October 6, 2005
FATHER, FAITH, & 9-11:
Perhaps enough smoke has cleared and enough neocons and libertarians have made laughingstocks of themselves that we can analyze the nomination of Harriet Miers with a bit of dispassion. Judging from the fact that we had 100 comments in the Name the Nominee contest and only one person named Ms Miers (JimBobElrod please e-mail me for your book), it's probably safe to say that she wasn't many people's first choice, so there were bound to be long faces. But the hysteria that's gripped some is simply absurd. Here are some of the Pros surrounding the choice:
(1) The Souter Factor: The three primary influences on George W. Bush and his presidency would appear to be: Father, Faith, and 9-11. His father's presidency was marred by a series of what conservatives in particular will always consider failures: he raised taxes; he left Saddam in power; he put David Souter on the Court; and he lost to Bill Clinton. George W. has: cut taxes several times; removed Saddam; and won re-election and boosted the GOP congressional majority in consecutive elections. All that remains is to avoid a Souter.His father made the mistake of appointing two men unknown to him and both were embarrassments: Clarence Thomas in his hearings; David Souter on the bench. George W. first picked John Roberts, who'd not only worked for his legal team in the 2000 election, meeting with Jeb Bush, but who'd reportedly impressed him in at least one personal meeting, if memory serves. For his second pick it seems apparent that he'd have liked to name Alberto Gonzales but felt pressure, including from his wife, to name a female, so went with Ms Miers. The important thing in this regard is that, unlike his father's choices, Ms Miers is someone who George W. Bush knows well enough to feel some level of confidence that she'll not disappoint him once she's a Justice. He's a person to whom personal relationships are especially important and so he reached out to one of the two lawyers with whom he has the closest relationship. Indeed, the folks who are squealing now had better brace themselves for Alberto Gonzales next.
(2) The Faith Factor: Folks continue to underestimate the importance of George W. Bush's being Born Again at their own peril. It informs who he is and how he's governed. It is no suprise that he'd tap someone whose faith experience is so similar to his own, in the belief that he can trust her completely.
Meanwhile, though the bitter ex-McCainiacs and others inside the Beltway still seem to think that they're the tail that wags the dog, the President well understands that he is where he is because of the extraordinary loyalty and commitment of the Evangelical base. Some in the Right to Life movement won't ever believe that anyone shy of Randall Terry is truly pro-life, but for most it will be sufficient that Ms Miers is one of us, just as the President is.
(3) 9-11: For all the efforts to differentiate John Roberts and Harriet Miers, folks are ignoring the most obvious similarity: both have been creatures of the executive branch. For a president who is constantly cognizant of being a commander-in-chief in time of war it must obviously be important to know he'll have deferential allies on the Court.
There are, of course, Cons as well:
(1) The Beltway Boys: Just as the East Coast elites of the GOP have always had their shivs out for Red State conservatives--recall that they uniformly opposed George W. Bush in 2000--they are out to get Ms Miers because she's Southern not educated at an Ivy, an Evangelical, and not a pundit in her spare time. The baying on the Right is coming from intellectuals who once again have had their faces rubbed in the fact that in an anti-intellectual country the Republicans are the anti-intellectual party.What really galls them is that from South Carolina in the 2000 primaries to the Supreme Court in October 2005, George W. Bush has demonstrated over and over again that he can go over their heads--actually, under their upturned noses--take his case to the Republican hoi polloi and win. Theirs is the angst of the tail realizing it's a mere appendage, not a control stick.
However, since they make up the Rightish wing of official chattering class in NY and Washington, DC, they've an opportunity to make a lot of noise and some trouble. They likely can't change a single Republican vote in the Senate--politicians know the difference between voters and talkers--but they can clutter up the media message enough that the president will have to waste time for awhile reassuring the base about what he's doing.
(2) The Not Scalia Factor: It has become a conservative mantra that the President can best serve the cause by appointing intellectual heavyweights like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas if we are to return to an unambiguous and original understanding of the Constitution. You'd think the divergence between those two heroes and between each of them and their conservative colleagues on various issues would be sufficient warning that a Court with 9 Conservative Giants would be more likely to produce 5-4 decisions with 9 separate opinions that concur only on discrete issues than it would be to usher in the Golden Age of Conservative Unanimity. The Court is, in the final analysis, a political institution like any other and there's much to be said for putting together a majority that can work well together instead of one that's chosen for the public pyrotechnics of the nominees. That's not to say that John Roberts or Harriet Miers isn't the equal of Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas, just that they appear to have been chosen as much for their personal qualities as anything else.
