure Move-on is about to roll out a TV ad showing Miers setting fire to an abortion clinic with a schoolbus full of inner city children doused in stolen Iraqi oil.
As I noted in the post, I’m not sure she’s not precisely what Bush says she is—and the ‘91 profile I linked yesterday suggests that she very well might be. And I do trust that the President believes she’s exactly what he says she is.
Still, there were other women with those same credentials who have a record of commitment to such a judicial philosophy. Which is why many of us would have been more comfortable with their selection.
Beldar just posted a comparison of Miers and Roberts.
So, given that she is more qualified than Roberts for the court, is there some reason other than elite intelligentsia blather to question her nomination?
I was hoping he would name Nancy Pelosi or Barbara Boxer, somebody whose position we know. (Doggie position if a mirror is involved.) My goodness, he fooled me!
Needless to say, that is very hard to do.
If this WoPo story is to be believed, she has been his pick all along. If cons found Gonzales unacceptable, how in the world did he think cons would find her acceptable? This is tantamount to a poke in the eye and a “how dare you question my choice.”
Is there any particular reason why being “Joe Public” is good? I mean, I understand that we have a sort of “Joe Public” president, but when he brings his entire administration down to his intellectual level, based on “gut” and “hunch” instead of simple ideas like “oh BTW, the Constitution doesn’t support this interpretation of the Commerce Clause because of x,y, and z…” then where does the movement go? It doesn’t. Right now we need people who can persuasively argue why these ideas matter and why they are right, not someone who would be an effective liasion to the Kiwanis Club.
I could be wrong, but I think Bush wasn’t so much asking us to trust his judgement, but telling us that he trusts his judgement. What we do over the next several weeks, whether that be stating our opinions, or digging for objective facts, I think he expects we will see what he already does. In a sense, he’s saying he trusts OUR judgement, moreso than asking us to trust his.
Let’s think about it a little more. If he publicly provides us with a good defense of Miers, one that satisfies most conservatives, he’ll be providing the Dems with reasons to oppose her, something they don’t really have yet.
What was the point of electing 55 Senators and (more or less) ending the threat of a filibuster?
He could have gotten this woman confirmed with 49 Rep Senators.
Jeff, thanks for the link! You wrote here that “many legal conservatives … want a brilliant legal theorist and thinker precisely because we believe that such a nominee would naturally support our view of how the judiciary should function, and of how the Constitution ought be read.”
One need not necessarily be brilliant, though, to come to those views and vote in accordance with them. And brilliance unchanneled isn’t always a good thing.
I’m emphatically not saying that we need sheep on the Supreme Court. Every nominee should bring something useful to the mix. But I think there are gaps in the current Court that Ms. Miers may well fill, and there’s no impending shortage of “brilliant legal thinkers and theorists” from either left, right, or center. That’s why we get these splintered opinions and flip-flops: everybody’s just got to be a brilliant legal thinker and theorist. The problem is almost never that they’re unable to come up with “enough” clever ideas and arguments.
Why would GW pick her??? He is a very canny guy, and that “aw shucks” stuff is just for show. Perhaps there is a purpose in this seemingly innocuous choice.
Think on it–ID in schools will come before the supreemes this year–there are three court cases, Kansas, Cali, and Penn, where the litigants have sworn to appeal. Not to mention, roe v. wade, stem cell research, gay marriage, etc.
Consider her “strong religious background” (from the LGF ad!!) and the fact she said “faith” in her acceptance speech…sound like anyone you know? I think she is meant to be GW’s proxy on the court, a stealth judiciary version of the “bioethics” council.
My take is that Bush doesn’t want to hire some academic or sitting judge whose credentials consist of having written beautifully reasoned dissents. Bush wants a conservative who is more concerned with winning the case rather than one who wants his opinions discussed in law school classrooms. (Listening Nino?) Note that Roberts had a winning record of arguing cases before the SCOTUS. Miers, a well connected, successful, big city lawyer seems to me to be a “just win baby” pick, at least in W’s eyes. The question is, do you trust his judgement? (Do you trust Al Davis’?)
My guess is that the press offensive is aimed at the mainstream, not the right. You could throw the “pointy headed professors who can’t park their bicycles straight” mud to the right and it would stick to a lot of suits.
pardon, i should have said– the odious “bioethics” council.
