ARC's 1st Law: As a "progressive" online discussion grows longer, the probability of a nefarious reference to Karl Rove approaches one

Tuesday, October 04, 2005

The Infighting is Not Helping

Take a look at this email sent to Michelle Malkin that she thought was a great indication of where the average rank & file are on the Miers nomination.

Mr. Bush has said consistently through two campaigns that he would nominate judges who would strictly interpret the Constitution and who would not legislate from the bench.

More broken promises.

I really think pressure on the GOP Senate and Congress is needed to force Bush into another appropriate nominee with judicial experience and known conservative beliefs. Shall we roll? Surely some of the Senators and Congressmen are a little worried about the outrage from conservatives? Or are they arrogant and take us for granted as well?

Does anyone - anyone - really think that the GOP SENATE will show Bush how to be a conservative? That's ridiculous! And at what point has Bush broken his promise to nominate judges that will strictly interpret the Constitution? Please - provide me with a single example.

And, yes - getting an open and avowed nominee would be GREAT. We could show the Dems how stupid judicial activism is... However, we must face the reality that Bork was just such a nominee. And I don't recall his name being mentioned in any of the recent Court decisions... oh, that's right - he's out doing the talk circuit!

The final thing we have to remember is that Specter, despite is supposedly "strong" performance during the Roberts hearings, isn't exactly an originalist and began to waffle on the second nominee even before Roberts had been voted on by the full Senate. I would argue that the GOP Senate - as it is comprised today - is NOT the place to have a battle over judicial philosophy. Just keep reminding yourself that our GOP majority includes Lincon Chafee, Olympia Snowe, Arlen Specter, etc, etc.

As the California Conservatives point out, the Infighting is Not Helping our cause.

As we learn more about Miers, it will become clearer whether her positions and or philosophy is in-line with the Presidents. However, if we do not keep our powder dry (and go off half-cocked), we will have ZERO ability to kill her nomination should she turn out to be a Lefty. For all of the bluster we've heard thus far, it is based on innuendo and fear - not facts. Just keep your powder dry as both sides try to determine where exactly she falls. (I can't imagine that Dobson would approve if he was unsure of her positions and, based on my reading of this article, it appears that Miers may have had a Born Again experience similar to the President, and recently embarked to establish a new church with her pastor. (Why do I have a feeling that Miers and Bush are prayer partners?)

And the next time that I hear ANYONE say they want to "educate" the American voter on judicial philosophies and the importance of the courts, I am going to scream. THE CONFIRMATION HEARING IS NOT A SCHOOLROOM. If you want to educate voters, please do that DURING the election - when voters are actually paying attention.

Previous ARC Posts on Miers here and here

Check out WuzzaDem

And check out this exclusive interview that Muscle Head Revolution got with Miers' pastor, Ron Key (who, as mentioned above, Miers left Valley View Christian Church to start a NEW church).
1st Part
2nd Part

***UPDATE 2***
The American Thinker has an excellent post which is consistent with my take on the criticism Miers is receiving from the Right. (H/T Hugh Hewitt)
In part, I think these conservatives have unwittingly adopted the Democrats’ playbook, seeing bombast and ‘gotcha’ verbal games as the essence of political combat. Victory for them is seeing the enemy bloodied and humiliated. They mistake the momentary thrill of triumph in combate, however evanescent, for lasting victory where it counts: a Supreme Court comprised of Justices who will assemble majorities for decisions reflecting the original intent of the Founders.

Rather than extend any benefit of the doubt to the President’s White House lawyer and counselor, some take her lack of a paper trail and a history of vocal judicial conservatism as a sign that she may be an incipient Souter. They implicitly believe that the President is not adhering to his promise of nominating Justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. The obvious differences between Souter, a man personally unknown to Bush 41, and Miers, a woman who has known Bush 43 for decades, and who has served as his close daily advisor for years, are so striking as to make this level of distrust rather startling. Having seen the Souter debacle unfold before his very eyes, the President is the last man on earth to recapitulate it.

He anticipates and is defusing the extremely well-financed opposition which Democrat interest groups will use against any nominee. Yes, he is playing politics by nominating a female. A defeated nominee does him and the future of American jurisprudence no favors. By presenting a female nominee, he kicks a leg out from under the stool on which the feminist left sits. Not just a female, but a career woman, one who has not raised children, not married a male, and has a number of “firsts” to her credit as a pioneer of women's achievement in Texas law. Let the feminists try to demonize her

Don't misunderestimate Bush's strategery.... heh. Read the whole thing.

***UPDATE 3***
See Missing the Point as well.

***UPDATE 4***
Drudge is reporting about Miers' born-again experience... as I had suspected. You know that Bush & Miers are likely praying together and probably know more about each other than your standard lawyer/client relationship. Seriously folks... until you get some evidence, give Bush the benefit of the doubt.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler