| HARRIET WHO??? |
 | |  |
I’m echoing a lot of the words you have heard from prominent
conservatives all over the landscape, but here’s my take on the whole
Harriet Miers nomination as well as some of the problems that led to it. I
am not a lawyer, political scholar or Constitutional expert so you get what
you pay for.
Scalieto the Hun
As of Monday, October 31st, the new Supreme Court nominee is Judge
Sam Alieto – nicknamed Scalieto for his “Scalia-like” judicial philosophy.
If this is true, then the fight is certainly on. Now is the time for
Republicans to unite and make a stand supporting this president. So
many in the liberal media were shocked at the way conservatives came
out against Miers and the President for nominating her that they actually
began to believe we (conservatives) had abandoned the Prez. That was
never in jeopardy. Unlike liberals, we stand on principle, vote on principle
and demand that the elected live up to their promises. Now that the
President has gotten it right on the second time around, we are squarely
behind him again. He just need to be reminded to dance with the ones
that brung him. We welcome the fight and dare democrats to filibuster
this highly qualified nominee. The standard for activism still lies with
Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg – until Bush nominates Attilla the Hun for the
Supreme Court, there is no such thing as too conservative.
The Miers Nomination Is Only A Symptom
I have to say I was pretty offended by the Miers nomination. Not because
she’s not qualified; I’m not qualified to evaluate her credentials. I’m
offended because she appears to be nominated as a stealth candidate – or
one who has so little to be evaluated on that she couldn’t possibly be
opposed. I’m offended because we (conservative Republicans) elected a
president and a majority in the Senate with a unified voice. We
understand that the out of control federal judiciary is the single-most
important domestic issue facing us today. We understand that the Global
War on Terror is the single-most important foreign policy issue today. We
understand that these two issues are dually manifested in border
security, the processing of enemy combatants, federal sentencing
guidelines, catching and convicting predators against children, the
eradication of hate groups, dismantling of the entitlement mentality,
rediscovering justice in our criminal justice system, and generally,
protecting America. We elected leaders (and I use that term loosely) to
take decisive action in protecting our rights as Americans. Leaders, by
definition, should be decisive. They should possess the moral courage to
deliver the results they were mandated to deliver, regardless of the return
fire they may receive. I view the Harriet Miers nomination as a departure
from those principles.
As Rush Limbaugh said, the Miers nomination appears to come from a
position of weakness. I take that a step further and add that this
president does not have the clout with his base to simply say “trust me.”
Sorry, Mr. President, that credit card has been denied. We need a
nominee with a tangible history in “the traditions of Thomas and Scalia”
as you promised in the campaign. You were very direct about what you
would do for us; we expect a bold, direct nominee to match the leadership
you showed back then; anything less than that is demonstrating
weakness that you don’t have to possess. After the election you said, “I
have earned some political capital and I intend to spend it.” You were
absolutely right. You do have political capital. You don’t have political
credit. Conservatives are the gold standard for your political capital, but
you have to be spending the right currency. We have your back, but you
gotta get out front first.
Fight or Flight
Some have said that Bush went with Miers to avoid the filibuster fight in
the Senate. Again, this is not the “lean forward in the foxhole” kind of
decisive leadership for which we elected him. Real conservatives want the
fight on the Senate floor. We welcome the opportunity to show who truly
stands where in politics. The democrats have done well enough at
creating and/or exploiting presidential blunders that they actually believe
they have usurped Presidential authority in the eyes of the American
people. The Mier’s nomination has only emboldened them. Much has
been said in post-election Senate debates about “minority rights” and
“minority voice.” This has nothing to do with race; they’re talking about
the minority party in the Senate having say in presidential appointments.
Liberals believe that despite winning elections, the President is somehow
obligated to do their bidding and advance their agenda. In one of his
concession speeches John Kerry admonished the President to “reach
across the aisle,” as if to say, “I couldn’t beat you, but you need to act as if
you lost and bend to our will.” Conservatives believe it is incumbent on
the Democrats to do the reaching; the spoils of victory are the powers that
accompany the position. There is no obligation to appease the losers.
