Six Conservative Guys
Six Conservative Guys - Proudly Serving the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Since 2003
We'll gladly reply to or publish your response. E-mail Six Conservative Guys
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Conservatives and Judges
I'd love to go back and hear what the conservative movement said about Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, etc. I'm sure that some 'conservative' group somewhere had some great fear that the those judges weren't conservative enough. Enough concern to feed the media beast and attract all the other roosters to the blood. I'm sick of it - bunch of Chicken Littles. (note: two aviary barnyard references in the same paragraph!)
Aren't some of our SCGer's and frankly some of the 'conservative groups' in the movement questioning Roberts and Miers the same that supported McCain in 2000? Your credibility and judgement is certainly in question. (SmacK!)
Leonard Leo from the Federalist Society, one of the only 'conservative groups' with conservative credibility on federal judges, supports her. NARAL opposes her.
On a personal note, she is one of the decent, fair, and intelligent people I've ever worked with. Completely un-rattle-able. Great listener and arbitrator. No nonsense and precise. On the same note, I don't exactly know her politics and never spoke with her about such. I also take into account the type of person that she is now and was despite the era that she grew up in.
I support her nomination.
Go gaze at your navels.
You have hit upon the problem -- you don't exactly know her politics and you worked with her (or in close proximity!).
Beyond that, she is 60. These opportunities don't come around all that often. Why nominate someone who has the potential to only be there for 10 to 20 years, when you can pick someone equally (or better) qualified who will be there for 25 or 35?
I support the President, but I didn't sign up for the Republican Kool aid party. I think this is a bad choice.
From what you are hearing, did Bush make this choice over the objections of his advisers? That's my guess.
well put tj, jpc sounds like a well brainwashed individual with these comments. Its not about who has been feeding you, its about the future of the conservative movement.
JPC - There's no reason in the world to NOT put up a sure-fire candidate and fight it out with the opposition.
#1 - do you think the democrats would nominate an acceptable candidate?
#2 - the Republicans have the numbers - it's only a majority vote in the Senate.
#3 - What's wrong with fighting it out? Although I don't remember what conservative groups said about Thomas, I do remember enormous controversy over the Clarence Thomas nomination process. (52 Yeas to 48 Nays!!!!!!!) He replaced Thurgood Marshall on the bench. Talk about fighting it out!
Wow! The first question for TJ is "since you or your conservative movement friends don't know the candidate, you can't support them?" I hope that the conservative naysayers actually have a large rollodex since I find it hard to believe that they know every potential judge. There is obviously some residual fear left from 41 and Suter and I share it - yet this President does not have John Sununu as Chief of Staff and outside of the Bernie Kerik mess has nominated a pretty good bunch of conservative to conservative leaning people to his Administration.
Second, MMark - Go ahead and throw out there again that anyone that doesn't agree with you has been brainwashed. I don't think you understand the three forms of government and the balance of power. And you obviously don't understand how to get anything done in Washington.
Scott - you are a moron. Bush 41 did not nominate Thomas as a controversial candidate. And Clarence Thomas was not accepted by all conservatives when he was nominated. Thomas' problems didn't occur until well AFTER he was nominated. In fact, it was liberal Senate staffers, so angry with how easily he was flying through the nomination process that leaked the Hill story to the media - charges that he was cleared of THREE times prior to the hearing. Look at the voting record that you provided - the minority GOP hung together (not one opposed Thomas) and they picked off 11 D's - many who are more conservative than most in the Senate today including Nunn, Hollings, Breaux, and Johnston. The same would happen today as they have been doing lately on most controversial votes - the minority D's hang together and they pick off squishy R's. WE DON'T HAVE THE NUMBERS IN THE SENATE!! That is the biggest problem - put up a well known conservative and lose spineless Chafee from your home state, the two squishy Senators from Tom's state of Maine, Gregg from NH, and possibly Alexander, Coleman, DeWine, or McCain and you're sunk. AND MOST IMPORTANTLY nothing, NOTHING else will be accomplished during the remainder of the term and you could lose the Senate in the mid-terms. The D's and the media would milk the hearings for ever - the circus would put the Thomas hearings to shame!
THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING - If this Administration wants to get nothing else accomplished throughout its term, lose the Senate in the mid-terms, and lose a Supreme Court nomination itself - it should nominate a well known, unconfirmable lightening rod conservative. Are you all willing to pay that price??
Do all of you really believe that its worth mortgaging the remainder of the Bush term and the small majority in the Senate to pick a candidate that TJ and the conservative movement knows, to pick a drawn out fight with the D's, for the supposed 'future of the conservative movement'?
Remember the Parable of the Insecure Rotarian
Harriet Miers may be loyal, tough and a dogged attorney, but those qualities have often proven to hardly be a match for the Supreme Court. When Harry Blackmun was picked by President Nixon he was assured by Warren Burger that he would support a strict interpretation of the law. In fact, Blackmun and Burger had been friends since childhood. They were friends through grade school, high school, college, law school and their fondest dream was to practice law together. When Blackmun entered the court he and Burger were known, somewhat derisively, as the “Minnesota Twins” for their habit of voting as a tandem on every issue. (It is important to note – though it is obvious – that when liberals like Steven Breyer, John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsberg vote together they are never called to task, but when convervatives like Antonin Scalia and Clarance Thomas do, it is – of course – prima facie evidence of intellectual weakness.) When Burger assigned Blackmun the task of writing the Roe opinion, he had no idea what sort of monster he had created.
