Re: Ree-C on Miers : Lone Star Times

Re: Ree-C on Miers

by Owen Courrèges · 10/05/2005 9:33 am

I agree with Ree-C that much of the hoopla surrounding the Miers nomination is a wee-bit much, considering that many of those conservatives who are currently slamming Miers were only too acquiesent when Bush nominated John Roberts, another putative “conservative” with no record to prove it. If we’re going to be against “stealth” candidates, we ought to do so consistently.

However, I do not have “faith” in the GOP’s ability to put forth stealth candidates, because they usually turn out to be leftists.

Remember, Souter was supposed to be a conservative, or at least a moderate. There were some signs he was pro-life, and although they weren’t conclusive, the evidence pointed to another fairly reliable conservative vote. Wrong. Souter is among the four uber-liberals on the court, and they only need one more leftist to ram through their entire agenda.

Bush could have nominated a known conservative. He has the votes to kill a filibuster, and a Republican majority in both houses. It would have been a dogfight, but he would have probably won. Now he’s avoided that scenario, but has nonetheless drastically increased the chances that the liberals on the court will get their fifth vote — another reliable liberal. If either Roberts or Miers turns out to be something different from what they appear, we’re doomed.

Bush gambled with the Supreme Court, and I don’t have faith in games of chance.

Filed Under Uncategorized ·

Comments

19 Responses to “Re: Ree-C on Miers”

gregg on October 5th, 2005 at 9:55 am

The way the Republicans act reminds me of the story about the scorpion and the frog.

Everyone knows the scorpion and the frog are arch enemies.One day the frog is on the riverbank getting ready to cross the water when the scorpion appears. The scorpion is real nice and asks the frog for a ride across the river. The frog is very skeptical of his rival and refuses because he knows the scorpion will kill him when he gets to the other side. The scorpion promises not to kill the frog if he will take him across the river. The frog, wanting to be freinds with him, gives in and agrees to give the scorpion a ride over.

Well, halfway across, the scorpion stings the frog and they both begin to sink. The frog asks why he stung him killing them both. The scorpion replies ” I am a scorpion and you are a frog.We are enemies”

Moral of the story is never try to appease your enemies.
Tim on October 5th, 2005 at 9:59 am

So essentially what you are looking for is a litmus test on nominees as to how they would vote on various issues? The same litmus test that conservatives complained that Kerry would apply if elected. Got it. That’s not hypocritical at all.
Kevin D. Taylor on October 5th, 2005 at 10:38 am

Of course we are concerned about how they will vote on certain issues - why else would we care who gets nominated to the Court? I see no problem with a “litmus test” - it’s the Libs that make such hay about it.
Tim on October 5th, 2005 at 10:40 am

Kevin,

I disagree with that sentiment. It was Bush who kept bringing up the litmus test against Kerry in the debates. Said there should be no litmus test. And many conservatives seized on that as a grounds for criticizing Kerry.
Kevin D. Taylor on October 5th, 2005 at 10:57 am

I believe that the main issue with SCOTUS is stopping the onslaught of juducial activism, a topic of ongoing national debate. Pundits say we should settle the issue right now with “a good fight” over a proven legal scholar with a strict constructionist philosophy.

My problem is this: this debate goes on everyday….on talk radio - conservatives win. It’s been an issue in every national election for the last 15 years, and conservatives win.

THIS FIGHT, unfortunately, must take place on the floor of the Senate, in the Judiciary Committee. Do you REALLY want Arlen Specter to preside over that debate?

Bush did what he needed to do because, in the end, he really can’t count on the Senate.
Owen Courrèges on October 5th, 2005 at 10:59 am

Tim,

#1 - Bush didn’t start the whole “litmus test” thing. He simply responded to questions about whether or not he would have a litmus test on given issues by answering “no.” I don’t specifically recall Bush using that as a bludgeon against Kerry, but if he did, I disagree with the sentiment.

#2 - I personally do have a litmus test, and a principled one. I want a supreme court nominee who rejects rulings such as Griswald, Roe, and Lawrence — rulings that, regardless of whether or not you support their policies, constituted abuses of power by the Supreme Court. Liberals who have limus tests in favor of these rulings are demanding these abuses be continued and enlarged, which is hardly principled at all (more of a “might makes right” position, with SCOTUS imposing its will on the public).
Tim on October 5th, 2005 at 11:31 am

Quote from Bush during the debates:

“Two things. One, he [Kerry] clearly has a litmus test for his judges, which I disagree with…”

And I would personally disagree with your fiat regarding the abuses of power by the Supreme Court. For example, how does removing laws on the books regarding abortion constitute imposing a will on the public? If anything, the laws before the ruling were imposing a will on the public, and removing them lessened that effect.
shannon on October 5th, 2005 at 11:36 am

Methinks some of these conservative pundits and bloggers may have pulled the trigger a bit too quickly with their invectives against “W” and Ms. Miers.
My favorite commentary on the whole uproar comes from Michael Ledeen at The Corner on NRO: “The mark of a cultured person is the length of time between stimulus and response.”
Let’s give this gentlewoman a chance to “show her stuff” before we form a final opinion.
Owen Courrèges on October 5th, 2005 at 11:55 am

Tim,

Sure it’s imposing a will on the public. It’s saying that the public can’t make the laws it wants without any constitutional basis. That’s something the public does in a democratic society. Remember, the norm is not anarchy, but liberal democracy. SCOTUS departs from that norm, using its power to interpret the Constitution to effectively amend it, substituting its own judgment — based not on the constitution but on individual preference — for laws approved by the people. That’s an abuse of power.
Tim on October 5th, 2005 at 12:50 pm

And yet I would argue, as would the justices that sided with Roe, that said decision WAS based on the constitution. You mistake not interpreting the contitution as YOU would with not basing decisions on the constitution at all.
Owen Courrèges on October 5th, 2005 at 1:25 pm

Tim,

The Constitution says nothing about privacy or abortion. It is simply unreasonable and intellecutally crass to argue that Roe was in any way based on the text of the Constitution. Your interpretation is lame and unreasonable — I could just as easily read a right to low property taxes into the Constitution, and it would be no less preposterous.

The Supremes themselves have hinted at this. Half of Casey, which reaffirmed Roe on a somewhat different basis, is an analysis of when it is appropriate to overturn precedent — with the implication that Roe was, at best, on very shakey legal ground to begin with, and thus required external reasoning to justify it (i.e. the reliance argument, and the admonition that it would be inappropriate for the Court to change its ruling while under fire from political quarters — not exactly a constitutional concern).

With the left’s lack of intellectual honesty as to the validity of these off-base rulings, its become virtually impossible to argue these points. Suffice to say you wouldn’t be singing this tune if the shoe was on the other foot.
Tim on October 5th, 2005 at 1:47 pm

Your insistance that the ONLY rights we have are those contained in the Constitution is short sighted and simply not the case. Certainly, privacy rights are only hinted at in the Constitution, but that does not make it any less real. I would argue it to be an implied right, bolstered by passages such as “illegal search and seizure.”

Indeed, the Constitution also fails to provide for my rights to read a book, eat food, or take a nap. Does that somehow mean that the government would be justified in passing laws banning reading, eating, and sleeping? Certainly not…
Owen Courrèges on October 5th, 2005 at 2:00 pm

Tim,

That’s a normative argument. You’re claiming that since you want those rights to exist, and it would be good for them TO exist, then they MUST be in the Constitution somewhere. Nonetheless, it’s a big leap from “illegal search and seizure” to a general right to privacy, and another big leap from privacy to a largely unfettered right to have an abortion. At some point you’re just making stuff up to enshrine your own personal policy preferences into law without all the messiness of convincing democratic majorities.

You seem to think democracy is only a good idea so long as people make the right decisions. What the Constitution did was forclose certain rights away from government interference, while allowing the public, through its representatives, to make any other laws they wished to. Those laws may be stupid and oppressive so long as they don’t conflict with the Constitution. The Constitution is not some grand “catch all” for laws you don’t like.