Governor Schwarzenegger got into trouble when asked if he would
consult with California Dems about upcoming appointments when he
replied, “Why would I listen to a bunch of losers?” He didn’t mean loser in
the way that Harry Reid meant it when he called the President a loser in
front of high school students. He simply meant that they lost their
elections. Loser: One who fails to win. [Ironically enough, Reid called the
President a loser only a short time after he won re-election.] Liberals will
tell you that the country is mostly liberal. They will throw out
percentages and statistics as if they were indisputable facts. They do this
irrespective of the fact that the Democratic Party has gone from having
twenty-four Senate seats from the South (the traditional Democratic base)
to only four seats in just twenty years. They will tell you that the results
of elections are not the pulse of the American people. They would rather
you read polling data generated by liberal media groups and listen to the
bilge coming out of the Hollywood left; who John Kerry calls the “heart
and soul of America.” I do not personally know anyone who models their
personal beliefs on those of any Hollywood figure. I don’t know anyone
who says, “George Clooney speaks for me” when he makes fun of Charlton
Heston’s Alzheimer’s disease simply because Heston headed the NRA. So,
now more than ever, it is imperative that we have this fight in the
Senate. With mid-term elections coming up in ’06, now is the time to
identify those who would reach for power they haven’t earned. Now is the
time for America to see exactly who they have elected to represent them.
There is no Constitutional provision for filibustering Presidential judicial
nominations. This is a blatant attempt by the losers to act as if they are
the majority. Now is the time to teach the Democratic party that losing
elections has consequences! The President’s nominee is one of those
names the Dems have threatened to filibuster. Then, the majority party
can invoke the Constitutional option, thwart the filibuster and confirm
the nominee in the face of democratic rebellion. (Linsey Graham, R-SC
and one of the "Gang of 14" has promised to fight any filibuster as Alieto
clearly does not meet the "extraordinary circumstances" the gangsters
agreed upon). Let Harry Reid “shut down the government” in a temper
tantrum. Let that be the headline coming into mid-term elections. The
absolute worst thing that can happen as a result of this is that the
American people get to see the true colors of their Senators. This can only
be good for the republican party and that can only be good for the
country.
Last Bastion of Power
Why are the Democrats so vehement in the fight over Supreme Court
nominees? It’s because the judiciary is their last bastion of power. They
can’t win elections, so their power is degraded or marginalized in the
Executive and Legislative Branches. The Judicial Branch is the last
arena of national power in which liberals have a stranglehold. And
stranglehold is the operative word. Take a look at some of the decisions to
come out of federal judiciary: The juvenile death penalty decision of the
Supreme Court, the Pledge of Allegiance decision of the 9th Circuit, and
the Supreme Court’s disgraceful call on imminent domain. Roe v. Wade
aside, there have been countless decisions in which the federal judiciary
has thwarted the will of the people in blatant contrast to that branch’s
established purpose in our government. When liberals can’t get their
legislation passed, they can count on the liberal judiciary to legislate from
the bench. In the juvenile death penalty ruling, the Supreme Court didn’t
even bother to refererence the Constitution in its ruling. Ted Kennedy,
Chuck Schumer, and Diane Feinstein have made sure to “blame” the
Miers withdrawal on “the extreme right wing” of the Republican Party.
The reality is that conservatives are immediately suspecting of any
nominee those three find acceptable. That in itself is enough to make us
want another choice. They and other liberals have called for a nominee
just like Sandra Day O’Connor who proved to be as consistent as wind.
She was all over the map from one ruling to the next. Sometimes she
believed in consulting the Constitution, other times foreign laws and
customs were enough.
The federal judiciary has had a schizophrenic view of the Marbury v.
Madison ruling; on the one hand, it loves the power of judicial review
(which, in essence, supersedes the checks and balances system), but it
clearly doesn’t appreciate being hamstrung by that nagging document
called the Constitution. Liberals are calling for the nomination of a
“moderate.” In my opinion, a moderate is simply someone with no
strength of conviction. I don’t recall hearing a call for moderation during
the nomination and confirmation of Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg, former lead
counsel for the most radical left wing organization in the country, the
ACLU. Somehow, her appointment was not considered extreme by the
left. Coupled with their distorted view of moderation and the Republican
Party’s historical tactic of “roll over and appease,” she was confirmed with
over 90% of the vote. The Republicans voted the way they did for two
reasons; they respected the right of the President to appoint Justices, and
they hoped the same consideration would be given them when the roles
reversed. Of course, the latter hope was ridiculous. There has never
been a quid pro quo in the Congress and the back-alley deal made by the
“Gang of 14 (traitors)” only weakened the Republican Party. The
Democratic Party has vowed to fight anyone with a conservative history.
They are not capable of seeing their own hypocrisy that reaches back to
the Thurgood Marshall confirmation. If the courts are filled with jurists
who believe that their role is to interpret the laws passed by the people
and not to create laws as they see fit, the liberals will lose all power. The
American people vote with their hearts more often than not. Good or bad,
this has historically been the case. Clearly, as evidenced in the largest
polls ever taken (called elections), the American heart is not driven by the
values of the Hollywood left as liberals would have you believe.
Where Does This Leave Bush?
The legacy of this president will likely not lie solely with the outcome of
Iraq. It will more likely lie in his domestic policy. In one of the debates
Bush said of Kerry, “The only thing consistent about my opponent is that
he’s inconsistent.” Well, let’s look at Bush’s inconsistencies. He is at the
point of the spear in the War on Terror, taking the fight to the bad guys
abroad (conservative). At the same time, his policy on immigration and
border security leaves us vulnerable on our own soil (liberal). He has cut
taxes and inspired economic growth and recovery (conservative) while
simultaneously being the biggest spending president in history (liberal).
He has failed to veto a single spending bill. He has expanded the
government more than any president since FDR. He has claimed to
espouse traditional conservative values by fighting for the protection of
marriage, but loses much support by pushing for a Constitutional
amendment to "fend off activist judges." It is the Constitutional role of the
Senate to censure the federal jusdiciary when it overrides the will of the
people. This is where the president should lead his party (the Senate
majority) to sanction these activist judges; a power the Senate hasn't
invoked for decades. Now, with the indictment of Louis Libby, he says he’s
"disappointed" in his top staff. What all of this amounts to is a severe loss
of credibility with his conservative base. He has three years to recover
from this, but he must begin work now. Reagan recovered from an all –
time low in his second term, as did Clinton. It’s not impossible, but I
believe conservatives are more discriminating and less forgiving than any
other demographic. We want to see results. We want to see leadership.
We want to see good decisions and appointments based on principles and
qualifications, not popularity. If we wanted weak leadership based on poll
numbers, we’d ask Clinton to run again.
My Recommendations
(1) Show nothing but resolve in support of Alieto. G.H.W. Bush let
Thomas be fed to the lions and never supported him outwardly. Same
with Bourke. G.W. left Miers twisting in the wind because he knew he
betrayed his base. The Alieto nomination is going to meet with
opposition. Do not let the nomination "speak for itself." Get out front and
lead your party. Let the nation see that you believe in this nomination
and stand by him with pride. This will give the rest of your party the will
to do the same. (2) Fire the entire top staff; clean house and show that
"disappointing" the most powerful man on the planet has consequences.
Do this and regain some lost respect. (3) Refine the national policy in
Iraq and let the soldiers hunt down and kill terrorists. Do not allow
terrorists to hide in mosques and hospitals. Find them, fix them, finish
them. Win this thing by killing the enemy. Nothing less will do. (4) When
in doubt, stand on principle and don’t apologize for it.
Final Word
Bill O’Reilly has accused conservatives of wanting it both ways; we object
to activist liberal judges, but we want activist conservative judges. This
isn’t true. What we want are Supreme Court justices who will root their
decisions in the Constitution, not on their own political agenda or some
other source. Nothing activist about that. If a liberal justice can defend
his or her decision by quoting the Constitution, then we have no problem
with that. Unfortunately, liberals like to believe that the Constitution is a
“living document,” and conservatives want it interpreted as written.
Although the framers could not have foreseen the world in which we live
now, they still had the genius to write a document that, conservatives
believe, will survive the ages if applied as written. Also, one's social or
political philosophy should not be considered when determining fitness for
the bench. The position of Supreme Court Justice is not a political post.
Therefore, it should only be determined if the nominee is an activist. The
high court is no place for activism, liberal, conservative or otherwise.
Unfortunately, the only time liberals scream this mantra from the
mountaintops is when a conservative has been nominated. Not one
objected to the Ginsberg nomination. The left is intellectually dishonest.
Always has been, seems that they always will be.
| | |