A resposne to the comments of socalpundit:
Now I am not in a position to judge whether or not GOP critics of the President are right or wrong to attack him so harshly.
Why are you not in a position to judge?? If you have read up and followed the issue of the courts for any number of years, then of course you are in a position to judge if the critics are right or wrong (just like the rest of us). I suspect that you already know this but are too afraid to admit it to yourself.
So since you likely are in a position to judge, you should ask yourself: “How do I want the Supreme Court to act?” and “Is Harriet Miers the best choice for that goal?” (or even in the top 10% of choices for that goal).
Given the history of Souter, Kennedy and O’Connor, President Bush should have known what the reaction to his nominee would be.
But my question today to those that chose to demand that the President withdraw his Supreme Court nomination is, are you serving the needs of the party and the nation or your own desire for Bush to pick someone you would chose?
I am definitely serving the needs of my nation by demanding that Bush withdraw the nomination. The “needs of the party” become irrelevant when they conflict with the needs of the nation, and it wrong for you to group them together in this instance. That is the real debate that is going on – between those that put the needs of the nation before party, and those that put party before nation. There seems to be a lot of the latter within the Bear Flag League I am sorry to say.
Neither I, nor my fellow critics, necessarily expected Bush to pick the 4 or 5 specific candidates at the top our respective lists. But we did expect him to follow his explicit promise – to not only appoint a “conservative” but a judge in the “Scalia” or “Thomas” mode, along with an implicit assumption that there would be a provable track record to indicate that. Bush has clearly not done that. Even John Roberts was a compromise since he is (likely) more of a Rehnquist than a Scalia/Thomas (and even that we don’t know yet).
On the other hand, there comes a point when the criticism turns into cannibalism. Just remember these words when Republicans are thrown from power in 2006 and 2008. Those that went too far will have themselves to blame. And you can bet pundits like me will be there to rub their noses in it.
That is an empty threat. And quite frankly a silly one. If Republicans are thrown from power because of this debate, I will be the one rubbing your nose in it – not the other way around. I will be reminding you that Republicans lost power because a bunch of GOP “yes men” put party before principle and thus didn’t deserve to hang on to power.
Here is another key distinction in this debate: Some of us believe that political power is only a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. If we still can’t advance core principles after obtaining political power, then we shouldn’t be afraid of risking that power in order to stand on those principles. You apparently feel otherwise.
After Goldwaters’ defeat in 1964, I’m sure there were people like you who criticized fellow Republicans for supporting him (and “rubbed their noses” in it). But as you well know, that paved the way for a much better and stronger party in the future since it was based on advancing an agenda that was better for the country. Therefore, I would gladly welcome a Republican defeat in 2006/2008 provided that it would send a clear message to future presidents that they must toe the line when it comes to an issue as critical as the Supreme Court.
And while we are on the subject, I will be also be rubbing your nose in it if Miers is confirmed and she starts handing down silly O’Connor-style decisions. To borrow your phrase – you will only have yourself to blame. And after the Souter/Kennedy/O’Connor experiences, you will have no excuses this time.
If she happens to turn out to be another Scalia/Thomas, you will have nothing to crow about since I will simply respond that you got lucky and that I supported any number of candidates who indicated ahead of time that they would have voted the same way in any event (and would likely express themselves in a more convincing manner). And in so doing, you are still sending a message to future Republican presidents that all conservative judicial appointees should be "stealth candidates" who will always pose risks to a textualist agenda. So it is ultimately an "all risk and no gain" situation for Miers supporters.
The Supreme Court is the biggest domestic gamble there is. And the key to winning in gambling is to only bet big when you KNOW AHEAD OF TIME that you are going to win. You should never take risks that you are not required to take. But with the Miers nomination, you are doing just that.
Of course compromise is necessary in politics. All of us Miers ciritics understand that. But that proposition is tempered by the following considerations:
1. You should only compromise when it is politically necessary.
2. You should only take risks when it is politically necessary.
3. You never compromise on core principles.
Those 3 considerations scream out that Miers was a HUGE mistake. And I submit that since core principles are being risked here, there can be no such thing as criticizing Bush too harshly on this one.
So you say that the Republicans might loose power if we criticize Miers too harshly??? I say, BRING IT ON!!!! There is no fight that is worthier. There is no better message that weil be sent for future generations. And I will sleep well at night with more Democrats in government knowing that it was YOU and the Bush/Miers appologists who fractured the party - not me and the unabashed, out-of-the-closet supporters of "non-stealth" Constitutional textualism.