«
»




Oct

9

Miers’ Nomination Making Right Go Wrong

Posted By: 'Okie' | 8:01 pm — 10/9/2005 | 1 Comment See comments below:

The political Right in America is doing some serious public suffering in the wake of the Harriet Miers’ nomination to the Supreme Court by President Bush and the MSM is gleefully eating it up. Many of these folks better take some political, or maybe some real, Prozac and chill a bit before something really bad happens, like the base deciding to sit out the elections of ’06, and perhaps even ’08. There are hints of internecine warfare within the Republican Party, and I for one don’t like it a bit. Even Forbes Magazine? Here’s what they have on their website today:

Conservative outrage over President George Bush’s controversial pick of Texas lawyer Harriet Miers to fill a vacancy on the US Supreme Court was unabated Sunday as activists called on the White House to withdraw her nomination.

Among the most outspoken detractors was former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan, who, on NBC television’s ‘Meet the Press’ program, said Bush should name someone else to fill the vacancy on the US high court.

‘I would like to see the nomination withdrawn. If I were in the Senate today I would vote against it,’ Buchanan said. ‘My guess is, she will not be confirmed, and she will be withdrawn.’

The Weekly Standard, a bible for dyed-in-the-wool conservatives, on Sunday called the choice of Miers ‘at best an error, at worst a disaster’ which should be reconsidered.

‘He has put up an unknown and undistinguished figure for an opening that conservatives worked for a generation to see filled with a jurist of high distinction,’ the magazine’s editor Bill Kristol wrote.

‘The best alternative would be for Miers to withdraw,’ the conservative pundit said. ‘Her nomination has hurt the president whom she came to Washington to serve.’

Then there was AM’s FoxNews Sunday. I knew there would be fireworks, with Bill Kristol on the panel and him having been so very public with his disappointment over Miers and his severe criticism of Bush for the last week, and I wasn’t disappointed, at least not in the fireworks. Brit Hume, usually getting into the thick of it with Juan Williams from National Public Radio, was having to mix it up with Kristol. Bill was just as fired up and intransigeant as he’s been all week, not giving Bush’s pick of Miers even a little benefit of doubt. Juan, and Nina Totenburg just sat back and watched the conservatives on the panel damage each other, at least they watched Bill try to continue to damage the Miers’ nomination.

When Juan Williams seems like a voice of reason, you know that you are experiencing cognitive dissonance of your own. Then Nina laid it out for all it’s worth when she remarked that just when it was looking like the Republicans were going to establish a permanent majority in Congress, the Miers’ nomination appears to be fracturing the party faithful and putting that goal in jeopardy. And I say, all because the most right of the right will not let themselves trust their President!

Now, this all came down after a segment with Chris Wallace interviewing Rep. Senator Lindsey Graham, Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht and conservative Gary Bauer. This AM, Bauer was just another p’ off whiny conservative that is livid with Bush because he (Bauer) didn’t get his way.

Republican presidents have appointed seven of nine Supreme Court justices. Many of them had the same sort of profile. We were told they were conservatives, but at the end of the day, they ended up not being, and the result is we still have a court that may force same-sex marriage on us, that may take “under God” out of the Pledge of Allegiance, that may not overturn Roe.

And I would hope that Senator Graham and others would start promoting a strategy where we would actually start winning judicial battles and change the court.

And Senator Graham, one of the gang of 14? He comes across as reasoned and supportive of the President.

Well, we’re winning. Every time the president sent someone up who’s been attacked by the left, they’re sitting on the bench now — Priscilla Owens, Pryor, Janice Rogers Brown, John Roberts. If you’re a conservative, we’re winning.

And why did he do what he did? Why did the president pick Harriet Miers? I don’t think it’s going to be on a segment of “Unsolved Mysteries”. He made a decision, Chris, to pick a woman. Why did he do that? I think he believes it would be better for the country to have the Supreme Court more diverse. I support his decision to pick a woman.

And when he decided to fill someone to fill the spot, what woman did he pick? He picked the person he knew the best and he trusted the most, and that’s classic George W. Bush. I was pushing Karen Williams. There are plenty of conservative women out there qualified to be on the Supreme Court.

George W. Bush picked the woman that he knew the best, that was his lawyer, he’s known for a decade-plus, and that’s classic Bush. And I think if people will listen, and give her a shot, and understand who she is and how she’s lived her life, she will be a very fine choice.

And to a question by Wallace about how Miers could possibly uphold Roe v Wade given her evangelical religious, anti-abortion beliefs, Justice Hecht responded:

because it’s easy. Legal issues and personal issues are just two different things. Judges do it all the time. In fact, a judge is going to take an oath that says I’m going to judge rightly in cases, which means that you have to set aside your personal views in deciding the case. And if you don’t do that, you’re either a bad believer in your views, a bad judge or both.

Followed by Bauer:

Look, I’m confused here. I can’t tell whether Judge Hecht is arguing that she is going to overturn Roe or she’s not going to overturn Roe. If he wants to reassure his fellow pro-life conservatives, that’s the last argument he should be making, the argument that he just made.

There it is again. It’s all about abortion, all the time!

I can understand this. Look at my blogroll, I’m pro-life, and especially pro-adoption. I am definitely anti-abortion. But — we can’t become like the uber-Libs and become a one-issue party! We can’t allow our determination to end the slaughter of nascent human life to allow us to become just like them, and advocate for an activist court, even if it would be a conservative-biased judiciary. That accomplishes nothing of lasting substance. We need to fill the bench with strict-constructionists, and then work to have legislated good laws that will pass Constitutional muster, or if necessary, pass amendments to the Constitution itself to allow the laws that we need and want. That’s how you do it in a democratic republic! (db)

[Update]

The Anchoress is presenting a similar mindset on this:

If that was his game, it may all backfire on him as the “Rebels” are not to be placated – they want what they want, when they want it, not later – but I am convinced that if they insist on the withdrawal of this nominee on the threat of war, they will in the end be cutting off their noses to spite their faces. By sneering at Bush and insisting he give up his right to his own nominee, that he humiliate himself by bowing before them and doing only their bidding, they will have weakened him irreparably. Try to get a Luttig or an Owen through if the GOP Senate is still spineless and unwilling to fight, and the Democrats have seen Bush unsupported and “cave-able.” It won’t work.

And Hugh has a long post from yesterday asking what do the Miers’ critics want, plus more thoughts in today’s update showing that the base is not following the conservative elites over the cliff.

Sphere It
This entry was posted on Sunday, October 9th, 2005 at 8:01 pm and is filed under When Right is Wrong. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.  |  Print This Post Print This Post  |  Email This Post Email This Post

Recently Posted: