October 8, 2005
-
Harriet Miers Isn’t Mike Brown
They Are Using This Analogy As If It Holds Any Weight..
"It's typical Bush,’ said Tim Waddingham, vice president of the CSU Young Democrats and a columnist at the Collegian, referring to Miers' lack of judiciary experience. ‘He appointed Mike Brown to head FEMA and he didn't have any experience.’"
With all the smear attacks coming from the Presidents own conservative base, I understand why the libs are getting away with this. I predicted the second day after Miers was nominated that this analogy would pop up on the lib blogs and in certain articles. This analogy simply does not hold any weight.
Mike Brown wasn’t nominated to the Supreme Court. Mike Brown was never the President of the State Bar in Texas. Mike Brown is not one of the top lawyers in the country. This notion that all this President is doing is nominating and appointing his friends to high positions in the federal government is absurd. Have we forgotten about William Pryor? Have we forgotten about Janice Rogers Brown? Have we forgotten about Priscilla Owen? The truth is Bush’s track record on judges is pretty damn good. Those of you who continue to attack this woman on the basis that she is not qualified and that "we don't know enough yet", have you found anything from Miers to suggest she wasn’t a conservative? Have you found anything to suggest this woman didn’t hold the same philosophy as George W. Bush? No, you haven’t. Because everyday that goes by we find something to suggest the opposite. Every drudge headline, every Washington Post article has suggested this woman is a religious conservative from Texas who shares the same judicial philosophy and same moral values as George W. Bush. I just recently read a Drudge Flash that said Miers voted for Reagan! Your argument boils down to one thing: You do not trust this President.
Morrison
"Miers and the Roads of Government"
"I have learned, through experience, to look below the surface when considering the reasons and planning behind President Bush’s actions. Despite the mindless braying of insults about Dubya’s intellect, the fact is that he is a very shrewd politician and planner. Liberals constantly, as we have all heard before, ‘misunderestimate’ him. Recent events show that an embarrassingly large number of Conservatives buy into the same error."
"And what about Miers? I have read comments from supposed Conservatives denouncing her as "unqualified", or some who grudgingly admit she is qualified, but claim there are "dozens, even hundreds" of better choices. Seriously, does anybody who makes such insulting and ill-considered comments expect them to be taken seriously? Does anyone who throws out such emotional tripe think this advances the discussion? What exactly are you expecting? Do you think you can call up the White House and force the President to pull his choice in favor of yours? That, people, is not going to happen. If Miers is shot down, Bush will send out another nomination, but it’s still going to be someone he chooses, and you should certainly know by now, Dubya is not a man who settles for being bullied. You choose not to trust him, that’s your loss. You chose to screw around with his work, that just hurts the country."
Comments (24)
Hi "Morrison"
Yes, I agree, it comes down to trust. I've put my money on a decent, honest and civilized man we call "W".
There's one other factor involved, I think. Some conservatives are so tired of the assaults from the left. They see an opportunity to really confront libs with a "hard liner". They want to let the left attempt filibuster, then call the "gang of 14"s bluff. Many of them have been itching to have an all out fight re: the court - once and for all, finally putting an end to the era of legislating from the bench.
"W" gains his strength and popularity only when he gets in a fighting mood ("bring 'em on"). He didn't do that this time, so some of the loyal base are disappointed.
Because they are disappointed, they are doing some whining. The Dems love that so they will join in. But, in the hearts of both libs and cons, they know that "W" should not be "mis-underestimated".
God bless America.
Miers is just a weird nominee. Just weird. Strange. Bizarre. ...intriguing.
Boymarine - can you give me your definition of judicial activism? And some examples? Thanks.
(and to clarify, by judicial activism, I mean "legislating from the bench")
Hi "WSR"
Sure, I'll give it a try.
From the current conservative view, they see it as an "originalist" versus "living document" problem. If the judges stick to what is in the Constitution re: the original intent of the founders, that doesn't worry cons. When the Constitution is "updated" (adapted to current, modern standards) by modifying original intent (making new law, as a result), cons worry. Cons feel that the judges are out of their domain when they do that. Only the Congress should make laws. They see it as violating the design of three separate powers.
Both points of view will remain in contention for a long time. The reason (my opinion only) is that it is really a "cultural" divide. Until the protestors of the 1960's/1970's and their offspring die off or are neutralized (unlikely) the culture will remain divided, harsher, cruder, strident and probably un-governable.
