The Nomination of Harriet Miers
Everyone who reads this blog on any sort of regular basis knows that I am a deeply conservative, Republican who tends more towards support for rather than opposition towards the President. I'm listed in the conservative blog section on dMoz; heck, I edit it.
That said...(and I know this is not exactly a first...)
I oppose the nomination of Harriet Miers to the United States Supreme Court.
She has no judicial experience, the nomination smells bad re: how close she's been to Bush on a personal level, we have no indication at ALL of her politics, I've seen everything from support of the ICC to rumors she's a lesbian to claims she gave money to the DNC, Gore '88, and Lloyd Bentsen.
Bush has become tone-deaf to his base; Republicans got elected in 2004, especially in South Dakota, because people want to see decent court nominees. Harriet Miers is not one of them. I'd have no qualms about seeing her nominated to a District Court judgeship; for the Supreme Court, I sincerely believe you need either judicial experience or a paper trial in academia as long as my arm.
I'm with the editors on RedState on this one.
Immediately, this nomination needs to be withdrawn, and Miers needs to be replaced with someone like an Alito, a Luttig, an Owen, or for the love of God, someone who's put on black robes as something other than a Halloween costume.
I want, as do a fair majority of my fellow conservatives, conservative judges with histories on the bench of being fair, impartial, and textualist. Roberts was tolerable; he clearly had a strong intellectual record, he's served on the Circuit Court in D.C., he was a clerk for Rehnquist, argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court, etc.
She's got nothing.
I call on the Senators of both parties to promptly give an up-or-down vote on this nominee, and to perform your constitutional duty to advise this President to nominate decent judges.
He's not a fiscal conservative. He's endorsed Chafee and Specter over more conservative opponents, opponents who would far more reliably support him in the Senate. And finally, he's nominated a god-awful candidate for the O'Connor seat.
Wake up, Mr. President. Wake up.
That said...(and I know this is not exactly a first...)
I oppose the nomination of Harriet Miers to the United States Supreme Court.
She has no judicial experience, the nomination smells bad re: how close she's been to Bush on a personal level, we have no indication at ALL of her politics, I've seen everything from support of the ICC to rumors she's a lesbian to claims she gave money to the DNC, Gore '88, and Lloyd Bentsen.
Bush has become tone-deaf to his base; Republicans got elected in 2004, especially in South Dakota, because people want to see decent court nominees. Harriet Miers is not one of them. I'd have no qualms about seeing her nominated to a District Court judgeship; for the Supreme Court, I sincerely believe you need either judicial experience or a paper trial in academia as long as my arm.
I'm with the editors on RedState on this one.
Immediately, this nomination needs to be withdrawn, and Miers needs to be replaced with someone like an Alito, a Luttig, an Owen, or for the love of God, someone who's put on black robes as something other than a Halloween costume.
I want, as do a fair majority of my fellow conservatives, conservative judges with histories on the bench of being fair, impartial, and textualist. Roberts was tolerable; he clearly had a strong intellectual record, he's served on the Circuit Court in D.C., he was a clerk for Rehnquist, argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court, etc.
She's got nothing.
I call on the Senators of both parties to promptly give an up-or-down vote on this nominee, and to perform your constitutional duty to advise this President to nominate decent judges.
He's not a fiscal conservative. He's endorsed Chafee and Specter over more conservative opponents, opponents who would far more reliably support him in the Senate. And finally, he's nominated a god-awful candidate for the O'Connor seat.
Wake up, Mr. President. Wake up.
posted by The Elephant @ 3:28 PM
8 Comments:
At 4:51 PM,
dave said…
It's hard to fathom why Bush would make such a "unique" choice, but my theories are a) He decided he wanted a woman for whatever reason, and b) he values loyalty above almost all else.
My other working theory, and this encompasses the Roberts choice as well, is that Karl Rove simply doesn't want a Brown/Alito/Luttig/etc. "movement conservative". He believes if Rove v. Wade is tossed aside, it would be bad politically for the future of the Republican party. On that I think he's right.
Mainstream America does not want a court full of Scalia/Thomases. It's a fact that the conservative base gets Republicans elected, but if they ever really got what they wanted, the party would be finished. Those who are more political than ideological, such as Rove clearly get this.
It's a catch-22 for the religous right, especially. The Bush types will pander to the movement with occasional appeals court nominations and empty gestures, but ultimately offer very little to social conservatives. And there is no chance of a true believer Brownback/Santorum type getting elected nationally.
Thank god for that, at least.
At 10:24 PM,
The Elephant said…
Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave.
As to your a/b theories
a) is probably right; he's no stranger to ID politics.
b) a-yep. Unfortunately for the rest of us.
