Redstate

If Roberts and Miers vote to uphold Roe v. Wade at least I won't be the only one who will never vote GOP again - I suspect GWB knew that when he nominated her.

... but I see this all the time. It's "hear, hear!"

While I agree that the core principles of the GOP seem to have been diminished by the elected, there are still the folks out there like you, and I, and millions others who hope for a better future.  A flat tax, roe free, federalist future.  And even thought the present group of "conservatives" in office aren't eye to eye with that vision, who else?  Would you vote democrat out of spite, knowing that they are the antithesis of everything you believe?  I can't, in good concience.  I just plug away and cast my vote toward the candidate that I feel will come the closest to the conservative ideal. What more can you do?

I won't vote for the Dems.  I won't send my money to the GOP, though, and I might stay home and let the rest of country elect the government it deserves.

I've also been a Republican since the early 1980s.  And the Miers nomination is just a bridge too far.  This is the Supreme Court we're talking about.  I am a conservative first and a Republican second - and what's good for George Bush in the short term is not necessarily good for conservatives or Republicans in the long term.

Even if Miers is another Scalia in terms of conservatism - which we have absolutely no assurance of; she could be another Souter - she's pushing 61 years old.  We need someone a lot younger who will be on the court for several decades.  Roberts was 50, which is a good age.  I'd even prefer someone younger.

It's very important to note that we can't afford to be static like the African American vote. Not only do there votes not matter to the Dems, but the rest of the country sees them as the party fools (i.e. with Kanye West's comment that Bush hates black people). We can't allow the pro-life movement to become that or be viewed that way. We claimed credit for the 2004 election victories, now if Miers doesn't prove herself before next year then we will prove we really were responsible for those elections. At least we have the advantage of this not being a senate AND Presidential election like 1992 when the party split and we got Ginsberg and Breyer.

And I can't drop out of life in good conscience, either.  I still think voting is a civic duty, and I will vote for the person who mostly resembles my personal Ideals.  And for the most part, that is a republican party vote.

The Paranoid Style in American Politics

By Richard Hofstadter†

Harper's Magazine, November 1964, pp. 77-86.

On the paranoid tendency of American Politics:

"But certain religious traditions, certain social structures and national inheritances, certain historical catastrophes or frustrations may be conducive to the release of such psychic energies, and to situations in which they can more readily be built into mass movements or political parties. In American experience ethnic and religious conflict have plainly been a major focus for militant and suspicious minds of this sort, but class conflicts also can mobilize such energies. Perhaps the central situation conducive to the diffusion of the PARANOID TENDENCY is a confrontation of opposed interests which are (or are felt to be) totally irreconcilable, and thus by nature not susceptible to the normal political processes of bargain and compromise.  The situation becomes worse when the representatives of a particular social interest -- perhaps because of the very unrealistic and unrealizable nature of its demands -- are shut out of the political process.  Having no access to political bargaining or the making of decisions, they find their original conception that the world of power is sinister and malicious fully confirmed."

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/conspiracy_theory/the_paranoid_mentality/The_p
aranoid_style.html

I cannont believe we could have been more critical of a KERRY nominee?  The conservative 'voice' is a strong one and will continue to be strong, this outraged reaction to the POTUS nominee is ultimately harmful to the conservative cause.  I don't like the Bush spending habits, but cannot be a ONE ISSUE voter.  This is a political process.  We have elections in 2006, why are we polarizing our own community?

complicated about supporting candidates local or otherwise based on whether or not they actually support your views. Neither party functions as an all or nothing proposition. To the contrary, to pretend it is as such only results in stagnation.

Though I'm on record here (repeatedly) defending Miers's nomination, I am with you on this.  If Roberts and/or Miers and up squishing, I'll take a little hiatus from GOP politicking for a while.  Actually, the bar is probably higher for Miers, since there would simply be no excuse for not knowing her views on the Constitution.

As I've said before, I really do believe deep down that this is a brilliant Rovian plot, that he saw Miers on Harry Reid's "acceptable" list and thought "are you kidding me?"  I find this believable because I personally don't believe that Harry Reid is the brightest bulb that ever lit.  Then again, maybe the hubris at 1600 Pennsylvania is such that they really think they can maintain power with more Souters on the bench.  Who knows.  I guess those last two words get to the essence of your complaint, though.

... to spite one's face.

Not voting, or not voting for Republicans, means the other guys win. You really want to turn this country over to the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, et al? And a  viable third party is a very, very rare thing in American politics. A winning third party is even more rare.

I have always voted for the person not the party but since too long ago to dwell on that person has generally been a Republican. There have been a few Democrats here and there but at the local and state level. And listening to the madness emanating from the national Democrats, not just the moonbats but the mainstream Democrats, I see no hope that there will be anything approaching a rational Democrat in the near future.

Don't hand them a victory.

Re: It was Bush who chanced breaking the base when the chance to change the Court for decades was finally at stake.

As I have said on another thread  I really do think that President Bush and his chief advisors thought they were giving the SoCon base exactly what they wanted: a (confirmable) evangelical Christian justice who will (to a high degree if probability) vote against the abortion right, and against any judical imposition of gay marriage. I suspect they are actually puzzled at the uproar, and may become quite angry at it.

How depressing. Do you want to take your football and go home.  Lets take your threat of tepid support and staying home on voting day to its conclusion. John Kerry would be President today and we would have 2 Ginsburgs or Breyers added to the court. I would say Roberts and Meirs are a huge improvement over what Kerry would have nominated. We would be looking a tax increases due to Katrina. We would have cut and run from Iraq and maybe Afghanistan. We would have seen even more pork in the transportation bill. The energy bill would look completely different.  The Social Security reform debate would have never started. We would instead be debating universal healthcare. Are you sure you want to stay home.    

You articulate you feelings and position very well.

With any Party there will be shortcomings.  In this case I feel that you are being to harsh.  The Republican Party is the best thing we Conservative and pro-life people have going for us.  Although not perfect, it is better than the alternative.

I still have faith that President Bush has picked someone that will deliver for us the victories that we are seeking.  However, only time will tell.

We can debate this issue till the sun goes down, but it will not change anything that has been done.  This nominee will be confirmed and I have a good feeling about her.

So what if we are disappointed, are we quitters, or do we keep up the good fight.  If we have faith then we will prevail.

I am still a loyal Republican.

What do you make of the nasty rumors I hear about Miers' connection to Gloria Steinem? I can't be the only one who sees that as a huge warning sign, can I?

The solution isn't less involvement, it's more.

Not voting is surrendering to the Democrats. Those who are so disheartened with the party should be getting MORE involved as a result, not less. Change from within and all that.

It's confusing to see people say that the party is drifting away from them and hope to resolve it by quitting it. That's simply counter-logical, counter-productive, contrarian, petulant ... I don't know, something not good.

The answer is not to depart. It's not to shut up and take it. The clear and obvious solution is be more republican. Vote more, donate more, but above all, get inside and be heard.

There's a great place I've discovered where one can do just that, where you can literally be heard all the way to the upper echelons of the party. It's a website, it's called Redstate. Y'all heard of it?

It looks like it is time for you to hope and pray that Miers delivers what we want. I think it is important to consider that just as trust is a central theme for so many of the posters here in the evaluation of GWB's decison, they should likewise grant that it was the central theme in the decision that GWB made.  If so, she obviously earned a level of trust that he would have had to bestow on any other nominee.  

However, I am hopeful that Miers is the solid vote Bush claims she is.  The way I see it, I will continue to hope and support the President on this issue, unless Miers shows she is not a legal conservative.  Then... I don't know what I'll do.

You see, I'm a Gingrich Republican.  I became a Republican for two reasons:

1. The Contract with America expressed my political goals and I was astonished that Republicans were willing to give more than lip service.
   
2. They kept their word.  Even when the Contract was no longer popular, they still kept their word.  I was flabbergasted!

These things earned alot of support for the Republican party from me.  If this nomination goes bad...  I would like to hope that those embers of conservatism within the Republican party can be fanned back into a flame.  Such a path is still more likely to be succesful at achieving our goals than a third party.

We might need to find ourselves another Goldwater though. "A choice, not an echo"

I'm not sure that getting more extreme is going to be the right way to deal with it; that'll just lead to splitting, specialized factions that can't agree on which of a dozen causes they should push for. And that hasn't worked for the Dems, has it?

After the re-election, it was hysterical to see how many of them had their spirits crushed. Now they've tried going more extreme, and they're only wasting their efforts by focusing on one cause to the exclusion of all others.

Well, the ones who haven't given up on politics in despair or fled the country like traitors.

If anything, I would say we have more to worry about regarding your first two tenets than about the third.  Especially if you lump Harriet Miers into the third, because we simply don't know if she will be a step forward or backward for Republicanism.  The concerns about her are (mostly) all well-reasoned and based in sound understanding of judicial politics (an oxymoron, I know)...but as I said, we just don't know.

As for everything else, you're certainly right on.  And I think the best first step, aside from going back to the minority (which one can argue actually made the GOP more effective and true to its tenets), is to be outspoken about our concerns.  So thanks for getting the ball rolling.

while Kerry indeed would have attempted to make some liberal picks, they would never have been confirmed (I would hope).  But more importantly, I would much rather pay for Katrina with tax increases (actual money) than selling more debt, and pulling out of Iraq (or at least dramatically scaling down our operations) is necessary for both the budget and the lives of our soldiers who are no longer fighting a targetable enemy, but acting as a very expensive police force.  Finally, I doubt you could have shoved more prok into the transportation bill (both sides got it anyways) and the energy bill was a joke that did nothing to improve our long term energy independence.  

Oh, one more, if healthcare costs keep inflating by 10%+ each year, universal healthcare is all but inevitable, as the voters will demand it once they cannot afford it or have to choose between healthcare and stuff.

Where is this "more extreme" coming from?

there are a lot of Republican voters who, while not exactly pro-choice, do not vote abortion first and all else second.  I am a fiscal conservative from Ohio (and have many friends and family who are the same) who voted for Bush twice and Dole once and abortion had absolutely no role in my decisions.  Now, unless there is a miraculous turnaround and the Republicans return to their fiscall conservative roots, I will in fact vote Democratic next election (in order to help throw the incumbents out to have a fresh shot again in the next cycle).  As of right now I cannot honestly see how the Democrats could spend anymore money than the R's are.

isnt good enough to put a McConnell, Luttig or Janice Brown on the court....then, what good is it to be the party in Power? if the Miers nomination turns out to be a disaster....we deserve some Wilderness time.  That'd give us enough to rid ourselves of the Specter, Chafees and the two Maine Gals...and comeback stronger.

"We would be looking a tax increases due to Katrina."

As oppossed to an even bigger deficit?

"We would have cut and run from Iraq and maybe Afghanistan."

Your psychic powers would be of great use at Foggy Bottom.

"We would have seen even more pork in the transportation bill."

I don't know, this one was pretty porkilicious.

"The energy bill would look completely different."

How is that a bad thing?

"The Social Security reform debate would have never started."

Right, because bigger issues like Medicare/Medicaid would be keeping everyone busy.

"We would instead be debating universal healthcare."

Do you enjoy double digit percent growth in your healthcare costs every year? I don't.

This type of attitude is the problem... look what each successive elected 'Republican' has done; every one is a little less conservative than the last.  At this point, I suggest that description should be changed to 'a little more liberal than the last'.  No, the solution is not to stay home, but is it to stand by and pick the lesser of two evils?  I shudder that my hope for the Republican party has dropped to so low a level that I am willing to say this, but:  the Republicans and Democrats are not the original parties in our dual party system, maybe "It's time for a change."  The only reason the R's have managed to become more and more RINO is because their supporters haven't had the stomach to pick up their bags and go party shoppin'.  How about the constitution party? I'm not a fan of the libertarian party because of their drug policies, but even that is looking like a better alternative than the RINO's we are offered.

Power Corrupts, and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely. (Lord Acton I believe)  The Republican party needs to either make a commitment to remember its core beliefs (smaller government, respecting life, etc) or we need to leave.  I fully agree with the author of the original post, supra.

I would argue the best thing "W" could have done for the short term was to appoint Janice Rogers Brown. He would have immediately satisfied the base but she would have faced a long confirmation battle that would have halted the other items congress needs to address.  Lets be honest Susan Collins and Chaffee and others would have voted against a Janice Rogers Brown nominee. Then we would have to deal with another nuclear option battle. This would have caused a lot of long term problems.

By appointing Meirs Bush knows he will take some short term heat but he knows it is in the best interest for the Supreme Court and the party for the long term.    

Well said.

And pardon a board newcomer's ignorance:

RINO = ?

get annoying.  They will take their ball and go home.  How childish.

Does it not scare you to think how close we ALL WERE to having John Kerry appointing these TWO replacements?  A Ginsburg and Breyer replay.

Imagine lamenting the impact of our lives on nominees like Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Barak Obama or maybe even BILL CLINTON.  Yet some whine about Roberts and Miers.

Sure, let's just give up and quit.  Thank God our forefathers did not have such little commitment.

Republican In Name Only... they are like the cartoon fox in a sheep skin infiltrating the flock...

If you think the republicans in the Senate would have voted against any Kerry nominees you are in neverland. What was the vote for Ginsburg and Breyer.  The republicans preach about qualifications and vote that way.

...will have the exact same effect on the GOP's continuing electoral dominance as conservatives staying home; ie, gut-shooting it.  I know many here will loathe hearing this, but still: the GOP needs both the conservatives and the moderates.  No moderates, no majority in Congress.  

And if you think that losing that will make no real difference to the status of your key issues, then I suggest you go ask the Democratic base how much they're enjoying their political minority status.  

Just be sure to duck right away.

I just had this "Looney Tunes" flashback.

Wile E. Coyote.

Super Genius.

I dont have a problem with moderates, and yes for a majority you need them (and if you dont believe you need a true majority just take a gander at Germany).  My problem is that the only Republicans to get Elected are RINO's and this is leading to RINO'a being like Miers being appointed.  The other party is there to balance out the majority; we do not need to elect our own representatives to balance out the real Republicans in congress.  RINOs in our party fine, RINOs in office, definitely go home...

there are many more things that are a part of the conservative/republican party.

those thing brought many dems over to vote for reagan, bush and bush2.

there are many in the party that are pro-choice.

why would that one issue, being held up by the court, cause you to stop voting republican.  

who will not plunge the sword into the fat belly of the Living Constitution nonsense are no better than Ginsburg and Breyer.  

The debate over the Constitution IS the whole enchilada.

for one thing, Bush knows Miers pretty well and has worked with her-Bush 41 didn't know Souter at all, and was going on the word of one man.

I think at worse we may be looking at Sandra Day O'Connor-woman with no anchor-part two.

But I have to disagree.  It's not like it's either Miers (unknown, too old) or Janice Rogers Brown (who is genuinely extreme - not in bad way, but she is).  

There are ton of other nominees who are younger and more solid/known than Miers, and who are more confirmable than Janice Rogers Brown.

Pretty much everyone who was being seriously discussed at Redstate prior to the nomination is on that list - McConnell, Luttig, Jones, etc., etc.

Miers is just a horrible choice.  Even if she's a fabulous, reliable conservative, she's still about 10 or 15 years too old.  Clarence Thomas was put on the Court age 43 - he's been there 14 years - and he's still 4 years younger than Miers is today!

I'm sorry to say this, but on this one issue, Bush is being an idiot.  On grounds of age alone, this is not the right nominee.

Anyone who reads my posts/diaries can probably guess that I got mostly C's in English classes, which I did (thankfully in college I didn't have to have 4 years of it). Thomas, an absolutely brilliant piece of work.

Only thing I disagree with is us having 50 votes to 'nuke'.

Interesting one, too: what is the best mix?  Obviously, I would argue that too much polarization is as bad as too little; but too little is likewise as bad as too much.

being pro-choice or pro-life on the issue with Roe, it is about leaving it to the people to decide, not to 9 robed kings.

what was promised is not made grander by the fact that it may have been Kerry doing the picking instead.

Bush made a specific campaign promise, and has basically thumbed his nose at those of us who not only voted for him, but volunteered our time and money to see him reelected.

Personally I don't want to be taken for granted, the person the politicians make pretty speeches to, but don't ever follow through on them.  I would never choose to stay home on election day, but at this point, I won't be volunteering time, money, or even votes.

During Reagan's entire time in office - until 1988 - Miers was making donations to Democrats.  

Her last recorded contribution to a Democratic cause or campaign was in 1988. Ed Gillespie said that she was a "conservative Democrat" at the time.

Is this a freakin' joke?  She was asleep during the entire Reagan revolution - or was giving money to Democrats.  And this is the best person Bush could find?

giving the base what they wanted, but if that is the case, then they haven't been listening to the base.

The base-especially the pro life base hasn't been demanding conservative judicial activism, they have been demanding justices with a judicial philosophy comparable to Thomas, Scalia and Rehnquist.

Maybe they should have done some more listening.

Well, tell them "welcome to the club."  I am boycotting (i.e., not buying a ticket for) the Karl Rove appearance in Dallas in protest of this.  Perhaps I should have gone to ask him what the heck they were thinking and whether he was mad at me.

I am forced to concede that the "But if we lose the other side wins and then woe is us all" argument is growing very, very tired with me.

Let me explain.  I live in this metropolitan area.  It is the Bluest region of the Bluest of the Blue states in the Nation.  Democrats control the State House 5-1 and the State Senate 8-1.  While we have a very high overall tax burden (4th highest according to the Tax Foundation), our state/local tax burden is actually pretty low (32nd highest or 18th lowest, depending on your POV).  (Aside: So where is all that dough going, eh???)  Granted, Massachusetts pols and judges, nearly all liberals, certainly from time to time do some things that make me go high-order.  But really, if taxes and spending are my principal concerns, I have to admit that, even in this overwhelmingly far-left-of-center state, things just ain't all that bad.

True, we've had (nominal) Republicans in the Governor's office for the last 15-years and we also have ballot initiatives, both of which can help keep the legislature "honest".  But really, don't you think that, with a better-than 5-1 majority in the legislature, the Democrats cannot get pretty-much whatever they want?

Point being, I abstractly have very little fear from what would happen if (cue dramatic music) the Other Side of the Big Ditch won.  I've been living it since February 2000 (prior to that, I lived in the state with the latest Tax Freedom Day according to the above link, so Taxachusetts was actually an improvement), and while it's hardly my ideal on most of the things I truly care about it's really not all that bad.  I wouldn't join the Democrats because I believe in almost nothing they claim to hold dear - besides, there has to be an opposition so it may as well be me!

But for Thomas' second leg (inferring the GWOT), I would have left the national party altogether by now.  The fact that the other side has yet to articulate a single, solitary cogent hint of a policy that would not result in abject and suicidal surrender to Jihadistan is the only thing that keeps an "R" in the party registration column next to my name at my local town hall.  Everyone has their Numero Uno - for Thomas it is Roe, for me it is the GWOT.  Having left anything remotely resembling fiscal responsibility at the door years ago, the GWOT is literally the only thing I have left with George Bush and, notables aside, the GOP.

So in short to those of you forwarding this line of so-called reasoning, please understand the "What happens if we lose????" argument is not nearly as persuasive as you may think it is - it in fact falls terribly flat with me.

Besides, blackmail is usually not a very sound electoral victory strategy - at least not for our side.

Cheers.

they haven't even tried to control it, I think the dems most certainly can and would spend more, while at the same time raising taxes.

Just go back and compare the dems suggested programs for things like the medicaid drug benefit to get an idea of just how much more they would spend (keeping in mind that the numbers used during the initial debate and vote were low balled).

I was completely unaware that the Republican Party was organized along hereditary lines.  I'm planning on having children soon: will they be able to rise above their station even though their father was born a Democrat, or will it only be my grandchildren who can so aspire?

Moe

PS: I can't wait to see how your explanation skirts around the inconvenient fact that Ronald Reagan wasn't born into the Republican caste, either.  As he rather famously said one: he didn't leave the Democratic Party, they left him.  Like they apparently left Ms. Miers.  Like they left me, too, although I'm frankly not in either's league.

spending money and attempting to raise taxes to pay for it, or spending money and cutting taxes?  The Republican Party I support(ed) was about not spending my money.

Not voting, or not voting for Republicans, means the other guys win. You really want to turn this country over to the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, et al?

Not to put words in Thomas's mouth, but I'm pretty sure his point is that there's little difference to be had.  And in terms of Roe, he's probably right.

Not to be overly cyncical, but the GOP have  spent 30 years working on getting the base fired up, and it's gotten them great success electorally.

But now, if they actually resolve Roe, the danger is that the base fragments when they move on to other issues, the coalition disintegrates, and they're going to find themselves out of power.

So, it could be said that the GOP has a material interest in keeping the abortion issue unresolved and at the forefront.  Again, I know that's cynical, but I think Thomas has done a fine job illustrating that their behavior fits this theory pretty nicely.

And at any rate, I think the moment has passed.  Who would have thought the day would come when a Republican president feels as plainly uncomfortable taking a public anti-abortion stand as Bush does?  It seems that it's become politically unviable to do so.  He won't even acknowledge that he talked about the issue with Miers.  So what's worse - that he's telling the truth about that, or that he isn't?

If we had 9 McConnell's on the court then President Bush would have been President. Nice selection.

My apologies on typo. As we know McConnell has openly said he thought Bush v Gore was a bad decision. "W" would not have been President.

But blackmailing the party does? Just following the reasoning here.

I say again, I don't understand the compulsion to depart. When the party is representing you less, how is absence going to make it represent you more? That's more like blackmail if you ask me.

I ask you, why is it not the compulsion to make a change through action, rather than inaction? Why boycott silently when you could make a speech out loud?

I saw Judge Hecht who claims to be a close friend of Harriet Meirs and he was asked if she was pro-life and he said she was.

He was also asked a far more important question. Do you consider Meirs to be a strict constuctionist of the constitution and he said I would say she is an originalist.

I hope that is the case.

So far I like what I hear.

Who exactly are the rinos in office?  If you try to elect a polarizing figure, the moderates and rinos will vote dem, and you and your polarizing (but extremely conservative) candidate will be left out in the cold.  You have to have a candidate that appeals to a broad range of people...or you wont have a winner.

Welcome to my world.  I wish I could say that it was comforting to have more company, but frankly I'd rather have a damn good conservative Supreme Court Justice.  

Compromising on the Supreme Court is one compromise too far.  

it's about the entire direction of the Court. And I join him in saying that I will refrain from voting for Republicans as well.

I'm new here and this is my first post, so please forgive me if I'm not totally up on what everyone around here believes or some of the history of this site that this may contradict.

While I am in complete agreement with a lot of people's outrage over Miers, I think some people, both here and nationally, may be over reacting. First, we don't KNOW that Miers is a Souter. Second, there are many key Republicans in the Senate who are not excited about her nomination either. Brownback and Lott come to mind. Others, unless I missed something, who are probably not excited about the nomination are Thune, Santorum, Roberts, Coburne, and many more. The number of Republican senators who are not blindly supporting Bush on this nomination is a lot highter than it would have been had Dole been elected or even in 2003.

I disagree with the conclusion, posted somewhere, that the Republican party keeps getting more and more liberal. Take for example the 2004 senate elections. The Republican party had at least 3 somewhat conservative senators replaced with 5 VERY conservative/Christian senators. Please don't forget this. So we do have McCain, Spector, Snowe, Collins, and Chaffee, but when was the last time one of these was elected as a non-incumbent? All of the 'fresh' blood seems to be MORE conservative that the 'old' seneators. And some of the more interesting prospects for 2006 are also MORE conservative than past Republicans (Kennedy, Harris, Keane, etc.)

And let us not forget that George W. Bush himself, with all his flaws, is much more conservative than the last two (failed) Republican presidential candidates. He also is, or at last has been up till Miers, been a stronger supporter of the pro-life movement than -dare I say it?- Raegan himself!