“many legal conservatives on the right want a brilliant legal theorist and thinker precisely because we believe that such would naturally support our view of how the judiciary should function, and of how the Constitution ought be read.”
who are we kidding? George W. Bush has been an anti-intellectual pseudo-populist from the beginning. He doesn’t respect intelligence and competence, just loyalty. Ms. Miers has certainly been loyal to him, since he was in a position of power as the son of a president, governor and president himself. I do not think Bush sees through the loyalty of the yes men and women who surround him enough to know their true independent thoughts. He has never been interested in the intellectual exercise of judgment that would be involved with having various independent perspectives discussed in his pressence to help him to make good decisions and to evolve his thinking as necessary. So he has yes men loyalists like Ms. Miers, and he has no clue what they really think.
No Ms. Miers is no more of a great legal theorist then Michael Brown was an expert on emergency management, and Paul Bremer was an expert on nation building, and …
We conservatives (especially the corporate types) wanted a (popular) puppet to do our bidding. Now the puppet wants to demonstrate the he is a real boy. Woe is us!
Of the 53 Million plus voters that voted to re-elect President Bush last November, what was the ratio of intelligentistas to “Joe Publics”? He is giving the Republican public what they want. He knows this because he has known this woman for many years. The Punditocracy justs wants to see a fight.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles_print.php?article_id=4876
I fell let down and like the President forgets who fought for him. See My thoughts on this.
Point taken, Beldar. I was more reacting to the anti-intellectualist tack that the Bush strategists are pushing on the talk shows. And I suppose my main point is that there were plenty of brilliant legal thinkers with a long track record of adhering to the principles legal conservatives hold dear who would have been more appealing choices.
The President might very well know what he’s doing, and as I said in the post, I think his reassurances today might help quiet things on the right; I just don’t think the strategy the Bushies are using to market her is well thought out. Very few of us (I hope) want a Bill O’Reilly on the Supreme Court.
Incidentally, O’Reilly has a story coming up this evening on how blogs are being used as weapons—of the SMEAR MERCHANTS!
Don’t miss it. I’m sure it’ll be scintillating!
I have to say that the weakness of the arguments in favor of Miers (or against her detractors, more accurately) is not convincing me at all. In fact, the emotional, bushbot, drink-the-kool-aid-dammit! approach that many are taking is having the opposite of its intended effect.
I think Bush is going to find out just how far he can go without a 100% committed base behind him. That’s if the democrats decide to really oppose her, which, hey, they might not.
Bush put himself into this mess, not his conservative base. Had he the fortitude to give us a Scalia or Thomas as he promised, he would have nominated Luttig, Jones or Brown. Instead, he sends up a moderate – at best – and asks his base to trust him. This is too important to take his word on it for the second time.
Perhaps his base should send him a threatening letter like the Dems did last week. “Pull Miers and give us Luttig, Jones or Brown, or you will be a lame duck, lose in ‘06, and there will never be another Bush president.”
Until that happens, he should get what he deserves with the backlash of his base.
I fell let down and like the President forgets who fought for him. See My thoughts on this.
My goodness! So many conservatives are doing just what they lambasted the Dems for doing during the Roberts confirmation hearings. Namely disqualifying a candidate because your unsure which way she’ll vote on issues dear to you. It seems to me you dont want to eliminate judicial activism, but replace liberal activism with conservative activism.
Funny thing about Thomas being mentioned. How much judicial experience did he have at the time of his nomination?
Anyone?
How about 5 months?
Oh I don’t know. I know a lot of people who look at the Constitution and see something that doesn’t require brilliant theory and thought to understand.
It’s a pretty clear document and it seems to me that theory and thinking have twisted its interpretation into what it is today.
IMHO, Goldberg nails it.
Evangelical Seat
The base is revolting – and it is – because Bush dropped the ball, “big time” (to use my favorite Cheney quote). He flinched. He rolled over in the face of Dem pressure. He revealed his northeast, moderate roots just like daddy before him (“no new taxes”). Bush will not go down with Reagan, but with his daddy in history. But unlike his daddy, he dressed up like a southern conservative. At least his daddy didn’t put on that cowboy boot wearing charade. At least his daddy wore his ‘vacationing in Maine,’ play baseball for Yale, hope I don’t upset those inside the beltway on his sleeve.
And, its not just her lack of judicial experience (no big deal with me) that concerns me. Its all the little things that add up to a big, fat zero.
The Democratic Party is openly celebrating the conservative infighting, and promptly using it to their advantage. From the looks of it, it might even be suggested that some conservatives have written the Democrat’s newest talking-points.
Memo To Conservatives:
We Are Helping The Other Side. Pass It On.
Two quesitons:
{1} Was Jonah Goldberg’s “polarization is a two way street” intentional humor?