First of all, it's Roe v. Wade; second of all, screw the Republican party, I'm a conservative, especially legally. As the guy on RedState says--"Roe delenda est!"
But I want a Court of Scalia/Thomases. I sure don't want more Brennans or Marshalls, but I could live with them. I really don't want Souters, Kennedys, O'Connors, and other spineless types who not only are legal minimalist but write awful opinions (sweet mystery of human life (AK), expiration dates on Court opinions (SDOC))
I wouldn't mind Rick Santorum being elected President. Brownback, maybe, but I like Santorum. He's not so polished, he's actually a fiscal conservative, etc. That said, I'd rather see a Coburn, a Kyl, or a Mike Pence, with the emphasis on fiscal realism...
Dave, do you honestly believe that any party that achieves its goals is dead?
Is that good for the country, doing nothing to prop up the party.
I've said this a thousand times, I'll say it again. I'm not a Republican who happens to be conservative, I'm a conservative who identifies most closely with the Republican party.
At 9:30 AM,
dave said…
I was obviously speaking about the party & the politics of it, not to your personal beliefs. Bush/Rove/Delay, et. al, are clearly Republicans who act conservative when they feel it suits them.
The only big goals that the Republican party has achieved is a lock on the power structure, for now. A fine goal, to be sure, but not exactly ideological.
Why, which goals that the party has achieved were you referring to?
1- Reducing the size of government?
2- A competent, responsible, dignified governing style?
3- Fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets?
4- Tax Cuts for the rich, and increased concentration of power for the wealthiest? (Ok, you got that one!)
5- Knocking down Roe v. Wade?
It’s starting to look like the last one ain’t happenin’ either, unless Pat Robertson’s god takes out Stevens in the next 2 ½ years.
At 10:07 AM,
The Elephant said…
I can't disagree with you much, which bothers me. But I will attack two small flanks: this party has to get rid of the hacks and put in the real ideologues; by which I mean to say the people whose sole goal in life is doing things, not electing Republicans with vague promises of doing things. Mike Pence is this type. Santorum/Kyl/McCain are this type. So's Cornyn. So's Coburn.
That, and enough with the "tax cuts for the rich." Should we just throw money at people making $20K a year? The argument of the Left is that rich people don't really need their money, therefore, they have no claim to it and ergo, they need to pay more taxes.
22% national sales tax on all products except for food, non-alcoholic drink, and clothing; abolish the 16th amendment. That, and return to making gross income equal take-home pay and have people pay out their Social Security and other taxes from their gross income. It's not the government's money, folks. It's yours.
At 10:08 AM,
The Elephant said…
Oh, and the states can only add an additional two-and-a-half percent to the tax.
At 7:27 PM,
dave said…
Wow, I don't see how you can group Santorum & McCain together like that. McCain is an independent minded, honest broker, small-government conservative who I totally respect, and could easily vote for. Santorum, on the other hand, is an extremist religious conservative demagogue who things the government should control any and all societal behavior. If he has a libertarian streak, modern instrumentation is unable to detect it. (Coburn too).
So, who is actually ever said "rich people don't really need their money, therefore, they have no claim to it and ergo, they need to pay more taxes." Besides Hannity, I mean, quoting some non-existent straw man liberal.
Tax policy is all about trade-offs. Cutting taxes for one income bracket means the burden is shifted to others. Billionaires like Warren Buffett pays a lower marginal tax rate than his secretary or the guy who delivers his mail. To whom does that make sense?? (It doesn't to him!)
It's inarguable that the percentage of the tax burden on the wealthiest 1% of Americans is at it's lowest in 100 years or so, thanks to GWB.
Things like killing the estate tax sound swell in theory, but that just means a larger percentage of the taxes that have to be picked up by the rest of us, or added to the debt. Is cutting that particular $50 billion (or whatever the number is) in annual revenue that big a priority for some reason?
I'd like to see an honest debate about these priorities. Yes, of course it will never actually happen. Bring on the empty slogans, instead!
Yeah, it's the people's money, so why not talk about who is paying what? Not to mention that it's the peoples debt, as well!
At 5:19 PM,
The Elephant said…
Empty slogans! Go, empty slogans!
No more tax cuts for the rich!
*shouts, screaming*
Cut taxes to 1.5% on everything!
Kill the death tax!
*shouts, screaming*
At 5:19 PM,
The Elephant said…
Empty slogans! Go, empty slogans!
No more tax cuts for the rich!
*shouts, screaming*
Cut taxes to 1.5% on everything!
Kill the death tax!
*shouts, screaming*
Go, bananas! Go, go, bananas! (latin club joke)
Post a Comment
<< Home