Richard may be on to something here:
The real problem that bibliocons have with the court showed up earlier this year in the great shouting match over the corpse of Terri Schiavo. All along the bibliocons and paleocons had been telling us they were fed-up with activist judges getting involved in state and local issues where they didn’t belong, but suddenly they were all over the courts for refusing to be activist with respect to the family and the State of Florida. So it became clear that the right wants the mirror image of what the left wants, an activist bench that is willing to impose its personal values and beliefs on the rest of us.
Looking for judges who have that sort of orientation is a hard search, because the conservative team that the right’s been grooming since Roe (Luttig, McConnell, Olsen, et. al.) is all about judicial restraint, and none of them can be relied upon to jump into the breech on Schiavo-type cases and do the right thing by the right. So Bush had to ignore the conservative farm team and draft a close personal friend with the proper religious credentials and the requisite lack of judicial hang-ups.
Frightening.
And now the goon squads are out (video here):
On today’s “700 Club” broadcast, the Rev. Pat Robertson responded to criticism from the Right regarding the Miers nomination and also offered a stern warning to those conservative senators who might be thinking of voting against her. Rev. Robertson suggested that people should look at who is supporting Miers before they doubt her conservative credentials. He named James Dobson, the Rev. Jerry Falwell, Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, Jay Sekulow of the Robertson-founded American Center for Law and Justice, and himself as proof of support for Miers’ nomination from the Right. Robertson concluded by noting: “These so-called movement conservatives don’t have much of a following, the ones that I’m aware of. And you just marvel, these are the senators, some of them who voted to confirm the general counsel of the ACLU to the Supreme Court, and she was voted in almost unanimously. And you say, ‘now they’re going to turn against a Christian who is a conservative picked by a conservative President and they’re going to vote against her for confirmation?’ Not on your sweet life, if they want to stay in office.”
Sure makes Bennett’s theory more plausible.
ppGaz
Good Christ, I agree with Veeshir and R. Bennett on the same day.
Please, shoot me.
But serially, Bennett is completely right about this. Not original, but right. The whole routine about “activist judges” from the right is just one of those theatrical bullshit things that they cook up all the time. They don’t give a rat’s ass about judicial activism. What they want is their rulings. For crissakes, when will y’all catch on to what an Ends Justifies Means approach to everything really produces? Means don’t matter.
The Neocon movement? EJM. The Dobsonites? EJM. The CATO Institute blueprint for destroying Social Security (Bush’s “plan” from earlier this year)? EJM. Tax cuts in the face of inflated expenditures? EJM. It’s all EJM. Get a clue.
Mitch
This is what you voted for. It was obvious in 2000 and it was obvious in 2004. And you’d do it again in 2008 if you had the chance. Spare us the shock and indignation.
Darrell
Obvious? I don’t think there was a single person who voted for Bush who expected that he would appoint someone like Harriet Miers to the supreme court.
TallDave
Heh — “bibliocons.”
I think the problem the right has here is that a lot of neocons – new conservatives – are libertarians who don’t go for the so-con/biblio-con agenda.
As much as the right rails about leftist judicial activism (and rightly so) they do the same thing on issues like the drug war.
It’s clear now that the reports that Bush was looking for “another Roberts” (i.e., someone the Dems would find difficult to oppose) were accurate. Despite the turmoil from the base, I’m not sure it was a bad strategic move from his perspective. The current GOP leadership has remained in power partly because they understand just how viscerally hostile the MSM is to them, and they’ve shied away from most big public fights because a big public fight is by definition a big media fight.
Mike S
I don’t even think Harriet Miers thought he would appoint someone like her.
Personally I think the people saying that she will be a vote in favor of his office are more accurate. I think that will bite the GOP in the ass when the next Democrat is elected President. If it is Hillary, something I seriously doubt, the power that she will have because of congress’ unwillingness to use their checks will make a lot of Republicans very ill.
Jane Finch
I’m liking Harriet more and more simply because she’s causing such a blosopheric and “professional” pundit trainwreck….I hope she kicks every pompous pundit oh-crap-how-will-she-vote-on-my-pet-issue ass in the hearings.