{2} How many times will we swallow this (or any) administration’s “Just trust me on this” after the weapons-of-mass-destruction debacle and the imprisonments without trials? Yes, the president is a likeable good guy. This goes far beyond that, and I’m appalled that he doesn’t seem to know it.
HCT
This could be the biggest collection of sheep I have ever encountered. For starters the qualification that Beldar mentions are mostly unrelated to the job at hand. “Roberts would have worked for her….Roberts never tried cases”….come on hes a qualified judge interviewing for the absolute highest judge position… She a qualified litigator thats been politically apointed to some positions and has never even ruled on a motion…..thats just plain stupid to compare.
And if your faith is whether Bush knows who hes picking with regard to Supreme COurt rulings on Roe Wade– its probably legitimate. But blind faith in our President whose lack of foresight has missed the scope of the insurgency and might have blown the opportunity that Iraq poses (plus whose utter lack of fiscal responsibility along the way) is very very misplaced.
I for one voted for McCain and will vote for a real leader like him every time he runs. Even if it means some of my issues dont go the exact way I want them. At least the country would be on the right track. All the sheep have been running so scared since Bill Clinton, that they are not making wise leadership decisions that would actually strengthen our country.
Someone needs to have some backbone…. Although its important, issues like abortion are not everything. We are fighting a war for survival of our values of freedom here!!!!
Actually, since Miers is a born-again Christian, Bush is revealing his fundamentalist, West Texas roots more than anything that would come out of the northeast.
If I were Bush, I would have pushed harder to go with a name conservative. But after watching the media coverage of Hurricane Katrina, in which the press was able to define the situation to the public as being the administration’s fault, despite evidence of state and local failings, I think part of the reason for selecting Miers was the knowledge that she was unknown enough that the White House would have time to define her to the public in the first few days following the announcement.
It’s definitely playing from a position of weakness, but had Bush gone with someone like Luttig or Brown, the opposition research against them would have been unleased within minutes of the first reports, and by the time the formal annoucement was made, the White House would already have been playing catch-up with the spin put out by Democrats. Then it would be a question of how well Bush and company could fight back, to keep the Republican members of the Senate’s “Gang of 14” from defecting due to pressure in the media that the nominee was out of the mainstream.
Had this nomination occurred eight months ago, at the start of the second term, I don’t think Miers would have been the choice, since the administration was confident enough at that point to push Social Security reform and several other initiatives. But after seeing the debate go spiraling out of control after Katrina, and with the knowledge of how tough it was just to get John Bolton through the Senate as U.N. ambassador, because he talked mean in the past to some of his staff members, I think Bush decided safe was better, and he’d rather be attacked by conservatives before the fact than lambasted by them later for failing to marshal their members in Congress, if six of the GOP seven defected and a Luttig or Brown never made it out of the Senate.
Maybe it is not exactly a war on freedom, but it is starting to look like a war on science.
And this, via the insta-dude. The Republican War on Science.
One matter the liberals will not have to worry
about this time, is the questions they will
ask, they simply have to read the conservative
blogs.
All that is necessary is there, the distrust,
the moaning she is not right for the job,
the neverending bashing of the president in
his choice,
What more do they need? The conservatives have
said so much in such hysteria, typical of the
the left actually, they are sitting in the
winner’s seat now.
Thanks to loyal republicans. .
Hey brother, don’t confuse me with a Republican. This issues transcends politics. It goes to the legal regime my children will live under. I’m a conservative who happens to find a home in the Republican party – at the time being. I’m not so politically blind that I will vote a party simply because of the name. I would not vote for Hillary if she simply changed party affiliation. I call a spade a spade.
Bush dropped the ball, “big time” on this one and I’m letting him know about it. He still has time to change his fate, I only hope he is not as blind as some on this page and he atones for his mistakes.
This has SEVERELY eroded my trust in President Bush. How can you trust a president that so completely dropped the ball on something so monumentally important?
We are talking LIFE TENURE to an appointment at the pinnacle of one of the three branches of government. After the executive, the 9 justices of the Supreme Court are the next most powerful individual posititions in our three-branch system of government. And Bush picks an unqualified crony who is a really really nice person?
This is the low point in a series of really really bad second term decisions: the highway bill pork fest, the $200 billion Katrina giveaway, Julie whats-her-name at the old INS, even the craven cave-in on Bill Bennett. I miss the first-term W.
I think Meirs is a stalking horse for Janice R. Brown.
I give reasons.
retro,
Bush did cave on Bennett and I think it was a mistake.
He should unequivocally hammer day and night any leading Republican who thinks prohibition is the answer to our drug problem.
A one day remonstrance over a manufactured racism incident is not nearly enough.