Mr. Roberts looks like he could be a consensus builder in the tradition of great Chiefs, like Earl Warren (whose decisions were dreadful, but carried large majorities), and Ms Miers looks like she won't feel compelled to write a separate opinion in every case just to prove she's the smartest kid in class. If Mr. Roberts and Ms Miers can get Scalia and Thomas to pull together it makes it that much more likely that Anthony Kennedy can be kept in line and the Court begin to put up a truly unified conservative front.
That's a kind of tough sell to make though and most conservatives had their hearts set on another Scalia, a hope in which the President encouraged them. It's a bad time to be explaining that the Court may have one Scalia too many, not one too few.
Had it been my choice to make, I'm perfectly happy to admit I'd not have chosen Ms Miers. Personally, I'd have chosen John Ashcroft and made him Chief, because he's obviously someone whose ideology is beyond question and he'd bring experience to the court that it's badly lacked in recent years, electoral experience. It's no coincidence that Earl Warren was a governor before he joined the Court and then had both tremendous influence on his colleagues and a deft touch in handling them. The Chief oversees a large government bureaucracy. He governs. It would be helpful to have a Chief with experience in that regard. And while the Court is intentionally insulted from democratic whims, it has become too insulated from democratic realities. It would be helpful to have a few justices who had actually met voters and sought their support, written laws and enforced them, and had due regard for these processes. Likewise, bringing an opinion to fruition resembles in many ways the compromise and horse-trading that goes on between legislators, and a Chief with that kind of background would be helpful. Mr. Ashcroft, a graduate of Yale, former governor, former senator, former presidential candidate, former attorney general would be the most qualified person ever appointed, both on paper -- as the elites want -- and in reality.
Unfortunately, Mr. Ashcroft would be a certain lightning rod for the Left, is older and has been ill. So I recognize that even he comes with Cons. Our perfect candidates are really only perfect in our minds and only so long as we don't give the matter thorough thought. Ultimately, we all weigh up the pros and cons in our own ways and make a judgement unique to ourselves. I might have weighed Ms Miers differently than the President, but it seems easy enough to see why he thought the scales tipped in her favor.
MORE:
Bush pick a supreme puzzler (ROBERT NOVAK, 10/06/05, Chicago Sun-Times)
Two weeks ago, Bush was seriously considering another Texas woman he likes and knows well. The nomination of federal Circuit Judge Priscilla Owen would have been highly regarded in the conservative community. Owen was confirmed for the appellate bench only after the compromise forged by the Group of 14, and Republican senators advised the White House they did not want to fight for her again so soon.But there is no rule that O'Connor must be replaced by a Texas woman who is the president's pal. Many well-qualified conservative men and women were passed over to name Miers.
The question recurs: ''What was he thinking?'' Bushologists figure the president was irked by repetitive demands that he satisfy the base with his Supreme Court appointments. He also was irked by the conservative veto of his Texas friend and Miers' predecessor at the White House, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. So, Bush showed the critics by naming another close aide lacking Gonzales' track record to draw the ire of the party's right wing.
Republican activists slam Miers nomination (Ralph Z. Hallow, October 6, 2005, THE WASHINGTON TIMES)
Republican activists yesterday lashed out at President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, excoriating White House emissaries at two "off-the-record" gatherings of Washington conservatives.
"I can't stomach another 'trust me' from a Republican" in the Oval Office, Free Congress Foundation President Paul M. Weyrich told Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman at Mr. Weyrich's regular Wednesday conservative coalition luncheon. [...]
Former Republican National Chairman Ed Gillespie ran into a similar storm of criticism at the weekly morning meeting of about 200 conservative interest-group leaders and activists hosted by Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.
Of course they aren't happy--Grover Norquist is pro-abortion and here's one of many Paul Weyrich quotes denouncing Ronald Reagan as insufficiently conservative:
"As far as economic policy, I don't think he has much of a legacy." [...]"He refused to veto anything. . . . The net result was we were stuck with an ever-expanding federal government."
What percentage of the GOP is anti-life and anti-Reagan?
-Few Clues to Miers' Convictions: The nominee's life has been marked by dramatic political and religious shifts, which have raised questions about her core beliefs. (Times Staff Writers, October 6, 2005, LA Times)
For Harriet Ellan Miers, the road to a Supreme Court nomination began in summer 1994, with an ugly little legal problem involving an exclusive East Texas fishing camp and the soon-to-be governor, George W. Bush.A caretaker named J.W. Moseley alleged that Bush and the other members — who included two former Texas secretaries of state and former Dallas Cowboys owner H.R. "Bum" Bright — had unjustly fired him out of "spite and ill will."