Lastly, I think it's time that Christian/Federalists/Conservatives in America start opening their eyes to other countries politics before we declare that we can no longer work with the Republican party. Look, for example, what happened when the Christian/Conservative people, a minority to be sure but a substantial and important minority, in England and Candada stopped actively supporting their country's conservative parties. Did the parties get better? Did their countries get better? Far from it. Both countries conservative parties have been in the opposition for several years, though, at least in Britain, it wouldn't make too much difference if they weren't because the Conservative parties have become exactly what everyone knew they would become once the Conservative/Christians backed off.

The Conservative party in Britain is a sham, with several openly gay MPs (one even running for Opposition Leader), no talk on trying to limit abortion (whatsoever), and possibly more anti-religious than the current Liberal government (who I should point out did talk about cutting the amount of abortions in Britain durring the last election).

The Conservative party in Candada is only sightly better. It has maintained a small amount of Religious Right support and is therefore not as far gone as the Conserivative party in Britain. However, they recently had to shelve their anti-abortion program. Why? Not because the percentage of Candadians opposing abortion is drastically different than it was five years ago, but because the MPs of the Conservative party themselves are not anti-abortion anymore. And why is this? Because Christians/Conservatives in Canada are more likely than the general populous, at least as far as my expierience can tell me, to stay home on election day and not get involved with any party.

The answer for us Conservative/Christian/Federalists is not to give up on the Republican party in America. The answer is to get more involved in the Republican primaries. I have never been wild about supporting the National Republican Party (who knows where your money will go?), but you can give time and money to local or state candidates, even those from other districts or states. Support candidates like Laughie in RI who, while having zero chance whatsoever of winning the general election, will send a strong signal to other senators like Spector, McCain, Judd, etc.

No need to apologize - I pick nits all the time  ; )

Bush 41's loss in 1992 shook the party up pretty good, and in fact, almost split the party, In 1994 we were better off as a party and throughout the 90s, we made significant gains, real conservative gains, not just winning gains.

Call it my own personal "litmus test".

Well said

"IF YOU DON'T FORK OVER YOUR MONEY AND SPEND YOUR TIME WORKING FOR OUR CANDIDATES THEN WE ARE GOING TO LOSE AND ALL HECK WILL BREAK LOOSE!"

That sounds like blackmail to me.

The compuslsion to depart comes from the knowledge that involvement in politics is a choice (not so civics, there is a difference) that competes with a myriad of other things for my (and your) most finite of resources - time.  I could chose to be involved or I could instead chose to coach my daughter's soccer team, take my son to speech therapy, take my wife to a movie, go to a ball game, read, fish, pray, sing, blah blah blah, many of which I manage to do because they are just as important (if not more so) - plus there is the thing that allows me to pay my mortgage - oh yes, my job.

At some point, when your head is a bloody pulp from beating it against a brick wall for year after year after year working and paying and calling and knocking to try to get people elected only to have them time and time again betray everything you thought they believed (and you still do), with each butstroke to the head all of those other options, which look and sound really great at the start, sound better and better.

I've tried action for a fair number of years now (I was on my second go-around with the GOP by the time The Contract With America appeared in TV Guide), and it has not worked.  I can fail to achieve what I want with a heck of a lot less work on my part - and have (just as an example) a family of happy, involved people as a result of my being around and "with them" more often.

A pretty fair trade in my book.

YMMV.

If not as many Republican voters appear, it is a clear sign to our elected representatives and to the leaders of the party that they have gone astray - a sign they may not see otherwise.  If the party can always count on our votes because the Democrats will always be a worse option, what influence will we have?  Exercising one's duty to vote sometimes means not voting.

But some are pointing out that a betrayal of conservative principles after being elected by conservatives is reason to withhold support in the next election.  Sometimes the best way to rouse a party from its mistaken course is to threaten its hold on political power.  That is to say, it may be worth letting the Democrats win one election in order to improve and strengthen the GOP.    

One doesn't get rid of people inside his party that he disagrees with by not supporting anyone in that party. What WILL happen if the Conservative/Christian/Federalists decided to give the Republicans some 'wilderness' time as you call it is that, depending on how long it lasts, the party will be chocked full of John McCains, Susan Collins, and Arlan Spectors. Perhaps we do need some wilderness time, but not if it means Conservative/Christian/Federalist members of the Republican party are the ones ceasing to be involved.

If Miers and Roberts turn out to be Roe enablers, it will certainly affect my political actions.  I'm not quite sure how right now.  It may mean that I still vote Republican but just don't contribute or work for candidates.  It may mean that I actively support another party (constitution party?).  But I do suspect that my reflexive support for Republican candidates at all levels will wane.  Roe is such a big deal to me that even in local races I almost exclusively support Republicans because those positions are usually training grounds for state and national offices that actually affect abortion.  If the Republican party has abandoned conservatives yet again on this issue, my vote will be in play.    

"IF YOU DON'T FORK OVER YOUR MONEY AND SPEND YOUR TIME WORKING FOR OUR CANDIDATES THEN WE ARE GOING TO LOSE AND ALL HECK WILL BREAK LOOSE!"

I like you docj, and I almost always like what you post. But surely this statement seems as much a straw man to you as it does to me.

There is difference between a threat and an observation. Whether one takes it as strongarming or not, there's a simple truth to the idea that if republican voters don't vote for republican candidates, republican candidates won't win. This leaves only the democrat candidates. Observing that this is logically so does not constitute demanding your money or time for the party.

If republican voters stop voting for republican candidates, democrats will win. Simply accurate.

If you don't want Democrats to win, and you don't want the current republican leadership to win again, seems to me the only choice you have is change from within.

You seem to be presenting a no-win as if it's the only option.

In the 1980s, with the Reagan presidency in full swing, Miers was in her 40s, and she was giving money to the Democratic party.

There may well be some people who figure it all out very late in life, but do you want them on the Supreme Court?  It's not like she was in grade school back then.  She was a mature adult.

Our party's nominee should NOT be someone who thought Carter and Mondale should have beat Reagan, and supported Dukakis over Bush I.

I have serious doubts about any "Republican" who wasn't swayed by Reagan when he was in office.  Reagan single-handedly brought many ex-Dems into the Republican Party.  But apparently not Miers.

The problem here is that all Constitutional heck has been breaking loose for at least 40 long years, and the Republican party has promised to nominate justices who will reverse the breaking loose of all heck, which breaking loose, and the expansion thereof, is the official party platform of the other party.

But if the Republican party nominates justices who will abet that breaking loose, what is the difference, exactly?

Also, bravo!

I never said I would not be involved - I always will be as a citizen of the greatest Nation on this earth - it just won't be through the GOP.

Re: Maybe they should have done some more listening.

You may well be right. The White House (really, any White House, not just Bush's) is isolated to an extraordinary degree from the real world. Clitnon made missteps like this too (HillaryCare for a prime example), ditto the first President Bush.

I admit to being bothered by the lady's rather mediocre credentials, but unlike many people here I am not particularly bothered otherwise. Yes, a more intellectually credentialed judge would have been preferrable, but I don't see this as some calamity let alone the Waterloo of the pro-Life movement.

You mean what is the difference between not voting for a republican at all versus trying to get good republicans in positions of authority?

I hope the answer is evident. When you want the party to operate differently, and then try to get that to happen, the hope is that it does, in fact, happen, ... right?

Or is that not what you are asking?

I have been GOP longer, but I changed to independent about 18 months ago. The Medicare drug bill and immigration made me switch. The drug cost situation is intolerable and the high costs of drugs is not all due to research. The immigration situation is an oozing sore on the belly of the Bush administration.

I suspect there is one word that describes the trouble conservatives have with trusting George W. Bush on the SCOTUS nomination of Harriet Meirs: immigration.

BUT, I have almost finished reading Thomas Madden's "The New Concise History of the Crusades." I am dumbstruck by the similarities between our discomfort with Bush and the SCOTUS nomination and the troubles in the Kingdom of Jerusalem that lead to the inevitable failure of multiple crusades. (And indeed all non-Muslim Americans have been called to a new crusade, but that is a different topic.)

Can we sit on our hands and not vote for GOP, because of these past troubles? I don't quite know. Are we indeed cutting off our nose to spite our face? This is a serious philosophical/political question that needs a great deal of deep thought and exposition.

Lenin said something like, "The worse it is, the better it is." I wonder if four years of Hillary will make so many people so angry that some REAL changes will be made. Many of us are toying with voting for a third party candidate, rather than bless the GOP with our presidential electoral votes in 2008. After switching to independent, I voted for GWB--particularly thinking about the late Chief Justice and his anaplastic thyroid cancer.

But will conservatives ever crawl back from a Hillary presidency in this century?

I wish I knew.

Re: look what each successive elected 'Republican' has done; every one is a little less conservative than the last.  

Describing Ronald Reagan as less conservative than Richard Nixon or Gerald Ford is a bit bizarre don't you think? And our current President Bush is certainly not less conservative than his father was, and a case can be made than he's more conservative than even Reagan, albeit in a different way since the 80s had different issues and different political realities.

I can't believe there would not be SOME qualified candidate (even if it's not the GOP candidate).  Same impact though on the GOP vote - I agree.

This (The Courts) is THE issue.  The President and Republicans in the Senate have failed us.

Glad to know I'll have company when I tell the fundraisers to fly a kite.

For example, I just last night was hit up by the RNC for an "EMERGENCY CONTRIBUTION OF $100 OR MORE" to immediately support (something or other, I lost track after about a minute).

Why?  I asked.  So that I can get another MediDrugs bill?  Another pork-loaded transportation bill?  An energy bill that doesn't even rise to the level of a joke?

Silence - one-thousand-one, one-thousand-two, one-thousand-three - then "HILLARY CLINTON IS TRYING..." (click)

OK, so blackmail is hyperbole.  My bad.

But perhaps you missed something in my first post here.  I live in the Capitol of Blue America - and frankly, from a tax and spending perspective, it's a whole lot better than the national GOP under Bush/Hastert/Frist.  So, were that my number one (it's my number two, actually) explain to me again why I should bust my hump for these guys.  Because the other side is worse?  Sorry, as Sen. Specter (RINO-Scotland) would say, "NOT PROVED!"

We've had 5-years.  I was willing to cut Bush/Congress slack for 3, but I'm done - it's getting worse, not better.

From my POV, it's been a no-win since the GOP abandoned the CWA - if the government is going to grow, let the Democrats do it, we stink at it.

BTW, thanks for the compliment - likewise.

Going home.

Cheers.

You too, Thomas.  I feel the fire of stinging tears behind your eyes with every word I read.

We are at a point in history, not to be too dramatic, where we will find the strength of the people to remake the Republic or where we will be found wanting and decline into ridiculous caricature of our former nobility of spirit and independence.

Who would have thought the day would come when a Republican president feels as plainly uncomfortable taking a public anti-abortion stand as Bush does?  It seems that it's become politically unviable to do so.  He won't even acknowledge that he talked about the issue with Miers.  So what's worse - that he's telling the truth about that, or that he isn't?

"Politically unviable" is the death of honor.  It is the weakness that I've seen in our 43rd president (and his predecessor*S*, make no mistake) that narrow my eyes and turn my stomach to be "led" by such men.

A Hillary presidency is the worst possible potential outcome. I'd cast my vote for Harriet as the next president right now before I'd stand idly by and watch Hillary get elected.

Anyway, you should take your above post and make a new diary out of it. It's key to the rumblings here recently.

He made a mistake. Correct it. There are brilliant originalist jurists who can make historic contributions. We the people deserve the best. If it takes a fight, let's rumble. If the President has to eat a little humble pie, start eating.

In the long view, it might just save his Presidency. Regardless, it's what's right for the country.

"There may well be some people who figure it all out very late in life, but do you want them on the Supreme Court? "

You are aware that Ronald Reagan himself changed political parties at about the same age that Miers changed hers, yes?  In the 1950s he was a 'mature adult', too.

I was apparently too subtle last time.  There are no castes in the Republican Party, and converts are welcome - whether you like it or not.And I care much less about what somebody thought once than in what they think now.

So, the answer to your question is "Very possibly."

Moe

I'm describing.  

Very succinctly: We remained within the party to work to place Good Guys in positions of authority, and to get them elected.  GWB said he was one of them.  He may not be.

Hence: dilemma one is, what is the point  in voting for republicans when you get the same judicial results as you would with democrats in power?  Dilemma two is, what is the point of remaining within the party as a loyal republican when many of the guys who say that they are on your side turn out not to be when the chips are down?  Which throws us back to dilemma one.

