R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.’s commentary on conservative opposition to Harriet Miers’s nomination to the Supreme Court is both disappointing and disingenuous. It’s disappointing that a person as astute as Mr. Tyrrell would suggest that the controversy surrounding Miers’s nomination is actuated by “boredom” rather than the deeply felt beliefs of conservative voters, who reasonably foresee that Miers is unlikely to move the Court away from its present liberal activist position on many issues that are vitally important to them. President Bush has an opportunity — indeed, an obligation — to change the political balance on the Court, and conservative voters rightly have no confidence that his choice of Miers will fulfill this goal.
Mr. Tyrrell also is being disingenuous by suggesting that the only relevant criteria for a Supreme Court nominee are whether the person has a “proven facility with the law” and personal integrity. Surely, Mr. Tyrrell would object if President Bush nominated someone like Ruth Bader Ginsburg or John Paul Stevens to the Court. Yet these justices plainly have a “proven facility with the law” as well as personal integrity.
Moreover, when Mr. Tyrrell states that “we have all argued that a justice’s personal beliefs are not relevant,” he must be referring to something other than a justice’s (or potential justice’s) personal beliefs about the nature of judicial review, how to determine the meaning of the Constitution, how much weight should be given to precedents that one believes were wrongly decided, etc. Of course a justice’s personal beliefs matter. How could they not? And all the available evidence suggests that Harriet Miers’s personal beliefs are more in accord with Sandra Day O’Connor’s than Clarence Thomas’ or Antonin Scalia’s.p>The Miers nomination is a disaster in the making — for the President, for the Republican Party, and for the conservative movement. Thankfully, many conservatives are saying so openly and working to defeat the nomination, one way or another. And it has nothing to do with “boredom” or a “yearning for excitement.” br> — Steven M. Warshawsky br> New York City, New York /p>
With all due respect to Mr. Tyrrell, where he misses the point is that the Harriet Miers nomination was more of a bone thrown to the left (i.e., can’t we all just get along?). What the president failed to recognize is that America needs the Supreme Court nomination battle. Conservatives need the open forum battleground to demonstrate why strict Constitutionalists are needed on the Supreme Court. What better opportunity is there than here and now? President Bush took away that opportunity in a moment of weakness and passivity (in my opinion).
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?