For most of the members, men of established wealth and power, the suit was little more than a nuisance. But for Bush, it carried the potential for public embarrassment that no rising political star needs, especially because there was talk that cabins at the camp, known as the Rainbo Club, had been used to gain questionable tax advantages.
Bush turned to Miers, a relative newcomer to his political team. Although lawyers for the other defendants opted for confidential settlements with Moseley, Miers elected to fight. She not only got the complaint against Bush dismissed, she handled it so deftly that there was no awkward publicity.
"It took awhile to get it disposed of, but it did go away. She did a crackerjack job," said Jim Francis, a Dallas lawyer who originally brought Miers on board as general counsel for the gubernatorial campaign.
A grateful Gov. Bush made Miers his personal attorney — and a de facto member of his inner circle. It would transform Miers' life.
"She took the pill. She said: 'I'm yours,' " said a longtime GOP strategist in Texas who has worked with Bush and Miers, speaking on condition of anonymity.
"She put her personal life, everything, on hold."
That loyalty and commitment, demonstrated repeatedly in Texas and after Miers followed Bush to the White House in 2001, led the president to reassure skeptical conservatives with the simple statement: "I know her heart."
From Miers, Telling Words (David S. Broder, October 6, 2005, Washington Post)
It's too soon to judge this nomination. But my guess is that in the end it is the liberals who will have the most misgivings about Miers.Posted by Orrin Judd at October 6, 2005 9:00 AMI came to that conclusion after a breakfast interview -- by coincidence the morning of the president's announcement -- with Leonard Leo, who is on leave as executive vice president of the Federalist Society to work with the White House on judicial confirmation issues.
The Federalist Society, an organization of conservative lawyers, has been influential in staffing the Bush administration and recommending candidates for the federal bench. Leo came late to the breakfast from a conference call, in which he was attempting to quash the arguments other conservative leaders were making against Miers.
He spoke as one who has known and worked with her for well over a decade, who has played host to her when she has been a Federalist Society speaker, and -- perhaps most significant -- who joined her in a battle to get the American Bar Association to rescind its resolution endorsing Roe v. Wade , the decision establishing a right to abortion.
The first thing Leo said was that Miers's statement accepting the nomination from Bush was significant to him. "It is the responsibility of every generation to be true to the Founders' vision of the proper role of courts in our society . . . and to help ensure that the courts meet their obligations to strictly apply the laws and the Constitution," she said. "When she talked about 'the Founders' vision' and used the word 'strictly,' " Leo said, "I thought, 'Robert Bork,' " Ronald Reagan's Supreme Court pick, who was rejected by the Senate after a bitter fight. "She didn't have to go there. She could simply have said, 'Judges should not legislate from the bench.' But she chose those words."
I asked if he was surprised that she did -- or whether it was consistent with what he knew of her judicial philosophy. He replied: "I'm not surprised that's what she believes. I'm surprised her handlers let her say it."
The Miers nomination has brilliantly highlighted (as in neon Magic Marker) the fault lines within the conservative coalition. But there's not a damn thing the Dems can do to exploit those weak points, given their own factions.
Posted by: ghostcat at October 5, 2005 10:18 PMThe fact that Bush has decided not to treat the evangelicals on the Republican side the same way the Democrats have treated African-Americans on their side does seem to have given a few folks the vapors. They'd be better off dropping that line of attack, and center their Miers grumblings around her lack of a paper trail, unless they want to find themselves silently nodding to the objections of those on the left who will have no qualms about demanding her religous background be a disqualifying factor.
Posted by: John at October 5, 2005 10:25 PMOK OJ: You win. I love Harriet Souter.
I know somebody has to play viola. But I will not be happy untill I am sure that she is willing to vote as instructed by her elders and betters.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at October 5, 2005 11:32 PMThere are a heck of a lot more evangelicals than there are blacks. And appeals to the former are going to hit quite a few of the latter, but not vice versa.
Fantastic essay.
Posted by: Timothy at October 5, 2005 11:33 PMI picked the front runners (Luttig and McConnell) because I fully expected a surprise. Any rational, observant person should have realized that after the lead up to Roberts first nomination (What was her name again?) and from the sheer number of names the pundits were tossing about.
