Update: Yep, disappointment reigns in the conservative blogosphere, especially at Powerline, where Paul writes:
I was hoping that, because this is Bush's second term, he would thumb his nose at the diversity-mongers and appoint the best candidate. He thumbed his nose all right, but at conservatives.They rightly agree that she might have an originalist judicial philosophy, but we don't know that. Right now, it seems she was picked because a) she's a woman and b) she is a Bush insider. Hugely disappointing - I find it harder to defend this President with every new decision.
It's not all long faces though - Hugh Hewitt sees a silver lining, but I think it's pretty thin. He says that Bush's pick was primarily about the GWOT and the current political climate - I think that's a ridiculous criteria for selecting SCOTUS justices. You should never nominate someone to a position like that based on a single issue. He also says:
As I wrote last night, Judges Luttig and McConnell are the most qualified nominees out there, but I think from the start that the president must have decided that this seat would be given to a woman, and it is very hard to argue that she is not the most qualified woman to be on the SCOTUS for the simple reason that she has been in the White House for many years.I think that's BS. You should nominate the most qualified person regardless - that's what a conservative would do. And why does "being in the White House for many years" qualify anybody for the SCOTUS? Does that mean Hillary's eight years as a de facto White House counsel qualify her for the SCOTUS more than, say, Janice Rogers Brown, who has none?
4 comments:
Hmm... I'll have to reserve judgment at the moment. I do think some folks on the right aren't giving her enough credit.
Similarly, although slightly naive, I would trust the SCOTUS position to some of you all on the Techie blog list..., simply because I've known you long enough to know that your hearts and minds are aligned and your backgrounds are ethically sound. You would respect the Constitution as THE reference document that it is. In my mind, that's all that is necessary. I actually agree with Chuck Schumer on this, that because she doesn't have judicial experience can actually be a good thing.
We'll see...
I'm not withholding judgment. I think Bush seriously screwed up. He just set the Repubs up for a serious thunking in '06 - I can't tell you how many conservatives feel like I do (just listen to Rush today, he could barely control the deluge). The worst part is the MSM will spin our thwacking in '06 as a victory of America over the 'extremist right-wing policies of Bush' when in fact it was that he wasn't right wing enough.
I don't know if I have enough faith in him to trust him. We fought hard for his victory in '04. This issue of changing SCOTUS was probably number 2 on everyone's list after the GWOT. We were aching for the fight that a Brown, Luttig, Owen, or McConnell nomination would bring. Instead we get the shaft. The worst part is not only will she be opposed by the left but is facing an assault from the right. If she's defeated, who's he going to send up?
I'll keep my fingers crossed that she's a strict constructionist, but I'm not holding my breath. We've been screwed too many times in the past.
I have no idea what to think. Basically I am despondent over the choice for two main reasons. First, I don't believe that the supreme court is an entry level position in constitutional law and second because it reeks of cronyism. Perhaps it's because, going to assumed and given reasons, I had my hopes up for different candidates. Miguel Estrada as a non-judge (but he should be) and Janice Rogers Brown if the pick was to be a woman. Both are incredibly intelligent and have the wit to match Justice Scalia, who could want anything more? I supose at best I am ambivalent about what has transpired and therefore will be paying a great deal of attention to the hearings before I talk myself into thinking this a wise choice.
For now I'm in the "are you kidding me?" but I'll withhold judgment until we see her colors camp. I don't expect the confirmation hearings to be worth anything though. All they're likely to be is a bunch of litmus tests. I wonder if anyone will even use the word "constructionalist", or phrase "original meaning". Here's hoping Bush is really being an "evil genius" on this one.
Post a Comment