SeesThroughIt
Can’t we get Hugo Chavez to assassinate Pat Robertson?
Darrell
You may be right. No doubt some on either side wouldn’t mind activist judges, even if they’re unqualified, as long as they vote the ‘right’ way. I don’t think most conservatives want this though. Most were hoping for a better qualified candidate to impartially interpret and carry out the law. I don’t think Pat Robertson and James Dobson speak for most religious conservatives either, many of whom agree that Mier wasn’t the best choice
BumperStickerist
–
Harriet of and for the Proletariat!
–
Meirs: She’s Only Mediocre Compared When Compared to Elites!
–
Harriet Meirs – Adequate for the Task at Hand
–
Harriet Meirs – Don’t Worry, Ann Coulter will Clerk for Her
stickler
Look, people, keep some perspective here. Both parties are coalition parties — what else would you expect in a Republic with 280 million people and only two political parties?
This has been true of the Democrats since the 1850s. Hell, Will Rogers said in 1935 that he wasn’t a member of any organized political party — he was a Democrat. But the same thing is true of the Republicans, even if they don’t want to see it.
And now, the pressures everyone could see coming a mile away are starting to crack the Republican coalition wide open. Bush isn’t a “Bibliocon,” he’s a corporate crony. But he’s kept the Bibliocons happy enough up till now. He’s not a paleocon, but even Buchanan endorsed him in fall 2004. Even if Karl Rove hadn’t been … um, distracted lately, this Supreme Court pick was destined to be ugly. Without Bush’s Brain firing on all four cylinders, it’s just a little messier than it might have been.
Harry Reid’s best strategy move so far was to say nice things about Miers and keep his mug out of the news. When your opponents are busy stepping on their own dicks, why distract them?
ppGaz
Word.
KC
Yeah, word.
Elinor Dickey
I’m sure Luttig and McConnell would have stepped into stop the state-sanctioned murder of Terri Schiavo. I have every confidence that Miers would as well.
ppGaz
Oh oh, is that DougJ in drag?
Ben
Elinor,
Go to LGF… that is where the Bibliocon circle jerk occurs. BTW, congratulations on actually caring for one person on the planet (Terri) outside of conception to birth.
Elinor Dickey
It’s hard for me to believe this nomination is in jeopardy. Bush just laughs at the scurrying in the media and talk shows. He would not have nominated her if he didn’t have a pretty good idea that she will survive the hubbub.
jg
I think the problem is you and many others think the ‘con’ in neocon means ‘conservative’ in anything but name only.
I got a friend who says that he supports the president because thats what a US citizen does (he yelled it at me during the Durbin show actually), but when I said does that include Clinton he just laughed. At least he doesn’t pretend that he would feel the same about a democrat. My point is: Miers won’t rubber stamp ANY presidential power plays. It would have to be a republican. Thats why Bush is full Chimpy McChimpdog smirks whenever he says about Miers: ‘Trust me’.
jg
Full OF Chimpy McChimpdog smirks, I mean.
CaseyL
Miers will be confirmed.
Bush and Robertson have made it clear that, whatever else she does, she’ll definitely vote to overturn Roe. That satisfies the fundies, for whom abortion is the only issue.
And Mier’s cronyist, pro-corporatism record will soothe the oligarchs, for whom money is the only issue.
Oligarchs and fundies comprise the vast majority of the GOP.
‘Principled conservatives’… well, I’m not even sure what a principled conservative is. Fiscal responsibility and a minimalist foreign policy were once supposedly the hallmarks of ‘principled conservatism.’ But, since no ‘principled conservatives’ fought for fiscal responsibility, and they all bought into the Iraq War with no questions asked, I have to assume there’s no such thing anymore.
srv
Give ’em Heaven, Harriet!
I’ve been saying this for years. But if no one has written a spoof of the Left Behind series, I have the working title:
Leave, Already!
Please God, take them. Take them now.
The Disenfranchised Voter
I’ll have to diagree here. Neocons are not libertarians. Libertarians wouldn’t support such an outrageous foreign policy, and such blantant abuses of human rights and also the curbing of our civil liberties in the name of terrorism.
