Honesty, Not Hypocrisy
Many people are accusing us--those opposed to Harriet Miers--of being intellectually dishonest. That we supported the president on so many levels, including those regarding his nominees, that our opposition now seems hypocritical. I beg to differ. The opposition to Miers is precisely for reasons which the White House has been unable to give.
That being, is she or isn't she qualified to handle the job of a Supreme Court jurist? In our opinion she isn't.
We have supported the nominees the president has put up since the beginning of his term in office. Each judicial candidate was thoroughly vetted and investigated. John Bolton was a superb pick that the Democrats ended up filibustering because of how he was going to hold the UN to a level of accountablility that they had turned away from. Chief Justice Roberts was a "stealth" pick that wasn't, and befuddled the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee. We supported Al Gonzales to succeed Ashcroft, and likewise, we supported Ashcroft when he was nominated. When the president nominated Condoleeza Rice for Scretary of State, we back him then.
So, I fail to see the hypocrisy that so many people keep accusing us of having.
Yes, it's true we fought hard against the Democrats and their extreme leftist cronies over the judicial nominees, especially the three involved in the Gang of Fourteen deal. The president has the right to nominate whom he so chooses. Those nominees have a right to their fair and open hearings. And they also have a right to an up-or-down vote. This is what we fought for, and it's what we still stand for.
I'll admit that Thomas did call for her withdrawal, but that has since changed. He, like myself and Marcie, now is standing behind the president's decision for Miers, and wants to hear what she has to say in her hearings. She is owed that much, at least. But, we will not be easy on her if she slips up; yesterday's post shows that she can slip up, indeed.
But to the president, and those attacking us for our opposition, I offer this: It is the president's right to nominate, but it is also our right to speak out. Under the First Amendment, we do have a right to voice our opinions. We have a right to "petition" the government for a redress of grievances. Our grievance is that we don't believe she's a qualified nominee, hence the petitioning our elected Senators to weigh her nomination carefully, and vote what they feel is right for her. If in the hearings she shows herself to be unqualified, or unable to grasp, understand, and interpret the Constitution properly, then she should be voted down. And, this is our Constitutionally-protected opinion as well.
The White House may make it's frustrations known. And that goes for anyone backing Miers, as well. But to label her detractors hypocrites is not only foolish, but highly uneducated. We fought for the same people throughout the five years he's been in office. Now, the base has turned on itself, and we're seen as something other than what we are.
We're conservatives that want our country back, we want our judiciary back, and we want the extreme Left of the Democratic party crushed; their ilk has learned no lessons since Vietnam, and they continue to prove it day in and day out. These people must never be allowed to control this nation again. Had they been in charge on 9-11, we would have been groveling at the feet of our enemy rather than standing up and fighting back. And because these people can't win in the realm of ideas, they're pushing their agenda through the courts. Justices like Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, Kennedy, Stevens, and O'Connor relished seeing their names in the press, complete with lauded accolades from activist leaders for their "brave" and "bold" stances to "correct society's injustices."
The problem is that it's not thir job to do that. That falls to the legislatures to right wrongs, and be bold. A jurists oft boring job is to rule on the law. there's no excitement in this sort of a job. They're not a lawyer in a court room making a reasoned argument, or a prosecutor putting the nails in the coffin of an alleged murderer. They're sitting up on their bench and weighing whether or not a citizen's rights have been violated, or whether their Constitutional protections have been usurped by a legislature. Trust me, I know a few appellate jurists that think their job is boring, though important to the nation to ensure a smooth, fair judicial process.
We want to make sure that if Miers is confirmed that she will be the jurist the president is sure she will be. We want to make sure she will have the judicial philosophy that one interprets the Constitution rather than discovering "penumbras" within it. We don't need unelected, unaccountable jurists making law. We need jurists that will do their job properly.
So, you can call us hypocrites if you like, but you'd be dead wrong. If Miers shows in committee that she is who was presented to us, then we will throw everything we have to support her. But...if she's not what was presented, then we won't be behind her. We'll make the calls to the Senate, and urge them to vote her down. And there are plenty of us out here that do stand opposed to her right now. The White House's spin that the base is liking her more, now that the reinvention has occurred, is just that. It's spin. People may have softened a bit in their rhetoric, as we have, but the opposition is still there.
Mistress Pundit
Many people are accusing us--those opposed to Harriet Miers--of being intellectually dishonest. That we supported the president on so many levels, including those regarding his nominees, that our opposition now seems hypocritical. I beg to differ. The opposition to Miers is precisely for reasons which the White House has been unable to give.
That being, is she or isn't she qualified to handle the job of a Supreme Court jurist? In our opinion she isn't.
