The American Spectator

Reader Mail

(Page 6 of 14)

National Review 's new editorial calling on Ms. Miers to withdraw from consideration? In the absence of compelling empirical evidence to the contrary (i.e. an actual paper record to consider), I was pleased to note NRO's steadfast commitment to core conservative principles. The "Trust Me" argument is no more compelling when it comes from a speech writer than when it comes from the President, particularly when one considers the large number of people that were so confident in their appraisals of O'Connor and Souter during their respective confirmation hearings. Party should not come before principle when core values are at stake, and ensuring that the Supreme Court returns to an era of unambiguous and incisive decision making grounded in consideration of the Constitution's actual text is too important to trust to gut instincts. It is the President that is tearing the party apart by shattering straightforward campaign promises, not the base for expecting him to be true to his word. I for one have stood by President Bush even as he expanded federal entitlement programs and began spending like LBJ, but conservatives should not cave on this issue as well. No amount of political pressure is worth a guilty conscience -- least of all pressure borne out of blind party allegiance. br> -- Jay Sexton /p> p> Conservatives and libertarians expected one thing of George W. Bush: to end the stalemate on the U.S. Supreme Court. With Roberts and Miers the stalemate will persist (perhaps even tilt more leftward). Bush has sold out the people that put him in office. This is unexcusable. br> -- Christopher Orlet br> Columbia, Illinois /p> p> DEFENDING HOGWARTS br> Re: David Haddon's Child-on-Child Crime :

topics:
Taxes, Bill Clinton, Federal Budget, Social Security, Books, Constitution, Law, Supreme Court, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Conservatism, Energy, Oil