... it certainly seems to boil down to what you're willing to live with. In that capital of blue america, tell me about Ten Commandments monuments, abortion support, the gay rights movement, the villification of christians, the villification of conservatives ...

The point is, perhaps you are living in a relatively comfort environment where you are. I would not be. And I only know one party that isn't actively promoting and endorsing those things which I protest so much.

The republicans not fixing some of these broken things is hardly the same as the democrats causing them.

George Bush not overturning Roe is not remotely the same thing as John Kerry worshiping it. I can't hand the keys to someone who does. Even if the only qualifying distinction for the other is that he/she doesn't wholesale endorse it.

Better than nothing.

Didn't the Constitution Party candidate running for the Senate from Pennsylvania get something like 12% during the general election that Specter won?  I'd bet dollars to donuts that the vast majority of those were annoyed conservative Republicans.

The point in remaining is to try and ensure that dilema two doesn't happen.

If you have two candidates, one who is conservative (qualified), and willing to defend the nation, and one who is .. well, Kerry, and the result of voting for either is that, among the many things that will be vastly different between them, the judicial results will nevertheless be the same, can you honestly say it makes no difference which you vote for?

Just because the judicial results may be similar (Roberts is simply not "the same") it is not then also true to say there is no difference which party is in power. That takes an extraordinary leap and dismisses the relevance of every issue other than the judicial landscape, does it not?

that Hillary Clinton will ever be elected...too

much baggage, too much history, too much a political powerplayer, and way too erratic.

I'm not sure why she even seems to hint that she's going to run...she'd never win.

"The Republican Party is the best thing we Conservative and pro-life people have going for us.  Although not perfect, it is better than the alternative."

Not perfect?  If you can't even try to overturn Roe what is the Republican party doing for the pro-life cause at all?  Passing laws (as if they do on a regular basis) which are just going to be ruled unconstitutional doesn't cut it in my world.  

... it's about valuing means as well as ends.  It's about interpreting the Constitution by cleaving to its letter -- without regard to whether that letter dictates a "liberal" outcome or a "conservative" one.  

that's what I am endorsing too.

Or are you really out to have the Federal government declare abortion illegal? Do you support the Oregon right-to-die law? Do you support medical marijuana in California and Arizona? I'm sure some of you are fine with those, but I suspect most are not.

"Or are you really out to have the Federal government declare abortion illegal?"

I don't think anyone is suggesting the federal government have no authority at all. Why does it have to be all or nothing?

But to answer the quoted question, I say yes. Outlaw it, federally. Murder is murder.

Then come back and tell us if Rove has a good explination for us.

that for some of us, the choice was made long ago to stomach many nauseous things in order to work within the party long term.  And to ensure that dilemma one did not present itself.

The problem however, is that it now appears that we may be presented with dilemma two: Bush was thought to be on our page where the courts were concerned, may not be.  

So: we have tried staying within the party amidst the stench of compromise and spending and creeping socialism because the other guys were Just So Awful and Scary.  We have gone further and tried to ensure that, from within the party, we exerted our influence to place Guys Like Us in authority.  Those guys now present the appearance, at the least, of having duped us.  

The point: you want us to continue supporting the party because the other party is so bad.  We have done so, except that the result has been most of what the other party would have given us.  We toughed it out, hoping to change hearts and minds in the party, and to exert our political muscle.  We did, but some of those acting on our behalf - so they told us - lied.  What is there left to attempt within the party when those who claim to have our interests at heart are playing us for suckers; when, every time that they have the opportunity to deliver, they punt?  

The second point: we've tolerated so much in the way of philosophical defection and rank political whoredom for the sake of the courts.  If we don't get even that, THERE'S NOTHING LEFT.

You're stretching it when you compare Reagan's "conversion to conservatism" in the 1950s to Miers' failure to "convert" during the Reagan 1980s.

For one thing, on the social issues conservatives care about, the Democratic party was a socially conservative party in the 1950s - just as conservatives as most Republicans.

Conservatives in the 1950s were what... more anti-communist?  On what other issues were they more "right" than the mainstream of the Democratic party?

The fights over abortion, gay marriage, affirmative action occurred much later.  It was respectable and entirely possible to be a Democrat and a conservative in the 1950s.  But by the 1980s, it wasn't.  Someone who didn't "get it" by the early 1970s (assuming he/she was a mature adult then) is highly suspect.  Many Democrats converted in the 1970s, and some in the early 1980s.  Think of Phil Gramm, Norman Podhoretz, etc.  

But someone who continued to contribute to Democrats throughout the Reagan years is suspect - it means they probably bought into a lot of the left-wing baloney on social issues and on communism.  The Reagan revolution apparently just washed over her and didn't seem to make any impact - is that who President Bush, a Republican with 55 freakin' Senate seats controlled by his party, should nominate?

I won't even add that she's too old.

Maybe she's a real convert - if so, good for her.  I didn't say the Republican party doesn't need converts - we definitely do.  

But on the Supreme Court, we really don't need them (unless it's a Democrat who wants to convert to our side).  The Supreme Court is the big prize, and unlike you, I don't want to take the chance on someone who spent a whole lot of time being wrong, and only recently had a (supposed) change of heart.  

"THERE'S NOTHING LEFT" is certainly what we'd be saying if the democrats were simply handed the country.

I don't know what to add to what I said above. There are demonstrable differences between what has happened in this country as a result of it's republican leaders vice what would have happened without them.

The fall of the USSR comes to mind. The fact that at least some of the decisions to be made in this nation aren't (yet) lorded over by the Supreme Court. That we aren't drowning in a Euro-style welfare state. That around the world, terrorists and radical muslim fanatics are dying as a result of us killing them, that Christianity isn't banned as hate-speech by gay activists. I can think of lots of things.

Sorry, but there's a great deal of difference between them. Not good enough for me is not the same as saying as bad as them. It just isn't.

I don't think the federal government needs to declare abortion illegal.  What it needs is to stop having federal judges striking down anti-abortion laws using Roe v Wade as a precedent.  The Oregon right-to-die law, well, I'm ambivalent on that, but I'd default to allowing Oregon to give it a try and see what falls out as a result.  I'm willing to be convinced otherwise on that subject, however.  Medical marijuana, well, I abhor the War on Some Drugs and think that the money wasted on that could be spent better on a lot of other things-- and to boot, a lot of the laws passed to support said war are blatantly unconstitutional (like seizing someone's assets without a trial and making them fight to get them back).  In general, it's a Bad Idea to take something like drugs that are already illegal at the state level and make them illegal at the federal level as well.

Rhetoric moved by passion and truth at its best. Well done, Thomas.

No, I do not want the federal government to be legislating on abortion- except for the usual areas of authority (federal lands, ect.)

Federal canadiates should be primarily concerned with foriegn policy, monetary policy, and interstate commerce.  Not gay marriage, or abortion.  (Although I'd be willing to support Constitutional Amendments to address those issues.)

I want judges who uphold the proper division of powers among the three branches of government, and between the people, the states, and the federal government.

In fact, if Roberts and Miers were to find that the federal anti-partial birth abortion is unconstitutional because such things should be detirmined by the state legistlatures- I would count it as a win, because such a judical philosiphy would lead to the overturn of Roe.

One, a conservative Republican is not going to vote for a Dem over a real conservative.  RINOs are those conservatives who are willing to vote for bigger government and more spending, who are willing to say they are pro-choice, etc, etc.  My point is that the balance in politics is not meant to be had by having all moderates; nothing is accomplished in that sort of environment but maintaining the status quo (or worse allowing political correctness to push things to the left).  True initiatives and new ideas are only made by people willing to take a stand, not RINOs in office who just want to stay there and keep as many people happy as possible.  What good is having a majority if the people we support are not willing to support the platforms and issues we care about?

I don't recall any federal law or constitutional amendment against murder.  I do recall the 10th amendment though:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The only place the federal government has here, barring a constitutional amendment, is the ability to say whether a law outlawing abortion is constitutional or not.  The legality of abortion would then be up to the states.  Just like murder.

I'm a conservative and a Republican - not a "Bushervative" or a "Bushublican."  My loyalty is to my values and the party which is supposed to represent them - not to a single politician.

Just because Bush wants it, or it's good for Bush, doesn't mean we should support it.

This is a clear-cut case of a potentially disastrous Bush decision.  We shouldn't be aiding and abetting his mistake.  We should stand firm and try to correct it before it risks exploding in our faces.

I've said it before and will say it again - even if she's as conservative as it gets, she's still way too old.  We need someone at least a decade younger.

I'm part of the "chillin" on Miers ... but I agree that we will know in three months where her and roberts stand .. at least on PBA and parental notification.

The GOP has already left us on spending as is noted by Thomas above.

Every time I get a request for money from one senator another.

Every time I get an email from Ken Mehlman.

My response is the same:

Show us SOMETHING.  A conservative SCOTUS nominee.  Some sort of fiscal responsibility.

SOMETHING.

My entire non-house debt of several thousand dollars would be gone now if I would have paid it off instead of giving to the GOP.  

I understand that was my choice.

As were the hours I poured into Bush, Chambliss, Isakson, etc.

And while I think Thomas is going a bit overboard, I would say that we're going to sit out 2006 if we don't see something pretty significant from Miers on abortion.

They've already screwed everything else up, SCOTUS is all they have left to get right.

With 55 Republican Senators it is unlikely that John Kerry would have been able to nominate another Ginsburg.  The filibuster of the appellate judges changed the rules.  It would have been fairly easy to simply vote down uber-liberals on 55-45 votes over and over until Kerry nominated a more acceptable candidate.

A Senate majority would have been within their rights suggesting consultation and input since they'd be able to simply vote down candidate after candidate if they were totally ignored.

You make it sound as if the federal government can't enact any laws at all. Yet, there are types of murder covered by federal law. Drug murders. Murdering federal officials. Murdering judges.

Anyway, can't first degree murder be covered by federal law?

The question asked was seems to imply that you can either let the federal government make all laws, or none. Seems to me the question is which things the federal government can do and which things they can't.

If one solid election defeat lets the GOP know its lost its way, then it might be worth climbing out of the hole we did.

Oz

The only ones I am aware of involve a federal agent acting in federal capacity, unless you can come up with other examples.

of the things that have not yet come to pass will come to pass unless arrested by sane jurisprudence, of precisely the sort that is at issue presently.  

As surely as day follows night, present spending and entitlement trends will yield either a no-growth Euro-stagnant socialist state, or a default-risk banana republic.

And let's not pick at the scab of all of the inadequacies of the war effort, at home and abroad.  

To cite just three examples of the above, when Republicans give us SCOTUS justices who will either enact or ratify most of the agenda of the left; when Republicans enact new entitlements that were previously envisioned only by the left wing of the left wing; when the entire response of the intelligence and bureaucratic apparatus to the terror question domestically under Republicans is about what it would be under Democrats, replete with a refusal to seal the borders and profile the groups from whom the terrorists come, the differences might exist, but they are not great enough to draw me away from my wife, my son, my Church, my motorcycle trips with my father, my hobby of watch collecting, and my love of adult beverages.

I didn't sign up to support a SCOTUS that gives us 90% of the agenda of the left, entitlement programs that will eventually become everything the left dreams of them being, and an incoherent war effort hobbled by the delusions of political correctness and ethnic politics.  And if I got the Court I was promised, it would be enough to mask the stench; if I don't get that court, it won't be enough to keep me on the reservation.  I fought for something a little grander than a little less incompetence.

It was my understanding that the Republican party was more about States Rights and a miniscule Federal government, what other laws should the fed take from the states?

The Drug murders only apply in cases where they can fit the commerce clause in to claim jurisdiction.

1st Degree murder is handled by the states.

"...and of knowing the danger of the words, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

That is hard to read so soon after New Orleans.

Getting pretty nit picky on this, should the Federal Government take over all Murder cases?

A recent issue of National Review had a Jonah Goldberg column where he discusses the hurricane fiasco. He uses this example of a fireman who comes to your house and saves it from burning to the ground, then goes on to ditch your fatty foods and redecorate. Can't he just put out the fire and be gone??

