Ultima Thule

In ancient times the northernmost region of the habitable world - hence, any distant, unknown or mysterious land.

Sunday, October 09, 2005

"Not the Opinion of this Establishment," by BonnieBlueFlag

Written by: BonnieBlueFlag

Well, as you may have surmised by my commentary absence of late, I have developed a much different view point than Aussiegirl, a sincerely dedicated conservative, and many others who frequent "UT."

I have remained quiet on the subject, since I do not feel that I am sufficiently knowledgeable about Harriet Miers, or the day to day operations of the Supreme Court, to defend my position.

Initially, I was exactly as described by Bill Kristol, "Disappointed, Depressed and Demoralized." However, after listening to Bill Kristol here, there, and everywhere, I have come to realize, that he does not speak for me, when he calls for the withdrawal of Harriet Miers as the nominee to the vacancy on the Supreme Court. A move that would only serve to weaken the President.

There have been a number of times in the past, when I found Bill Kristol to be less than favorable in his rhetoric regarding conservatives, and in particular the Bush Administration, so there was no surprise there. I was a little surprised by Charles Krauthammer, and even Rush Limbaugh in their views of this nomination. They along with many other supposedly conservative pundits, were quite eager to immediately express a negative opinion about Harriet Miers, even though they had no personal knowledge of the woman, or her qualifications. They only knew that she was not one of the anticipated judicial candidates, therefore she must not be qualified to sit on the Supreme Court.

If these pundits know the US Constitution as well as they say they do, they should also know, that it does not state that specific qualifications are required for a position on the court. Nor does it state, that a judge must be promoted from within the ranks of current practicing lower court judges, as a prize for previous service. Just as any child born in the US, should be able to rise to the office of the President, so should any US citizen be entitled to be a member of Congress, or to sit on the Supreme Court.

If promoting from within the ranks was an absolute for government positions, many more US Senators should have been elected President. They are not, however, because they usually have a paper trail a mile long that speaks volumes. Senators have been elected to do the work of their constituents, not to campaign for the Presidency. Lower court judges are there to perform a necessary job to the best of their ability, not to campaign for a seat on the Supreme Court.

The Democrats in the Senate, and in particular the "Gang of Fourteen," led by none other than RINO Senator, John McCain, have made it impossible for the President to be above board in his nominations. The Democrats are looking for the smallest excuse to filibuster the nominees, and since John McCain pulled the rug out from under the President previously, can he be counted on now to do otherwise?

This is not the time for the "Nuclear Option" in the Senate, we do not have the necessary 60 votes to break a filibuster. Sandra Day O'Conner needs to be replaced as quickly as possible, before she has another opportunity to be the liberal swing vote on an important issue.

Harriet Miers has been called George Bush's cleaning woman, described as a childless blank slate, and denigrated for having never married. I cannot imagine anyone saying those things about a man in the same position, but yet we are not supposed to notice that she is being treated in a sexist manner by some.

She has been criticized for having had several strong men, who played important roles in her life, however, if she were a man, people would say that he had several important mentors, who helped advance his career. You know, haha, just that old boys club tradition.

If Harriet Miers knew early on that her desire for career advancement would not be conducive to marriage and children, then I commend her for not having imposed an unhappy life, or broken home on a husband and children.

I too have put my heart and soul into many past local and national elections, in an effort to put the Supreme Court back on the right track, even to the detriment of some of my own personal relationships with family and friends.

I sincerely wish that we were not facing the current situation with a candidate that we know so little about, but, I also see this situation as one that was created by the Senate Democrats, McCain and the Gang of Fourteen, not by President Bush, or Harriet Miers.

I plan to watch the Senate Judicial hearings very closely, and then decide for myself, if she is able to handle the duress of the "Inquisition," that she will surely be subjected to at that time. Then and only then will I contact my US Senators, with my view on how I would like to see them vote.

In the meantime, I will be praying that the God who once lived at the heart and soul of this country, will once again look with favor upon us, and bless us with a Supreme Court that will protect his name in our daily life, and our rights to live the life envisioned by our founding fathers.

3 Comments:

At 5:32 PM, Blogger Aussiegirl said...

Good to see you've come out with all guns blazing, Bonnie -- an honest airing of conservative differences is always a beneficial thing.

I was wondering when I'd smoke you out!!

 
At 6:03 PM, Blogger Timothy Birdnow said...

Good post, Bonnie (although I don`t necessarily agree.)

It`s true that the conservatives have turned against Miss Miers without her having given any reason to dislike her. But that is the whole point; the President and Miss Miers are the ones who have to make their case to US, not the other way around. Virtually every time we have been treated to this kind of a nomination we have gotten the shaft. Consider Earl Warren, Warren Burger, Harry Blackmun, Sandra Dee, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, etc. We simply can`t afford a woman who is well liked by the democrats and has no proof that she won`t join them in the future. It`s nothing personal against Harriet-it`s a matter of political fortunes. We can`t afford another gamble. (We`re already gambling on Roberts.)

This President OWED us a nominee who fit the bill; instead he put a personal friend up, and tells us we have to trust him. The problem is that our trust has been abused in the past, by both W. and his father. This is too important to be making a leap of faith-we need proof! We had several perfectly acceptable candidates, but Bush throws this out to avoid a fight. If he`d had the courage to fight over the LAST seat he wouldn`t have needed another stealth candidate.

That said, your point is well taken, and you made it superbly!

 
At 6:35 PM, Blogger BonnieBlueFlag said...

Tim, I understand exactly what you are saying concerning this being a roll of the dice (Roberts too), and I am not happy about that either.

Yes, Bush did owe us a conservative constitutionalist nomination to the court! At this point I can only hope that he has delivered on that promise, with someone who can get through the confirmation process. But I do not see how a "known" conservative can be confirmed by this Senate, and I do not see how a complete shut down of the judicial process will help us at all.

Is there to be one and maybe two vacancies on the court until after the 2006 or 2008 elections, when we may actually lose ground in the Senate?

Again, hopefully, Harriet Miers will prove herself to us during the hearings, but in the meantime, I hate to see us become the party that eats its own.

By the way, Aussiegirl, give me a few minutes with Harriet, and I'll be able to teach her how to hit what she is aiming at with that pistol.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home