Home Store In Memoriam Deborah Newsletter Forum Topics Blogfeed Blogroll Facebook MySpace Contact Us About

It's liberals and true conservatives who should be worried about Miers on the Supreme Court

Reported by Chrish - October 10, 2005

Jim Angle reported today 10/10/05 on Special Report about the continuing angst and unease within the farther right wing of the Republican party. As Brit Hume noted (later in the program), Bill Kristol AND Pat Buchanan are expressing doubts and negativity towards the nominee.

Kristol, appearing on Fox News Sunday, said that he thought that Harriet Miers should withdraw as she is not nearly the most qualified person for the job, which he believes would be good for Bush and good for the court. Pat Buchanan said his guess is that the nomination will be withdrawn and she will not be confirmed. These two speak for a lot of people, and while Bush has no election to worry about (like he ever did), Republican Senators running in 2006 should be concerned about the voters that these two men can influence.

Ultra-conservative Gary Bauer, currently of the "American Values Coalition" and one of the originators of PNAC, wants to see more evidence that "she is willing to take on the prevailing left-wing ethos in our legal system." But, if she tries to reassure conservatives of how she might rule, "some of the 'far left' Senators are going to have an objecion to her."

Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention thinks Bush underestimated (I think he meant overestimated) the level of goodwill and trust that he should expect from conservatives. GHW Bush didn't know David Souter until John Sununu introduced them, says Land, and GWBush has known Miers 15 years, so his judgment should be respected and trusted.

Antonin Scalia, in a rare TV appearance on CNBC, is seen saying "Everybody now understands that courts can now make tremendously significant social decisions. ..you know, whether there should be same-sex marriage, whether there should be a right to die, whether there should be a right to abortion, all those things."
Comment: There it is. Land of the free, democracy, liberty.....poof. The appointed justices decide, and the appointed president appoints the deciding justices.

Angle says that this understanding (too late for many) is "precisely why there's new controversey over a remark by conservative leader James Dobson: 'When you know some of the things that I know, that I probably shouldn't know, you will understand why I believe Harriet Miers will be a good Justice.'"

Some on the Judiciary Committee may want to question Dobson, but the White House says no-one said anything about how Miers might rule, only spoke of her conservative judicial philosophy.

Comment: "Conservative judicial philosophy" is Bush-code for "radical right evangelical morality". Anyone who thinks that her respect for settled law or individual rights will supercede her contempt for abortion, gays, and privacy is seriously naive. Such people are ruled by their religion and are compelled to impose it on everyone else.

It seems only right, though, that Senators entrusted to advise and consent should have a t least as much information as a radio preacher.

While Democrats are laying low and watching the Republican in-fighting, it would have been fair and balanced to show someone, anyone, who had a differing point of view.

Post a comment

Remember Me?

We welcome your opinions and viewpoints. Comments must remain civil, on-topic and must not violate any copyright or other laws. We reserve the right to delete any comments we deem inappropriate or non-constructive to the discussion for any reason, and to block any commenter for repeated violations.

Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.