God bless America.
I trusted the President up until about a month ago,through thick and thin. I didn't like ROBERTS being named C.J. over Thomas or Scalia,two proven commoditites(and I believe I told you as much,here on your site)......but I trusted him. Now we have THIS nomination,to replace O'Connor. Trading Roberts for O'Connor seemed like an UPGRADE.......but then switching it,in essence trading Roberts for REHNQUIST(bypassing Scalia and Thomas),after Rehnquist died,and offering us MIERS for O'Connor looks like it's "business as usual,maintaining the status quo". There are too many SWITCHES here,we're REALLY having to trust him for TWO nominees at a time (Roberts AND Miers). He HAD his chance to show how much he esteems Thomas/Scalia by making ONE of them Chief Justice.........and he DIDN'T. The whole thing now looks like a shell game! All we have now is a PROMISE of how he'd "appoint people in the mold of Thomas/Scalia".......but when he had the chance to elevate one of THEM to C.J.,why DIDN'T he? He's free to appoint whoever he wants.......yes! But he has to realize that we want ACTIONS,not PROMISES. And once you have to tell your own base to "trust me",you need to ask YOURSELF "why WOULDN'T they trust me; where did I handle this wrong perhaps?"
Thanks for the definition, Boymarine. The notion of legislation from the bench has been omnipresent lately - perhaps, with decisions such as Kelo, with good reason. But also, I suspect that the term has been molded into a bumper sticker phrase, that is often used as an accusation (particularly, it would seem, by the Right) to be hurled when interests are unsatisfied by judicial holdings.
Do you consider all "living document" interpretation to be guilty of legislating from the bench? What about the new and unique needs of police officers, or even PATRIOT Act implications? How can terms such as "cruel and unusual punishment" be analyzed from a strictly originalist perspective?
Can you give me a few examples of the sort of holdings that you consider to be judicial legislation?
(Lol) I just reread what I wrote....that should be "COMMODITIES".........
Smarter conservatives than you still disagree... http://www.professorbainbridge.com/, http://frum.nationalreview.com/archives/10072005.asp#078919, http://www.pointoflaw.com/, http://therightcoast.blogspot.com/
I read bainbridge and pointoflaw pretty regularly. They are not moderates. They wanted a pick in the mold of Scalia or Thomas (my biggest fear). They don't think Miers even comes close.
David Wagner said this:
"No, my concern is not that there may now be an SMU grad on the Court. That's to the good. My concern is that open advocacy of conservative legal views is now a definite disqualifier for the Supreme Court, in a conservative administration that campaigned in part on putting more Scalias and Thomases on the Court, and with a 55-member GOP Senate conference. Whether you're in practice, in academia, or on a lower court, the crime of being conservative in a public place now means no one will appoint you to the Supreme Court. It's not even clear that Federalist Society membership will be tolerated when it comes to picking high Court nominees.
Watch for the next generation of conservative legal thinkers to go silent on the big questions, leaving no indication of who they are, making no disciples, and forcing the next conservative administration -- if there ever is another one, which must now be considered in doubt -- to trust to sheer luck in finding them. Assuming, that is, that it even wants to find them."
"You do not trust this President."
*claps maddly* THANK YOU MR. OBVIOUS!!! Your clairvoyance brings tears to my eyes. *sigh* If only every could think as clearly as you...ah yes....blind faith......such a wonderful wondeful thing.....
*everybody
*wonderful
*coquettish giggle* you've made me such a butterfingers morrison
Hi "WSR" - You asked:
"Do you consider all "living document" interpretation to be guilty of legislating from the bench? What about the new and unique needs of police officers, or even PATRIOT Act implications? How can terms such as "cruel and unusual punishment" be analyzed from a strictly originalist perspective?"
My comments indicated what I believe the current conservative thought to be. I think even they would accept some of the "living document" issues you state if the judges tossed it back to the legislative branch for final determination as to law changes.
I personally have no problem with either approach since I think that both exist in ALL minds, not just the judges. It's too simplistic to think that these two ways of looking at issues are mutually exclusive.
"Can you give me a few examples of the sort of holdings that you consider to be judicial legislation?"
I believe that the general conservative view is almost entirely about the laws that followed from the holdings on abortion, God and same-sex marriage. Mainly it's about the "privacy" and "separation" interpretations.
