South End Grounds

I Confess. I Did It.

In the midst of a sleepless night caused by the newest addition to my family, I wrote this post expressing my opposition to Harriet Miers.  Nine hours later, she withdraws.  Adam Groves seems to think I might be the proximate cause of this turn of events.  Far be it from me to disagree with Adam. 

Of course, Adam and I are kidding.  White House staffers have leaked to me that the Grounds is one of the most widely read blogs in the Bush administration.  (I hope that doesn't land me in front of a grand jury.)  But of course, my post had nothing to do with Ms. Miers decision.  Oh yeah, I'm kidding about that leak thing, Mr. Fitzgerald. 

This is a great day for conservatism.  Not so because of the withdrawal, but because we proved something about the strength of our movement.  Our strength doesn't lie in the fact that we can cause one thing to happen or, in the case of Harriet Miers' confirmation to the Supreme Court, not happen.  President Bush made a bad pick for a legacy defining appointment.  Some conservatives agreed with the pick while others did not.  We fought it out amongst ourselves for three weeks until we got a resolution that enables everyone on the right side of the spectrum to unify again behind our President and prepare to lock horns with our political adversaries on the left.  And unify we must.

I'm confident that the President will make a Roberts type pick that conservatives will uniformly support.  That will, in turn, mortify the left.  We must be prepared to support this pick with the same degree of passion and vigor that we invested in the election and reelection of President Bush.  A fight is coming and it is one that President Bush cannot win on his own.  There will be, I hope, more fights that require our steadfast support.  These are the battles we hoped would come when we sent George W. Bush to the White House; border security, tax reform and more judicial confirmations, to name a few.  We're solidly in his corner on each of them.  Let's hope he takes the fight to the other side now.

There are a few people who deserve a lot of credit in this.  The first and most important is Harriet Miers.  Personal ambitions took a backseat for the good of the country, the President and his base.  The writing was on the wall and she read it.  Most people are blinded in the face of facts. She was not.  Second, the President.  He's strong-willed but not stubborn.  I'm sure he wanted to prove that he was right on this one, but he also had the sense to do the right thing.  Given this mulligan, he'll make the right pick.  Finally, several Republican senators, including Bill Frist, were honest with the White House and saved the administration from walking through a minefield.  It is especially gratifying to see senators do the right thing far, far away from a microphone or television camera. 

Conservatives, celebrate and remember this day.  We did something the left can't do; fight amongst ourselves on ideas and issues and then come back together stronger than ever.  It is sign and signal of an enduring movement.

Did John Edwards Say This?

We undeniable [sic] still have a justice system that does not provide justice for all as provided by the Pledge of Allegiance.  One justice for the rich, one justice for the poor.  One justice sometimes for minorities, one for whites. 

Nope. 

Are these the words of Patricia Ireland?

Abortion clinic protestors have become synonymous with terrorists.[snip]

The ongoing debate continues surrounding the attempt to once again criminalize abortions or to once and for all guarantee the freedom of the individual woman's right to decide for herself whether she will have an abortion. 

Worse.  These are the utterances of Harriet Miers? 

I was going to withhold judgment on Miers until the hearings, but I'm jumping off the fence. I can safely say that I oppose the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. 

But not for the reason you might expect; that she might be pro-choice.  No, I oppose her nomination because she indicated in 1989 that she was pro-life.  Then in 1993, she gives the speech linked to above.  Now we are supposed to believe that she really is pro-life. 

I oppose her nomination because she tells her audience what they want to hear.  Change the issue from abortion to matters of business and labor or election law or her favorite color.  The issue is of far less relevance than her tendency to - how should I put it - flip-flop.  I don't like that quality in a presidential candidate or a Supreme Court nominee. 

I really wanted to give Ms. Miers, and more importantly the President, the benefit of the doubt.  At the moment, I only have doubts. 

IRS Clarifies how tax exempt groups can influence Supreme Court Nomination

Here is an IRS publication showing how each type of tax exempt organization may influence John Roberts nomination.

What Kind of Justice Will Roberts Be?

Head over to Daly Thoughts for an excellent breakdown of his record trying cases before the Supremes.  Take note of which justices most often sided with him.  Gerry's point is that he wants not just a conservative on the court, but one who is convincing as well.  His ability to appeal to the Kennedy's of the world, speaks volumes about his ability to build conservative consensus on the court.  He will, in effect, compound his vote.  I'm looking forward to saying, "Justice Roberts."

