WHAT TO DO ABOUT MIERS

It goes without saying that for most Republicans the Miers nomination appears to be a huge, huge mistake. The first major problem is that she was a Democrat until at least 1988. That alone is enough to cause major heart attacks among Republicans. My God! She became a Republican, seemingly, as her career became associated with Bush and the Republicans in Texas; not for ideological reasons. Her career is about her career, not about ideology, while the Supreme Court is about only ideology. How can her ideological purity possibly be trusted.

Second, even if she is now and remains an ideological Republican long after Bush has left Washington (something about which no one can be at all comfortable given the opportunistic nature of her conversion), those who know her and those who look through her career see primarily a career oriented person; not someone who will bravely and intellectually stand up for Republican ideals against forceful liberals on and off the Court. More committed Republican Justices than her have folded in the past under the intense liberal professional and social pressure of Washington.

Here is what the LA Times said about her malleable political philosophy: A prominent Dallas Democrat, former state Rep. Steven D. Wolens, said Miers was never known as a party activist on either side. "I don't remember her being of any party until Bush made her a celebrity when he became governor," he said. "When she was on the City Council, we had no reason to think of her as being either a Republican or a Democrat." The Dallas City Council, on which Miers served one term from 1989 to 1991, is officially nonpartisan.

The Supreme Court is a wonderful bully pulpit where logical, well written, very ideological decisions can be read for eternity by Constitutional scholars and Constitutional law students who in theory may be open to a logic they have not seen or fully considered before. Miers apparently has absolutely no Constitutional experience and not one discernible Constitutional opinion despite a 35 year career in law? With Miers, this once in a life time opportunity to have a brilliant forceful Republican ideologue on the Court is lost. Come on, the Republicans have a 55 seat majority on the Senate; there may never be a better time to appoint another Scalia or Thomas to the Court.

The only hope is for Republicans to unite to urge Bush and Miers to withdraw the nomination. You hear many Republican screaming frenetically about the nomination but not proposing a strategy? Why are they wasting their breath? If Republicans united against Bush he would have to balance the slight embarrassment of withdrawing his nomination against the loss of the ideological base of his party. As a lame duck President he is very free to withdraw the nomination knowing that doing so would undoubtedly reflect positively on his Party for decades to come. It was one thing to support Bush on an ever expanding liberal Federal Budget, and a mismanaged war, but now he is asking us to roll over on the social issues too. They at least should have been sacrosanct. Enough is enough. The nomination must be withdrawn.

If the nomination gets to a vote in the Senate at least some Republicans will vote for her. Most of the Democrats will vote for her too, no matter matter how well or how badly she does from here forward, knowing that a rejection would most likely result in the nomination of someone in the saintly mold of Scalia. Therefore, asking Bush and Miers to find the courage to withdraw the nomination now, is the only possible option. This is especially so given that the bludgeoning she has already endured at the hands of Republicans may not encourage her loyalty to Republicans or Republican ideals.

For those who don't know the issue here is a very short summary: real Jeffersonian Republican conservatives want a smaller federal gov't more like the one our Framers gave us through the Constitution, such that power would reside more in the hands of the people and their elected representatives rather than in the hands of a 9 person, appointed for life, super legislature, i.e., The Supreme Court. Abortion , for example, would be decided by the people through their duly elected individual State governments rather than by 9 liberal dictators in Washington.

Democrats are opposed to this most basic of American principles because, quite simply, they are not smart enough to understand the value of freedom from gov't. For them, subverting the meaningless Constitution by using the Supreme Court as a super legislature with which to enact their perceptual, random, liberal agenda is very acceptable.

comments bje1000@aol.com
Ted Baiamonte
Click here: The Dumb Democrat ff