Not being a lawyer, I have not formulated a definitive opinion about the appointment of Harriet Miers to fill the seat of Sandra Day O’connor on the Supreme Court. I have been reading what I can. Robert Bork contributed this piece to the Opinion Journal a couple of days ago, “Slouching Towards Miers, Bush shows himself to be indifferent, if not hostile, to conservative values“.

With a single stroke–the nomination of Harriet Miers–the president has damaged the prospects for reform of a left-leaning and imperialistic Supreme Court, taken the heart out of a rising generation of constitutional scholars, and widened the fissures within the conservative movement. That’s not a bad day’s work–for liberals.

Hugh Hewitt, my favorite talk show host, and a lawyer disagrees with Judge Bork:

In short, this morning’s is an intemperate essay, quite extraordinary and unpersuasive. But like most of the arrows being fired at Miers now, it was not intended to persuade anyone at all but rather to inflame the anti-Miers crowd into a great frenzy of head-nodding murmuring. It may do that, although today’s issuance of Diane Fienstein’s ominous warning about Miers may have a far greater effect on the BWAE than Judge Bork’s thunder. Look who’s nodding and murmuring right along with you, friends.
I note one great thing about Judge Bork’s essay: It contains the statement that Miers’ record “certainly does not necessarily mean that she would vote to overturn that constitutional travesty.”
But there is one great bad thing as well: Judge Bork immediately proceeds to an argument that it wouldn’t matter if her record did so imply because “[t]here is a great deal more to constitutional law than hostility to Roe.” Not for the 44 million unborn, I suppose, but that’s a side point.
Does Judge Bork mean to say –do all Miers’ critics mean to say– that no nominee ought to proceed from a GOP president unless they are on record as asserting that Roe is a constitutional travesty that ought to be reversed?”

Now I tend to side with Judge Bork. Hewitt, trusts the President. Fine. As anyone who has read this blog knows, I have increasingly become dissaffected with the President. I oppose his lack of interest on enforcing immigration laws, I disagree with his spending tendencies, He signed the McCain-Feingold bill, which put limits on political spending. But, the really big thing for me is with regard to Israel. Today he meets the terrorist and holocaust denier Mahmoud Abbas, “President Welcomes Palestinian President Abbas to the White House The Rose Garden and Bush says this:

Thank you all, thanks. It’s my honor to welcome the democratically elected leader of the Palestinian Authority to the White House for the second time this year. We just had some good talks. Mr. President, thanks. A good, open, exchange of ideas.
President Abbas is a man devoted to peace and to his people’s aspirations for a state of their own. And today the Palestinian people are closer to realizing those aspirations. It’s a really interesting period of history, I think. I was just commenting to the President when we were in the Oval Office how much things have changed in the Holy Land. After all, he got elected in January; there were successful Palestinian municipal elections, and then we witnessed the completion of Israel’s disengagement from Gaza and parts of the West Bank. It’s been an eventful year……..Now, Mr. President, you ran on a platform of peace. That’s why the people voted for you. I strongly support your rejection of terror and your commitment to what you have called one authority, one law, and one gun. The United States, in cooperation with the international community, has helped you achieve this through the efforts of our senior U.S. security coordinator, General Kip Ward. I appreciate your service, General Ward. Thank you for being here, and thank you for all your hard work to help the Palestinian security forces at a critical time. Job well done.”

Now I want to puke. So, tell me, what has Abbas ever done to really signal he accepts peace with Israel? Please, send me a comment and let me know And this is the President I should trust as he follows the Baker, Scowcroft and Bush 1 sellout of Israel? So, for me, Bush as broken trust with just about everything I believe in and hold dear. Hugh Hewitt trusts him too much. I don’t, and why would I trust his SCOTUS nominee at this point? No reason to trust him about anything at this point. He has broken faith, and not just with me, but, for many many conservatives. I think I’m feeling a rant. I will control myself. This is getting long and I’m getting weary.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: