Harriet Miers Withdraws
Now here's a relevant current event. Last night Miers told the President she was pulling her name from consideration. Democrats cry out that the 'radical right wing' of the Republican party did this. Rush Limbaugh (whom they named specifically) says he had nothing to do with it. But many conservatives, while chafing at the 'radical' label, do not pretend to be unhappy. Yet they like Miers personally. They protest only that they were concerned about her commitment to a proper judicial philosophy. And she has ridden the fence on a number of issues over the years.
Why did Bush's base--not a radical fringe--fail to support him on Miers? Because they saw her nomination as a squandered opportunity. They voted for him so he could put solid people on the bench, people who were clearly committed to a certain philosophy of judging, not to certain litmus test-outcomes. That is, it's not just about Roe v. Wade. It's about putting the Court back into its proper perspective, bringing a halt to the Court's recent tendency to overstep its power and become a legislative body. It's about returning to a commitment to the Constitution, not as some allegedly "living document" (liberal code for a document that adapts and changes), but as a brilliant philosophical statement onthe nature of man (fallen and corruptible) and the rights and responsibilities of citizens living in this free Republic. Such brilliance need not change. Our founding documents are the work of genius, many believe genius inspired by God. And the Constitution is one of history's greatest works on the nature of man and his rights and responsibilities. It's done, you know? Like Beethoven's Ninth or DaVinci's Mona Lisa, or Michaelangelo's David, or the Statue of Liberty. Or the Ten Commandments, Hamlet, Genesis, The Sermon on the Mount. Which of these great works is ever described as "living"? They are among mankind's greatest achievements, but no one expects them to adapt. Neither should the Constitution. The men who drafted and ratified it understood its words. Their understanding--the original understanding--is the only proper interpretation.
We need a Justice who is committed to this perspective.
posted by S. at 4:32 PM
13 Comments:
By the way, I realize the Sermon on the Mount is not technically a work of "mankind." But you know what I mean.
well said, steven
i agree with everything you just put into words
i can only hope and pray that Bush makes a brilliant nomination - someone who will understand what you wrote about and who feels the same
S, neither is the Ten Commandments a work of mankind. If we're getting technical.
Excellent observation. I missed that. And its curious to wonder, which is more accurately called a work of man? The Ten Commandments, literally penned by God's finger, or the Sermon on the Mount, preached by history's only God-Man?
By the way, J (J.?) I was reading your website and I thought, here's someone who might like to see Dennis's. I mean, how many guys talk about the Alhambra every day? But then I saw that 'whatchamacallit' thing, and it was highlighted. I'd been there. Hmm.
So I put it all together. But J, do I know you? I mean personally? The only Holden I knew as a kid is about ten years older than you. But a friend of D is a friend of me.
steven - yea, i visit dennis's site regularly and we've actually talked about our travels a little
he knows how easy it is to fall in love with granada - as i have found out
but no, i don't think we know each other steven
i think i ran into dennis when i was checking out another blog - a guy named trey, his blog is "stream of conciousness"
i believe dennis was first to comment on my blog, then i checked his out and somewhere he mentioned your blog - perhaps on trey's site when we were discussing the Miers' withdrawal
it's nice to hear a perspective about someone who KNOWS what all this judicial stuff is about - and what the branch's role actually is
you're on my regular rotation of blogs to check out every few days - keep up the good work
Hey, thanks Man. (I guess you're a man!) No, I think I know. I read your stuff too, right, I said that. Anyway, yes, thanks. I should note--it is hard to stay focused on one topic when there are so many. But I will focus. The subject deserves the attention, and I need to discipline my time a bit. (And we can always go afield in the comments, right?)
i understand, it's easy to get distracted with this blogging stuff
but i think you're right - this subject needs the attention, now more than ever
and yea, the comments will always be fair game for other discussions, hah
I may have to write a blog entry about the whole cool thing about "blogging", which is that via friends of friends, I have made new friends, or at least 'net friends (which is somewhat similar to "single-serving-friends" which I first learned about in the film Fight Club.
but that's for another time. I did find J's blog through Trey, who is an acquaintance I met briefly in Houston and visited recently in DC. I found his stories of Spain to be very interesting and somewhat intriguing, especially when I started looking at a few others from his link-list, including the girl he keeps writing about. That was kind of fun to figure out.
This stuff does take too much of my time, but oh well. I'm not doing much out here in rural Virginia anyway.
dennis - i didn't think anyone would catch that little tidbit - what tipped you off??
oh yea, and maybe don't mention that on my blog....haha
This is a wonderful web site. Very
well thought out and written. No, I am not prejudiced. How could you think that?
I'm only commenting here because the testosterone level needs to be diluted a little.
Love,
Mom
J- the picture of you with the flower? She has it in her pictures link on her blog. along with a few others.
and, don't worry, I wouldn't dare mention it on your blog or hers.
Thanks Mama! Tell Pa to check it out (he likes this boring testosterone stuff).
dennis - good catch
and thanks for keeping the secret
Post a Comment
<< Home