I haven't weighed in yet with my views on President Bush's nomination for the supreme court. I've had my opinions (naturally), I just haven't voiced them here. I didn't want to jump the gun or post information without supporting data and more information, and I just didn't have the information.

However, this week's Christian Views Symposium is going to force my hand. The questions this week are:

1. Are you dissappointed in this selection? Why or why not?
2. Was this selection a brilliant move or a gutless capitulation to the Democrats? Why or why not?
3. Does this appear to be a lack of leadership on the part of President Bush?
4. If you are not happy with the Miers pick, who would have been your choice?

Each week, the Christian Views Symposium posts a question for readers to answer. You can answer on your own blog or in the comments section of the question posting. The questions are open to everyone, not just Christians. Feel free to join in!

Also, Lennie is looking for future hosts for the Symposium. If you're interested in hosting, head on over and let him know.

Well, here goes nothing.

1. Are you disappointed in this selection? Why or why not?

Now bear with me before you label me as wacko-right-wing conservative (too late?) -- I'm not saying anything about Miers. I don't know anything about Miers, so I can't say she's liberal or conservative. I'm not disappointed in Miers. I'm disappointed in Bush.

Now Bush is NOT a conservative. So it's only logical that he wouldn't nominate a conservative judge. However, these terms are also all relative.

Bush if NOT a conservative in the traditional, political sense of the word. In my view, a conservative is one who is both socially and fiscally conservative. It is a person who wants to reduce government, government services, and taxation. They want the government to do less, not more.

This is NOT Bush, nor the Republican Congress.

Now when it comes to judges, when people refer to a conservative judge, quite often that is synonymous with constitutionalist. So conservative, when applied to a judge, is one who will not "read into" laws and will not create laws from the bench.

A conservative judge is one who reads the Constitution and applies the Constitution words and original intent of the authors of the Constitution, no matter what liberals want, nor what other countries think of it or them.

A truly conservative judge would rule most often for states' rights and freedom and would understand the concept and idea of federalism and that the federal government's powers are VERY narrow and very specifically defined.

So, Bush is not politically conservative. I have no idea if Miers is judicially conservative or not.

However, by Bush making this appointment like this, it shows that he is not interested in pleasing his politically conservative base. It appears that Bush is not interested in fighting publicly for his personal nominations.

If Miers IS judicially or politically conservative, this shows that Bush thinks conservatives are OK, but we've got to keep that fact hidden -- we can't be openly conservative, we can only be conservative if we hide that fact from the world.

How will Miers turn out? No one has any clue. No one.

2. Was this selection a brilliant move or a gutless capitulation to the Democrats? Why or why not?

Certainly this pick was made for personal reasons and to avoid any sort of fight in the Senate. If she's a conservative judge, that's a good thing. If she turns out to be far-wacko left, then it's bad. Either way, it was done to avoid a fight. Only time will tell if it was brilliant.

3. Does this appear to be a lack of leadership on the part of President Bush?

Of course, Bush may not want to fight because he's got such a weak team in the Senate Republicans. Again, those people are NOT conservatives. The National Republican Party is NOT conservative. Please do not confuse "Republican" with "Conservative" -- they are not the same.

4. If you are not happy with the Miers pick, who would have been your choice?

Thanks for asking, Lennie!

Posted by: Ogre at 11:02 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 829 words, total size 5 kb.

1 There is just no accounting for good taste. I haven't weighed in on the nomination either, but feel she will end up mirroring Justice O'Conner.

Posted by: oddybobo at October 05, 2005 01:39 PM (6Gm0j)

2 I just don't know what to think about her. I just don't like the way Bush did it. Maybe it was a brilliant move, but we're not going to know for years.

Posted by: Ogre at October 05, 2005 01:48 PM (/k+l4)

3 Ogre - To me, being a conservative means having principes. We don't all agree on a particular issue, but we do act and respond in a principled way. Miers was a political choice. Clements or Brown would have mirrored what are reputed to be her views, but have both appellate records, and published thoughts. Miers has neither. The media has been reduced to looking for old City Council records to divine how she thinks. We have THREE MORE YEARS. Why not choose the stellar, best-qualified candidate NOW when there is still time to fight? If this were 2007, and Stevens had died, I'd be more sympathetic to a 'quick and dirty' nominee. But NOW? Mosey over to my blog - I've written quite a bit more on this.

Posted by: Peter Porcupine at October 05, 2005 03:01 PM (8DsKX)

4 I think being a conservative not only means that you have principles, but that they are specific principles. Stalin and Pol Pot had principles, too. I agree generally with what you've said -- I'm not opposed to Miers, as I don't know anything about her. I'm opposed to the way Bush did this, making it look like conservatives are to be shunned in public and cannot be known.

Posted by: Ogre at October 05, 2005 03:07 PM (/k+l4)

5 Ogre, you hit the nail on the head! I posted on my own blog about how Bush has essentially betrayed his conservative following with this nomination. She could turn out to be a Thomas or Reinquist...or conversely she could turn out to be a Souter or Ginsburg. As far as your comments on the difference between conservative (or Constitutionalist) judges and far left whacko judges, I think you're right on! I'm done with the GOP and with Bush unless they pick a fantastic candidate in 2008 my vote won't go towards the GOP (and of course I'd never vote Democrat). Great post my friend!

Posted by: Everyman at October 05, 2005 05:29 PM (A/oHQ)

6 I'm not abandoning Republicans, but at the same time, I'm not blindly supporting them. I'd like to find some conservatives to support, but the Republican Party is doing like the Democrat party -- it's wandering away and leaving me. And I don't think even Clinton could find a better way to divide Republicans. The best thing is the timing on this one -- the Republicans have a year to do something to unite Republicans before the next mid-term elections and 3 years to unite us before the next presidential.

Posted by: Ogre at October 05, 2005 05:48 PM (iJFc9)

Hide Comments | Add Comment