And no, I don’t believe the government would be justified in banning “eating,” but then again, why on earth would people elect representatives who would pass such a law? I know you’re trying a reductio ad absurdum argument, but it doesn’t work because such a law would NEVER be passed in a democratic society. Heck, you might as well argue that the entire system is flawed, because a democratic super-majority could pass any laws it wanted anyway simply by amending the Constitution. Your “what ifs” have to be reasonable, taking into account that the people collectively ARE a check on government power.

Abortion was never even vaguely foreclosed from government regulation by the Bill of Rights. What happened was that a majority of pro-choice justices forced their will on the people with a load of tortured logic. That, again, was an abuse of power.
jimb on October 5th, 2005 at 2:02 pm

Tim -

There is a huge difference between reading a book, taking a nap, and basically hiring a doctor to assist your suicide.

I would argue that it is in no way unconstitutional to prohibit a doctor from assisting in a suicide. There are too many ways that a mistake could be made, a false diagnosis given and acted upon, foul play covered up, etc.

There is a huge difference between allowing someone to live their life, and enabling someone to end someone’s life to ease the suffering of terminal disease. I think once the issue becomes one of basically taking the life of another, for whatever noble reason, then the regulating that is certainly Constitutional.
Tim on October 5th, 2005 at 2:24 pm

jimb,

I don’t think anyone was talking about doctor assisted suicide…

Owen,

You dismiss the “eating” example, but it underscores the point that there are some areas where the government would NOT be justified in passing a law, despite the fact that they are in no way prohibited from doing so in the Constitution. You either abide by a STRICT interpretation of Constitutional rights, or you allow for the possibility that there are other rights perhaps not specifically outlined. The ninth amendment, I believe, goes so far as to say that, just because there is a listing of rights in the Constitution, that’s not to say that there are not other rights that the government should protect.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
jimb on October 5th, 2005 at 2:31 pm

I got a bit off-topic with the physician-asssited suicide (I got mixed up with another thread), but I think in the long run, it comes down do what society defines as “rights”. The problem isn’t whether or not the Constitution protects rights (it does), it is whether or not the right exists in the first place - the “right” to have an abortion or enter into a gay marriage, for example.
Owen Courrèges on October 5th, 2005 at 3:31 pm

Tim,

The “eating” example underscores the point that there are areas where the government SHOULDN’T intervene, not that the Constitution REQUIRES that it doesn’t intervene. Again, your argument was normative. The Constitution says what it says; it is not a catch-all for laws you don’t like, or even laws that we’d all agree are bad, and therefore could never be passed anyway.

Furthermore, believing in a broad construction of certain rights is not the same as condoning the invention of new rights. The Constitution simply says nothing that remotely relates to a right to abortion. It took two bizarre logical leaps to reach that result. It wasn’t merely a broad construction of the Bill of Rights — it was a fanciful invention of policy-minded justices. We might not agree on the precise meaning of everything in the constitution, but surely there are better interpretations than others based on the facts, and surely at some point interpretations become manifestly unreasonable. Roe went way too far — objectively. We might as well interpret “due process” as mandating that all Americans be processed into dog food if such dreck is to pass as constitutional doctrine.

As for the 9th Amendment, I’ve addressed that before on this weblog. The 9th Amendment had the specific aim of stating that the expression of certain restrictions on the grant of power to the federal government contained in the Bill of Rights were not themselves to imply government powers beyond what was enumerated. In other words, a person couldn’t say that the federal government is authorized do something because it doesn’t violate the Bill of Rights, even though the federal government was not given the power to do so. The 9th Amendment has everything to do with enumerated powers, and absolutely nothing to do with the Supreme Court inventing new rights. The history of the amendment is clear on this.
Darlene M. Crilley on October 5th, 2005 at 3:53 pm

We are being asked to TRUST the President regarding his choice of Miers. He wants to make his tax cut permanent but spends like a drunken sailor. He increased the border patrol but wants to legalize the illegal aliens.

AND WE ARE SUPPOSED TO TRUST HIM???????????
gregg on October 5th, 2005 at 4:20 pm

Some of you missed the point of my story. GWB tries to get along with Democrats. They turn around and stab him in the back everytime. He keeps doing the same thing and expecting a different result. We were ready for a fight. He appeased Harry Reid of all people.