You saying republicans are for miniscule federal government is not proof positive that republicans shouldn't support any federal laws.

As for murder: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/51/secti
ons/section_1111.html

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/51/toc.h
tml

You made an incorrect assertion. I corrected it.

Quite the contrary, the Federalization of most criminal statutes seems per se unconstitutional to me. Then again, so does the Incorporation Doctrine.

Federal "murder" usually requires the commission of an interstate commerce crime - like drug trafficking, or needs to be committed on a federal jurisdiction location like an Indian reservation or a military base.

What Congress could do is outlaw the crossing of state lines for the purposes of having an abortion because the crossing of state lines brings it within interstate commerce.  It would be similar to prohibitions on transporting children across state lines for sexual purposes.

But the feds could not constitutionally prohibit a woman in New York from going to a doctor in New York to obtain an abortion.  That would require the state of New York to prohibit the procedure.

On the other questions - I support Oregon's law.  I don't believe people have a protected right to die, but I do believe they can legislatively create such a right if they want.  But, that's not the issue - the issue is whether the federal government, which has the power to regulate prescription drugs can enforce their rules against doctors prescribing lethal doses of narcotics under the Oregon law by revoking their license to prescribe drugs.  Here I think that this is more a question of the regulation of medical procedures and qualifications and therefore should be left in state hands.

Medical marijuana is the same issue because we have already conceded that the commerce clause allows federal regulation of illegal drugs.  So it becomes an issue of how pre-emptive the federal statutes are.  Here, I think the feds win, because commerce clause doctrine says you can aggregate - meaning even the smallest transaction can be regulated if you could aggregate many similar transactions and find an interstate commerce connection (now, I think that aggregation concept is a load of hooey but that's what we have to work with).  Since legal purchases of marijuana in CA and AZ would affect the "market" for marijuana, probably in those and surrounding states, the feds can regulate.  The answer here is to change federal policy towards marijuana to get them to move the drug off Schedule 1 and create a situation where medical use would be permissible according to state law.

Federalism is not an easy question - and it does not mean that, in all cases the "correct" answer is that the states should control something rather than the feds.  In some cases the feds have a role - even if it's not outright control.  Plus long-standing Court cases have set ground rules for commerce cases as well as for deciding preemption questions, so there is a lot of legal wrestling that will need to happen if we are to eliminate the feds from some areas.  Unfortunately, I don't think that the Oregon law and the medical marijuana cases are enough to make the wholesale changes that would be needed to get those through the court.

Within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States...

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=/hilden/20031
015.html

This still doesn't address the question: Do you want the Fed prosecuting Murder on a regular basis?  Can they even afford to do so?

And all of this is tangental to the actual question of whether the federal government can constitutionally outlaw abortion, an act involving (theoretically) no interstate commerce?

And I don't get the fireman analogy at all, maybe I am just dumb, but what does that have to do with murder and abortion?  States Rights?  Federal Law?

Maybe I'm being simplistic or naive here (wouldn't be the first time), but do you not think that protecting life could be seen as a responsibility bestowed on the central government by the constitution?

although I don't agree with him (and we had a nice discussion yesterday).  I happen to live in that same metropolitan area as he does and have for 58 years.  I've seen a lot more of those liberal Democrats in power here than he has so I know where docj is coming from.  He wasn't here for those awful Dukakis years in the 1980's.  

Although Gov. Weld and those who have followed are your basic RINOs, I have to agree with you that if we don't vote for Republican candidates, then Republican candidates won't win.  Especially in this state, since it takes a lot of Democrats to switch in order to elect a Republican governor.

It really is a long-term education struggle here.  Whether they are RINOs or not, the more we can elect Republicans in this state, the sooner the public hopefully will see the folly of those awful years of Democrat rule.  Maybe then we can elect a true Republican.  But it's not going to happen overnight.  We have to keep fighting, and if a sitting Republican isn't getting the job done, then we have to replace him with someone better, or cede control to the Democrats.

The RedState mission statement says, among other things, that it is "focused on politics, and seeks the construction of a Republican majority in the United States".  It also says that "since its inception, the Republican Party has always embraced a wide range of ideological beliefs. This diversity of thought sometimes inspires conflict -- but it has also led to great achievement."

We do have a Republican majority now, and I trust that we can keep it and move on to greater achievements.  To borrow a phrase from one of my heroes, "these should be our finest hours".  But the tone from Thomas and others of abandonment of the party does not inspire confidence.

It's the whole big government little government thing. If you want him to put out fires, you concede he has a right to adjust the rest of your life. If you think he has no right in your fridge, he doesn't get to put out your fires either.

Whether the federal government can constitutionally outlaw abortion depends on if abortion is being discussed as murder, first of all. If it is, I think the question is whether it is constitutional for the federal government to outlaw any kind of murder, which it clearly is, and then finally, if the federal government constitutionally can outlaw this kind of murder.

Are we agreed on the questions?

I think this is bound up in the Fourteenth Amendment, at least as far as abortion is concerned, and in the concept of competing sovereigns. But that's why I said "most."

And if they had voted for Toomey, we could have ousted a RINO and gotten a fine conservative in penn in office.

I agree, and I thought that's where you were going with 'most'.

and one made before, when states failed to prosecute murderers for whatever reason, during much of the civil rights era and also the Rodney King beating trials, where the Fed stepped in and claimed that the victims had their civil rights violated, and brought the perpetrators up on federal charges.

There is then the question of how far into the states rights does that go?  Does the 4th amendment mean that feds can prosecute burglers?

Sometimes, you just want to smack the framers for being so vague, sometimes you want to kiss 'em for it.

and hence sometimes the need for SCOTUS to sort it out. And there we go back to the thread.

The fact remains, the first question in this sub-thread that we were addressing seemed to beg the assumption that you could either support all federal law, or none. As the constitution allows and the courts have affirmed, there are some that are ok and some that are not.

Those are, and should be the questions.  The only way I see for the Fed to step in, and IANAL, would be the 14th amendment, and still, I don't think I want the Fed making this kind of law.

We have seen an incredible expansion of the Federal governments powers and reach in the past few years, and frankly, it scares the bejeezus out of me.

It would seem to me that the last image a mutineer would want to bring up is "Thirty Pieces of Silver." What I see in the loudest of the Miers critics is a group of irrational hotheads jumping to conclusions, based on little or nothing. It's hysteria for no reason.

  I don't intend to single you out; this goes for everybody else looking to turn in their suits. What about the war? Doesn't that count for anything? Are you so ready to turn it over to the Dems, with all that that means? Go ahead, vote Democrat; even better, say what you really mean - I'm sorry I didn't vote for Kerry. It would have been the same thing, after all. Talk about moral equivalence. The President is leading us in a war that must be fought, and you're ready to throw him over, and abandon the only party that would fight that fight, over this nomination. I'm as disappointed as you are, but there are bigger things to worry about. Follow your thoughts to their logical conclusion and think about the consequences.

I agree completely, and from a different perspective.  I base alot of my vote on 2nd amendment rights, not roe v wade.  I know who would strip me of my hunting/shooting rights.  I know who is in bed with the liberal activists.  I know who is at least willing to not take away more than I have already lost.  I hope and pray for the day when I can vote for someone to give me back some.  And when they come along, I will support them like nobodys business.

and I'm not talking about liberal trolls like me.

"You're stretching it when you compare Reagan's "conversion to conservatism" in the 1950s to Miers' failure to "convert" during the Reagan 1980s."

In both situations I'm seeing the same conditions: an individual coming to the conclusion that the party that they started out in was not comfortable to them anymore.  The Democratic Party was not monolithic in the 1980s: it is not unreasonable that perfectly respectable conservatives could have resided in the Texas branch of it.

Now, if you dislike Miers as a Supreme Court pick, that's one thing.  You could very well be justified in such a dislike, and if you are right we'll hopefully find out at her hearing.  But twenty year old donations to the Democratic Party - or that truly weird fixation that others have had on the lecture program she helped set up - do not justify an inquisition into her Republican purity.  

It doesn't even justify the (supposed) modifier that you used.

Moe

PS: Conversation's over: you want to make it a monologue, go right ahead.

Roe today is only a shell of what it was in 1973.  In 1973, the Supreme Court articulated that, using various justifications (substantive due process, 9th Amendment, etc.), women have a right to privacy.  And that right to privacy, while not an unconditional right, contains some protection for some abortions.

Roe set up a 3-tiered rights hierarchy by judicial fiat.  The first tier is the first trimester.  The state has no right to proscribe (ban) or limit access to abortion.  The second tier is the second trimester.  At this point, the state may take into consideration the life of the unborn.  The third tier is the third trimester.  During this time, the state may limit access to or even proscribe abortion.

This three-tiered scheme was knocked out by Planned Parenthood v. Casey.  The new regime is two-tiered.  Tier one is "pre-viability".  Tier two is "post-viability".  Once a fetus becomes "viable" (generally construed to mean "able to survive outside of the womb if the fetus was removed from the womb"), the state may intervene on behalf of the unborn child.

Steinberg v. Carhart changed Roe even more.

When we talk about "overturning Roe", let's remember that Roe today does not create an unqualified, unlimited right for any female to have an abortion.  What we ought to focus on is "safe and sane" abortion policy:

Step 1: Underage girls should not be allowed to get an abortion unless their parent/legal guardian is notified at least 72 hours before the abortion.

Step 2: Partial-birth abortion should be banned.  The court should recognize the legislature's ability to ban this gruesome procedure.

Step 3: Abortion should be allowed only when the mother's life is at risk, or she faces serious health risks other than those associated with a typical pregnancy, or she was the victim of rape.

Once these three reforms are in place, there will be an abortion policy in place that most Americans would approve of.

two conservatives to the Supreme Court.

Before Harriet Miers even has the opportunity to prove her worth as a judge, she is being lambasted by conservatives, who seem more afraid of her than the liberals do.

Give the woman a chance.  It seems like conservatives have accepted the meme that "Bush is an idiot" because the liberals have repeated it so much.

Bush is not an idiot.  If he were an idiot, he would not be president today.  If any of you "smart guys" disagree, try running for president one day.  Let's see if you're smart enough to do what you think is so easy.

Assuming that Bush is bright and has bright advisors around him, let's give them the benefit of the doubt and give Harriet a chance.  We can't start acting like she's already done what we're most afraid of her doing.

Show me any judicial philosophy on the left that champions a comparably rigorous process.  Indeed, the dominant "leftist" legal philosophy -- legal realism -- proclaims that no such rigor is possible, and thereby relieves its practicioners of the need to even try.

If I'm not getting my thirty pieces, I see no reason to continue this little game.

Iscariot's thirty pieces were merely window dressing for his real problem.

What I see in the loudest of the Miers critics is a group of irrational hotheads jumping to conclusions, based on little or nothing.

You can see whatever you want. Hey, you might be right: She might be everything we want and more. But you're missing a key point, aside from the pointy stick you're swinging, and it's this: What information we have suggests that Ms. Miers cares not a whit for originalist jurisprudence, and at any rate, we shouldn't have to be guessing like this.

Heck, I made my point. If you think that's being an irrational hothead, more power to you.

Re: In the 1980s, with the Reagan presidency in full swing, Miers was in her 40s, and she was giving money to the Democratic party.

Once upon a time there used to be a fairly common subspecies of homo politicus americanus called the Conservative Democrat. They are rarely sighted now, but a mere generation ago they were fairly thick on the ground in the Southern states, notably Texas. If Ms Meirs' ertswhile Democrat credentials bother you what is your opinion of Phil Graham, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Jeanne Kirkpatrick and indeed Ronald Reagan himself?

the point of your comment was that good legal theories are neither "liberal" nor "conservative".

Roe set up a 3-tiered rights hierarchy by judicial fiat.  The first tier is the first trimester.  The state has no right to proscribe (ban) or limit access to abortion.  The second tier is the second trimester.  At this point, the state may take into consideration the life of the unborn.  The third tier is the third trimester.  During this time, the state may limit access to or even proscribe abortion.

Doe v. Bolton, 410 US 179 (1973).

