Read this

Written by Jack O'Reilly on October 4th, 2005

If you haven’t read this article via Drudge from the American Thinker, then you should. I think he makes some excellent points about how conservatives wanted a fight. But maybe a fight would have done more than merely satisfied our appetites.

On one hand, if Bush had put up a known constitutionalist, it could have been turned into a campaign issue that would have energized voters. But if our RINO brethren had been complicit in his or her downfall, we may very likely have seen a conservative demoralization not known since the days of Souter and new taxes. Perhaps the hypothetical party purge that would ensue would have been good for conservatives in the long run, but judicial conservatism would have been dealt another 20 year blow.

His optimism of a third (or possibly 4th) Supreme Court nominee is perhaps the best justification for the Miers nomination. It is now the autumn of 2005 and Bush has nominated 2 people to SCOTUS. Who knows what chances he will encounter by the autumn of 2008. It is reasonable to assume that the 85 year-old Stevens would have held out until his death to retire if Bush had nominated a known judicial conservative.

This may have disarmed our old pal Stevens, and we can only hope and pray that we will be able to wish him a happy 88th birthday, addressing him as a former Supreme Court Justice.

4 Comments so far ↓

  1. Oct
    4
    1:40
    PM
    Mark Harris

    That’s one mighty, mighty, mighty big gamble.

  2. Oct
    4
    2:14
    PM
    Andrew

    Yeah, I’m sorry, but we need to collectively “get real”. Bush had his chance, and blew it. The next SCOTUS nominee is going to be sent up by President Hillary Clinton, mark my words.

  3. Oct
    4
    5:12
    PM
    Sentinel

    maybe President McCain.

    I wonder what sort of judges he would appoint.

  4. Oct
    4
    5:45
    PM
    Mike

    “Rather than extend any benefit of the doubt to the President’s White House lawyer and counselor, some take her lack of a paper trail and a history of vocal judicial conservatism as a sign that she may be an incipient Souter.”

    Ummm . . . Reagan even had a blunder. So no, I will not “trust Bush”, because the guy can’t be trusted. He has broken more promises than I can count. Does anyone remember this one: “I will withdraw our troops from the Balkans.” Did that ever happen? Of course not! And who the fuck remembers anyway right? Gimme a break, I will not trust Bush. This pick doesn’t measure up. Why? Because anyone who would give money to Gore is a shithead, someone who can’t be trusted. She has come out in favor of the ICC have jurisdiction over the United States that alone means she cannot, under any circumstances become a Supreme Court Justice. The Party Establishment hates it when the peons rebel, and they will use every single arguement that they can muster to bring us into line. They will appeal to our loyalty, they will threaten us with being on the outside looking in once the ship is righted again, they will hint that we ourselves are merely playing politics and this opposition isn’t based on belief but on scoring points against Bush. All bullshit of course.

Spruce up your comments with
<a href="" title=""><abbr title=""><acronym title=""><b><blockquote cite=""><cite><code><del datetime=""><em><i><q cite=""><strike><strong>
New comments are moderated before being shown * = required field

Leave a Comment