Skip to main content

"But we wanted to Kill them!" Conservative Post Traumatic Souter Disorder

Watching the day two moaning and growning on the "Billy Goat" Right about the SCOTUS pick of Harriet Miers, I was struck by the arrogance - not of the President, but from the hard right itself.

Pat Bucannan in this article basically summed up the the majority frustration of at least the 'hard right':

"Handed a once-in-a-generation opportunity to return the Supreme Court to constitutionalism, George W. Bush passed over a dozen of the finest jurists of his day -- to name his personal lawyer.

In a decision deeply disheartening to those who invested such hopes in him, Bush may have tossed away his and our last chance to roll back the social revolution imposed upon us by our judicial dictatorship since the days of Earl Warren."


Wow! Pat! Chill bro!

Listen, back when you worked for the Reagan administration - who incidently dreamed up Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy, it's amazing that conservatives like you now try present Harriet Mier in the mold of David Souter!

Please Pat, for the sake of common sense - shut up!

Watching Pat on Hardball this evening, you could see the frustration that you've seen from the hard right, such as Michelle Malkin, Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh and others. Again, though they won't say it outright, inside and through their TV apperances, weblogs and articles:

"Damn it.... The dope blew it!... We waited so long for it to happen!"

"Besides, we had a chance to really stick in the face of the left and he took that away from us!

"Dope!"


Well, let's look at a few facts.

One, Bush has made some phenomenal picks to the bench, I mean has anyone really grasp the significance of getting Judge John Roberts on the bench? To the Chief Justice position no less!

Fact is that Bush has kept his promise. He has consistanly put strong conservatives on the Bench, in the mold of Scalia and Thomas.

Now he has stood up and said, "Look, this is MY pick....I gave you YOUR picks, but this is MY pick, trust me!"

The hard right says, "Yeah, well we trusted Reagan and George Bush (41) and look what happened!

Again, in both cases it was some of those on the hard right that made their recommendations on those picks - IF memory serves me correctly.

Besides this missed fact:

Contrary to popular opinion, George W. Bush wasn't elected only by the hard right. We moderate conservatives also played a huge role and possibly - just possibly, we weren't looking to "Super Right Judge" for a pick.

I personally wasn't looking for O'Connor, but then I wasn't looking for a Thomas either. I just wanted someone who strictly interpreted the US Constitution. After all, I thought that was the "goal". Pat said it was, but let's get real. Pat, Michelle, and the rest of the hard liners "say" they want a strict constitutionalist, but you can read between the lines that they wanted someone who is eventually going to work to overturn Roe V. Wade while judicially steam rolling the left's agenda into the ground. "We could just taste it!"

But isn't that "judicial activism"? Isn't that the type action conservatives wanted to stop on the court? No more "legislating from the bench"? The point is that youweren't the only ones who worked hard to get Bush re-elected, let's remember that shall we.

The funniest thing I've seen is that we saw some of the same "outrage" from the same people on the right when Robert's was picked. Ann Coulter wrote at the time:

"We don’t know much about John Roberts. Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Never. Not ever... Oh, yeah...we know he's argued cases before the supreme court. big deal; so has Larry Flynt's attorney."

Sound familar? Powerline Blog had more examples of CPTSD about Roberts at the time of his pick.

"Ann Coulter is not the only smart conservative who wonders whether John Roberts is "one of us." As Scott noted below, Charles Krauthammmer has called Roberts a blank slate. And the astute blogger PoliPundit fears that President Bush has blown the pick.

There are two issues here: (1) is Roberts a conservative and (2) if so, what kind (and how solid) of a conservative jurist will he be. The first issue corresponds to the question, might Roberts be another Souter. The second corresponds roughly to the question, might he be another Powell/O'Connor/Kennedy. The answers, I will argue, are "no" and "probably not."


The point is that once people got to know him, that sort of nonsense stopped and he was confirmed.

Again, I remember the same "CPTSD" on Clement......sheesh.

The fact is that some of us on the right need some serious therapy to help us through this time of sorrow and help us finally kick CPTSD- take a powder and wait and see. Beside, bitch all you want, the choice is made.