I've noticed that among the punditry, lot of the anti-Miers people seem to be same ones who are in the forefront of the anti-Pork Crusade (And of course, they get to define what is and isn't "pork"...) Both subjects seem to excite a certain kind of person who likes big theatrics and ideological purity (think Perot to Keyes to McCain) over actually accomplishing anything. Both bore me, pork because the are attempting to treat the symptoms in the hope that that will then magically cure the disease itself, this subject for pretty much the reasons you cite. What's there to fight about, exactly?
I'm willing to settle for a quarter of a loaf after getting nothing for the last few decades. because three more quarters and I will have the whole loaf.
Robert Schwartz:
When you find someone "better" than Ms Miers, please let us know.
Until then, Ms Miers will be issuing the voting orders.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://brothersjuddblog.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at October 6, 2005 12:39 AM
Indeed, the folks who are squealing now had better brace themselves for Alberto Gonzales next.
Orrin, that has to be one of the best arguments I've heard for stopping Miers' confirmation.
That's a kind of tough sell to make though and most conservatives had their hearts set on another Scalia, a hope in which the President encouraged them.
Yes, Bush did promise to nominate people in the Scalia/Thomas mold, which Miers definitely is not. For him to maintain that Miers is "the best qualified" is ludicrous. After CFR, Brown at FEMA, Myers at ICE, and tolerating such luminaries as Tenet at CIA and Mineta at Transportation, Bush's personal judgement is suspect among some conservatives. As someone said on another blog: "But President Bush has put himself in the awkward position of asking his base to trust him at precisely the moment the base was expecting Bush to demonstrate their trust was well-founded in the first place."
Nor are Miers' cheerleaders getting a very warm reception in their attempt to mollify the base: Conservatives Confront Bush Aides
Posted by: jd watson at October 6, 2005 1:53 AM
JD: Two things-- first, do you imagine that (the completely unrealistic and impossible feat of)stopping the Miers nomination would do anything but stick Alberto Gonzales in the slot faster? Fat chance.
Second, you're confusing Bush's base with those who call themselves his base. Bush's real base doesn't tend to talk in those terms, so when someone starts calling themselves that, it's a good clue that they may not be. I'm a part of the group that makes up the vast, vast majority of Bush's base (evangelicals), but I spend way too much time in front of a computer spouting off my opinions to really be called Bush's base.
Posted by: Timothy at October 6, 2005 2:27 AMTimothy: If Miers is confirmed, then Alberto is the next nominee. The only way to prevent that is to require nominees who merit the appointment, not just cronies of GWB.
You're confusing Bush's base; it is not just the evangelicals, and it is not vast -- yuo're too full of yourself.
Posted by: jd watson at October 6, 2005 5:38 AM
jd:
What "merit" test would you impose? There are already confirmation hearings. Who would enforce your test? Do you envisage a lower court judicial challenge to a SCOTUS appointment on the basis that the candidate is unqualified?
Posted by: Peter B at October 6, 2005 6:07 AMjd:
She's been White House Counsel--she's better qualified than most of those people have suggested.
Posted by: oj at October 6, 2005 7:26 AMThe classic Weyrich line came when he, Phillips and Viguerie (sp?) started denouncing Ronald Reagan as a useful idiot for the KGB because of how he kept getting rolled by Gorbachev.
Posted by: David Cohen at October 6, 2005 8:32 AMAs noted elsewhere it is becoming clear that a lot of the conservative angst is that there will probably not be the knock down drag out brawl that conservatives and the GOP base wanted. These people are getting caught up in the means while ignoring the goal - to get more conservative justices on the SC. If Bush can do that without a brawl all the better.
Posted by: AWW at October 6, 2005 9:06 AMBest and most balanced essay I've read. The entire process has become politicized and there is no sense bewailing the fact at this late date. Those of us who were liberals when Bork was lynched see our buzzards coming home to roost each and every Supreme appointment.
One thing you left out is the continuing charge of crony appointments. Let's face it: Miers at ICE, that accounting menace Schultz at SEC, Brown at FEMA (yeah, he's being lynched), his appointment of old buddy Tom Ridge and on and on. It is no wonder everybody is sick and tired of "trusting" him; and all remember "trusting" his father who was a disaster (read my lips, "no new taxes") who appointed Souter because he didn't personally know anybody.
These things stick in the collective craw of Republicans and they actually WANT to engage in a bloody brawl. It will purge all of them of the dreaded disease: "gutlessness."