By the way, I know I linked to DT earlier today. But when a blog is as good as that one, it's bound to happen from time to time.

Sen. Hatch on Consultation; Sen. Schumer Makes a Stunning Admission

On Meet The Press:

Kelo Counter

I'm troubled, deeply so, by the asinine Kelo ruling.  It further illustrates the need for judicial reform so that a black robe doesn't equate to an imperialist cloak.  The blogosphere is full of good commentary on the subject and anything I would say amounts to moaning and complaining so I'll leave it alone.  My good friend, Bob Krumm, has actually added something constructive to the discourse by proposing an amendment to Tennessee's constitution to prevent municipal landgrabs.  It probably needs some tweaking, but on the whole it's a good proposal. 

I've been meaning to tell you about Bob's blog for a while.  He's one of the sharpest guys I know and will have some great things to say on all manner of issues confronting the state and nation.  I look forward to reading more of his wit and witticisms. 

More on the Judges

South Carolina blogger dissects the memorandum of understanding and registers his displeasure with his Senator, Lindsey Graham.  Just hop on over there and scroll and scroll and scroll.  (Mike, thanks for visiting the Grounds.  You've got a great blog.)

Douglas Kmiec picks apart the Democrats' tactics using of all things, the Constitution.  Who would have thunk it?

B4B agrees with my assessment of Senator Frist.  Whew. 

Priscilla Owens has been confirmed by the Senate.  It's one of ten that need to be confirmed.   Any other Majority Leader wouldn't have gotten this one.  Thank you, Senator Frist.

Don't Blame Frist

I am loathe to disagree with Bill Hobbs, but I must.  I place absolutely zero blame for the "memorandum of understanding" at the feet of Bill Frist.  In fact, I am as proud to have Bill Frist as my United States Senator as I have ever been.

The genesis of this entire episode is John McCain and his insatiable quest to thwart George W. Bush at every turn.  In this case, he found seven very willing Democratic accomplices and six Republicans who are all too eager to look like "unrepublicans" to the D.C. insider establishment and their fellow Democrats in the Senate.  Together, they have created an uber-minority of 14 who can now control who gets on the federal bench.  This was revenge for one Senator, McCain, and a power grab for the other 13.  There is absolutely nothing, zip, nada, zero that Bill Frist could have done about that.

Frist did far more than any Senate GOP leader in recent memory would have done.  He walked the Senate to the water, but he had a few horses that wouldn't drink.  More than that though, he promised today that this fight is not over.  He will call for the Constitutional option again if it becomes necessary.  As he said on the Senate floor this morning:

[L]et me be very clear: the Constitutional option remains on the table.  I will not hesitate to use it if necessary.  It has been and continues to be a last resort.  My goal is restoring the principle of fair up or down votes on judicial nominees.  However, if the minority again acts in bad faith – if they resume their campaign of routine judicial obstruction – I will ask all 100 senators to decide whether judicial nominees deserve fair up-or-down votes.

When I worked for the General Assembly, I learned firsthand about Republicans that will stop at nothing to gain approval from the insiders or the press.  I saw with my own eyes what they will do to curry favor from the Democrats as if they had come down with a severe case of Stockholm Syndrome.  These types are undeterred and no matter how strong a leader heads their party, they will work to undermine them whenever possible.

Such is the case with McCain.  Ask yourself, what does McCain want more than anything in the world, or more precisely what does McCain feel like he is entitled to?  Answer, the presidency.  Who could be his greatest stumbling block en route to the White House?  Answer, Bill Frist.  What is the best way to alienate Bill Frist from the base that McCain has already alienated by voting against tax cuts and being a vocal critic of the Bush Administration's social policies and its execution of the war?  Answer, make Bill Frist look weak by undermining him in a fight that is so critically important to the GOP base.

Sadly, some of my conservative friends have fallen into the trap McCain has set.  They look at Bill Frist as a weak leader because he was undermined in a manner that he could in no way prevent.  Now Bill Frist looks like the enemy of the base who wants these judges confirmed.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Bill Frist can rein in one or two Senators but seven is impossible, as Lance Frizzell has pointed out.  If you really want to make McCain the victor in all this, then turn on Bill Frist.  I will stick by Frist because I understand how precarious his situation is.  Furthermore, I don't want John McCain running this party, or worse yet the Senate, so my support from Sen. Frist is still solid.  This fight isn't over, as Sen. Frist has pointed out, and I for one won't give John McCain one inch of ground by labeling Frist ineffective.