This three-tiered scheme was knocked out by Planned Parenthood v. Casey.  The new regime is two-tiered.  Tier one is "pre-viability".  Tier two is "post-viability".  Once a fetus becomes "viable" (generally construed to mean "able to survive outside of the womb if the fetus was removed from the womb"), the state may intervene on behalf of the unborn child.

Steinberg v. Carhart changed Roe even more.

Yes, by showing that Casey was a sham.

When we talk about "overturning Roe", let's remember that Roe today does not create an unqualified, unlimited right for any female to have an abortion.

No, Casey does.

Once these three reforms are in place, there will be an abortion policy in place that most Americans would approve of.

While unacceptable to me, that part is probably right.

Is that the outcomes are neither predictably liberal nor predictably conservative.

(I believe. I don't mean to step on von.)

You stated your opinion, I don't see that you made your point.  Your point is that it is no longer worth supporting the GOP on the basis of an unknown selection who could turn out to be exactly what you want.  I think you are putting the cart before the horse a bit.  IF she is a Souter in hiding, then you have a valid point.  Seeing as no one really knows this yet, why abandon the party before the facts come out?  Why not wait and see how she opines?

Because we have no evidence that this is a serious shot at serious originalism; that what evidence we have suggests the opposite; and that given the actions of this Party the last several years, we have no reason to trust them.

I'm past trust-but-verify. I'm on to trust-once-they've-verified. I've put too much into this to just shrug if they don't give what they promised.

Re:  dilemma one is, what is the point  in voting for republicans when you get the same judicial results as you would with democrats in power?

Do you really think this is so? In other words that there is not a dime's worth of difference between Antonin Scalia and Stephen Beyer, between Ruth Bader Ginsburg and this new nominee, between Clarence Thomas and Thurgood Marsdhall? Do you really suppose that John Roberts will rule and reason no differently than someone Kerry might have appointed?

Re: The fact that at least some of the decisions to be made in this nation aren't (yet) lorded over by the Supreme Court.

Most of the truly important stuff-- foreign policy and fiscal policy-- is not. Of all the things the Court has dealt with in the last 50 odd years I would put abortion and desegregation somewhere in the midle row of first rank issues. The rest I regard as truly small potatoes, much ado about very little, classic teapot tempests.

When liberal politicians talk about judges, it is always in the context of "vote for me, so I'll appoint judges who protect your right to this and that and the other thing."  It's about results, not about process.  And in this sense, originalists have the moral high ground.

I see some of Miers' supporters as sacrificing the moral high ground by focusing on results.  There's little evidence at this point that she's an originalist, but there's all kinds of clues that she might be a reliable conservative vote.

"She's devoutly religious, so she'd be good on life"

"She's close to Bush, so she'd be good on executive power and the GWOT"

"She's represented corporate interests, so she'd be good on regulation and business issues"

All of these touch upon important issues, but they have little to do with originalism, and a lot to do with results.  And if you accept a judge solely because they'll give you the results you want, then you lose the moral high ground when President Hillary appoints judges to get the results SHE wants.

This is not meant to apply to everyone - after all, some don't support Miers at all, and some (Erick comes to mind) have continued to reaffirm that originalism is the touchstone and that appointing a results-oriented judge might win a couple battles and lose the war.

mier's nomination.

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/10-6-05-RNC-Conference-Call.mp3

yes, its stolen from a liberal blog....but its being left here without comment.

He said he was a Republican for three really big, overarching reasons, and that he'd already lost one, and that if this one goes away, he'll have lost two.

We have a Constitution of enumerated powers.  Some are enumerated specifically, others generally.  But I see no text that gives any part of the national government to outlaw abortion.  It's clearly a state issue.  

The purpose of a constitution and of federalism is not to provide us with all the most desirable policies, but to protect our individual liberties without compromising our security or the effective admistration of government.

John Roberts admitted even he wasn't an "originalist". What makes anyone trust that Miers would be ?

I would doubt it, but, given the nature of the information he have concerning his philosophy and the responses he gave to certain questions concernign his views on privacy, it is at least conceivable.

Your series of antitheses elides the fact that Republican presidents have given us justices of whom it could scarcely be said that their jurisprudence differed substantially from that of Democratic nominees.  And, it is imperative to note that we are discussing the present controversy, in which it seems probable that a Republican president has given us a nominee who, if confirmed, will do little to challenge the central holding of Roe, which is really intellectual and juridical shorthand for a large part of, if not the entirety of, the Living Constitution and the Imperial Judiciary.  If these are the crumbs which have been tossed from the master's table for us, then what is the difference?  

On this question hinges the answer to the riddle of the future of the American experiment in self-government.  

I think it might be that Bush wants to put his mother on the supreme court.

What do you define as conservative?  Look to W... yes, he has kept taxes low, but what about border security, keeping jobs at home, SMALL GOVERNMENT, etc.  If you look at these factors then yes, obviously there are some areas where a successive Republican is not less conservative, but on whole; I say Nixon was FAR more conservative than W... Of course that is just my opinion and an argument could be made; but hey, look at our Republican representatives in the house and senate.  You CANNOT argue they have not become more liberal.

Were I here during the "Massachusetts Miracle" I may perhaps feel differently.  Sadly, there is a very, very real possibility that I'll get chance after the next election.  The tone of "Governor Tom Reilly" doesn't sit all too well at all, thank you.

Frankly, I think Romney has done a great job over the last couple of years and I think some of his recent initiatives (the healthcare initiative, in particular) are top-shelf.  Now if he would just decide to stay another term or two we might actually have a two-party state in Massachusetts again by the time he left - and think of the sort of launching-pad that would be...

If there are energies that need to be focussed, there is where it is - state and local.  The Feds are beyond help and therefore not worth my $$ and effort.

Cheers.

Am I supposed to trush Bush's information? Is is that Bush has reliable information about Miers that we do not have? Information that will accurately predict how she will reason and vote as a Supreme Court Justice?

Should I trust Bush's intellect? Is that Bush is too smart, too politically savvy, or too calculating to pick a nominee whose jurisprudence will discourage the party for years to come?

Maybe I should trust Bush's intuition. Perhaps he has such a good "feel" for people that he can pick a winner without knowing many specifics. After all, he claims he doesn't quiz potential nominees on "litmus test" questions, such as their position on abortion.

Or, should I trust Bush's integrity? He made a campaign promise to appoint Justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. And he wouldn't break a promise, would he?

The question I want to ask is: do we trust Bush more than Ronald Reagan? Is it that Bush's information, intelligence, intuition, and/or integrity are better than Reagan's was when he appointed O'Connor?

Have we not learned the lesson that an individual's personal beliefs, religious affiliation, party allegiance, or private assurances are poor indicators of how that individual will rule as a Justice on the Supreme Court? Do we not get it that the best Justices come from the ranks of those who have proven themselves to hold a conservative jurisprudence tried in the fires of public debate?

With so many qualified, established, erudite, and brilliant conservative jurists to choose from, Bush's pick is inexplicable. The evidence is insufficient for Miers to get to the jury. She should not make it out of committee.

Well, Toomey wasn't in the general, having lost to Specter narrowly in the primary; I figure those Constitution Party voters in the general were largely Toomey voters in the primary.

tell me about Ten Commandments monuments

Not too many - problem?

abortion support

Not a great deal among the population, but they vote Democrat anyway (lots of Irish Catholics around htere who still think it's a confessable sin to vote Republican, honest)

the gay rights movement

Well, homosexual marriage is law thanks to the Supreme Judicial Court - and if our side (and I'm talking Mitt on down) had not botched it we'd be looking at a ballot question in 2006 to fix that little problem - now it's 2008 at the earliest and it will be "yesterday's battle" by then.

the villification of christians

See "Irish Catholics", above...

the villification of conservatives

Well, they let us come out in public from time to time.  If we behave, we're even allowed to participate in town meetings and such.

Look, we're a solid minority around here and everyone (especially us) knows it - but villification?  Honestly, not so much.

Perhaps someone else has seen it, maybe a long-timer like The Rebel could expose some battle scars, but I have to be honest - it's just not something I see.  I live in a town with 15% GOP registration, everyone who knows what's going on knows that I'm the town GOP chairman, and really, I have no trouble with anyone.  Some chop-busting?  Oh yea.  I'm thick skinned and I know I'm in the belly of the beast - I can deal.

Don't know where you are.  If it's that different, I feel for you.

Cheers.

P.S.  Just to be clear though - GWB has me at "Hello" with the GWOT.  He'd have me even before that if he would rethink his insane and suicidal amnesty proprosal.

But thought the same thing about Mondale vs. Reagan. And that was the moment I became Republican too. And I'm on board with you, Thomas.

Great post.

Roe vs Wade is not really a critical issue before the Court. It only sends the issue back to the states. Granted, it was decided wrongly to start with, but the impact will not be great one way or the other. Partial birth is another matter. That's much more critical and far reaching than Roe.

Another critical issue along this vein is whether Senator Barbara Boxer can force Church hospitals and other medical workers to perform abortions against their will and religious beliefs.

Results from CNN.

If you believe the exit-polls at all (snicker), it looks like he pulled a bunch (7%) from Republicans and about 5% from independents - the "Toomey voter" theory probably has some merit.

I have a tendency to believe that she is a strict constructionist.  The flip side is just too improbable.

GWB campaigned in both 2000 and 2004 on the fact that he believes that justices should not legislate from the bench.  He has appointed judges that meet my satisfaction in this regard over and over.  HM was on the committee choosing those judges.

But now, when the chips are down, he suddenly loses his desire and goes to the dark side?  Or HM has been a mole all these years who really believes that justices are our black robed masters, but helped GWB get all those originalist judges just so she could keep her position and persuade him to pick her when the chips were down?  Just not likely.

And we're all saying that she doesn't have a paper trail, but that's just not true.  She has a paper trail a mile wide and a mile deep.  It's just the GWB is the only one with the right to look at it.

You should check out President Aristotle blog on Meirs

.Whether they are RINOs or not, the more we can elect Republicans in this state, the sooner the public hopefully will see the folly of those awful years of Democrat rule.

I don't see how this is true. If anything, I see it as counterfactual: the more RINOs you support and elect, the less contrast people will see between the parties, and the more the mainstream will move towards the middle.

Before you shut the door read President Aristotle views on Meirs quite an eye opener.

Now that's a thought that did not occur to me until Buchanan just said it on Olberman.

The Senate has the power to issue a subpoena.  Dobson has non-privileged information that is relevant and "discoverable."  Dobson is guided by his conscious and will have to tell the truth under oath.  And, unlike most politicians and lawyers, I suspect he'll shoot straight from the hip.  I can see it now:  "So, what exactly did Rove/Bush tell you Mr. Dobson about Miers' position on abortion?"

Seems to me that this could be a very big straw to break the back of this nomination.  

The answer is to get more involved in the Republican primaries.

If we don't like our finalists, just get more involved in the primaries.  We have better luck there anyway, because the only people who vote in primaries (or mostly so) is the ones who are informed and care.  It gives us a much smaller field in which to compete.

we will probably not lose it because of one Democratic President.  I do not underestimate the detriment even one four-year term under a Democrat could cause to our security and international interests.  A Democratic President would be hedged in to some extent, anyway, by Congress and by popular sentiment, and above all by the established situation.  Only someone like Kucinich would pull us out of Iraq right away at this point.

Finally, and this is perhaps the most important point, it is important for the country that the other party govern sometimes.  It forces that party to face the realities of making policy choices and defending them to the entire country, not just to the party faithful.  In other words, I think the chance to govern would help the Democrats move rightward, and that helps the entire country.

All this said, I still hope that Republicans will remain in charge of our foreign policy for a long time to come.  

 Your points are well taken. As much as I criticize the MSM I do think that at least part of their project is a well-intentioned effort to avoid a one-party state, as it should be for even the most rabid partisans amongst us.