We have supported the nominees the president has put up since the beginning of his term in office. Each judicial candidate was thoroughly vetted and investigated. John Bolton was a superb pick that the Democrats ended up filibustering because of how he was going to hold the UN to a level of accountablility that they had turned away from. Chief Justice Roberts was a "stealth" pick that wasn't, and befuddled the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee. We supported Al Gonzales to succeed Ashcroft, and likewise, we supported Ashcroft when he was nominated. When the president nominated Condoleeza Rice for Scretary of State, we back him then.
So, I fail to see the hypocrisy that so many people keep accusing us of having.
Yes, it's true we fought hard against the Democrats and their extreme leftist cronies over the judicial nominees, especially the three involved in the Gang of Fourteen deal. The president has the right to nominate whom he so chooses. Those nominees have a right to their fair and open hearings. And they also have a right to an up-or-down vote. This is what we fought for, and it's what we still stand for.
I'll admit that Thomas did call for her withdrawal, but that has since changed. He, like myself and Marcie, now is standing behind the president's decision for Miers, and wants to hear what she has to say in her hearings. She is owed that much, at least. But, we will not be easy on her if she slips up; yesterday's post shows that she can slip up, indeed.
But to the president, and those attacking us for our opposition, I offer this: It is the president's right to nominate, but it is also our right to speak out. Under the First Amendment, we do have a right to voice our opinions. We have a right to "petition" the government for a redress of grievances. Our grievance is that we don't believe she's a qualified nominee, hence the petitioning our elected Senators to weigh her nomination carefully, and vote what they feel is right for her. If in the hearings she shows herself to be unqualified, or unable to grasp, understand, and interpret the Constitution properly, then she should be voted down. And, this is our Constitutionally-protected opinion as well.
The White House may make it's frustrations known. And that goes for anyone backing Miers, as well. But to label her detractors hypocrites is not only foolish, but highly uneducated. We fought for the same people throughout the five years he's been in office. Now, the base has turned on itself, and we're seen as something other than what we are.
We're conservatives that want our country back, we want our judiciary back, and we want the extreme Left of the Democratic party crushed; their ilk has learned no lessons since Vietnam, and they continue to prove it day in and day out. These people must never be allowed to control this nation again. Had they been in charge on 9-11, we would have been groveling at the feet of our enemy rather than standing up and fighting back. And because these people can't win in the realm of ideas, they're pushing their agenda through the courts. Justices like Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, Kennedy, Stevens, and O'Connor relished seeing their names in the press, complete with lauded accolades from activist leaders for their "brave" and "bold" stances to "correct society's injustices."
The problem is that it's not thir job to do that. That falls to the legislatures to right wrongs, and be bold. A jurists oft boring job is to rule on the law. there's no excitement in this sort of a job. They're not a lawyer in a court room making a reasoned argument, or a prosecutor putting the nails in the coffin of an alleged murderer. They're sitting up on their bench and weighing whether or not a citizen's rights have been violated, or whether their Constitutional protections have been usurped by a legislature. Trust me, I know a few appellate jurists that think their job is boring, though important to the nation to ensure a smooth, fair judicial process.
We want to make sure that if Miers is confirmed that she will be the jurist the president is sure she will be. We want to make sure she will have the judicial philosophy that one interprets the Constitution rather than discovering "penumbras" within it. We don't need unelected, unaccountable jurists making law. We need jurists that will do their job properly.
So, you can call us hypocrites if you like, but you'd be dead wrong. If Miers shows in committee that she is who was presented to us, then we will throw everything we have to support her. But...if she's not what was presented, then we won't be behind her. We'll make the calls to the Senate, and urge them to vote her down. And there are plenty of us out here that do stand opposed to her right now. The White House's spin that the base is liking her more, now that the reinvention has occurred, is just that. It's spin. People may have softened a bit in their rhetoric, as we have, but the opposition is still there.
Mistress Pundit
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 1:55 PM
2 Comments:
Good blog. I keep looking for her to say something that would give me confidence in her. Unfortunately, I haven't read or heard anything. I'll not recite all the factual reason why I oppose her. My position hasn't changed. She has the burden of proving that she understands what our founding fathers penned and she will not read into the Constitution anything that's not there. The burden is very high. I'll hold her to it. Rawriter
TY Mr. Rawriter. I appreciate the kind words. And you are quite correct. After having the numerous discussions that Thomas, Marcie and I have had about Miers, there is little there that anyone can grab a hold of and wave like a banner; the woman has no color at all.
There are far more cons that outweigh her pros, and that isn't one lawyer slamming another one. I'll admit that she has her talent as a lawyer, but as a jurist, I doubt her capabilities.
Mistress Pundit
Post a Comment
<< Home