Posted by: Duke at October 6, 2005 9:23 AM
Based on all the problems Bush had just getting John Bolton confirmed to a far less important position, I'm still at a loss to understand why so many people think a Luttig, Jones or Brown would have been a slam-dunk selection, with Spector, Chaffee, Snow, Collins, Vonivich and Hagel to contend with (I'm giving McCain the benefit of the doubt here, and assuming he's smart enough to know his '08 hopes would be scuttled by a "No" vote).
I would have preferred Bush go with one of those, as part of a war of attrition, since I think whoever he nominated first would have been shot down in flames by the shakier GOP senators, and even the second choice would have had problems. But by the time they got to choice No. 3 or even 4, there would still be enough able jurists with records around, while fatigue, and public pressure the other way, would start to set in on Bush's main opponents. But that battle would have gone well into the early portion of the 2006 election cycle, and that may have been an option the White House didn't want to go through next year.
Posted by: John at October 6, 2005 9:24 AMNot only 'all the better' but absolutely critical.
Look, I personally am moderately conservative. Miers is probably too far to the right on some issues for me. I don't mind her nomination, tho, because I'm pretty sure she will be meticulous and a strict constructionist on the bench.
More important to me is that she understands the GWOT. Folks, we are fighting for our lives in a 20-30 year war that will get ugly in more ways than most Americans realize. My own prediction is that the countries to the south of us are going to collapse into chaos and present overt security threats to us within the next 5 years or so.
Damn it, I want to shake some conservatives and slap them to bring them to their senses. This country does NOT need a knock-down, dragout civil war right now. We cannot afford one and I think Bush realizes that.
Roberts is a brilliant conservative theorist. Miers has a track record of attention to detail, not being swayed by emotion and of building effective coalitions. You want to make a conservative impact on the court? Appoint a justice who will write detailed opinions that build a court consensus and set long-lasting and far-reaching precedents. And someone of Miers' temperament and skills is just what's needed to help Roberts do that.
Wake up, folks. We are facing a huge threat to our very way of life -- from OUTSIDE this country and culture. Yes, we need to fix some things at home. But we also need to deal with an unprecedented challenge in the world -- and to walk a very tough balancing act between doing what's needed to succeed and not undermining our basic civil liberties along the way.
Noonan, Will and the others calling for open warfare over the bench slots are taking a myopic view of our real issues. In other times that might just be a political difference. At the moment it verges on destructive sabotage of our GWOT efforts.
Posted by: too true at October 6, 2005 9:29 AMScalia and Thomas have different base theories. So how can one person be in the mold of both? Unless that mold means conservative results which means Miers is in the "mold". The President promised in 2000 (see the first debate for instance) that he would nominate judges who would not legislate from the bench. Miers certainly seems to fit.
Two weeks ago conservative activists were saying about Roberts that "elections have consequences". That was true then, it remains true. George Bush is the President, not Gary Bauer.
Weyrich has always been a kook, the quotes from him prove that. Norquist is on the other side in the GWOT, any wonder he doesn't have influence on this issue when teror case wil come before the SC..
Duke:
They're all cronies (except Powell & O'Neill)--that's why he appointed so many governors--and he's had easily the best Cabinet since Washington. If you want to get rid of the cronies you lose Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice...
Posted by: oj at October 6, 2005 10:08 AMIt's different to have cronies on the cabinet. The cabinet serves the President. The US Supreme Court does not exist to serve the executive branch, but to serve as a check and balance. People with such intense personal loyalty, who their rise in power to one man in the White House, should never be allowed to serve on the Supreme Court.
Posted by: Chris Durnell at October 6, 2005 11:40 AMThe charge of Ivy League elitist is bull honkey, Orrin:
See this.
Janice Roger Brown: Cal State, UCLAPosted by: Paul Cella at October 6, 2005 11:42 AM
Michael Luttig, Washington and Lee, UVA
Alice Batchelder: Ohio Wesleyan, Akron
Priscilla Owen, Baylor, Baylor
Edith Clement, Alabama, Tulane
Emilio Garza, Notre Dame, University of Texas
Maura Corrigan, Marygrove, University of Detroit
Karen Williams, Columbia College, University of South Carolina
Larry Thompson, Michigan State, U. of Michigan
Consuelo Callahan: Stanford, McGeorge School of Law
Diane Sykes, Northwestern, MarquetteOf all the buzz nominees, only two have an Ivy League connection:
Edith Jones, Cornell, University of Texas
Sam Alito – Princeton, Yale
Ray Clutts:
All right, if personal knowledge of the candidate is important, let's take a look at this:
HH: Joined now on the Hugh Hewitt Show by a veteran of the White House Counsel's office, Noel Francisco. He is presently of counsel to the firm of Jones Day, I believe, in Washington, D.C. Welcome, Noel. It's good to have you on the program.