  What concerns me is the polar opposite of what's happening on this site, viz. if we split because of Bush failing to satisfy his base, what's to stop a Democratic President from satisfying his/her base, most of whom would welcome an immediate retreat? I'm not as sanguine as you are about this and raised the issue to try to inject some temperance into an otherwise self-absorbed Bush-trashing contest. The stakes involved in an '06 turn around go beyond Ms. Miers, as I think most people will realize that when after they tone down the rhetoric a little bit.

any thing so grave and severe as : "On this question hinges the answer to the riddle of the future of the American experiment in self-government." in what is going on here. We do not after all live in a pure democracy and the majority will not always get its way (see: Bush vs Gore, either the election or the court case). With some few exceptions as I mentioned above (ahortion, desegregation) the Court's decisions are of very limited and local effect, and they do not imperil self-government any more than the fact that at one time senators were not chosen by direct election, yet their decisions were still binding on those who had no say in them.

or to be a little less offensive, moderate Republicans, are a sizable constituency and should be respected as such. And if they are sufficient in numbers to elect their candidates to office then that should be accepted. Telling them they have no business doing so is absurd. Would anyone tell Social Conservatives they should not elect their candidates to office?

I agree with you. You seem to be a pretty well informed person, but have you ever heard of Cato?

Its at www.cato.org if anyone wants to go visit. Cato is against big government.

Phil Graham, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Jeanne Kirkpatrick and indeed Ronald Reagan

With the exception of Campbell, the others were all Republicans by the early 80s.  Campbell is an exception (so is Richard Shelby); they both switched opportunistically to the R's after the 1994 landslide.  And thank goodness for that - we were glad to have them.

But the Senate is not the Supreme Court.  With a Senator, you can always vote him/her out.  Conservatives did so in the 80s to get rid of RINO Lowell Weicker in Connecticut when they votes en masse for Joe Lieberman.  Or you can run someone else in the primary, like Pat Toomey last year in Pennsylvania.  

By contrast, the Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment.  You don't get any do-overs until she dies or resigns.  

I just don't understand why we're taking such a big risk to get a too-old and potentially non-conservative vote.  There are so many better people out there.

because Bush said so.  

Pass the Electric Kool-Aid, brother.

say it loud, my fellow attorney.

This is the Supreme Court, we have a Republican president, and 55 Republican Senators.

This isn't some election for dog catcher or PTA president.  It's almost as important as the election of a president (and it comes around less often).

Why, oh why, oh why, are we taking a risk with someone who is too old and may make a left turn when she gets on the Court?

We need certainty.  And frankly, if Bush showed some vision, we could get it.

He's about the best we've had since Volpe, and that was a long time ago.  But he is pandering now by changing to a more pro-life position in advance of his run for the Presidency.  I agree that he should stay here as Governor for a while longer.

Cheers to you, too, and keep the faith.

Very well said. Amazing to hear someone else say exactly what I'm thinking.

"They cannot, and will not, have my vote, so long as they deny the essential humanity and predicate rights of any group of humans."

referring to Democrats.  Yet Republicans deny gay humans essential humanity and predicate rights.

You read the collected opinions issued in, say, just the Roe and Casey rulings and get back to me on your objection to the judgment that on the future of the SCOTUS hinges the future of the American experiment in self-government.  If, indeed, a reversal of any of those rulings, as was held in Casey, were to call into question the ability of the American people to see themselves in the constitutional ideals conjured by the Court, such that we should simply cease to regard these things as a matter of public controversy, and if none of that grandiloquent rhetoric has anything to do with the nature of the American experiment in self-government, then words have no meaning, then Derrida (may his memory be ephemeral) was right, reason does not exist, and tens of thousands of conservative intellectuals have been, not merely mistaken, but deluded, for thirty years.

And pigs will fly.  Starting tomorrow morning.

I hate - In really do - to be so blunt, but the notion that the removal from effective public discourse of issues regarded by many of be of paramount importance to the organization of the community is no more a threat to self-governance than the nomination of senators by state legislatures is not merely counterintuitive, but put-down-the-crackpipe-insane.  It would be rather like telling me that denying me the right to paint my car any colour but silver does not deny me the right to choose the colour of my car.  The debate over the place of the judiciary has nothing to do with the question of "pure democracy", but with the question of whether the judicial class can and will respect constitutional structures placing limits upon its own authority, whether we will have a government of laws and not mere wills, whether we will be governed by the deliberate sense of the people consistent with the abiding will of the Constitution or by the consensus of elite opinion, and whether elites and their sycophants will be able to indulge the conceit that self-government might allow the serfs to choose the people who will choose their tax policy but never allow them to police the moral atmosphere of their own neighbourhoods.

You indulge in abstraction and evasion; this debate has nothing to do with the abstract notions of majoritarianism, but with the question of whether the majority will be permitted to have its way on matters which the Constitution allows it to have its way, or whether that majority will be thwarted by a judicial caste horrified that its ideals might not be reflected in majority opinion.  Yes, in other words, the Constitution places certain limits upon majority opinion; among those limits, however, are not to be found the "right" to privacy, the "right" to abortion, or the "right" to consensual sexual congress.  

Enough of condescension.  Enough of the insulting and offensive notion that a man is still free if he may choose his public administrators but not, by his choice of legislators, the sort of world in which his children are to be raised.

You can't just leave out the 3 sentences following that statement.  The more we concentrate on getting the right Republicans in place, the sooner we get rid of these RINOs.

As an example, our neighbor to the north, N.H., had what I would consider a RINO senator some years ago, Warren Rudman (some will disagree with me on this characterization).  By getting the grassroots to support and push for more conservative candidates, we now have two fine Republicans in Judd Gregg and John Sununu.  And this John Sununu is far more conservative than his father.  Remember, it was his father, along with Rudman, who pushed David Souter on Bush I.

That is a lesson learned by Sununu the younger, and also by Bush the younger.  Which gets us back to Miers.  She wasn't my choice (I preferred either McConnell or Luttig), but knowing how much this President wants to avoid the mistake of his father, I cannot question his judgement here.  He has not failed us on judicial appointments to this point, so why would he start now?  He will fight for his people.  He certainly did in John Bolton's case for the U.N.

I have a great deal of respect for moderates of both parties, and wasn't making a value judgement one way or the other on them. I was only pointing out my disagreement with the other poster's thoughts on electoral strategy.

wrt to med marijuana, pot grown in CA for use in CA without ever being sold doesnt fall under the ICC.  Scalia + the left 5 got it wrong.

As far as assisted suicide/abortion, murder laws are a state function, the state should decide.  There should be neither a right to doctor assisted suicide nor an abortion right.

As you said, Congress could pass a law to prevent crossing state lines to purchase an abortion/death under the ICC, but I think that would probably be a bad idea.  After roe is overturned, leave it to the states, we can fight 50 battles.  Let congress turn to congressional matters.

that with people like you, Bush can treat conservatives the same way Democrats treat blacks. Your votes are a "given"- you would never vote for the other side- and as a result you are marginalized. Your threats to sit out the midterm elections are totally empty. What are you going to do? Sit home and pout and let the Dems take back the Senate? Not likely.

Welcome to the back of the bus!

The single most impressive piece of blog posting I've seen in two years.  I don't agree with what you say, but you do a bloody fine job of saying it.

Please, go ahead and use that tag-line about us conservatives and our proximity to a large vehicle used for public transportation.  Right now you're 2-for-2 - let's see you go for 3.  Pretty please?

Cute, that's all I have to say about it.

Things are great where I live, I'm talking about the belly of the beast. Those are just examples, maybe they aren't so bad. Then again, maybe you're just so used to being the bad guy you don't notice anymore. It isn't really essential on the points to understand the overall question.

"I only know one party that isn't actively promoting and endorsing those things which I protest so much"

"The republicans not fixing some of these broken things is hardly the same as the democrats causing them."

I simply can't see how two parties that result in such different atmospheres and, in practice, different political and social landscapes, can possibly be called identical. We could go down lists of items all day and you can say they aren't that bad, but like I said when I started, it's what you are willing to live with.

Clearly you are willing to live with a lot more than I am. And that's fine. But it doesn't make it true that there is no difference whether it's a republican or democrat in office, because there is.

This is the second iteration of this comment in a different thread. Cut it out or go away.

you've made this same comment.

Think of something different to say.

There are no circumstances or arguments which will convince me of the fact that a democrat in office would have conducted a war on terror at all, much less one even a fraction as effective as the current one. You may feel it ain't going so great, but I haven't been blown up yet and have zero confidence the same would have been true under a bleeding heart Kerry.

The fact that we can continue having picnics without being shot in the face is reason enough for me to miss one now and then to make sure we keep republicans in office.

> the Republican Party holds, as one of its most elementary tenets, that human life deserves protection from the earliest stages

I thought the basic tenets of Republican party and of conservatives were smaller government, fewer taxes, states' rights, and the rights of the individual.

The "tenet" you describe is one that has been tacked on over the last couple of decades by the Religious Right.

This issue and the courts are very important.  However we are also supposed to be the party of fiscal consvatism.  What happened to those days when people would look to the republican party as the party to fix spedning, to balance the budget, to lower the deficit.  These things are already dust in the wind as with the exception of few senators and representatives they are spedning mony like democrats.

If we lose out on this than where do we go from here?  If abortion on demand remains the law of the land and the republicans spend money like water then what difference is there between us and them?  Granted there are still some differences but not any any issue of the magnitude of these.

If a Democratic President acted in the War on Terror only to satisfy the liberal base, i.e., pulled fully out of Iraq and completely appeased NK and Iran, the Presidency would be guaranteed to the Republicans for the next 12 years at least.  As an example, think about how good the Carter presidency was to the Republican Party.  

So I see good results either way, whether the Democrats move rightward in order to govern effectively, or whether they succumb to the pressure of liberals, the country will benefit.  Admittedly, the immediate cost could be high.

... regarding my point.  (I actually think that it is possible to characterize a theory as "liberal" or "conservative".)

I don't know the background on this particular poster but the point, to me, isn't illegimate.  Inconsistency on issues such as this is one of the thing that drives a more libertarian-oriented person away from the philosophy of the current Republican party.

Do you sincerely believe that "Republicans" -- by which we're speaking in context of the national party -- deny gays' essential humanity and predicate rights? (The most predicate, so to speak, being life?) I wouldn't join such a party. I would mobilize myself against it.

but I do regard denial of benefits, visitations, etc. to gay partners denial of a basic human right.  Not to mention the bill (almost introduced) in Indiana to ban gays from reproductive and adoptive rights.  

Adoption bans for gay couples are on the books in several states already and some go so far as to outlaw the sexual acts of gays outright.  Is this a denial of human rights?  It seems so to me.

It comes from a very basic difference in belief systems I guess.  I don't equate a gay lifestyle with perversion, while admitting that it raises difficulties in child-rearing (as did mixed marriages in years past).  

If I were to document the political affiliation of those who most strongly support what I judge to be regressive policies, where do the majority fall?  

I'm not actually evaluating the specific remark of the poster, it is hyperbole but, again, the point resonates for some of us who aren't traditionally liberal and aren't gay.

There's at least 2 I can think of - Priest/Pennitent (sp?) and Doctor/Patient - there's no way Dobson is going to spill the beans about the assurances he received.

Sure there aren't more you want to sling around? I'm sure you may have overlooked one or two?

Heck, once you define "human rights" to cover every conceivable deviancy from the norm I guess we're all pretty "regressive".

An individual has no rights if he is dead.

Either has practical application here.  First, the Priest/Penitent and Doctor/Patient privileges are not universally recognized.  I have no idea regarding how they are viewed by the  D.C. Circuit, which would likely hear the any motion to quash/motion for a protective order filed by Mr. Dobson in response to a Congressional subpoena.  Second, even where these privileges are recognized, they are not universally applied to every Priest-layperson or Doctor-patient communication.  Rather, they are applied to only certain communications.  For instance, the Priest/Penitent privilege is usually limited to actual cases where a penitent approaches a priest for absolution of a particular sin (i.e., the classic "confess to murder in the confessional" circumstance).*  It's not at all clear that either would apply to a communication between, for instance, Dobson and Karl Rove (or anyone else) regarding a nominee's views.

Long story short:  I don't see how Dobson could claim either privilege without making him or Miers (or both) look like an idiot.

Insert standard disclaimers here:  The foregoing does not constituted legal advice; consult an attorney if you're interested in learning more; etc.

von

*The same is true for lawyers, by the bye:  

In general, a lawyer's advice on business matters is no more privileged than a CFO's advice on business matters.  Rather, for the attorney-client privilege to attach, a lawyer's advice must usually be on a legal matter.  