Steve S
Honestly this just gives Bush too much credit.
What I have noticed, which is just fascinating to me, is that Bush is incredibly concerned about public opinion. He won’t admit it in public, but it nags him. It was fascinating to me reading the Roberts notes to see the same obsession in the Reagan whitehouse.
I still think Bush feels he’s gotten burned one too many times listening to Republicans giving him advice. You just look at the cabinet members who were disasters during his first term, for whatever reasons. Ashcroft, Powell, etc. What’d he do in his 2nd?
He turned around and appointed personal friends. People he had known for years and years and could trust. So maybe something about the Roberts nomination rubbed him wrong. Like he didn’t care for the guy, or something… so he didn’t trust the list he was given.
That’s all this Miers thing is about.
Steve S
Neocons aren’t libertarians. They’re the Democrats who were ousted from the party after they coerced the US into Vietnam. Democrats don’t want them… Republicans were so desperate to get votes, they accepted them with open arms.
This coalition is why you see the Bush administration following a increasingly bizarre Radical Liberalism merged with aspects of what you might call Conservatism. I mean, who would have ever thought the primary arguments out of the Whitehouse against opponents would be that they are racist, or sexist, or other retread stereotypical arguments from the 1960s?
srv
Reagan got alot of bad advice in first term also, and they recovered reasonably well in the 2nd (mostly thanks to Nancy). But he had a nature of trusting people, and people wanted to be loyal to him.
Since Daddy and Laura aren’t Nancy, and Condi is probably just another syncophant, who knows who he trusts now. Reportedly, he and Ashcroft were close. Powell was probably the only one not blowing smoke up his ass, but we can be sure GW didn’t appreciate that honesty.
Shygetz
What? Where have you seen any Radical Liberalism from this admin? The reason they use the racist/sexist accusation is because they think that is what will weaken their opponents most among their constituency, not because they really think it is true. This administration has been more imperialist oligarchy than either conservative or liberal.
I still don’t understand why libertarians tend to align more with Republicans than Democrats. Someone will have to explain that one to me.
Matt
Shygetz – because what drives most people towards libertarianism is a desire to protect their own money, not other people’s freedoms.
Darrell
Because, by and large, Dems are advocates of big nanny-state govt, although Bush spends like a Dem. Also
1. War on Poverty – Dems. Huge expansion of govt
2. Attempt to federalize health care – Dems under clinton
Repubs at least ‘talk’ against the dangers of bigger govt. whereas most Dems openly advocate it. Hell, Bush was criticized by Dems for not going far enough in his medical prescription and education spending plans
DecidedFenceSitter
I tend to vote D, and I tend to identify with the Libertarian ideals. Why? Cause I’d rather have my pocketbook raped by Democrats to pay for big government, then have to live by the Republican Base’s morality. One is going to rape my money, the other my lifestyle.
Got into a debate along these lines with someone back in 2000 or so. We agreed on 90% of the issues of the day, and 100% of the major issues. He was going to vote for Bush, I was going to vote for Gore. Why? He felt that the Republicans would do the best thing for his finances and be unable to wreck too much havoc in our personal lives; while I thought the exact opposite, that Gore would do no damage to social freedoms, and only minimal damage to our pocketbooks.
Steve S
That would be Republicans. Dems aren’t all that interested in telling you how to run your life, or whether or not you can pull the plug on your terminally ill wife.
Shygetz
Darrell–Both Dems and Repubs are for government economic involvement. Dems want to give welfare to the citizens. Repubs want to give welfare to corporations. I have mildly Libertarian leanings myself (although I don’t go nearly as far as some hardcore advocates; indentured servitude=not okay in my book), and I find myself naturally drawn to the Democrats. Like FenceSitter, I would rather have the government in my pocketbook than in my bedroom and my family. Plus, since I think both parties want into my pocketbook, I would rather pick the one that wants to use my money to help those who need it more.
Shygetz
And Darrell, I have three words for you–Prescription Drug Benefit. Oh, and Department of Homeland Security. And Patriot Act. Wait, that’s more than three words. Oh well.
The Disenfranchised Voter
I consider myself a libertarian (small L) and I voted for John Kerry. The current Republican party is much further from libertarian ideals than the current Democratic party.
Insider
State of U.S. Courts. . .
Consider this:
Open Letter
October 23, 2005
United States Judicial Conference
Administrative Office
of the United States Courts
Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building
One Columbus Circle, N.E.
Washington D.C. 20544
Mr. Albert N. Moskowitz
United States Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
950 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
Mrs. Mary Beth Buchanan
U.S. Attorney Western Pennsylvania
United States Department of Justice
U.S. Post Office and Court House
700 Grant Street, Suite 4000
Pittsburgh, Pa 15219
United States Judicial Conference
Chief Justice United States Supreme Court
c/o Mr. William K. Sutter, Clerk
Office of the Clerk
c/o Mrs. Pamala Talkin
Marshall of the Court
No. 1 First Street, N.E.
Washington, DC 20543
Third Circuit Judicial Council
United States Court of Appeals
c/o Toby D. Slawsky, Esq.
Circuit Executive
22409 U.S. Courthouse
601 Market Street
Philadelphia, Pa 19106-1790
Chief Justice
United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
c/o Toby D. Slawsky, Esq.
Circuit Executive
22409 U.S. Courthouse
601 Market Street
Philadelphia, Pa 19106-1790
RE: Formal Complaint (filed under the Judicial Improvements Act of 2002
28 U.C.S. Sections 351-364); Formal Complaint (filed under 28 U.S.C.
Section 372(c)); and Request for Investigation (pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 604)
Dear All:
Please be advise of the following criminal activity.
On or about October 11, 2005, Marcia M. Waldron, Clerk for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals forwarded a copy of an Order (No. 05-3702) that, among other, requested a copy of the district court docket entries. On October 21, 2005, I purchased a copy of the docket entries (No. 03-1400) and forwarded such to the Third Circuit. However, I noticed the August 16, 2005, entry entered by JSP that advised the clerk’s office couldn’t locate documents #16, #64 and #86. That is, the clerk office wasn’t able to transmitted the complete record (No. 03-1400) to the Third Circuit.
In short, previously I submitted unequivocal evidence of perjury (violation of Section 1746 Title 28, United States Code) to the Department of Justice, federal court and others. Since my request for a formal investigation, the evidence (documents #64 and #86) was somehow removed from the official court file.
At issue is an affidavit submitted to the court by Cassandra Colchagoff (an attorney). With the November 10, 2004 affidavit Mrs. Colchagoff attempted to change her testimony (December 2003 affidavit). That is, the district court specifically cited her December 2003 testimony as its reason for dismissing the constitutional claims in the matter No. 03-1400.
Mrs. Colchagoff had testified (made a material false declaration) that there was “no link to Kaplan Higher Education Corporation (Kaplan College) and no link to federal funding.”
The district court ruled that “without a link to federal funding” I couldn’t pursue my constitutional claims against Kaplan.
The only difference between the two Colchagoff affidavits is the November 10, 2004, testimony no longer suggested, “no link to Kaplan Higher Education Corporation (Kaplan College) and no link to federal funding.” Likewise, her attorneys, Sara Shubert, Laurence Shtasel, and Blank Rome appears to have changed their representation to the court. Her attorneys now acknowledged my October 15, 2000, Kaplan College enrollment letter and admitted in footnote 2 “certain colleges operated by Kaplan Higher Education Corporation, such as Kaplan College, received federal funding.”
Because this information (Document # 64 and #86) is “fatal” to the court’s decision at No. 03-1400, it has been unlawfully removed and withheld from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The unexplained disappearance of document #64 and #86 is further proof of criminal activity (obstruction of justice and intentional violation of my civil rights).
Please note, the November 10, 2004, Cassandra Colchagoff affidavit (Document #64 and #86) now missing from the court record, at paragraph 23, specifically admitted malfeasance.
In conclusion, the missing affidavit (Document #64 and #86) not submitted to the Third Circuit is decisive for all factual issues related to this matter and directly contradicts Judge David S. Cercone’s Memorandum opinions (May 14, 2004 and June 29, 2005).
I demand an immediate investigation.
Respectfully,
(Name Removed)