Read this article for starters and call me in the morning.

AJ Strata says it's time to move on. Cpt Ed on the trouble with the nomination. Check out the Coalition of the Chillin' with Patrick Ruffini.






UPDATE: Everybody is quoting George Will's article today. But it is important to remember (those who can remember that far) that I remember George supported Sandy O'Connor for the Supremes when she was selected back in '81.

He wasn't alone. In fact:

"At this point (1981), O'Connor was considered very conservative. Time magazine labeled her Justice William H. Rehnquist's "Arizona twin"; indeed, in her first term the two voted together on twenty-seven of the thirty-one decisions decided by 5-4 votes. In her first five terms, O'Connor was often aligned with the conservative faction of the Court. Nevertheless, in her best-known opinion of her first term, O'Connor was joined by the liberal wing of the Court in a 5-4 ruling that a state-supported university in Mississippi could not constitutionally exclude men from its school of nursing. By the end of the 1984 term, O'Connor had come to be identified as a restrained jurist, a strong supporter of federalism, and a cautious interpreter of the Constitution." more here

I remember conservative biggies back then jumping on the Sandy badwagon back then. My how times have changed. The point is despite all their ramblings now about Miers, they were wrong in the past, they could be wrong now. But in any case they out to just shut up because like it or not - she's the pick.

UPDATE II: Town Hall's Tony Blankley "diagnoses" further.





Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Calling Mr. Fitzgerald?

**UPDATED AND BUMPED****

As I told you about in this post yesterday as a source confirmed to me that the Justice Department has launched a probe into the NSA leak. Mr. Risen, you are in trouble - prepare your defense. I told you so.

The White House will be announcing the probe at about 12:30pm. My source tells me that this probe will most likely result in another prosecutor being assigned as of course Fitzgerald is still busy/dizzy on the Plame/Game No-Leak. Additionally, other probes into other recent leaks such as the CIA 'prisons'leak is in the works as well. As I said, this is the NEW Bush - on the attack - it's no more Mr. Nice Guy!

About time! Also covering Michelle Malkin

*****End Update*********

UPDATE II: Looks like I owe my source big time as yet another tip comes true as the Washington Post is on the target list as well for the CIA Prison leak.

****End Update II*************************************

Update III: Via Fox: "The government has no legal right to…

Is the lid about to be blown off Able Danger?

Those who have been wishing for a full blown Able Danger investigation are about to get their wish. The "gate" has been unlocked.

9/11 Iraqi Connection

With Democrats calling for yet more investigations into pre-war intelligence, and Republicans like myself pushing back to help their 'sudden amnesia”, the growing stories of Able Danger and even China Gate, are beginning to make news.

The three main theories about why Able Danger hasn't gotten out of the "blog stage", are 1) To hide Clinton era responsibility for stopping the 9/11 attacks, and/or 2) To hide the truth behind China-Gate, or 3) The facts show that there in fact was a direct link between Iraq and 9/11.

Taking either one you can see why the Clinton worshipping MSM for the most part hasn't touched the story. Of the later point, Democrats, the MSM and even some of our investigations state that there was no 'direct' link between Iraq and 9/11. Say otherwise and the MSM will slice and di…

Able Danger - Pulling Back the Covers of the real Clinton Legacy

First, let's dispense with the bull crap. The meeting between Mohammed Atta and Iraqi Intelligence officer Al-Ani, on April 8th, 2001 happened.

Yet, just don't mention it to the MSM, becaue since May of 2002, the MSM declared an all out assault on the story. A meeting incidently, that the Czech government has to this date stood by.

Let's review a little history:

October 13, 2001: Story of the meeting is leaked from somewhere in the Czech foreign service.

yet.....

October 20, 2001: Ny Times, John Tagliabue writes a story citing other Czech officials said the meeting never took place.

so.....

October 26, 2001: Czech Minister of the Interior, Stanislav Gross has a press conference not only confirming the orginal report but giving further details of Atta's other trip to Prague in June 2000.

then.....

October 27, 2001: The NY Times "recants" the October 20th denial.

The story continues it's oddessy of 'back and forth' until May 1st, 2002, when Walter P…