Surrender to the Senate Minority
By Randall Nunn (10/11/05)
After the disappointment I felt at President Bush’s choice to fill the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court, I decided it was time to take the “W-04” sticker off the bumper of my pick-up truck (you can see I am no “elitist”). After hearing the president’s speech on Iraq and the war on terror, I reconsidered and decided to leave the sticker because I support the president’s policy on the war on terror and the war in Iraq and applaud his steadfastness and determination. It is the contrast between the strength and character that he shows in dealing with the war on terror and Iraq with that displayed in the recent Supreme Court nomination that bothers me.
In the view of many conservatives, “winning” the battle over the direction of the Supreme Court is every bit as important as winning the war in Iraq. If a solid conservative majority is not secured on the Supreme Court, the desires of the majority of voters will never be effectively implemented by legislatures around the country because courts will “legislate” in opinions that dictate contrary results. At the same time that we expend resources and lives in Iraq to bring liberty to that country (a goal that some disagree with), isn’t it just as important that we secure our own liberty against the encroachments we see daily in court decisions?
If President Bush would display equal fervor and intensity for the battle over Supreme Court nominees as he displays with respect to the war in Iraq, conservatives would be more supportive. The president will not back down in Iraq to intimidation and will not bow to the pressure from the media and the liberals in this country. However, many see the recent Supreme Court nomination as an obvious change in direction due to liberal pressure and political calculations not to fight with the Senate during war-time. The political calculation apparently was made, in part, in the belief that there is weakness in the President’s position making it unlikely that he could get a “true conservative” nominee confirmed.
In my view, the case for confirmation of any of a number of conservative jurists in the running for the nomination could be made easily if the president would articulate it forcefully and clearly to a national audience. By speaking out and articulating the importance of the issue, the president could put the liberals (including those in his party) on the defensive. Let them explain to their constituents why they voted against any one of the potential nominees. It will ultimately devolve into one basic reason—the nominee was not “liberal enough” for these Senators. And that is not a legitimate basis for voting against confirmation for the president’s choice.
When President Bush nominated Harriet Miers, he signaled that he felt that the fight in the Senate was not “winnable” or not worth the effort. Conservatives who had been led to believe that a candidate in the mold of a Scalia or Thomas would be nominated were sorely disappointed. The nomination was a surrender to political expediency and an affront to his most ardent supporters.
If the fight to confirm a true conservative is not won on the first nomination, put up a second. And another after that. Let the country see clearly that Senators are voting against nominees because they don’t like their judicial philosophy, not because they are not fit for the task. An articulate and effective president, supported by conservative Senators and an aroused conservative base can surely make the case for a qualified conservative nominee.
How does a liberal Senator, for example, justify voting against a Janice Rogers Brown—a black, female judge of impeccable character and committed to a view of the Constitution largely consistent with President Bush’s expressed view? They cannot attack her on grounds of lack of sensitivity, diversity or lack of an understanding of minorities or lower income Americans. When all is said and done, their attacks solidify into one common element—the nominee is conservative and they intend to try to block them and deny the president his choice because of that. President Bush could (and should) make this a major issue and arouse the public if he chose to do so. If some liberal Republican senators get defeated because of the battle for conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court, the party has lost very little. If liberal Republican Senators cannot be counted on to support the President’s choice unless the nominee fits their criteria rather than the President’s, why does he wish to placate them?
The White House made this blunder worse by giving specious reasons for the nomination and attacking the critics of Harriet Miers as “sexist” and “elitists.” If this fight could not be won now, when Republicans control the Senate and the White House, when would there be another time better? If the critics are sexist and elitist, why are they such strong supporters of conservatives such as Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen and others who are not on the “approved” list of the establishment’s list of acceptable candidates? President Bush is wooing his enemies at the expense of his base. The president had the high ground and a position of strength, but retreated in the face of disorganized opposition.
Of all the issues during this president’s term of office, this issue at this particular time is the most critical. The essential nature of our constitutional government and the quality of our lives, liberty and pursuit of happiness will be mightily influenced by what the Supreme Court does over the next several decades. Instead of a decision founded on principle and courage, this decision sprang from accommodation and consensus. President Bush’s conservative base expected so much more. First, McCain-Feingold—now this. Fool us twice, Mr. President, shame on you. Fool us three times, shame on us.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Randall Nunn
