There is so much being written about the Harriet Miers nomination, it is becoming almost unseemly. Rush Limbaugh weighs in over the weekend with an article that was so convoluted, one has to wonder if he has really lost it. He starts off okay with what I would consider an excellent and succinct statement of what being a conservative is all about when he states at the end of the first paragraph that:
We believe in individual liberty, limited government, capitalism, the rule of law, faith, a color-blind society and national security. We support school choice, enterprise zones, tax cuts, welfare reform, faith-based initiatives, political speech, homeowner rights and the war on terrorism. And at our core we embrace and celebrate the most magnificent governing document ever ratified by any nation--the U.S. Constitution. Along with the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes our God-given natural right to be free, it is the foundation on which our government is built and has enabled us to flourish as a people.
I agree with this statement wholeheartedly. It describes me to a tee.
However, Rush then goes on to say:
The Miers nomination shows the strength of the conservative movement. This is no "crackup." It's a crackdown. We conservatives are unified in our objectives. And we are organized to advance them. The purpose of the Miers debate is to ensure that we are doing the very best we can to move the nation in the right direction. And when all is said and done, we will be even stronger and more focused on our agenda and defeating those who obstruct it, just in time for 2006 and 2008. Lest anyone forget, for several years before the 1980 election, we had knockdown battles within the GOP. The result: Ronald Reagan won two massive landslides.
Now, I don't know about the years leading up to 1980 being full of "knockdown battles" with the GOP as we were a career military family and involved in our own "knockdown battles" with the liberals of the Jimmy Carter days and the total lack of respect or interest in the plight of the military as a whole and military families in particular. My memory is that it was those of us who wanted to bring patriotism, love of country, pride in who we are, back into the forefront who helped bring Ronald Reagan to the White House.
And what is the most frightening about the Limbaugh statement is the threats it contains. Threats that aren't designed to keep my support or the support of any of us who consider ourselves moderate. A "crackdown" in order to move the nation in the "right" direction. Sounds almost Nazi-like, doesn't it? "Defeating those who obstruct" their agenda. In other words, it is their agenda that is the important thing, not what is good or right for America, not what will build consensus and bring American ideas and values to the front.
You see, even though I am pro-life and therefore support many of the abortion restrictions such as bans on late term and partial birth abortions and the need for parental notification before abortions are performed on minors, I still feel this is an individual decision, not between a woman and her doctor or a woman and the government, but between a woman and her God and/or conscience. It might be hard for me to understand how a woman could kill her own child, but it isn't my place to haunt her for the rest of her life. I would like Roe redecided on less shaky ground and I'll support whatever decision the Courts come up with. Roberts hinted that he might be able to make a case using the Liberty Clause rather than the 9th & 10th amendments and a phony "right of privacy." Do I want the government involved, no not really, do I want my tax dollars involved, no, absolutely not. Do I think abortion is harmful to the woman's mental health, yes, I can't see how it could not be. Would I want a doctor who is willing to cavalierly take a human life, no, no, no. Do I think I have the right to make this decision for someone else, no I don't.
Does the Limbaugh, Colter, Fund, Kristol crowd care how I feel or what I think? I doubt it seriously. Read this diatribe against Bush that contains this little tidbit:
As the Miers debate reveals, many conservative intellectuals have exactly the same problems with Bush as liberals. They disdain his cronyism, doubt his intelligence, question his use of "character" to judge individuals, and can't stand his pandering to evangelicals. "The trouble with Harriet is that she has given us a depressing glimpse into the vast open space that now appears to be the Bush political mind," a piece on The Weekly Standard's website argued last week.
Did Buchanan care if Bill Clinton got elected the first time when he went on his rampages against Bush Sr. in 1992? How quickly we all forget the rise of the Perot faction of about 19% of the American electorate. These are the same conservatives who sold out their party back then and they are willing to do it again now. Their agenda is as much anathema to me as the far left agenda of Howard Dean and the Air America/Cindy Sheehan crowd is to me as well.
If you have any doubt what they want then listen to what David Bernstein says in his belittling comparison of Harriet Miers to Janice Rodgers Brown :
In terms of her record, her outspokenessness, her visibility, her willingness to court controversy in defense of her principles, her independent-mindedness, and just about everything else, Harriet Miers is basically the anti-Brown (or, if you prefer, the Brown of the Bizarro universe). The only thing they seem to have in common is that Miers -- as dull as Brown is interesting, as moderate-seeming as Brown is radical, as untested as a judge as Brown is experienced, as fiery a rhetoritician as Miers is a mouther of platitudes, as establishmentarian as Brown is individualist--may not be confirmable, either.
Or more Criticism of the Miers Nomination, from John Fund:
There are philosophical reasons for Republican senators to oppose Ms. Miers. In 1987, the liberal onslaught on Robert Bork dramatically changed the confirmation process. The verb to bork, meaning to savage a nominee and distort his record, entered the vocabulary, and many liberals now acknowledge that the anti-Bork campaign had bad consequences. It led to more stealth nominees, with presidents hoping their scant paper trail would shield them from attack.
President Bush has now gone further in internalizing the lessons of the Bork debacle. Harriet Miers is a "superstealth" nominee--a close friend of the president with no available paper trail who keeps her cards so close to her chest they might as well be plastered on it. If Ms. Miers is confirmed, it will reinforce the popular belief that the Supreme Court is more about political outcomes than the rule of law.
I hate to break it to Limbaugh, et al, but President George W. Bush did not get elected twice because of his social agenda. As a young active political operative with almost unlimited access to Ronald Reagan and who cut his political teeth under Reagan's strong tutelage, he is far more a Reaganite than the far right and the Limbaugh right are today. Peace through strength, home and business ownership, these are Reagan principles that bring people like me to the voting booth and make us willing to pull the lever for him. And no, I did not originally support GW in the 2000 primaries, but the more I've watched him, the more my confidence in him and my admiration of him has grown.
Would Harriet Miers be my first choice for the Supreme Court? I have no idea because I have yet to hear her. And neither have any of these others and yet they are willing to sacrifice her, embarrass her, belittle her, and not support her. They are willing to set her up for failure and to destroy all the gains over selfish pique.
The only important question, in my non lawyer mind, is:
Does she have an agile and inquisitive mind capable of analyzing all sides of an issue and cutting through the chaff to the heart of a legal question and then be able to weigh all that against our great Constitution and the principles America was founded upon to form a Supreme Court decision that is based on the law and is well decided? I want the decisions rightly decided (not decided by the right) and how much fiery rhetoric that accompanies the decision is totally unimportant. Supreme Court justices aren't supposed to be firebrands, they are supposed to be analytical thinkers that have broad knowledge of Constitutional principles.
Comments