Wes Vernon
Supreme Court: Go for it, Mr. President
By Wes Vernon
Mr. President: Accepting Harriett Miers' withdrawal had to be difficult for you.
Let me say I was not among those of my fellow conservatives who called on her to withdraw, given the confidence you had expressed in her, or for you to withdraw it knowing you put a premium on a two-way street loyalty for friends and those who work for you (a thoroughly honorable trait). Though not enthused, I favored letting the hearings go forward so that conservative senators could see for themselves and make up their own minds.
This is nothing more than a small bump in the road for your presidency, which I and millions of others supported in 2000 and 2004.
Now, as you have said, a replacement nominee will be chosen in a timely manner.
Mr. President, your nominees for the lower courts have been of the highest quality. The same applies to Chief Justice John Roberts. That clearly shows where your heart is — that you want judges on the court who will interpret the Constitution as it was written and intended by the Founding Fathers, and that if our people believe the Constitution should be changed, they have access to the amendment process. It is not for judges or Supreme Court Justices to rewrite the Constitution. Similarly, if they don't like the law as written or believe there should be a new law, citizens can write their elected representatives on the federal, state, or local level. Again, it is not for judges to rewrite the law.
You understand, of course, that this is where you have your left-wing opponents over a barrel. They know that the only way they can get their most cherished contentious issues resolved in their favor is for judges to bypass the Constitution rewrite the law. They don't trust popular opinion. They are afraid of it. That is why they are so fanatical about blocking any nominee that would restore the court to the role of umpire as Justice Roberts described it during his hearings.
Thus, you have a golden opportunity to make this withdrawal, painful as it was for you, a blessing in disguise.
There is a long list of qualified constitutionalists who would make excellent justices on the Supreme Court. Janice Rogers Brown, Edith Jones (my personal preference), Priscilla Owen, Michael Luttig — to name a few.
Your desire to avoid a confirmation fight — while understandable — appears unavoidable. Please select someone whose record is such that one need not worry about a "stealth nominee." Yes, the Democrats will likely mount a filibuster, but that can be overcome with just 50 Republicans plus the tie breaking vote.
The next nominee can reunite your base (your real friends) and affect jurisprudence for the better in the long run.
Go for it, Mr. President.
© Wes Vernon
Mr. President: Accepting Harriett Miers' withdrawal had to be difficult for you.
Let me say I was not among those of my fellow conservatives who called on her to withdraw, given the confidence you had expressed in her, or for you to withdraw it knowing you put a premium on a two-way street loyalty for friends and those who work for you (a thoroughly honorable trait). Though not enthused, I favored letting the hearings go forward so that conservative senators could see for themselves and make up their own minds.
This is nothing more than a small bump in the road for your presidency, which I and millions of others supported in 2000 and 2004.
Now, as you have said, a replacement nominee will be chosen in a timely manner.
Mr. President, your nominees for the lower courts have been of the highest quality. The same applies to Chief Justice John Roberts. That clearly shows where your heart is — that you want judges on the court who will interpret the Constitution as it was written and intended by the Founding Fathers, and that if our people believe the Constitution should be changed, they have access to the amendment process. It is not for judges or Supreme Court Justices to rewrite the Constitution. Similarly, if they don't like the law as written or believe there should be a new law, citizens can write their elected representatives on the federal, state, or local level. Again, it is not for judges to rewrite the law.
You understand, of course, that this is where you have your left-wing opponents over a barrel. They know that the only way they can get their most cherished contentious issues resolved in their favor is for judges to bypass the Constitution rewrite the law. They don't trust popular opinion. They are afraid of it. That is why they are so fanatical about blocking any nominee that would restore the court to the role of umpire as Justice Roberts described it during his hearings.
Thus, you have a golden opportunity to make this withdrawal, painful as it was for you, a blessing in disguise.
There is a long list of qualified constitutionalists who would make excellent justices on the Supreme Court. Janice Rogers Brown, Edith Jones (my personal preference), Priscilla Owen, Michael Luttig — to name a few.
Your desire to avoid a confirmation fight — while understandable — appears unavoidable. Please select someone whose record is such that one need not worry about a "stealth nominee." Yes, the Democrats will likely mount a filibuster, but that can be overcome with just 50 Republicans plus the tie breaking vote.
The next nominee can reunite your base (your real friends) and affect jurisprudence for the better in the long run.
Go for it, Mr. President.
© Wes Vernon
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
