Monday, October 3

BUSH PLAYS IT SAFE; SHOWS NO STOMACH FOR A NOMINATION FIGHT ON CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLES

The Associated Press (AP) has reported this morning that President Bush has nominated White House counsel Harriet Ellan Miers for the position to be vacated by outgoing Justice Sandra Day O'Conner on the United States Supreme Court. In doing so, the president has named an insider from his own team and one who has conveniently never been a judge in her legal career, thus hoping to disarm liberal Senate Democrats who had threatened to get down and dirty in the Senate confirmation process if George Bush's choice didn't suit them and their politics. Accordingly, they will not have a paper trail of judicial rulings with which to ferret out Miers' judicial philosophy and interpretation of the law.

John Hawkins is "bitterly disappointed" and John Hinderaker is just "disappointed;" but rest assured this conservative Republican blogger is incensed. I wanted a highly-regarded, well-identified, conservative jurist in the Scalia mold, and for me one about whom Ted Kennedy and Dianne Feinstein and Charles Schumer, and others of their political ilk in the U.S. Senate would be apoplectic. I wanted a reincarnation of Robert H. Bork nominated to the bench -- a line in the sand nominee who would put in bold relief the conservative, strict-constructionist principles about which the Republican Party fought so hard to get George Bush into the White House in 2000 and to keep him there in 2004. Why fight so hard to win in anticipation of changing the complexion of the court only to place in nomination an under-the-radar Bush crony, a Harry Reid recommendation no less, and former member of the Texas Lottery Commission?

I wanted Janice Rogers Brown or someone like her. I wanted a lightening rod. I didn't want the president to kow-tow to the left-wing of the Democratic Party. So what if there had been a shrill fight in the Senate Judiciary Committee and on the Senate floor? Wasn't our purpose to do combat with the progressive-secularists and to delineate for the American people the transcendant principles -- indeed, the bedrock values -- upon which our nation was founded and its Constitution written. Wasn't it our purpose to show how those principles and values have been largely upended over the years by liberal activist judges legislating from the bench and how, in the president's selection of his nominees, this madness was going to be reversed?

Is this any way to reward "the base?"

Disappointed? Bitterly disappointed? No, mad as hell -- incensed. This does it for me. I'm tired of grinding my teeth over the president's lack of fiscal restraint, his unconscionable indifference to our porous borders and the invasion from the south, and now his second all-too-safe choice of a nominee to the United States Supreme Court, as if anyone in the mold of a Scalia or Thomas would be anathema because, after all, we don't want to offend the U.S. Senate's patron saint of moral rectitude and highmindedness, Ted Kennedy.

The president's choice showed a stubborn and determined unwillingness to brave the battle at home and to adhere to the ideals for which his own nomination was supported and his own battle for the White House joined by so many conservatives.

FOLLOW-UP: More on reactions from the right side of the blogosphere from "Ankle Biting Pundits."

FOLLOW-UP II: An observation: the Sacred College of Cardinals did for the Roman Catholic Church what President Bush was loathe to do for the United States of America, it would appear with today's pussilanimous, safe bet.

FOLLOW-UP III: Harriet Miers' professional bio.