Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Miers and Beating up on Bush

I am not eager to jump on the Conservative bandwagon of beating up on Bush over the Miers nomination. Neither am I ready to rush to his defense. But I will say this: while I understand and share the disappointment that is the natural result of gearing up for a fight that never happens--sometimes that IS the best course of action (even if the adrenaline is still stuck in your throat). I don’t know if this is one of those times but it could be it that is. Maybe Bush knows something we don’t--perhaps we could not have won the fight right now. It could be that Bush thought it was better to live to fight another day. He will likely get another go at this before 2008. It could also be that the gang of 14 and the other weak-willed GOP senators (2 of whom hail from Ohio, of course) were more problematic than we think. Perhaps Miers is a safe and solid pick. I agree with Eastman that we need to have it out over the true meaning of the Constitution and the role of the judiciary. I’m not sure if we need to have it out now--though I am getting impatient too.

Discussions - 7 Comments

The fight and its timing is not the issue. The promotion of an unqualified crony with no paper trail is. The fact that Skirty Harry has no experience in constitutional law is. The assumption that we sheep should just "trust" the president is. The president’s apparent lack of confidence in his ability to lead his own party is. His abject moral cowardice in angering Senate democrats and RINO’s over the issue most important to his base is. Your argument is totally unconvincing - it is funny how when we don’t like a trend it is a bandwagon, but when we do it is a groundswell.

WEll WM let me ask you this question since you chose to ignore me in the other thread. How do you deem to know so much about Judge Miers when noone else seems to? As Miss Julie Ponzi stated so well in her own posting you never know. President Bush may know something about Judge Miers that we don’t so lets at least give the man and HIS choice the benifit of the doubt. If you as I did voted for President Bush then you were saying that you trusted him to choose a Supreme court nominee justice and not that you were going to argue with the man over every thing he does. But now look that is exactly what your doing.

With all due respect, Fat Mike, the President is not entitled to any "benefit of the doubt." Every Republican President of the last 60 years has nominated "stealth" candidates who turned out to be liberals, including Bush’s own father, who made the tragic mistake of choosing far-left David Souter instead of the eminently qualified Edith Jones. Now Bush has repeated his father’s mistake to the letter by rejecting Jones in favor of a crony who spent most of her adult life as a Democrat.

Republican Presidents gave us far-left justices Earl Warren, William Brennan, Harry Blackmun, and David Souter. Even Ronald Reagan gave us O’Connor and Kennedy, inconsistent and unreliable justices who have no judicial philosophy whatsoever and are willing to bend over backwards to reach any result they please, even if it means overturning on-point Supreme Court case law and even if it means citing to foreign law. No, Mike, Bush is in no position to tell us "trust me, I know her heart," and he is not entitled to any benefit of the doubt.

Conservative voters looked the other way while Bush spent more money than any President in history. They sat silent when he enacted those ridiculous steel tariffs and turned his back on the free market. They saw their own rights infringed when he signed McCain-Feingold, a statute that Bush himself publicly stated was unconstitutional (doesn’t the President have a responsibility to veto bills that he believes violate the Constitution?!). They sucked it up and pretended that Bush did not get torn in half by the utterly unimpressive John Kerry during their first debate. It’s time for Bush to do one thing - anything - that actually qualifies as "conservative."

I might as well have voted for Kerry and Gore. I would have gotten the same results anyway, and at least that way I wouldn’t be so surprised and disappointed every time I turn on the news.

Another possibility is that we are being much too stringent when we define "experience." Perhaps Miers has had experience, for instance, with Arabian horses, or with money laundering, or sausage-making. You know -- stuff that the President might know about, but that most of us would incorrectly think was irrelevant.

Ben, your point about not being so narrow with our definition of "experience" is well taken. Perhaps to make the point more relevant to our Ohio and Texas friends, you should have also mentioned experiences such as "running" an oil company or dealing in rare coins (numismatics)

Thank you, J! In my naive state, I might have overlooked those experiences. This opens up a whole new world......

What Ohio Voter said.

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/7298