A Treat For Our Readers
This should be fun. For the better part of a week, a war has been raging at the Asylum. Marcie and I are set on opposite sides over the Miers nomination. Our newest addition to the "staff" here, Sabrina, AKA Mistress Pundit, is also firmly in my better half’s camp. So, this week hasn’t been all that pleasant around here. (Mostly, I’m the one walking around on eggshells.)
But today, the brilliant and capable Capt. Ed was recommended by Michelle Malkin to do an op-ed on the Miers nomination. Regular readers know how much we like Capt. Ed; he is one of the primary bloggers that we read on a daily basis, and we try to keep up with his updates as much as we can throughout the day.
Below is the op-ed in it’s entirety. READ IT. He not only grasps the full weight of this issue that is tearing the GOP apart right now, but attempts to calm down the GOP that’s enraged right now. And yes, you will see some kibbitzing commentary within the op-ed.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/07/AR2005100702311.html
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005588.php (Link included for the updates he's tracking.)
How Harriet Unleashed a Storm on the Right
By Edward MorrisseySunday, October 9, 2005
Well, he's finally done it. By nominating White House lawyer Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, George Bush has managed to accomplish what Al Gore, John Kerry, Tom Daschle and any number of Democratic heavyweights have been unable to do: He has cracked the Republican monolith. Split his own party activists. And how.
The president's surprise pick to replace Sandra Day O'Connor has ignited a massive debate among his former loyalists, especially in the blogosphere, where I spend a fair amount of time. Wails of betrayal are clashing with assurances of the president's brilliant strategic thinking. Meanwhile, the heavyweights of punditry drop columns like artillery shells into what already may be a conservative civil war.
The question on so many minds on the right is: What in Bork's name was Bush thinking?
You have to understand. Conservatives have dreamed for decades of reversing what we see as the court's hijacking of legislative prerogative to advance a liberal agenda. It's what fueled the drive to develop new voters for the GOP and push for a majority in Congress. And finally the political stars have aligned -- giving us a Republican White House, a solidly Republican Senate, and a Republican House to boot.
Bush himself ran on the promise that his election would guarantee Supreme Court nominations in the mold of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. But when he finally got an opening on the court -- whom did he pick? An unknown quantity named John Roberts. After an initial round of puzzlement over this selection, conservatives backed the nomination, even though Roberts never gave any solid indication of whether he agreed with the philosophy of judicial restraint.
It helped that we expected a second opening, which came all too quickly with Chief Justice William Rehnquist's death. But now Bush has presented us with even more of a cipher, one with no demonstrable constitutional scholarship or judicial record, and whose best qualification appears to be proximity to him. The White House hasn't publicly used Miers's evangelical religion as an argument for her conservative credentials, but her supporters haven't shown any qualms about proclaiming it a deciding factor. But since when did that represent conservatism?
This is, perhaps, my biggest gripe with this nominee. ALL of her supporters keep pointing to her faith and say, "How could she not be a good judge?" Only under Article VI of the Constitution, religion can’t be a qualifying aspect of a nominee. It’s strictly forbidden. I’m sure that she is someone that is deep in her faith. We have been told that she had a "spiritual conversion" that led her to Christ, and eventually to the GOP. That’s nice. It’s impressive, and I don’t fault her for it. BUT, her faith is irrelevant. It bears no merit in her upcoming confirmation hearing.
The selection of Miers does represent one of Bush's core values: his loyalty to his inner circle of aides.
Conservatives normally see that as a big plus, but it has its drawbacks. And Miers isn't the first possible candidate for the court to raise conservative blood pressure. Some on the right have speculated that Bush picked Miers as a payback for the trashing Alberto Gonzales has taken from the right wing since O'Connor first announced her retirement. It's no secret that Bush would like to leave office with his longtime friend and ally on the Supreme Court as the first Hispanic justice. But conservatives made it clear that they regard Gonzales as a potential David Souter, a moderate who would bend to the left the way the notorious Bush 41 nominee did almost as soon as his hand left the Bible at his swearing-in ceremony.
