Patterico's Pontifications

10/8/2005

Whose Fault Is This Really? (Part Two)

Filed under: Judiciary — Patterico @ 12:38 pm



Setpember 21 seems like a long time ago — especially when you read something like this piece by Paul Weyrich, talking about the then-upcoming nomination to replace O’Connor:

The far left, which dominates the Democratic Party, could attempt to defeat the next nominee based upon the assumption that President Bush would nominate an individual that conservatives could support. I believe the president will so nominate. First, having spoken with the president about this issue, I am convinced he sincerely believes that the court needs justices who would interpret the law, not make law. Second, why would he not nominate a conservative? The president leads a fragile coalition of conservatives held together for one reason: judges. If a so-called consensus nominee were appointed to replace Justice O’Connor, as the left demands, many in the president’s coalition would defect. Over immigration. Over spending. Over the war. The president knows this. I am confident he would not disappoint us.

Ha!

As I have already noted, the reaction of conservatives to this nomination was entirely predictable. It’s not our fault we’re disappointed — it’s the President’s.

UPDATE: Instapundit agrees:

[T]he Bush Administration push[ed] an underwhelming nominee without thinking about how it would play. . . My problem is that there’s no particular reason to think she’d be a good Supreme Court Justice. The Bush Administration should have had a lot of those reasons handy before nominating someone who was sure to raise those kinds of questions.

Indeed.

3 Responses to “Whose Fault Is This Really? (Part Two)”

  1. Of course, the counter arguemnt would have to be that the conservative base was just waiting for Bush to do something so that they could jump all over him.

    That is not a very good possibility as the polls before the nomination show that he continued to have strong support among the GOP. Now that support is slacking (37% approaval in one poll with right direction rating around 30%).

    The voters are the system. Bush’s nomination was the input. The response was not caused by the system simply evolving naturally. That sort of response would have had a very long time constant. Here the result was instantaneous.

    Paul Deignan (9e57a7)

  2. In fact, I tested the proposition myself just in the wake of Katrina.

    Later observation showed that Bush did not adapt to his failings in Katrina. So, the fact that this nomination could be bad for the reasons that it is were also predictable.

    Paul Deignan (9e57a7)

  3. Paul,

    I don’t see where President Bush failed at all with respect to Hurricane Katrina. The failures that I see were local to Louisiana.

    We need to face the fact that government is not God, necessary but not good; therefore, should be *strictly* limited.

    Charles D. Quarles (5d11c1)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0676 secs.