NationStates Jolt Archive

You don't have to surf the right-blogosphere long to find outrage over Harriet Miers' nomination to the Supreme Court. Hinderaker over at Powerline hates it, David Frum is beside himself, and the leader of them all, Instapundit (http://instapundit.com/archives/025942.php) has a whole list of conservative bloggers pissed off, or at the very least, underwhelmed by the nomination.

The real action is in the comments sections of places like Free Republic and Redstate, where posters are saying things like "Bush is on his own now. I won't leave the party, but Bush is on his own from now on."

And then there's Richard Viguerie, one of the fathers of the modern social conservative movement. He built the direct mail machine that gave the Republican party the great power it has in small money donations. And he's pissed. From an email he sent around to his subscribers:
Congratulations are due to Ralph Neas, Nan Aron, and Chuck Schumer for going toe-to-toe with President Bush and forcing him to blink. Liberals have successfully cowed President Bush by scaring him off from nominating a known conservative, strict constructionist to the Court, leaving conservatives fearful of which direction the Court will go.

President Bush desperately needed to have an ideological fight with the Left to redefine himself and re-energize his political base, which is in shock and dismay over his big government policies.

With their lack of strong, identifiable records, President Bush's choices for Supreme Court nominees seem designed more to avoid a fight with the extreme Left than to appeal to his conservative base.

Many conservatives worry that without verifiable records, President Bush's Supreme Court nominees will be more like the liberal Justice Souter than the conservative, strict constructionists Scalia and Thomas.

Remembering and still dismayed about how his father, President George H. W. Bush (the 41st), lied to conservatives and American voters by saying he was a conservative and expressly stating he would not raise taxes, conservatives fear President George W. Bush (the 43rd) has done the same by failing to nominate well-known conservative, strict constructionists to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"President Bush has presided over the largest growth in government since Lyndon Johnson, and now he appears willing to lose all credibility with conservative voters by failing to fulfill his campaign vow to nominate an openly Scalia- or Thomas-like justice."
A couple of conservative senators have already hinted that they may filibuster Miers' nomination over the objections of their leadership--ironic twist there should it happen, considering the battle over the nuclear option earlier this year. But here's the question: will the social conservatives break with Bush over this nomination and leave him hanging out to dry because they wanted someone more openly like Scalia and Thomas?

The appointment process needs to be reformed. It's become far too politicised.

The people appointing the judges don't want educated constitutional scholars, they just want partisan yes-men, who'll let them lean on the constitution or rip it to shreds depending on when it suits them.

I'm not just talking about republicans either, all the main american parties do it.

The worst part is that, assuming from the above post, they aren't even subtle about it.

The right-wing grassroots might wail a bit, or even a lot, but if GW has demonstrated ONE thing that his administration has been effective at, it's keeping the Senate in line when it comes time for a vote.


Party discipline has become the mantra, to the detriment of reasoned debate on the issues at hand and so also to the detriment of the effectiveness of this government for all citizens. To put a not-so-fine point on it, Bush lets loose a fart and the party rushes out to rubber-stamp it as being odour-free, even if they do have to do so with clothespins on their noses.


And this will be no exception - save perhaps one or two looking to differentiate themselves from the caucus for political reasons looking ahead to 08.

One of those votes should be for "No."

I think the ex-Microsoft lawyer will get canned, though a vast lack of support and experience. She's also too much in Bush's inner circle.

Frankly, who knows? Silliopolous is right that the Bush administration has shown an amazing aptitude for ensuring that the Senate (and usually the House) do what they're told. However, those same Congressmen are realizing that in three more years, he's done, and there has to be someone to replace him. If any of them have an ounce of ambition, they're thinking they'd like it to be them. The easiest way for the Republicans to continue to hold power, though, is to not alienate the base that gave that power to them in the first place. That looks to be exactly what Bush is doing. Instead of keeping the Republican camp firmly united, he seems to be acting in a way that will crack it like the Democrats cracked after Clinton. People are wanting him to deliver on his promises and he's just not doing it.

I think you'll see a lot of the Republican Congressmen with Presidential aspirations testing the waters with Miers. If the rank and file is truly upset with this, they'll act on that to differentiate themselves. If it's just a passing blip, they'll get back in line and wait for the next hiccup. While the blogosphere is always an interesting read, it's not always 100% representative of what Joe Average Republican is thinking. Those are the ones smart Republican aspirants are going to be listening to now to figure out which way the wind is blowing.

Are you kidding? Even the rabid, delusional, incoherent Ann Coulter is deserting the Bush camp. She seems to think Bush is unacceptably liberal, almost moderate even. And she practically called Karl Rove a closet Democrat. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucac/20050929/cm_ucac/bobshrumwithagoodcause

Looks like the Republicans have been taking lessons from Democrats in how to self-destruct. It's a damned shame there's no viable third party around to take advantage of the chaos that has engulfed both major parties. (Maybe we could import a few from the UK - it might be entertaining to have a few Lib Dems and Scottish Nationalists in Congress. :D)

Those Senators with Presidential aspirations have to be careful, though. They can't rile the powers-that-be too much, or they'll be shut out of the fundraising cricles when the race starts. I imagine we'll get some trash talking out of someone like Brownback or Coburn or Inhofe--one of the real wingnuts--but in the end, they'll be out there on their own, because I don't see the rank and file Senators ever voting to uphold a filibuster on a Supreme Court nominee that came from their President. And since Miers will have some bipartisan support--Reid has already said he'll vote for her, and I imagine Leahy will as well, and that'll bring along a bunch of the other moderate and/or red state Democrats--Landrieu, the Nelsons, Dorgan, Johnson, etc--there will have to be substantial opposition from the Republican party to do that.

The other possibility is that Bush would withdraw Miers's nomination "under pressure from his own party." Problem is twofold with that strategy. First is that it makes Bush look weak, and he can't stand that. He's held onto whatever little support he has by never admitting he's made a mistake, so he'd be loathe to do that. The second is that any real opposition to Miers is likely to come from his own party, so there won't be a Democratic party whipping boy to blame for it.

Michelle Malkin >>>> Ann Coulter

But you're right. Anyway, Bush better be careful, because we all know Ann's packing heat and is probably delirious with hunger.