Gonzales, rightly so, deserves the criticism of the pundits that have beat him up. His track record is clear as day, and that’s what scares conservatives the most. He is on record on a variety of issues, and he is all too moderate for conservative tastes; that goes double for conservatives like myself. I believe that the Constitution is the highest law in the land. Gonzales’ statements have forced me to question whether or not he truly believes in that, or if he subscribes to the Blackmun/Ginsburg school of judicial activism.
Most conservatives feel betrayed after working so hard to get enough Republicans elected to confirm almost any nominee. That's why heavyhitters like Paul Weyrich, Grover Norquist and others confronted the president's men about the nomination at the White House last week. Some, however, think the president's move demonstrates a hidden brilliance that may take a decade or more to yield fruit. And then there are those who think the president made a mistake, but that any attempt at correction will only compound the damage.
All you have to do is look at the blogosphere of the right to grasp the magnitude of the bomb the president has dropped. The cyberspace crowd of activists divides up into three basic camps, starting with:
The Loyalist Army. Those supporting the Miers nomination, while definitely in the minority, are betting that their high opinion of George Bush and his talent for selecting judges is still justified. Chief among the Loyalists is radio talk-show host and blogger Hugh Hewitt. A former White House attorney and constitutional law professor, Hewitt has a broad following and a reputation for good-humored but devastating debating skills. Many bloggers on the right owe much of their success to his support -- including me.
The Asylum owes much of it’s success—albeit limited to this point—to Hugh, as well. We were one of eighty-one sites that vetted the Roberts’ documents, and we posted more than any other site—seven different posts over the boxes concerning the recess appointments that Roberts dealt with. And I respect Hugh’s opinions, but even he, himself, stated that Miers was a B+ pick, at best. Not the greatest pick, but a good one, according to Hugh. His opinion is the reason why I’m holding out a glimmer of hope for Miers.
Hewitt asks people to trust Bush and provides links to just about everyone with a kind word to contribute on behalf of Miers as well. He started his campaign to combat right-wing unhappiness early on the first day of the nomination, reminding people that Miers helped Bush develop many of the legal theories the administration has used to fight terrorism at home and abroad. And he challenged conservatives to remember that they trusted Bush on other judicial nominees.
Except the problem that I have with this particular line of reasoning is that when a case arrives on the doorstep of the court where the GWOT is an issue, what good does it do the court should a plaintiff request that Miers recuse herself? Then we have a court of eight jurists, instead of nine, and the possibility of a solid, even split. There are arguments to the contrary, including that to date, no case under the GWOT has ever been a narrow margin. The decisions, thus far, always have a solid majority.
He quickly linked to a number of like-minded bloggers and writers, but with a couple of exceptions, these tend to be evangelicals -- Marvin Olasky, James Dobson and Jay Sekulow, to name a few. Conservative Catholic blogger The Anchoress doesn't get a link but mostly sides with Hewitt. As more conservatives plainly did not back Bush, Hewitt started warning about "the big sulk" and hardened his rhetoric against the opposition.
Unfortunately, the Loyalists get outnumbered pretty quickly by:
The Rebel Alliance. The bloggers who join rightist icons such as Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan, Charles Krauthammer and Bill Kristol in opposing Miers's nomination refuse to trust Bush. Many already felt betrayed by this president on a number of issues, including his lack of initiative in securing the Southern border against illegal immigration and his signing of the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance bill even after he noted its lack of constitutional merit. These rebels don't have a plan for taking over the galaxy, but they would like to stop what they see as another Bush foul-up before it winds up like the last few "trust me" Republican Supreme Court nominees, a string starting with John Paul Stevens and ending with Souter.
The problem with the Rebels is while they have certainly earned the respect of many conservatives—myself, Marcie, and Sabrina included—they honestly have too high an opinion of themselves, or see themselves as being a sort of Archimedes-like individual. "Give me the place to stand, and I shall move the earth." The problem is that they’re not moving anything. They're inflaming the conservatives even more than what they were when the Miers nomination was announced. They are not providing a solution to the problem; they are merely contributing to the overall problem.
