Voters will know I'll put competent judges on the bench. People who will strictly interpret the Constitution and not use the bench for writing social policy. That is going to be a big difference between my opponent and me. I believe that the judges ought not to take the place of the legislative branch of government. That they're appointed for life and that they ought to look at the Constitution as sacred. They shouldn't misuse their bench. I don't believe in liberal activist judges. I believe in strict constructionists. Those are the kind of judges I will appoint.Item: Ramesh Ponnuru, September 23, 2003:
Has Bush nominated conservative judges? Sure he has--just as he promised he would during the campaign. He said he wanted "strict constructionists" in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. Anyone who was paying attention knew what that meant.Item: Rick Scarborough, July 7, 2005:
Over the past five years, George W. Bush has promised time and again to nominate justices of the Scalia/Thomas mold - fearless individuals of principle who are willing to endure the establishment's scorn to uphold constitutional rights and oppose judicial tyranny.Item: Former Attorney General Edwin Meese III, in a July 20, 2005, Toronto Star article, quoted on Media Matters:
President Bush promised the American people that he would nominate Supreme Court justices who would not legislate from the bench and would be in the mould of Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia.Item: Knight-Ridder newspapers, October 6, 2005:
Little in Miers' track record - mostly as a corporate attorney in Dallas and legal adviser to Bush - suggests that she would have developed a particular constitutional approach or outlook. . .Any questions?
She also said during her sworn testimony that she would not join an organization like the Federalist Society, a group of conservative intellectuals that is a leading proponent of a strict - and some say narrow - interpretation of the Constitution.
"I just feel like it's better not to be involved in organizations that seem to color your view one way or the other for people who are examining you," she said. . .
The Supreme Court confronts the role of race in policy-making decisions in a number of areas, including voting rights and affirmative action. Miers' 1990 views on the subject suggested contextual solutions that avoided rigid rules much like O'Connor's opinion in the landmark college admission case. That approach is not embraced by the court's more doctrinaire justices, such as Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
(via The Corner)
2 comments:
Good posts, Carl. The fact that Miers is on the record as supporting affirmative action, alone, should deep-six her nomination. We need to spread the word about this, loudly and clearly, throughout the blogosphere and to the Senate itself-- this makes her unacceptable. You cannot be a Strict Constructionist on the Constitution and support racial and gender preferences.
Bush needs to be told that his base finds this decision to be utterly unacceptable, and if that he goes through with it, there will be consequences. I, for one, will no longer donate to the Republican Party, and I will stay home on Election Day. Short of the Democrats nominating Hillary Clinton, nothing will bring me out to the polls to vote for Republican candidates anymore. And if this means that we have 8 years of Evan Bayh or Al Gore in the Oval Office, so be it. Sometimes, only painful lessons are able to drive the point home that the GOP leaders cannot treat their base like dirt. The Republican Party has to be about principles, not rewarding cronies.
VSC:
I mostly agree, for the reasons listed here. I'm not yet ready to abandon Bush or the party. But I am disappointed in both.
Post a Comment