Is it betrayal?
Some have questioned my use of the word "betrayal" in yesterday's post. Does President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers constitute a betrayal, at least as perceived by conservatives?
I used that word speaking as an evangelical Christian who supported Bush during his 2000 campaign for President for a number of reasons, but certainly in the top two or three reasons was the influence Bush would have on the Judiciary. In those days before 9/11, what other battle was there more important to those like me than the battle against judicial activism?
Bush said during that campaign he would appoint judges in the mold of Scalia or Thomas, and that was about all I needed to hear. And why did that question come up? Because it was something very important to conservatives, and how Bush answered that was going to have an effect on his candidacy.
Now, after a somewhat stealthy nominee in Roberts, who faced less resistance than anticipated because he was just replacing another conservative, Bush had a second nomination to make, one that would at last make good on that promise in 2000 to put a clear stake in conservative soil.
Conservatives are, and will always be, four-square behind President Bush on the War on Terror. However, we've been disappointed by his tendency to go on walkabout when it comes to other conservative principles. From steel tariffs, to soaring budgets, to signing McCain-Feingold, to his come-on-in-igration policy, to a massive transportation bill, to an energy bill that only energized lobbyists, President Bush has the Right scratching its collective head.
But, we always knew where the rubber met the road, President Bush had a clear understanding of the need to restrain the Judiciary and its Invent-As-We-Go activism. Or so we thought.
What are some of the reasons given in support of Miers? One common one is that President Bush knows Miers very well, and that since we don't know much about her, we shouldn't criticize the pick. Doesn't that strike you as a problem? We don't know much about a nominee to the Supreme Court? And how will we ever find out anything about Miers? The confirmation hearings? The strategy with Roberts was Admit Nothing. (I wrote here that nominees should answer questions.) The military has a saying: Hope is not a course of action. What sense does it make to put someone on the Supreme Court about whom we know little, and simply hope they come around in the end?
Another reason given is that Miers can be confirmed, that the liberal Republican Senators such as those from the Northeast can support Miers. Doesn't that strike you as a problem? That the President and his party could be held hostage by less than 10 Senators, ostensibly in his own party? Is the solution to fall down before them in abject obeisance? Are they the ones who get to appoint the nominee?
What I, and I think many on the Right, want is for this President to do what he said he would do. If someone like Luttig isn't going to get on the Court, than nominate him anyway and make these liberal Republicans go on the record as opposing the President, and let them explain that opposition. Let the Democrats filibuster an eminently qualified candidate like Luttig. Let's have that debate, let's not flee the field before the battle begins.
Conservatives supported President Bush with the full expectation he would champion our causes. In this very important case, he didn't do what he said he would do. You tell me, Is that betrayal?
I used that word speaking as an evangelical Christian who supported Bush during his 2000 campaign for President for a number of reasons, but certainly in the top two or three reasons was the influence Bush would have on the Judiciary. In those days before 9/11, what other battle was there more important to those like me than the battle against judicial activism?
Bush said during that campaign he would appoint judges in the mold of Scalia or Thomas, and that was about all I needed to hear. And why did that question come up? Because it was something very important to conservatives, and how Bush answered that was going to have an effect on his candidacy.
Now, after a somewhat stealthy nominee in Roberts, who faced less resistance than anticipated because he was just replacing another conservative, Bush had a second nomination to make, one that would at last make good on that promise in 2000 to put a clear stake in conservative soil.
Conservatives are, and will always be, four-square behind President Bush on the War on Terror. However, we've been disappointed by his tendency to go on walkabout when it comes to other conservative principles. From steel tariffs, to soaring budgets, to signing McCain-Feingold, to his come-on-in-igration policy, to a massive transportation bill, to an energy bill that only energized lobbyists, President Bush has the Right scratching its collective head.
But, we always knew where the rubber met the road, President Bush had a clear understanding of the need to restrain the Judiciary and its Invent-As-We-Go activism. Or so we thought.
What are some of the reasons given in support of Miers? One common one is that President Bush knows Miers very well, and that since we don't know much about her, we shouldn't criticize the pick. Doesn't that strike you as a problem? We don't know much about a nominee to the Supreme Court? And how will we ever find out anything about Miers? The confirmation hearings? The strategy with Roberts was Admit Nothing. (I wrote here that nominees should answer questions.) The military has a saying: Hope is not a course of action. What sense does it make to put someone on the Supreme Court about whom we know little, and simply hope they come around in the end?
Another reason given is that Miers can be confirmed, that the liberal Republican Senators such as those from the Northeast can support Miers. Doesn't that strike you as a problem? That the President and his party could be held hostage by less than 10 Senators, ostensibly in his own party? Is the solution to fall down before them in abject obeisance? Are they the ones who get to appoint the nominee?
What I, and I think many on the Right, want is for this President to do what he said he would do. If someone like Luttig isn't going to get on the Court, than nominate him anyway and make these liberal Republicans go on the record as opposing the President, and let them explain that opposition. Let the Democrats filibuster an eminently qualified candidate like Luttig. Let's have that debate, let's not flee the field before the battle begins.
Conservatives supported President Bush with the full expectation he would champion our causes. In this very important case, he didn't do what he said he would do. You tell me, Is that betrayal?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home