The end of alcohol prohibition did a lot of harm to the Republican cause. Uh, wait. Never mind. I think my policy position has to change.
We need to round up the druggies and open up death camps for them. Prison is too good for such scum. Every one who turns in a doper ought to get a $10,000 reward. For 100 billion and change we could rid our country of 10 million people and the evil of drugs.
tulanelaw,
Hillary was once a Goldwater Republican.
Perhaps we can convinve her to goback to her roots.
I actually meant to write convince. I think conive is a better choice though.
If we want Brown we have to sink Miers.
It is not infighting, it’s tactics
Hmmmm.
You know it’s kinda funny. A lot of conservatives have blasted African-Americans for being too illogically loyal to Democrats, and yet here we are with people shouting out that we must trust Bush.
So what do we call conservatives that’ll support Bush and the GOP regardless of the kind of idiotic nonsense they pull?
My vote: Reservation Conservatives.
Oh yeah. That’ll piss off some people. hehe.
M. Simon, don’t be so sure Miers will be fillibustered. Some prominent dems have already come out in her favour. She is a woman and an evangelical, two demographics being wooed by the dems.
GW is a very bright guy, and Rove is brilliant. You are right, there is purpose in this nomination, and it is not just a horrible oversight.
But i am not sure about the stalking horse theory. It may be simply to put a dependable conservative on the court, one that is XX and palatable to the dems.
I do not think W had the senate votes to start the social con holy war that some people seem to crave.
I also think that SOME pundits and posters wouldn’t know a ‘brilliant legal theorist and thinker’ from thier ass crack. Bet there might be a couple of lefties that fit that description. Maybe next time someone will also post the history of the Supreme Court justices, so we can evaluate how many ‘brilliant legal theorist and thinkers’ were actually so the day they were confirmed to the Supremes.
Remember, overturning the Holy Grail, R v W, will NOT make abortion illegal. Just punt the issue to the state or fed elective bodies where it belongs. Most likely only Utah will make it totally illegal
.
As long as Mier shows as a ‘strict constructionist’ things should work out allright.
The instant assumption that Miers is a bad choice could be quite off the mark. Yes, she’s bad for those of us who disagree with Bush on social issues, but she may be the stealth candidate who turns the court—evangelical, anti-women’s choice, sophisticated governmental and corporate lawyer, clever bureaucrat, loyal conservative, quick study. She may not write the best opinions, but she’ll support those who do, giving them the power to change history. Bush is so dumb. Like a Truman.
Of course the Dems will oppose Miers.
It is in the Dem talking points. Cronyism.
Serve up a fat one. Let ‘em shoot it down. Let the Rs help.
Then Brown ‘em.
I agree with Grimmy and Miracle Max. Let’s trust him and not give the Loco Left any more ammo, so to speak.
Oldedit, she’s bad for me, because i disagree with the Bush adminstration on SCIENCE issues.
It is a surety that one of the three ID-in-schools cases (Penn, Kansas, Cali) will make it to the supreme court this year.
Bush loves The Tactics of Mistake.
Bush likely knew he didn’t have GOP votes and THAT, my friends, would have been a major problem. If the Dems saw the Chafee’s and Collin’s and Snow’s jumpin’ ship they’d have used that to attempt to seperate and undercut any and all future Senate votes. Imagine if Specter decided to jump away from a too tough nominee as Chairman?? Damn, eh??
Hell, some assbite like Hegel might think bumping a Luttig or an Alito could get him some moderate “cred” for a short run in New Hampshire. Anyway, counting was done internally that we have no idea about – and likely won’t.
As lame as this sounds, we’ve been “trusting” since the get go with those we vote for. That we can all pretend to be so smart about who is the best – without knowing jack about Harriet – sort of tiresome after 2 full days of it.
Oh well. Big tent – and I’d rather stick my head in a lion’s den that argue Roe v Wade. Make my Tax Cut’s permanent. Cheers.
Jeff:
In one of your first posts on the Miers appointment, you said something about her support for the ICC. Anything more on that?
You all worry too much. The President knows what he is doing. He got someone he trusts that is apparently bulletproof for the Democrats.
You must remember, Dubya has other agendas on the stove. A quick quiet confirmation hearing, packed with smiling Democrat Senators, will smooth the way for future Katrina caused fat cutting from the budget.
Hell, I bet Bush already cut a deal with Harry Reid.
Go to Beldar’s blog—he knows and supports Miers.
Now I support her, too. Common sense and goodness, NOT a pointy head.
Bush will win whatever the Dems do with this.