Blackmun was not an apt selection for the court, and he knew it. His insecurity was further fed by the mainstream press painting him as Burger’s lackey. With the Roe decision though, he was thrust into the spotlight. Liberal groups and editorial pages lionized him, they championed him for his “courage” and thousands sent him hate mail – which he – in a bizarrely masochistic fashion – read every piece of and insisted the Library of Congress save. Thus, the lion of the left was born. From then on his jurisprudence inverted, and, of course, the accolades came and his place in history evolved from “Buger’s shadow” to “The Conscience of the Court” – to quote Linda Greenhouse.
In one of the many paeans to his ‘transformation’ – Blackmun was described as “a tax lawyer, white, male and a Rotarian.” Surely someone with such sterling conservative credentials and a life long friend vouching for his character could not ‘evolve’ – but yet he did.
President Bush may have known Harriet Myers for twenty years, just as Warren Burger knew Harry Blackmun for a lifetime, but there is no possible way to underestimate the prizes the liberal establishment can give to justices who ‘evolve’ its way. Accolades, praise and a place in history – after all no one wants to be a law school punchline.
Am I saying that Harriet Myers will be the next Justice Blackmun? No, but what I am saying is that unlike Janice Rogers Brown, Michael Luttig or many of the other choices – it is a possibility.
So NARAL opposes her. That doesn't mean as much as we think. NARAL was pretty much going to oppose anyone Bush appointed on the basis of them having been appointed by Bush.
I think the only way NARAL would actually accept a Bush nominee is if they performed an abortion right there during the Senate question time.
JPC, sorry to pile on here, but...
Is this really the "best" we can do? I'm not arguing for a re-nomination of Judge Bork here, but whether the candiate was a "stealth" nominee or wearing a "me conservative, you suck" tee shirt, they still should have been bullet proof from a qualifications standpoint.
Some conservatives were concerned over Roberts because they didn't know enough about his judicial philosophy, but no one could argue that he was not incredibly qualified.
I'm not questioning the President's judgement concerning her loyalty or "conservative credentials," but is the history of intellectual and legal rigor there?
This nomination seems to be designed to avoid a fight that many have been itchin' for, ya know?
J - "This nomination seems to be designed to avoid a fight that many have been itchin' for, ya know?"
Again - It's a fight the GOP and Conservatives CANNOT CANNOT CANNOT win at this point. See the points I made above about mortgaging the future of this term, and the small majority control in the Senate. All for the sake of picking a fight??? Why aren't any of you concerned about that?!!
I'd still like to see some additional accomplishments from Congress on Social Security reform, access to energy, budget discipline in light of disasters, the was on terror, and immigration reform amongst others. All opportunity will go out the window now and in future terms if Bush picks this fight. I see this as an opportunity to gain in the SC and in Congress - you all want to put us in position to gain nothing in neither the SC or Congress for many years to come! Add he could help or hurt the next Presidential candidate who may have as many or more SC nominations to make.
I think that two, three, four, ten years from now, we will know that the President did the right thing - we have a conservative judge on the Supreme Court and he has a longer list of accomplishments.
You will all be buying me drinks - real drinks not Swirlees or light beer, and definitely not wine.
JPC - Moron??? I have to address your rant starting with this first constructive statement,
“Scott - you are a moron.”
- My Mom said you are wrong.
“Bush 41 did not nominate Thomas as a controversial candidate. And Clarence Thomas was not accepted by all conservatives when he was nominated.”
- I didn’t say either thing. I said, “…I don't remember what conservative groups said about Thomas, I do remember enormous controversy over the Clarence Thomas nomination process.” That is true. My point is, what’s wrong with selecting a known conservative for the nomination?
“...it was liberal Senate staffers, so angry with how easily he was flying through the nomination process that leaked the Hill story to the media…” - Why were those liberal Senate staffers so angry? Because he was a known conservative and they didn’t want him.
“Look at the voting record that you provided - the minority GOP hung together (not one opposed Thomas)”
- I did. Packwood and Jeffords voted NAY. You are a moron.
As for mid-term elections and the risk of losing a fight against the Senate democrats with lasting repercussions…I say that W is at his best when he is on offense, not defense. I’m just a beer-swilling slob and I don’t work on K Street, my opinion is that Bush is playing prevent-defense.
This beer-swilling slob approved the preceding message.
Non discriminatory booze hound here - beer, wine, whiskey - all are well represented in my administration.Post a Comment
JPC, I'm calling BS. A fight over a HIGHLY QUALIFIED conservative is one I would welcome. I think it makes the Dems look silly - which they often did during their opposition to Roberts. When there is no question as to a candidates qualifications, the fact that they are being attacked purely for their philosophy (and the fact that they were the President's selection) is clearly evident - and they look bad doing it.
Meirs is probably a rock solid conservative - I'll certainly trust W's judegement in that regard - but there are dozens, perhaps hundreds of conservative jurists with a history and track record of legal scholarship in addition to their conservatism. Again, this is the BEST we can do?