The Coalition of The Chillin'
Patrick's logo, borrowed with permission.
Patrick Ruffini has started up a movement encouraging conservatives to "chill" about the Miers nomination. Here's where you can join, if you wish, and read up on the reasons why GWB deserves support on this one.
It looks to me like conservative views break down into these two camps:
- Miers will be a reliable Scalia-Thomas conservative vote on the Court, so we have what we really want; why complain? This is pretty much the view of the Coalition of the Chillin'. (See Hugh Hewitt, who is this camp's champion.)
- Yes, Miers may vote correctly, but she's not going to add star power to conservative Constitutional jurisprudence at the Supreme Court level. (See Power Line, who exemplifies the views of this camp.)
posted by Lowell Brown at 11:23 AM
|
3 Comments:
I wish I could agree. I guess I'm in a third camp that still has concerns about whether Ms. Meirs can even be counted on to "vote correctly" (whatever that may mean). Not that I think she could be another Souter--in the sense of being such an unknown that no one even suspected that he'd become the uber-leftist of this Court, and particularly hostile to religion (surprisingly even more so than Breyer, from my perspective). Rather, I wonder about how well-developed her judicial and constitutional philosophy actually is. I would even be willing to chill if the circumstance were not so critical. A corporate lawyer, without judicial experience (which, IMO, tends to create certain views about "doing justice" as opposed to "applying the law"), could be a great addition to the Court.
What President Bush faces--and, from my fever-brained viewpoint at least, has been willing to potentially squander for expediency's sake--is an opportunity to decisively reverse the drift of the U.S. Supreme Court and its jurisprudence and place it on solid principles dedicated to applying the law as opposed to creating it (often out of whole cloth). Moreover, that was a promise he campaigned on. President Bush's nomination of Ms. Meirs may well turn out a stroke of genius and the anxious and disappointed among us may well later acknowledge that fact. However, expecting "the base" to take it all on faith now is a bit too much to take.
There are reasons that the Democrats seem to be relishing this nomination--most notably because they seem to recognize that this nomination arose because of weakness on the part of the administration.
On the other hand, in case you haven't seen it, The American Thinker has an interesting view (supportive of those who are on the "chillin'" side of this divide. I think it unfairly characterizes the motives of those who aren't comfortable with the Meirs nomination, but there are certainly enough examples of the type. It at least forced me to contemplate why I still have such misgivings.
Posted by BlueBuffoon
Though an evangelical Christian, I still threw a rather undignified hissy-fit on Monday. But since then, I've heard from James Dobson and Miers' minister, and in both cases have been reassured.
I don't buy into the need for another constitutional "genius" on the court. You don't even need to be a lawyer to read the Constitution and understand it. The nature of Harriet Miers' heart and motivations are the real concern.
George Bush knows her heart. The decision has been made. Did he choose the best?
I think its time for conservatives to choose the best course of action... and that is to get off our soap boxes and support this nomination. Its the smart thing to do.
I pray for this president every morning. This is where the faith part comes in.
Posted by Chris Malott
As there is no judicial record to use to determine Miers' temperament, all we can do is wait, watch, and have faith in our President. We may be disappointed. We may be thrilled. Either way we will not know until time has passed and Miers has been given the opportunity to demonstrate why President Bush has such faith in her.
Posted by Mark
Post a Comment
<< Home