My personal thoughts are that there will always be a plethora of varying points of view - in all three branches of government, as there will be in the minds of every single citizen (lib or con). There will always be disputes between these views.
Ergo, my opinion is that a federal view is not an appropriate way to affect or to change the lives of citizens, especially in traditionally held areas. When the court senses itself about to "find" or "inject" new meaning in the Constitution, they should defer to the states. If there has been "evolution", each state majority view will be reflected in the laws they enact.
That won't solve the problems entirely, but it gets the decision-making process closer to the citizens who must live by the new laws. That would allow for the Constitution to remain the standard while states adapt to their citizen's needs. Of course, in our increasingly diverse and growing state populations, even that approach would someday cause the "living document" debate to start anew.
It ain't easy trying to govern people - in my opinion it is not even possible - but good leaders do the best they can for the people, and in the USA's case, for the world.
God bless America.
"Ergo, my opinion is that a federal view is not an appropriate way to affect or to change the lives of citizens, especially in traditionally held areas. When the court senses itself about to "find" or "inject" new meaning in the Constitution, they should defer to the states. If there has been "evolution", each state majority view will be reflected in the laws they enact.
That won't solve the problems entirely, but it gets the decision-making process closer to the citizens who must live by the new laws. That would allow for the Constitution to remain the standard while states adapt to their citizen's needs. Of course, in our increasingly diverse and growing state populations, even that approach would someday cause the "living document" debate to start anew."
Shazbot! I've said similar things to people and would love it if they actually did it.
Are you on the Bush payroll?
Hi "Bimmer"
Yeah, I know what you mean. Just enjoy your ability to think clearly and don't waste time trying to change libs' views. It's hopeless
God bless America.
Well, back to your 'let the states decide' point, that's basically how it was intended to be when the constitution was written. The states were supposed to have a greater (not sure what the word I want to use here is.....) extent(?) of power over the every day stuff. State laws were supposed to overrule federal laws, but if you wanted to make it a ratio then it was originally 65%/35% state/federal power. These days it's more like 20%/80% state/federal power.
Hi "Bimmer"
I agree. That's the way it is and the libs will fight to keep it that way. They can't get win elections, but they've been able to get all the findings they wanted from the court for almost 30 years. That's why so many Reps are unhappy. They wanted a fight - once and for all. Now they will wait it out and think about Ginberg's retirement
God bless America.
Funny thing..........I've proposed this to many liberals and every time they get royall pissed off. I tell them, that since they're so confident that Americans love to kill babies, why not put abortion on the ballot and let people vote on whether or not they want it? They always respond with "You can't do that cuz..." yet never have an actual reason for why you couldn't do it. I love it.
I can tell you why they can't do that. Because Roe v. Wade (yes, that's right... a court descision) determined that the right to choose is constitutionally protected. Therefore, it is not a "voteable" issue. Should Roe v. Wade continue to withstand judicial scrutiny, the only way to outlaw abortion will be with a constitutional amendment. Don't take this statement as my support for the decision. Take it merely as an answer to your question.
Although there was intially supposed to be more power for the states than the federal government, this becomes a more difficult proposition with increased interaction between the states. For this reason, there are numerous facets of modern life that are not reasonably regulable at the state level. I do agree with you on a fundamental level, but I also feel that it would be impossible to return to the sort of state/federal balance that was present when the constitution was written.
"Because Roe v. Wade (yes, that's right... a court descision) determined that the right to choose is constitutionally protected."
I just read through the entire constitution the other day and would love to know what part they wrote that into, though I have a feeling I might know.
The Court held that abortion was within the scope of personal liberties guaranteed by the due process clause of the 14th amendment.
Hi "Bimmer"
No sweat, buddy, the "new" Supreme Court will reverse "Roe". They will agree that the so-called "privacy" clause interpretation made bad law. That'll start the clean-up of a lot of the other bad law made by the previous courts.
Back will come God, the pledge, respect for the flag, the sanctity of marriage, no "special" privileges for any American - no race - no minority. Why, heck, they might even have to reverse the recent Oregon ruling that "it is Constitutional" to have live sex shows in the local bars or in public. Now that's called liberal lunacy!
God bless America.
Those are a lot of foregone conclusions.
Hi "WSR" Those are my dreams.
God bless America.
Hi "WSR"
You're always asking for "examples of judicial activism" - What do you think of that Oregon decision? Is that extreme enough for you?
God bless America.