While the Loyalist Army comes under the command of mostly one man, the Rebel Alliance has several nexuses in the blogosphere. Conservative commentator Michelle Malkin, The Corner at National Review Online, RedState.org and UCLA law professor Stephen Bainbridge all want to see Harriet Miers either withdrawn or defeated. Malkin has provided lots of rhetorical flourish; addressing the notion that Miers should be confirmed because of the doors she opened for women in the legal world, Malkin remarked that conservatives want established scholars on the bench, not "bellhops."
And there’s another aspect of Miers that makes me cringe. She is being considered as a jurist for several points. Among them being her faith, which is irrelevant. Now, we have the activism she participated in when strides were made in the name of women’s rights. Was this not a hallmark of O’Connor? I believe so. So, we’re to accept a possible conservative activist? I think not. Activism has no place on the court, liberal, conservative, or otherwise. I don’t care what doors she opened for whom and when. I care only about whether or not she will uphold the Constitution. And I’m right to question her ideas regarding the Constitution with the comments uncovered regarding Kelo and Grutter that she made after the decisions were made.
Even with its superior numbers, the Rebel Alliance has its work cut out for it. Anyone expecting George Bush to back away from a fight or to fail to come to the defense of his friends has not paid much attention over the past five years. When moderates wanted Dick Cheney dropped from the 2004 ticket, Bush openly scoffed at the suggestion. Why would he act differently now?
He won’t. The Rebels are going to push, and the president is going to push back. Just because they may be registered Republicans doesn’t mean the president isn’t going to swing back when they take their swipes at Miers.
Most of the rebels understand that the Democrats will likely give Miers a pass, especially since Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid suggested her to Bush. No one really expects a GOP Senate caucus that essentially ran from a fight with Democrats over the abuse of the filibuster to rebel against the president on a judicial nominee who will get broad bipartisan support. Even though syndicated columnist George Will and others lobbed highly accurate and extremely damaging bombshells at Bush's position last week, the morale boost the rebels received will be short-lived.
Capt. Ed makes a valid point here. Are the Rebels expecting the Senate GOP to mount a filibuster because they "demand" it? It was the slow, plodding GOP that spent weeks getting their ducks in a row over the Constitutional Option, only to later have the rug yanked out from underneath them. Please, the GOP is seriously lacking in spines right now. If their shadows shouted "BOO" at them they’d jump.
Will the Rebel Alliance abandon Bush if they can't derail Miers's nomination? Some are arguing to do just that, saying it's necessary to purge the GOP of its moderates to ensure ideological purity. But that still appears to be a fringe position. The rebels are so far being careful to limit the fight to Miers and to avoid the longer-range targets they'll have to face if they fail here.
To a point, I agree with the Rebels on that front. I don’t want the moderates purged from the party, but I do want them purged from the Congress—especially the Senate. RINOs like McCain, Specter, Chaffee, Snowe, Collins, and Hagel need to go. They’ve screwed up enough things in the Senate to last a lifetime, and they refuse to listen to the majority of their constituents in their home states. Hell, Arizona attempted to recall McCain a few years ago—the governor even demanded he return home—and McCain thumbed his nose at the state. These people can’t be trusted with the responsibility they have, and because of that, it’s time that they were removed.
But some critics of the Miers nomination have thought that far ahead and want to pull conservatives back from the edge of a disastrous schism. Which brings us to the third, centrist group:
The Trench-Dwelling Dogfaces. Those of us who find ourselves torn between the unconvincing, unrelenting positivism of the Loyalists and the potentially destructive Rebel Alliance occupy a no-man's land of political tiptoeing. We spend our blogging time raising our heads out of the foxholes to note the inbound missiles coming from both sides, and wishing the war would stop -- really soon.
Now that Capt. Ed has revealed all three groups, let me give you the breakdown at the Asylum. Marcie and Sabrina firmly sit in the Loyalist camp, with some leanings into the Dogface camp. I’m a Dogface, but with a twist. I’m not slamming Miers, but I am posting concerns I have about the woman. But this internecine war has to stop. The schism being created is too dangerous, and threatens to fracture the party back to the point it was at during the first Bush administration. If things get worse, we could end up back in the pre-Carter years of obscurity, and ensure a new return of Democrat rule.
Despite our normal support for the president, we Dogfaces fail to recognize George Bush's supposed brilliance in naming his personal lawyer to the bench, whatever Hugh Hewitt says. Even if Miers obviously has earned Bush's trust, she just as obviously has done nothing remarkable to earn the trust of conservatives; being a mover and shaker in the American Bar Association doesn't lend her much credibility among those who have watched that group get more and more politically activist in what we view as the wrong direction. Most of us have tired of the "trust me" approach. In short, we find ourselves with some sympathy for the Rebel Alliance.
Capt. Ed correctly points out where the sympathy is for the Rebels. Their glory days are numbered, and the support will dwindle the more shrill their rhetoric gets. People don’t like shrill. We’re sick of it. Shrill hasn't worked for anyone who uses it. Ask Hillary. Ask Gloria Steinem. Ask Cindy Sheehan. Shrill doesn't work for those of us that possess a level head and common sense. If you don’t have a solution, then shut up because you’re only part of the problem. I’m trying my best to create sound, reasoned posts regarding Miers. I don’t want to lower myself or the debate to the Ann Coulter/Chicken Little level of hysteria.
However, we also see the realistic outcome of the bloody civil war that threatens to split the GOP over what clearly is a White House blunder -- one compounded by White House adviser Ed Gillespie's charging the Rebel Alliance with "sexism" at last week's meeting. With important mid-term elections next year and at least one more Supreme Court opening likely during Bush's term, we want to avoid a party schism that could make him a prematurely lame duck and hand the Democrats an opportunity to seize control of one or both houses of Congress.
BINGO! Give Capt. Ed the fuzzy bunny. This is exactly what we want to avoid. We cannot afford to let the Democrats get control back in either house of Congress, and God forbid they manage to get the White House back while this war is still going on. It would be disastrous to allow such things to occur. And besides, where are the Rebels going to go? Are they going to side with Independents? Jump on the Green Party’s bandwagon? Do that actually have the stomach to endorse a Libertarian candidate? I think not. They have only one home. It’s the GOP. Like it or not, that’s the sad reality they face, and they can’t change it. And if anyone of them stand up and say," Fine! I just won’t vote," then they risk slicing their own throats. No one will listen to someone who failed to participate in the election process.
So who will prevail? All I can predict is that if Miers is confirmed, the debate will continue into the next election cycle. And with this much rage building, the mid-terms look more exciting every day.
True that, and the midterms are shaping up to be potentially devastating to the Democrats provided the GOP can hold it together. If they can’t, if this schism occurs, then I expect to see a knock-down, drag-out dogfight for the Senate. The House isn’t safe either. The GOP has 231 members while the Democrats have 202 members. An extended internal war could upset the balance of either house. Should the Democrats regain control of them, it would effectively make the president a lame duck his final two years in office. Without the majority of his party in both houses, Pres. Bush would be able to accomplish little during the remainder of his term.
I share some of the concerns that Capt. Ed listed among the Rebels. I have gripes about the president. Immigration is one. The seemingly out-of-control spending is another issue. Signing McCain/Feingold, in my opinion, was one of his worst moves. But the one point that is made about the president that is on the money, and gives me the ultimate hope of Miers is that, thus far, he hasn’t nominated a left-leaning moderate jurist. They’re all solid conservatives, and ones who believe in the Constitution.
Do we have the right to be a little irked at the president over his decision? Most assuredly so. We, as bloggers and court watchers, knew who the big-gun nominees should have been. The biggest question on everyone’s mind regarding Miers is can she be trusted with the responsibility she’s been nominated for? An excellent question, indeed, and right now there’s no way to guarantee the answer will be "yes." I’m willing to wait and see how she does in the committee hearings. Beyond that, well...I’m not too sure. I’m not going out of my way to lob bombs at her (as per the agreement between Marcie and I; this also ensures a level of peace around here) nor will I throw my hat into her ring. I’m a proof-is-in-the-pudding kind of guy. I want to see her prove herself.
Hopefully the hearings will give us that proof. At the least, the hearings should give us some inkling of what this woman will be like on the court. Pres. Bush hasn’t had the stellar tenure that many believe he’s had. He’s had a good run as president, and should definitely go down as one of the greater presidents in this nation’s history. The last thing I think he wants to do is give himself a black-eye with Miers the way his father did with Souter.
Publius II
This should be fun. For the better part of a week, a war has been raging at the Asylum. Marcie and I are set on opposite sides over the Miers nomination. Our newest addition to the "staff" here, Sabrina, AKA Mistress Pundit, is also firmly in my better half’s camp. So, this week hasn’t been all that pleasant around here. (Mostly, I’m the one walking around on eggshells.)
But today, the brilliant and capable Capt. Ed was recommended by Michelle Malkin to do an op-ed on the Miers nomination. Regular readers know how much we like Capt. Ed; he is one of the primary bloggers that we read on a daily basis, and we try to keep up with his updates as much as we can throughout the day.
Below is the op-ed in it’s entirety. READ IT. He not only grasps the full weight of this issue that is tearing the GOP apart right now, but attempts to calm down the GOP that’s enraged right now. And yes, you will see some kibbitzing commentary within the op-ed.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/07/AR2005100702311.html
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005588.php (Link included for the updates he's tracking.)
How Harriet Unleashed a Storm on the Right
By Edward MorrisseySunday, October 9, 2005
Well, he's finally done it. By nominating White House lawyer Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, George Bush has managed to accomplish what Al Gore, John Kerry, Tom Daschle and any number of Democratic heavyweights have been unable to do: He has cracked the Republican monolith. Split his own party activists. And how.
The president's surprise pick to replace Sandra Day O'Connor has ignited a massive debate among his former loyalists, especially in the blogosphere, where I spend a fair amount of time. Wails of betrayal are clashing with assurances of the president's brilliant strategic thinking. Meanwhile, the heavyweights of punditry drop columns like artillery shells into what already may be a conservative civil war.
The question on so many minds on the right is: What in Bork's name was Bush thinking?
You have to understand. Conservatives have dreamed for decades of reversing what we see as the court's hijacking of legislative prerogative to advance a liberal agenda. It's what fueled the drive to develop new voters for the GOP and push for a majority in Congress. And finally the political stars have aligned -- giving us a Republican White House, a solidly Republican Senate, and a Republican House to boot.
Bush himself ran on the promise that his election would guarantee Supreme Court nominations in the mold of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. But when he finally got an opening on the court -- whom did he pick? An unknown quantity named John Roberts. After an initial round of puzzlement over this selection, conservatives backed the nomination, even though Roberts never gave any solid indication of whether he agreed with the philosophy of judicial restraint.
It helped that we expected a second opening, which came all too quickly with Chief Justice William Rehnquist's death. But now Bush has presented us with even more of a cipher, one with no demonstrable constitutional scholarship or judicial record, and whose best qualification appears to be proximity to him. The White House hasn't publicly used Miers's evangelical religion as an argument for her conservative credentials, but her supporters haven't shown any qualms about proclaiming it a deciding factor. But since when did that represent conservatism?
This is, perhaps, my biggest gripe with this nominee. ALL of her supporters keep pointing to her faith and say, "How could she not be a good judge?" Only under Article VI of the Constitution, religion can’t be a qualifying aspect of a nominee. It’s strictly forbidden. I’m sure that she is someone that is deep in her faith. We have been told that she had a "spiritual conversion" that led her to Christ, and eventually to the GOP. That’s nice. It’s impressive, and I don’t fault her for it. BUT, her faith is irrelevant. It bears no merit in her upcoming confirmation hearing.
The selection of Miers does represent one of Bush's core values: his loyalty to his inner circle of aides.
Conservatives normally see that as a big plus, but it has its drawbacks. And Miers isn't the first possible candidate for the court to raise conservative blood pressure. Some on the right have speculated that Bush picked Miers as a payback for the trashing Alberto Gonzales has taken from the right wing since O'Connor first announced her retirement. It's no secret that Bush would like to leave office with his longtime friend and ally on the Supreme Court as the first Hispanic justice. But conservatives made it clear that they regard Gonzales as a potential David Souter, a moderate who would bend to the left the way the notorious Bush 41 nominee did almost as soon as his hand left the Bible at his swearing-in ceremony.
Gonzales, rightly so, deserves the criticism of the pundits that have beat him up. His track record is clear as day, and that’s what scares conservatives the most. He is on record on a variety of issues, and he is all too moderate for conservative tastes; that goes double for conservatives like myself. I believe that the Constitution is the highest law in the land. Gonzales’ statements have forced me to question whether or not he truly believes in that, or if he subscribes to the Blackmun/Ginsburg school of judicial activism.
Most conservatives feel betrayed after working so hard to get enough Republicans elected to confirm almost any nominee. That's why heavyhitters like Paul Weyrich, Grover Norquist and others confronted the president's men about the nomination at the White House last week. Some, however, think the president's move demonstrates a hidden brilliance that may take a decade or more to yield fruit. And then there are those who think the president made a mistake, but that any attempt at correction will only compound the damage.
All you have to do is look at the blogosphere of the right to grasp the magnitude of the bomb the president has dropped. The cyberspace crowd of activists divides up into three basic camps, starting with:
The Loyalist Army. Those supporting the Miers nomination, while definitely in the minority, are betting that their high opinion of George Bush and his talent for selecting judges is still justified. Chief among the Loyalists is radio talk-show host and blogger Hugh Hewitt. A former White House attorney and constitutional law professor, Hewitt has a broad following and a reputation for good-humored but devastating debating skills. Many bloggers on the right owe much of their success to his support -- including me.
The Asylum owes much of it’s success—albeit limited to this point—to Hugh, as well. We were one of eighty-one sites that vetted the Roberts’ documents, and we posted more than any other site—seven different posts over the boxes concerning the recess appointments that Roberts dealt with. And I respect Hugh’s opinions, but even he, himself, stated that Miers was a B+ pick, at best. Not the greatest pick, but a good one, according to Hugh. His opinion is the reason why I’m holding out a glimmer of hope for Miers.
Hewitt asks people to trust Bush and provides links to just about everyone with a kind word to contribute on behalf of Miers as well. He started his campaign to combat right-wing unhappiness early on the first day of the nomination, reminding people that Miers helped Bush develop many of the legal theories the administration has used to fight terrorism at home and abroad. And he challenged conservatives to remember that they trusted Bush on other judicial nominees.
Except the problem that I have with this particular line of reasoning is that when a case arrives on the doorstep of the court where the GWOT is an issue, what good does it do the court should a plaintiff request that Miers recuse herself? Then we have a court of eight jurists, instead of nine, and the possibility of a solid, even split. There are arguments to the contrary, including that to date, no case under the GWOT has ever been a narrow margin. The decisions, thus far, always have a solid majority.
He quickly linked to a number of like-minded bloggers and writers, but with a couple of exceptions, these tend to be evangelicals -- Marvin Olasky, James Dobson and Jay Sekulow, to name a few. Conservative Catholic blogger The Anchoress doesn't get a link but mostly sides with Hewitt. As more conservatives plainly did not back Bush, Hewitt started warning about "the big sulk" and hardened his rhetoric against the opposition.
Unfortunately, the Loyalists get outnumbered pretty quickly by:
The Rebel Alliance. The bloggers who join rightist icons such as Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan, Charles Krauthammer and Bill Kristol in opposing Miers's nomination refuse to trust Bush. Many already felt betrayed by this president on a number of issues, including his lack of initiative in securing the Southern border against illegal immigration and his signing of the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance bill even after he noted its lack of constitutional merit. These rebels don't have a plan for taking over the galaxy, but they would like to stop what they see as another Bush foul-up before it winds up like the last few "trust me" Republican Supreme Court nominees, a string starting with John Paul Stevens and ending with Souter.
The problem with the Rebels is while they have certainly earned the respect of many conservatives—myself, Marcie, and Sabrina included—they honestly have too high an opinion of themselves, or see themselves as being a sort of Archimedes-like individual. "Give me the place to stand, and I shall move the earth." The problem is that they’re not moving anything. They're inflaming the conservatives even more than what they were when the Miers nomination was announced. They are not providing a solution to the problem; they are merely contributing to the overall problem.
While the Loyalist Army comes under the command of mostly one man, the Rebel Alliance has several nexuses in the blogosphere. Conservative commentator Michelle Malkin, The Corner at National Review Online, RedState.org and UCLA law professor Stephen Bainbridge all want to see Harriet Miers either withdrawn or defeated. Malkin has provided lots of rhetorical flourish; addressing the notion that Miers should be confirmed because of the doors she opened for women in the legal world, Malkin remarked that conservatives want established scholars on the bench, not "bellhops."
And there’s another aspect of Miers that makes me cringe. She is being considered as a jurist for several points. Among them being her faith, which is irrelevant. Now, we have the activism she participated in when strides were made in the name of women’s rights. Was this not a hallmark of O’Connor? I believe so. So, we’re to accept a possible conservative activist? I think not. Activism has no place on the court, liberal, conservative, or otherwise. I don’t care what doors she opened for whom and when. I care only about whether or not she will uphold the Constitution. And I’m right to question her ideas regarding the Constitution with the comments uncovered regarding Kelo and Grutter that she made after the decisions were made.
Even with its superior numbers, the Rebel Alliance has its work cut out for it. Anyone expecting George Bush to back away from a fight or to fail to come to the defense of his friends has not paid much attention over the past five years. When moderates wanted Dick Cheney dropped from the 2004 ticket, Bush openly scoffed at the suggestion. Why would he act differently now?
He won’t. The Rebels are going to push, and the president is going to push back. Just because they may be registered Republicans doesn’t mean the president isn’t going to swing back when they take their swipes at Miers.
Most of the rebels understand that the Democrats will likely give Miers a pass, especially since Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid suggested her to Bush. No one really expects a GOP Senate caucus that essentially ran from a fight with Democrats over the abuse of the filibuster to rebel against the president on a judicial nominee who will get broad bipartisan support. Even though syndicated columnist George Will and others lobbed highly accurate and extremely damaging bombshells at Bush's position last week, the morale boost the rebels received will be short-lived.
Capt. Ed makes a valid point here. Are the Rebels expecting the Senate GOP to mount a filibuster because they "demand" it? It was the slow, plodding GOP that spent weeks getting their ducks in a row over the Constitutional Option, only to later have the rug yanked out from underneath them. Please, the GOP is seriously lacking in spines right now. If their shadows shouted "BOO" at them they’d jump.
Will the Rebel Alliance abandon Bush if they can't derail Miers's nomination? Some are arguing to do just that, saying it's necessary to purge the GOP of its moderates to ensure ideological purity. But that still appears to be a fringe position. The rebels are so far being careful to limit the fight to Miers and to avoid the longer-range targets they'll have to face if they fail here.
To a point, I agree with the Rebels on that front. I don’t want the moderates purged from the party, but I do want them purged from the Congress—especially the Senate. RINOs like McCain, Specter, Chaffee, Snowe, Collins, and Hagel need to go. They’ve screwed up enough things in the Senate to last a lifetime, and they refuse to listen to the majority of their constituents in their home states. Hell, Arizona attempted to recall McCain a few years ago—the governor even demanded he return home—and McCain thumbed his nose at the state. These people can’t be trusted with the responsibility they have, and because of that, it’s time that they were removed.
But some critics of the Miers nomination have thought that far ahead and want to pull conservatives back from the edge of a disastrous schism. Which brings us to the third, centrist group:
The Trench-Dwelling Dogfaces. Those of us who find ourselves torn between the unconvincing, unrelenting positivism of the Loyalists and the potentially destructive Rebel Alliance occupy a no-man's land of political tiptoeing. We spend our blogging time raising our heads out of the foxholes to note the inbound missiles coming from both sides, and wishing the war would stop -- really soon.
Now that Capt. Ed has revealed all three groups, let me give you the breakdown at the Asylum. Marcie and Sabrina firmly sit in the Loyalist camp, with some leanings into the Dogface camp. I’m a Dogface, but with a twist. I’m not slamming Miers, but I am posting concerns I have about the woman. But this internecine war has to stop. The schism being created is too dangerous, and threatens to fracture the party back to the point it was at during the first Bush administration. If things get worse, we could end up back in the pre-Carter years of obscurity, and ensure a new return of Democrat rule.
Despite our normal support for the president, we Dogfaces fail to recognize George Bush's supposed brilliance in naming his personal lawyer to the bench, whatever Hugh Hewitt says. Even if Miers obviously has earned Bush's trust, she just as obviously has done nothing remarkable to earn the trust of conservatives; being a mover and shaker in the American Bar Association doesn't lend her much credibility among those who have watched that group get more and more politically activist in what we view as the wrong direction. Most of us have tired of the "trust me" approach. In short, we find ourselves with some sympathy for the Rebel Alliance.
Capt. Ed correctly points out where the sympathy is for the Rebels. Their glory days are numbered, and the support will dwindle the more shrill their rhetoric gets. People don’t like shrill. We’re sick of it. Shrill hasn't worked for anyone who uses it. Ask Hillary. Ask Gloria Steinem. Ask Cindy Sheehan. Shrill doesn't work for those of us that possess a level head and common sense. If you don’t have a solution, then shut up because you’re only part of the problem. I’m trying my best to create sound, reasoned posts regarding Miers. I don’t want to lower myself or the debate to the Ann Coulter/Chicken Little level of hysteria.
However, we also see the realistic outcome of the bloody civil war that threatens to split the GOP over what clearly is a White House blunder -- one compounded by White House adviser Ed Gillespie's charging the Rebel Alliance with "sexism" at last week's meeting. With important mid-term elections next year and at least one more Supreme Court opening likely during Bush's term, we want to avoid a party schism that could make him a prematurely lame duck and hand the Democrats an opportunity to seize control of one or both houses of Congress.
BINGO! Give Capt. Ed the fuzzy bunny. This is exactly what we want to avoid. We cannot afford to let the Democrats get control back in either house of Congress, and God forbid they manage to get the White House back while this war is still going on. It would be disastrous to allow such things to occur. And besides, where are the Rebels going to go? Are they going to side with Independents? Jump on the Green Party’s bandwagon? Do that actually have the stomach to endorse a Libertarian candidate? I think not. They have only one home. It’s the GOP. Like it or not, that’s the sad reality they face, and they can’t change it. And if anyone of them stand up and say," Fine! I just won’t vote," then they risk slicing their own throats. No one will listen to someone who failed to participate in the election process.
So who will prevail? All I can predict is that if Miers is confirmed, the debate will continue into the next election cycle. And with this much rage building, the mid-terms look more exciting every day.
True that, and the midterms are shaping up to be potentially devastating to the Democrats provided the GOP can hold it together. If they can’t, if this schism occurs, then I expect to see a knock-down, drag-out dogfight for the Senate. The House isn’t safe either. The GOP has 231 members while the Democrats have 202 members. An extended internal war could upset the balance of either house. Should the Democrats regain control of them, it would effectively make the president a lame duck his final two years in office. Without the majority of his party in both houses, Pres. Bush would be able to accomplish little during the remainder of his term.
I share some of the concerns that Capt. Ed listed among the Rebels. I have gripes about the president. Immigration is one. The seemingly out-of-control spending is another issue. Signing McCain/Feingold, in my opinion, was one of his worst moves. But the one point that is made about the president that is on the money, and gives me the ultimate hope of Miers is that, thus far, he hasn’t nominated a left-leaning moderate jurist. They’re all solid conservatives, and ones who believe in the Constitution.
Do we have the right to be a little irked at the president over his decision? Most assuredly so. We, as bloggers and court watchers, knew who the big-gun nominees should have been. The biggest question on everyone’s mind regarding Miers is can she be trusted with the responsibility she’s been nominated for? An excellent question, indeed, and right now there’s no way to guarantee the answer will be "yes." I’m willing to wait and see how she does in the committee hearings. Beyond that, well...I’m not too sure. I’m not going out of my way to lob bombs at her (as per the agreement between Marcie and I; this also ensures a level of peace around here) nor will I throw my hat into her ring. I’m a proof-is-in-the-pudding kind of guy. I want to see her prove herself.
Hopefully the hearings will give us that proof. At the least, the hearings should give us some inkling of what this woman will be like on the court. Pres. Bush hasn’t had the stellar tenure that many believe he’s had. He’s had a good run as president, and should definitely go down as one of the greater presidents in this nation’s history. The last thing I think he wants to do is give himself a black-eye with Miers the way his father did with Souter.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 11:42 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home