Quite the contrary.  Tennessee has a long and distinguished history of United States Senators and in recent months Bill Frist has moved to the front of a crowd that includes Estes Kefauver, Howard Baker, Fred Thompson and Lamar Alexander.  I'm as proud to have Bill Frist as my Senator as I was the day I moved to this great state.

And for my conservative friends, don't be so quick to jump ship from Frist.  You might just hand Bob Corker a seat in the Senate.  Frist is still the most popular figure in Tennessee politics.  I would guess that his approval among Tennesseeans even after this episode is in the high 70's.  If conservatives abandon him, Bob Corker is able to say something like the following:  "Some in my opponents' camps have been critical of Sen. Frist.  I stand with him and feel that he is a shining example of what a Tennessee Senator should be, someone who stands on conviction, who fights the tough fights and who ultimately will prevail on this important issue." 

If my hypothesis about Frist's popularity is true, then voters will flock to Corker because he is the only candidate to stand with Frist during a very tough fight.  Doubt me?  That's fine but you'll soon find out how right I am.

Whenever Bill Frist's name shows up on my ballot, he gets my vote.  I'm off now to purchase some snow shoes.  They're cheaper in the summer and I plan on using them to schlep through New Hampshire and Iowa in 2008. 

How Do You Spell Capitulation?

M-O-D-E-R-A-T-E or M-A-V-E-R-I-C-K

I still don't know what a moderate is, but the media are casting the title upon the 14 signatories to an agreement that allows Democrats to continue obstructing judicial nominees. 

The problems with this deal are bountiful.  Here are a few key ones:

• Democrats can still filibuster any nominee they wish under "extraordinary circumstances," a term that is undefined in the agreement and doubtless will be used in the not-too-distant-future.
• Republicans gave away the store.  They agreed not to change the rules for the remainder of this Congress with no concession from the Democrats should they abuse the "extraordinary circumstances" clause. 
• Some of the nominees will not receive a vote.  The agreement clears the way for only three nominees.  The remainder will surely be considered extraordinary.  If four of seven nominees do not receive votes would not the three that do, by definition, be extraordinary?
• It's inconsistent.  Why do some judges, that heretofore were wholly unacceptable to Democrats get the courtesy of a vote while other, equally unacceptable, judges will not get the same courtesy?  Boggles the mind.
• The Democrats will take this as license to filibuster any Supreme Court nominee that is to the right of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. 

I had the opportunity a couple of months ago to hear Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina speak at a dinner in Murfreesboro, TN.  He spoke eloquently about the importance of the Judiciary in our society and how important it was to see President Bush's nominees confirmed.  I left that dinner with renewed appreciation for a man I grew to admire when he was in the House.  Tonight, I'm disappointed that he has signed this sham of a deal.  I wonder what his former roommate thinks of it. 

Graham is sadly becoming another John McCain or George Voinovich, a maverick who is so for the sake of being a maverick.  It's more important to be well-regarded in the New York Times or Washington Post than it is to stand up for the people whose votes they court and whose hopes they arouse when they make speeches at conventions and party dinners across the land.  They've subjugated their principles and for what, some nice words from liberal editorial boards and "their colleagues on the other side of the aisle." 

I had occassion to work with several legislators of a similar mind.  They find out in due course that no matter how nice you are to a donkey, they're liable to kick you in the butt if the mood suits them.  The sooner that happens to these "moderates," the better.

Is it any wonder that history is not replete with great moderates?

Reply to the Sun

A commenter dubbing himself (or herself, I'm not sure of the gender)  "An Invisible Sun" has become somewhat of a regular on this site and, like all dissenting voices, they are always welcome.  I enjoy spirited and thoughtful debate, which the Sun always provides. 

The Sun left this comment on a previous post and asked for a reply.  It's a thoughtful comment, so I'm happy to oblige.

I keep waiting for you to post something on the Senate debate, because I would really like to see your impression of Frist's character in that context (remember: you told me a while back that you know him and consider him moral).

Well, I was watching some of the video on the debate tonight; and I could not believe my ears when I heard Senator Frist accuse Democrats of trying to "assassinate" judges.  Would you say that accusing someone of attempted assassination of a judge--when all they were doing was lawfully opposing that judge's nomination to the federal bench--is the least bit morally reprehensible?  At the very least, it constitutes lying, if not demagoguery, if not slander.