Tuesday, October 11, 2005

Quixote Rides Again

Major Mike

In my usual Quixotesque way, I will continue to postulate as to what GWB may have been thinking when he picked Harriet Miers as a nominee for the Supreme Court. I am well past the delusion that I may actually convince those disappointed souls who continue chum the waters for both the Democrats and those a bit farther to the right of moderate Republicans. So, as usual, I’ll direct my comments to those caught in between. You know, those of us who accept the world as the imperfect place that it is. Those who understand that compromise is a part of everyday life. And, those of us that understand that running headlong into a stubborn fight may not always be the best course of action. So I have developed some new theories that I hope will help throw a net over the wild gyrations now occurring amongst some conservatives.

Thought one. Will the nomination of Miers at this point in time have an effect on the length of service for Justices Ginsberg and Stevens? I suggest that this nomination was made to “encourage” Justices Stevens and Ginsberg to retire prior to the Presidential election of 2008. I think if President Bush had installed an armor clad, “A” list, conservative justice, that Stevens and Ginsberg would cling to their posts like Limnoperna fortunei (Zebra mussels) to the hull of a ship. But, if they perceive (wrongfully in my opinion) that Bush may not flood the court with “A” listers, they may choose to step down, for their very obvious health reasons. This may then give GWB a chance to populate the court with whom he pleases…likely, at that point with “A” listers. The net here would then be three “A” listers and one “A-/B+” lister. Hmmm. Seems pretty good in the real world.

In the end, with the gay marriage issue likely to make it to the court in the near term, with possible challenges to Roe on the horizon, and myriad of other “conservative” issues making their way towards the court, wouldn’t it be wiser to create an environment where Ginsberg and Stevens were more likely to retire in the near term vice the long term. I suggest that a whiff of compromise may be enough to get them to act. Otherwise, I think they would hang around like Klingon clones at a Star Trek convention, and we will continue to suffer, for some time, with Hydra-like opinions from a wildly divided court.

Step one to coherent Supreme Court rulings is getting Ginsberg and Stevens out the door…sooner rather than later…this appointment may well do the trick.

No more lamentations about keeping the process non-political. The Dems forced it here when they claimed the courts as their Little Big Horn. Gang of Fourteen? Bork? Ninth District? Sorry, but the courts exist…not rightly…in a highly political world. Political machinations, maneuverings, and gyrations, while not likely to infest the court’s cases, are very much present around the structure, appointments, and the “business” of running the courts. So it is a bit late to “purify” the process. A process incidentally, has never been a pure as some are espousing at the moment.

Thought two. Who do you trust… GWB or a million-and-one so-called judicial experts, who harbor their own unknown prejudices and preconceived notions…which we are not privy to? HH has a very good email posted today that lays out very specifically why we should trust GWB over George Will, John Fund, Krauthammer, and the rest.
http://www.hughhewitt.com/ Sorry, but GWB has a better track record of picking judges than George Will…oh, I forgot he hasn’t picked one yet. And, I suppose, until you are indeed the one to HAVE to pick, you (and I) will never know what the right formula for the times is. Quit MMQBing.

Final thought. And a bit more difficult to wrap your arms around, but stick with me. Who is more likely to “soften” with age? I believe it is fairly natural for us to mellow a bit as we age. But who would be more likely to mellow, and how far, over time…someone who is a moderate conservative, or someone who is a hard-core conservative? I suggest that the moderate actually moves less from their mark than the conservative. Why? Because it is difficult to be “hard” all the time. Real life injects itself into everyone’s life, including the Justices, everyday. Over time it becomes difficult to be callous to these realities while clinging to the ideal. Most people, as they age, want to be remembered more for being humanists than purists of anything. Purists can be lonely. Moderates are comfortable with the impact that humanity has already had on their being, so they can remain comfortable with their positions longer into their lives. I think, with lifetime appointments, you’ll find a smaller shift among moderate conservatives, than with the very conservative.

Observation…the attacks that GWB has suffered over the past week are the equivalent of a boxer, returning to his corner between the 5th and 6th round, and getting knocked out by his cut man because the cut man didn’t like the way the fight was going. How much sense would that make? This is what is happening…let’s throw in the towel and let the process take the lead over the punditry.

Standing by for the conservative onslaught.

No comments: