Okay, enough is enough.
I still haven’t made up my mind about Miers, but some things badly need to be said here, since Miers-bashing has become the most popular sport in the conservative blogosphere. Sorry, but I’m sure to piss some of you off.
Life’s like that. Whining to /dev/null
Point number one: this all boils down to trust. So do I trust Bush, or do I trust the castrated GOP weenies in the Senate? It’s pretty clear to me; Bush isn’t perfect, but he has guts, which all of the idiots in the Senate do not. He also has integrity, and they lack that. So on trust alone, Bush trumps the Senate.
Point number two: good morning, all you conservative bloggers and pundits. Wake up. What’s this talk of putting a conservative on the bench? When did Bush say a word about appointing a conservative? Oh, he didn’t? Never?
Are you just ignoring the whole issue of originalism and legislating from the bench, or are the liberals right, and you’re now demanding litmus tests because that’s precisely what you want done? How do litmus tests become something other than litmus tests when you demand them, instead of liberals?
Sorry, I don’t want conservative judicial actists any more than I want liberal ones. Nope, sorry, no way, not interested. I do not want judges who will overturn Roe v. Wade because they’re personally opposed to abortion; if Roe v. Wade is to be overturned (as it should be), then the only acceptable way is for it to be overturned on point of law.
I. Don’t. Care. What. Any. Appointee’s. Personal. Opinions. Are. And. You. Shouldn’t. Either. Because. They. Are. Irrelevant.
Of course, all this whining and howling about Miers is only going to put Bush’s back up about her and ensure her appointment. Bush is stubborn. We’ve seen that again and again.
Enough of this “he’s betraying his base,” because that’s utter crap. You have no evidence to support that, no more than the liberals have for their “Bush lied” nonsense. It all boils down to trust.
And if you trust the Senate over Bush, then God forgive you for being too stupid to breathe.
PatC says:
All I can say to that is Amen!
October 12, 2005, 10:05 amweaver says:
excellent points! i am much more afraid of a judge who has already made up her/his mind and freely spouts opinions, than one whom i know nothing about. i’m curious why the senate republicans are fighting bush on this. it’s almost as if they are pissed that bush wouldn’t do some deal with them and now it’s payback. something smells very fishy. but i could just be paranoid.
October 12, 2005, 8:32 pmErnest Brown says:
Rightwingprof,
I think you have it exactly backwards. It is the -White House- who is trying to sell Miers on the
grounds that she is an “evangelical Christian” as if that is a magical substitute for an originalist judicial
philosophy. That’s even offensive to thinking Christians, who know better to assume that a person’s
“faith” will make for an acceptable judicial record. (Jim Wallis, Ron Sider and Jimmy Carter are all
“evangelical” and leftist, for example)
Bush didn’t promise a “conservative” justice, he promised one in the mold of Scalia or Thomas.
There is very little evidence (aside from her 2nd amendment stance) that Miers is even a defective
October 13, 2005, 11:02 amcopy out of that mold.
rightwingprof says:
That’s what hearings are for. But I’ll trust Bush far further than I will any one of the weak-kneed bozos in the Senate — and since none of the pundits, bloggers or columnists know a damn thing more about her than I do, them.
October 13, 2005, 11:23 amGunnNutt says:
I’m not going to make up my mind about Miers until I’ve heard/seen her in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Since she has no paper trail it will be the only opportunity to “check her out.” I think the base ought to give her that much slack.
October 13, 2005, 11:27 amPaulG says:
Rightwingprof is right about one thing; “this all boils down to trust.”
So as a social conservative do I trust Bush? Let’s see, what’s his record on these issues so far:
Promised action on a Constitutional Ammendment defining marriage as being between a man and a woman - anyone seen this effort yet?
Promised action on tax reform - how about that one, seen any effort in this direction?
Social Security Reform, lot’s of talk little action again.
School choice/vouchers - mmmm, not moch effort there either.
Supported left-wing nutcase Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey for the Senate, hardly the actions of a conservative. Appointed another bleeding heart to head the DOJ.
I could go on all day listing the times that GWB has done nothing but pay lip-service to the issues of social conservative but acted against them. So while I don’t distrust him I’m also not inclined to take him at his word on these matters either since he’s definitley shown a proclivity towards making promises and giving assurances to social conservatives then failing to follow through with action.
It’s certainly his right to appointed whom ever he wants and for that reason alone Miers should be confirmed, but I have little hope that his assurances on this matter are more sincere than those on other issues.
October 13, 2005, 11:45 amErnest Brown says:
Rightwingprof,
I don’t think the hearings will help, since she’ll take the “judicial 5th” as much as possible and the Roberts hearings
revealed what a bunch of chimps the JC’ers are.
A better argument against the anti-Miers group is that they’ve fallen into the same mindset as the lefties,
October 13, 2005, 12:05 pmi.e. “The Supreme Court will save us!” Even an originalist won’t be able to shovel against the entitlement mentality tide.
rightwingprof says:
Surely you didn’t think that was going anywhere. That has about one tenth the chance of passing as the ERA did. And steel yourself for more disappointment: some of the state marriage amendments passed in 2004, like the one in Virginia, will be struck down the minute they are challenged in court, and should be, as they are clear violations of property rights.
Yes, I have. There have been a couple of bills introduced. Course, this is the function of the legislature, not Bush.
Thank the legislature. I don’t know where you were, but there was a flurry of activity on this, and lots of controversy. And again, this is the function of Congress, though Bush pushed a great deal for Social Security reform.
You’ve got me there. I’ll concede that one.
And I’ll concede these. I wasn’t particularly happy about him campaigning for Specter at the time, and I’m less happy about it now that Specter is my Senator.
Now, let’s look at the GOP Congress.
We have a larger defecit than ever before, government has grown more than ever before, the highway bill full of pork, running away with their tails between their legs instead of reigning in McCain and the other six Senators (wrt the nuclear option), passing that idiotic torture bill that is not within the purview of the Congress, the list goes on and on.
I don’t know about Miers. Then, I know as much as anyone else, other than Bush. And when it comes down to who I’ll trust between Bush and the big-government castrated frightenend wussies in Congress, Bush gets the vote.
October 13, 2005, 12:12 pmrightwingprof says:
Depends on what kind of questions they ask. If they ask questions about how she’d rule on issues, then yes, you’re correct; if they ask about her philosophy of the SCOTUS and Constitution, then she has no reason not to answer.
Agreed.
October 13, 2005, 12:23 pm