NF: My pleasure. It's good to be here.
HH: Let's get a little background down here. You graduated University of Chicago in economics, and then you got your J.D. from the University of Chicago as well, correct?
NF: That's right.
HH: Associate counsel to the president for two years, 2001 to 2003. Deputy attorney general, office of legal counsel, in the Department of Justice for a couple more years. Former law clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia, and law clerk to my friend and former colleague Michael Luttig on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. That's a pretty...are you a member of the Federalist Society?
NF: I am. A proud member.
HH: Okay. So you're one of us, right?
NF: I am.
HH: Okay, what do you think of Harriet Miers?
NF: I think the world of Harriet Miers. I think that Harriet is the fulfillment of the president's promise, yet again, to put forward individuals who are going to strictly apply the laws, and not make it up as they go along.
HH: What do you make of the charges, mainly headquartered at National Review, but also places elsewhere on the web, that she's a non-entity...mediocre...a crony?
NF: Well, you know, I think that those charges are fundamentally misplaced. And I have to say I have a lot of sympathy for my friends at the National Review, and other conservatives around the country. And if I thought that Harriet was anything but a good, strict constructionist, and a good advocate of judicial restraint, I would very much share their concerns. But I simply think that they fundamentally misunderstand what Harriet Miers is about.
Posted by: Matt Murphy at October 6, 2005 11:51 AMPaul;
It's the neocons who are exercised about the lack of pedigree. You guys are upset that she hasn't written denouncing Roe and is insufficiently anti-government.
Posted by: oj at October 6, 2005 12:31 PMOJ:
I'm not much upset at all any more. But the "Ivy League elitism" stuff has got to go.
I would just ask people to reflect for a moment on how they would receive this nomination if they did not know who made it.
Posted by: Paul Cella at October 6, 2005 12:34 PMOne cannot divorce a nomination from the president making it. If I heard that a democrat president named a former EEOC chair with limited judicial experience, I probably wouldn't like it.
Posted by: Bob at October 6, 2005 12:44 PMYou mean if Ronald Reagan had nominated Ed Meese?
Posted by: oj at October 6, 2005 12:50 PM"It's the neocons who are exercised about the lack of pedigree."
Pat Buchanan's a neocon?
"I know her heart."
Didn't he say the same about Putin?
Posted by: Ali Choudhury at October 6, 2005 12:50 PMAli:
No, Pat just wants a clinic bomber for the seat.
He was certainly right about Putin.
Posted by: oj at October 6, 2005 12:56 PMI think conservatives, like George Will, may be concerned with the president's tendency toward 'practical politics' as opposed to ideological purity. G. Bush senior displayed a political naivete which became more and more out of place as the opposition in congress and the MSM began to play hardball with his administartion. Conservatives may be more concerned with genetics believing that the son may be a bit squishy like his dad. How do 'third wayers' interpret the constitution?
Posted by: Tom C., Stamford, Ct. at October 6, 2005 2:10 PMTom:
If the government can tax you and then redistribute the money in the form of education/welfare/social security it can obviously tax you and require you to keep the money in an account for your own later use or turn it into a voucher and give it to you immediately.
Posted by: oj at October 6, 2005 2:18 PMWell, if the government can negate state laws regulating abortion it could obviously require that euthanasia of the elederly served a compelling state interest.
Posted by: Tom C., Stamford,Ct. at October 6, 2005 3:06 PMIf the government's telling you what to do with it then it isn't your money, and it is simply piling insult on injury to then make you pretend that it is.
Posted by: joe shropshire at October 6, 2005 3:08 PMWhen you find someone "better" than Ms Miers [sic], please let us know.
Thomas and Scalia. The only time Harriet Souter gets to choose is when they split. Although, I remain available for telephone consultation.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at October 6, 2005 3:11 PMjoe:
That's right. We've settled that question though. Think there's a future with no SS taxes?
Posted by: oj at October 6, 2005 3:12 PMTom:
Government is always exactly as responsible as we want it to be.
Posted by: oj at October 6, 2005 5:35 PM