"It's not at all clear" - we have NO IDEA how Dr. Dobson received the information, so it is certainly POSSIBLE one of those privileges apply - I did not contend they were unlimited privileges either.  Tom Minnery, Focus's Vice President for Public Policy and Governmental Relations has responded to Colorado's Senator's statement implying Dobson knows something that should be subpoenaed: "Sen. Salazar knows nothing about what Dr. Dobson has been told, or by whom, and hasn't bothered to ask, yet he seems to have reached far-fetched conclusions. Once again the Senator is fishing without bait, without a pole and without a boat."

He was arguing from a certain concept of human rights.  I do not agree with that concept, but he was making arguments, not personal attacks.  He called the policies regressive, not those who support the policies.

Do you think that if I call the Republican energy policy "stupid", I am calling Republicans personally stupid?  No.  Smart, good folks can support a stupid policy through an error in reasoning, or because of a lack of information, or for many other reasons.  

Don't take it personally.  Just make the counter arguments.

I indicated that many of us have a fundamental difference of belief in that I do not regard gays as deviants.  Can some gays be deviant ... sure.  Can some heterosexuals be deviant ... sure.

Since I don't share the belief that gays are fundamentally perverse, naturally, I don't share the belief that their legal rights should be restricted in a fashion not applied to heterosexuals.  

By definition, restriction of rights is regressive.  So if you believe rights are being restricted, you believe a policy to be regressive.  

I wasn't insulting anyone, merely disagreeing, politely.

I do regard denial of benefits, visitations, etc. to gay partners denial of a basic human right.  Not to mention the bill (almost introduced) in Indiana to ban gays from reproductive and adoptive rights.

Hmmm. We deny people basic human rights. Ad hominem by the definition.  

Is this a denial of human rights?  It seems so to me.

Another one.

If I were to document the political affiliation of those who most strongly support what I judge to be regressive policies, where do the majority fall?

Regressive policies? Hmmm. A broadbrush for the views of about 2/3s of the population.

Don't take it personally.  Just make the counter arguments.

No, thanks. There is no value in having a conversation of any sort with a person who could espouse those views.

When you start by characterizing a position as a denial of human rights it becomes impossible to classify the argument as anything but ad hominem because it places the impossible burden on me of either convincing you that your definition of human rights is wrong (which I don't care to attempt) or defending the deprivation of human rights (which I don't care to do, either).

So I don't have much use for this argument or the person who would make it. Just declining to engage, politely.

It's completely far-fetched to think that Dobson was referring to something he was told by a patient or in the confessional.  Can we rule it out as a mathematical possibility, no.  But the proper procedure would be, a subpoena gets issued, and then he asserts the privilege if he believes one exists.  The fact that a privilege might, somehow, some way, be applicable is not an argument that no one should ever try and subpoena the guy.

The "funny" definition is also the "correct" one.

"Ad hominem" means "argument to the man" and is an attack against the person making an argument, not against the argument itself.  So, "you are stupid" is an ad hominem attack, whereas "that is a stupid argument" is not (even though it is not a very good argument on its own). A better example:  the chickenhawk argument is an ad hominem attack, whereas the argument that invading Iraq creates a breeding ground for terrorists is not.

Just because someone uses the term "human rights" does not make it an ad hominem attack--even if the intent is to make it difficult to argue against the position.  If the original position were "let's bring back slavery" and the counter-argument were "that's a violation of people's civil rights" would you think the retort would be an ad hominem attack?  I certainly don't, and it's the exact same response being used here.  You may agree or disagree that there is a "human right" that encompasses the right to marry people of your own gender, but that's a substantive disagreement not one related to you or jmaier as a person.

I took logic in college. I still have the books. I know what ad hominem is.

"you deprive people of human rights" is no different from "you are a racist" or "you are a bigot" or "you are a chickenhawk." And tarting up the statement in passive voice doesn't make the statement more respectable.

...doesn't make the tenet you describe an actual tenet of Republicanism and conservatism, so much as a belief on your part and an add-on by extremist groups with a narrow list of priorities.

You choose to step into the discussion in the first place.

I do regard denial of benefits, visitations, etc. to gay partners denial of a basic human right.  Not to mention the bill (almost introduced) in Indiana to ban gays from reproductive and adoptive rights.

Hmmm. We deny people basic human rights. Ad hominem by the definition.

what? does that mean every time we say abortion is wrong it is an ad hominem attack against democrats and is thus an invalid statement?

value statements are inherently alogical; they are axioms from which to build your political beliefs. disagreement over values does not make his values invalid, as it would just as equally make yours invalid.

granted its not my site, but it seems to be in the best interest of republicans that, if you air your substantial greviences with the democratic party then it should be ok for people to air their greviences with the republican party, especially if they are within it (or vote with it). thats what this thread is all about anyway. afterall, whats a big tent useful for if you have to fit in a phonebooth inside?

What if someone (maybe even Ms. Miers herself) called Dobson to confess that they violated the 9th Commandment about whether she will overturn Roe v. Wade?  I will agree the patient scenario is "somewhat" far-fetched, so now I am looking to see whether Dobson's honorary J.D. provides an alternative privilege.

What is the qualifier for that "far-fetched" scenario?

"you deprive people of human rights" is very different than "i believe these actions deprive people of human rights and the republican party tends to support them." one is an attack, the other is a serious statement of why he disagrees with the way the republican party is going.

while it is not perfectly analogous to "i believe these are the tenets of the republican party, we have gone astray and i wont further support it if it goes further," it is very similar in that it is a critique of the values currently upheld.

is the original article an ad hominem on those still supporting miers' nomination?

it wouldn't be but that isn't what was said.

disagreement over values does not make his values invalid, as it would just as equally make yours invalid.

and the point of this is?? The issue is not a disagreement over values, though that was present, the issue is framing the values so that, in this case, your opponent is a "homophobe" if they disagree.

granted its not my site, but it seems to be in the best interest of republicans that, if you air your substantial greviences with the democratic party then it should be ok for people to air their greviences with the republican party, especially if they are within it (or vote with it). thats what this thread is all about anyway.

Have you read the mission statement of the site?

Our objective is not to centralize or to direct, but to provide a rallying point for the Right, a public square where Republicans can interact, debate, and share information on a wide variety of political issues independent of the official party structure. Redstate.org will be a gathering place of responsible voices, stimulating debate, and constructive action, fully mobilizing conservative intellectual and organizational resources to create a strong and vibrant presence in the blog medium. Through Redstate, the political blogging of the Right can gain the critical mass it needs for the battle ahead.

So you would be mistaken in assuming that.

Come on, this is high comedy.  Yeah I'm sure Dobson's wife has the inside goods on Harriet Miers and that's how he knows.

Look, like I said, everyone is free to assert any applicable privilege as a response to a subpoena.  You create an impossible burden when you suggest that no one can serve a subpoena unless it is physically impossible for the target to have any privilege to assert.

Federal courts do not recognize a general doctor-patient privilege, although most state courts do, and a few even extend the privilege to conversations with dentists -- at least when matters as sensitive as discussions of HIV are involved.  Federal courts do, in contrast, recognize a psychotherapist-patient privilege, though not without controversy.  The 1996 Supreme Court case Jaffee v. Redmond reasoned that effective psychotherapy requires an atmosphere of confidence and trust that fosters open disclosure of facts, emotions, memories, and fears.  

http://slate.msn.com/id/2115068/

See above re: possible clergy-penitent scenario too.  And, I still think if Shirley Dobson was the one who gave him the information in the confidence of their marriage, federal courts will uphold that privilege as well  ; )

"you deprive people of human rights" is very different than "i believe these actions deprive people of human rights and the republican party tends to support them."

Really? It's different? So I can take a position that you say deprives people of human rights but it doesn't mean I'm in favor of depriving people of their human rights?

s the original article an ad hominem on those still supporting miers' nomination?

And yes there are plenty of ad hominems on both sides of the Miers argument. Those are inside the family. It's not an invitation for outsiders to participate.

I never suggested "no one can serve a subpoena" - I took exception to Cajun Atty's conclusion that this was "non-privileged" information.

If you get personally offended by the proposition that a Republican policy infringes on human rights, then perhaps you should not argue about politics.  Unless someone says or implies that the motives behind the policy are debased or corrupt, there is no reason to take it personally.  Objectively, some policies are bad, and some are downright stupid.  I assume we all agree.  I'm going to go one step further: both the Democrats and Republicans have supported, and will support, some bad, and stupid, policies.  It has happened and will happen more.  

It doesn't say anything about motives to call a stupid policy stupid, or a bad policy bad.  

That said, I disagree that keeping marriage illegal for gays is infringing on a human right.  But let's hear the arguments for and against, by all means.

This argument started out with an assertion that Democrats are against human rights, and then when someone responded that Republicans are against human rights, too, streiff jumped in to point out how unfair it is to say someone is against human rights.

And I suggest you withdraw your pointy sticks.

so much as a belief on your part and an add-on by extremist groups with a narrow list of priorities.

I'm being generous, so consider that your one warning.

Because it's a single predicate right under discussion; jmaier threadjacked and tossed a few insults; and now you me-tooed. Do we all feel better?

dishonest argumentation definitely, but I'd be hard pressed to attribute anything from the left as "unfair" as it goes without saying.

I am certainly what you would call a liberal. I guess I have infiltrated your site. I just want to say that I have nothing but tremendous respect for the passion and thoughtfulness of conservatives. You guys really do deserve to win. You work harder than we do and have a cause that really brings you together. And while I can't understand it, you obviously can, so maybe the fault is on my end.

I just want to know how on earth so many of you were fooled by Bush? I mean really now. Blind faith? Hopefulness? Frustration of the Clinton years? The last two are understandable. But c'mon. George W Bush??? With all the extremely bright people on your side, how on earth do you end up with someone like him?

Most so-called "Liberals" I know are not fanatical people. They just see a guy like GW and realize that he doesn't meet the standards that we have set for President. It's not just that we are anxious to disagree with you and your values. We call you homophobes and yet there is every bit as much a repulsion felt towards gays by liberals as by conservatives. Eveyone knows it. I know people so far to the left that it would make your head spin. But EVERYBODY wants to see fewer abortions. Not more. We just have different ways of getting there. But with the hatred and mis-trust we seem to have of each other, can we ever get there? Not with guys like GW and Rove running things. Divide and conquer !

One of my absolute heros is Pat Buchannon. Talk about your intelligent, PURE thinkers! Now there's a real conservative that everyone could respect. But these guys who pretend to be something they are not, just to get elected and get personal power are just shams and phonies: and there is some guilt by association involved. But I really hope that both sides can get together and stop this juvinile bickering and start working for our common goals. A secure homeland would be a great start. The lefts outrage against GW with Katrina was not about his reaction to the storm. It was about our not being prepared for a regional disaster 4 years after 9/11. We feel that the billions we have spent on Iraq would have been better spent on more first responders for our cities. Video cameras, dogs, searches, whatever it takes. Most liberals are certainly in favor of all of that. We understand that the world has changed.

I'm anxious to see your responses.

That's exactly what I've been thinking. I would go a little farther, but I'll save that for the furure.

I'm a Federalist too, but I could see a Justice deciding that the 5th Amendment right to not being deprived of life without due process could make Abortion itself Unconstitutional (with the usual exceptions).

After all, if a fetus is alive, then how can abortion be described as something other than the unlawful deprivation of life.  The 14th Amendment does cause the Bill of Rights to take precedence over state governments.

This is probably not a good idea.  I would argue that the issue of when life begins is a matter of fact and so must be determined by the legislature, not the Court, but couldn't the US Congress use it's authority under the 14th Amendment to make that definition?

Not that I have anything against Goldwater,  I still think his "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice" was right on the money.

The question isn't only when life begins, but when that life may qualify for full citizenship.  As far as I know, there is no Supreme Court precedent for considering an unborn person a citizen.  The Supreme Court has acknowledged that state and federal governments have a legitimate interest in protecting unborn life (even if the supposed right to privacy overrules that interest much of the time), but I believe the Court has never stated that unborn life may be considered a full citizen.  The argument could be made that this precedent should be set, though, I agree.