“She simply has not shown she has the chops.”
Hmmmm… Didn’t upholding CFR, and Kelo come from the ones with the chops?
“…if this WoPo story is to be believed, she has been his pick all along.”
Saw Miers TV ads this morning. Lead time?
The LAST thing we need is another “legal scholar” whose view of the Constitution can only be based on a hallucination. The problem is not that the Judiciary play an improper role; the problem is that it plays its role based on an imaginary Constitution.
Mier might just be the perfect choice.
I don’t know if she’s perfect or not. What I do know is that I am suffering from FRET OVERLOAD. I am a world champion fretter, but all the blog fretting is putting me to shame.
Jeff, I applaud your cool head. Again.
Fretting is soooo unattractive.
Good point, MayBee. This is not the first time Jeff has kept his head while others lost theirs.
People are talking a lot about how the president expects us to trust him. Frankly, I’m not sure how this confirmation process is going to change one way or the other on whether pundits and bloggers trust the president. But I guess some people don’t want to believe that.
Hmmmm.
“A quick quiet confirmation hearing, packed with smiling Democrat Senators, will smooth the way for future Katrina caused fat cutting from the budget. “
Ummm. **When** did Bush ever cut the “fat” from any budget? Hasn’t the budget grown in each and every single year that Bush has been in office?
Or are you in a happy place where facts are butterflies that dance upon the flowery breeze?
Hmmm.
So those of you supporting Miers then are stipulating that Miers is a better candidate than the other more established candidates?
Hmmm.
Maybe I need to join Jeb Bush’s campaign for his next job. I’m a damn good programmer so it shouldn’t be that hard to get onboard. I might get a FEMA directorship out of this or maybe I’d get appointed to the Ninth Circuit.
Yeah that’s the ticket! Judge ed.
You all watch your ass. Don’t make me go all constitutional on you.
meh.
Hey, you guys are being a bit harsh. According to this article, she’s quite jolly –
Uh, did anyone consider that the Framers perhaps did not want lifetime-career judges any more than career politicians and bureaucrats?
Even though thjs post is probably on it’s last gasp – if not already dead, I wanted to post this article for those of us who are upset, but still have that little voice in the back of our heads saying “He CAN’T be doing this…” Interesting.
http://americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4876
I don’t know if anyone noticed, but the primary quality Bush likes in this lady is not her loyalty to him—it’s her loyalty to Him. You know, Jesus. The Big J.C. This lady is as religious as Pat Robertson on a snake-handling televangelism tour.
That’s why she’s on board—to overturn Roe v Wade and make sure gay people never get married. That’s why it doesn’t matter to them that she’s 60—she doesn’t need to be on the Court for 40 years.
She just needs to last long enough to make sure the Theocrat wing of my party gets no grief from the Court for the next decade.
I wish some liberty-minded Republican Senator would stand up to Bush and publicly state his opposition.
We need to get the army corp of engineers in here to fix the troll levee
If you want to emote with all of my deep and intellectual thoughts on the Meiers nomination, be sure to read the long and boring details that are haphazardly interspersed with references of insignificant traumas I suffered in middle class childhood: <a href=”http://www.pour_me.com/whine.htm” target=”_blank”>
Okay, now that you have adsorbed the vomitimous writings on my superior website, the coup d gras:
Don’t focus on the bait.
ALL Supremes are WILD CARDS.
She could be a Souter, or just the opposite.
Only time will tell. All of this blather represents the increasing yenta-fication of the blogiosphere.
Go climb a Rock.
Uh, did you notice that the Constitution specifies lifetime appointment to the judiciary “on good behavior”—which means “lifetime career” judges?
Of course.
I meant that they intended that politicians, bureaucrats and judges should be chosen from among those who had proven meritorious in life in general, as opposed to those who had played the game to get into said career, from the time they were in their teens.
One need not be an evangelical to overturn Roe v. Wade. One need only read the Constitution while not on LSD. I’m a pro-choice card-carrying Libertarian, and frankly I can see no Constitutional reason for the Roe ruling. When judges start inventing an imaginary Constitution, we start seeing things like Kelo, the Commerce Clause applying to non-commercial activities that don’t cross state lines (or county lines), the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” morphing into the right of States to have a military and disarm the people, and freedom of speech and the press turning into the FEC.
Sorry, but I don’t think that forcing all 50 states to allow abortion on demand, without a vote, is worth the price of tossing out the Bill of Rights. When our enumerated rights are actually protected, we can worry about others…
And we can pass laws, even Amendments, guaranteeing medical abortion, without having to manipulate the Judiciary.