ConfirmThem

By Quin Posted in Uncategorized — Comments () / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

What galls me about this pick is that it says to the world (FALSELY) that conservative jurisprudential ideals, acted on and defended in public, are too embarrassing to be worth fighting for, so we need therefore a stealth candidate and need to trust a president that a nominee's "heart" -- which has nothing, nada, zilch, to do with ANYTHING in constitutional jurisprudence -- is good. Right at a time when lib Dems were on the run -- the Dem senators split 22-22 on Roberts, unsure what to do, etc -- we fail to follow through on the point we just won that somebody can be brilliant and tremendously well credentialed AND conservative/originalist. Instead, we are asked to settle for Bush's assurance that his nominee will vote correctly -- NOT reason correctly, but that her heart is in the right place so she will vote correctly. That's an affront to everything we've worked for, and an affront to sound reasoning and to constitutional principles, and it snatches defeat from the jaws of victory.
On the higher plane of defending textualism/originalism, we were on the verge of victory. And on the plane of cruder politics, we just so happened to have a winning hand, because the textualist approach just so happens to also produce, in major cultural issues of our day, results that are popular. Pro pledge of allegiance. Against judicially imposed homosexual marriage. Against partial birth abortion and for parental consent. For reasonable displays of the Ten Commandments. Firmly against governmental takings of private property for other private use (a BIGGIE right now!). And so on. The idea is not to demagogue these issues. Indeed, some of these aren't, in the greater scheme of things, tremendously important to everyday life. But the point is that with an independently qualified, brilliant, articulate nominee -- one who achieved his/her status WITHOUT a boost deriving from long personal association with the president -- we had the best chance in our lifetimes to explain why proper REASONING also leads, in these cases, to popular results. In other words, we could tie the principles to the results in a fair, non-demagogic, persuasive way, and thus break the back of the "evolving Constitution" Left.
Instead we are asked to trust the heart of a stealth nominee who is loyal to Bush, quite literally, to a fault, rather than known primarily for fealty to solid jurisprudential principle.
The nomination stinks to high heaven, NO MATTER HOW Miers will end up "voting" on the court if she is confirmed.
It is a betrayal, pure and simple. And we must continue to let the WHite House know, in no uncertain terms, that it IS a betrayal -- even if, when push comes to shove, conservative senators decide to reluctantly vote for her, which is certainly not a given.
But to secure conservative Senate votes, the White House should understand clearly that it is now in OUR debt for sticking by it, not that we are going along because we are in its debt.
For now, the jury should still be out, and the outcome very much in doubt.