Sunday, October 09, 2005

Becoming What We Hate Pt. 2

Several months ago I wrote an essay entitled, "Are We Becoming What We Hate?" That piece was dedicated to my fellow black conservatives. In that essay I addressed the fact that since the election of 2004, politically active black conservatives appear to be exhibiting traits of their liberal counterparts. I am now afraid that the disease is spreading and today I find myself addressing conservative political activists at large.

A few months ago when Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor stepped down from the bench we got a glimpse of what was to come when we heard the expressions of fear from the right at the possible appointment of Alberto Gonzalez to the bench. Many on the right were opposed to his appointment because of one ruling while he was on the Texas Supreme Court. A ruling, by the way, that I feel was misunderstood. I stated at that time, that I doubted President Bush would nominate Mr. Gonzalez to the Supreme Court, but that even if he did we should trust the President's choice. So, here we are again finding ourselves in the same boat of having conservatives all tied up in knots about the nomination of Harriet Miers. In the comments and near outrage that I have heard in the past week I say again to my conservative brethren: "are we becoming what we have hated, about the left in the past?"

Here is how I see this. All along President Bush has said that he would appoint "strict constructionist" judges vs. "judicial activist" judges to the court. Conservatives applauded this stance and have championed it. In the past, every time I heard Sean Hannity, and others with a voice, discuss the Supreme Court they mentioned the need for "strict constructionist" judges. Judges in the mold of Rehnquist, Thomas and Scalia. Nevertheless, these same conservatives are now upset at the President's choice. They appear upset that President Bush has not appointed a judge that they would have chosen. In the case of Harriet Miers, many say she has not shown herself to be conservative enough, or that she does not have any judicial experience. They say, "she has no judicial record by which we can judge her." You would think these were the words of Chuck Shumer, not the "voices of the right." The problem with this argument, though, is that one of the judges they cite as their model is the late Chief Justice William Renquist, who had no judicial experience prior to joining the supreme Court either. And Justice Clarence Thomas had but one year of experience as a judge. When liberals attacked Judge Thomas for his lack of experience conservatives circled the wagons and came to his defense. "How dare liberals question his credentials," they were quick to say? Now these same voices imply that Ms. Miers is not up to the task for the same reasons.

To take it a step further many of these champions of the right appear to be questioning Ms. Miers, educational pedegris. Remeniscent of the liberal ilellectual elite, we now appear to have found our conservative intellectual elite. It is as though one cannot judge rightly without an Ivy League Law degree. How presumptuous! Or is it that she not the right kind of Christian? She is afterall an evangelical. Are they quietly saying, "how do we know that she is not a religious nut?"

As troubling as all of this is, the problem is really deeper than a select few's fear of having their posse's party crashed. The greater issue is that too many conservatives, like their liberal counterparts, have either forgotten, or else given up on our Federalist/Republican system of government. As a quick reminder, our governmental system was set up so that the people should decide how the nation is run. The President is not a king or a dictator and, therefore, cannot make or change laws as he sees fit. The Supreme Court is not supposed to be able to do this either. They are supposed to rule on the morality and fairness of laws and see that they are followed by law enforcement and those courts below them. Laws are supposed to be made and/or changed by the Congress. That means the Senate and the House. The people elect their representatives and they should make or change the laws according to the will of the people of the various states. Unfortunately, Democrats in not being able to achieve the desired changes via the Congress have begun using either "Executive Order" or judicial rulings to circumvent this system for some time. Now Republicans have apparently become impatient or just lazy, and want to short cut the system too, in wanting to have judges appointed that will change the laws instead of defending and interpreting them. I woud say that there is a crisis of faith in both parties. Till now the GOP has been able to claim that the system works if we trust it, and asked us to believe. That claim is now in danger. It has not been damaged by the Democrats and all of their attacks, but by some of the most respected minds in the Republican Party.

I would ask my colleagues to consider some things.

1) In his 2000 campaign for president Mr. Bush, when asked if he would overturn the Roe V. Wade decision said, The people are electing a President, not a dictator. If the people want to overturn Rove V. Wade they need to vote in people that will make that happen. If they bring me a bill to sign, I will sign it.

2) President Bush has worked and is working hard to place strong conservative judges into the appellate courts. If these judges do their job well many of the pertinent cases should never reach the Supreme Court, and if they do, there should be strong support by the SCOTUS to uphold sound decisions.

3) President George W. Bush has, until now, always been a man of his word, and a man to be trusted. Why should we doubt him now? I say we should trust him until he proves unworthy of that trust. We do him and ourselves harm in helping the "Left," by doing the work of tearing him down and undermining him. President Bush needs us now and he needs us more than ever. He does not need us to second guess his every move.

In closing, I would simply say to my conservative colleagues, instead of waiting to see what President Bush or the Supreme Court does, we should be demanding Congress men and women with the same trustworthiness that President Bush has shown. We need a Congress that will fight vigorously for and make righteous laws. I do not believe that we are getting this currently, and that is a shame.

Much of what is wrong with America is our fault as the people of this great nation, and that needs to change. Let us not become what we hate and have stood against. Let us rather hold firm to our principles. The Supreme Court is not and should not be the place where laws are made, or changed. Neither is the White House. Let's not fall into thinking they are. If anything we should be trying to return the court to its proper place as a minor or equal part in the Federal equation, not the final authority.

I, for one, am not going to begin thinking and acting like those people and tactics I have spoken out against for years. I am also not going to excuse that behavior in friends or those I respect. As with my blood family I want to tell them that their behavior is shameful and that it needs to be reevaluated. Let us return to reason, and discuss these issues in a manner that gives the President the respect and trust he deserves, as well as asking honest questions of him. The first action on our parts should never be to degrade a judicial or any other appointment, or to accuse the President. Unfortunately, that is what I have seen in the past few weeks and it is not pretty. Maybe this is a good exercise for the GOP and hopefully it will make us all stronger in the end. But first I think there will be the need for some humility on the part of many, and that is sometimes a hard thing to do.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

There is a difference between blog sites and good blog sites. This is a good one! I have a loans, site. It pretty much covers loans, related stuff. Come check it out!

8:32 PM  
Blogger DarkStar said...

So, a president who declares a war on terrorism, but doesn't do anything about securing the borders, who promotes an amnistey program for illegal immigrants, who has yet to veto the outrageous spending bills, has your FAITH?

9:13 PM  
Blogger DarkStar said...

Oh yeah...
Campaign. Finance. Reform.

9:24 PM  
Blogger Eddie Huff said...


First of all, as ususal, you need to get your facts straight. President Bush has never proposed amnisty for illegal aliens. He proposed a guest worker program, such as is used in other countries. When we lived and worked in Holland and Germany we had to. This allows the worker to be documented and taxed, etc., without bestowing the right of citizenship.

Secondly, no one is more opposed to close dborders than your democrat friends from top to bottom.

9:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, you have an enlightening blog here! Excellent job. I have a baby gift basket site. It pretty much covers baby gift basket related stuff.

Come and check it out when you get time :-)

9:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Reception problem or signal outage? The Internet knows...
Between my digitally fed TiVo and my MythTV system , my TV reception is all zeroes and ones.
Find out how to buy and sell anything, like things related to private road construction on interest free credit and pay back whenever you want! Exchange FREE ads on any topic, like private road construction!

10:00 PM  
Blogger Sirc_Valence said...

I couldn't help but notice that this debate demonstrates that the gold standard of dissent is Conservative, in terms of credibility. It doesn't need to be dressed, hyped, or manufactured by libs in the media in order for people to take it seriously.

What has the worst offense been in terms of wackieness here? Only that people don't give enough credit to Judge Miers and President Bush. Some have become obsessed and a bit fringy in their determination that Ms. Miers is secretly another degenerate such as Ginsburg or Stevens.

People can be so impatiently childish when they don't get exactly what they want. That's probably what reminds you of the libs in with some of President Bush's current political opponents.

I believe that it's respectable to object to her nomination, but I think its not very smart. That could change with the confirmation hearings, but I really doubt it.

10:46 PM  
Blogger Eddie Huff said...


I agree that it is correct to scrutinize any nomination, but as you said some of the arguments that are being used are childish and petty.

I remember many of the these same pundits asking the world to trust this President on other issues.

It is crystal clear to me that he is not his father and that, like it or not, he is a man of his word.

Crystal, Hannity, Coulter, et,al, have I believe painted themselves into a corner and are now finding it hard to get out.

By, the way, I had to add the word verification because of the spam. Sorry about that.

12:24 AM  
Blogger DarkStar said...

President Bush has never proposed amnisty for illegal aliens. He proposed a guest worker program, such as is used in other countries.

So, letting illegal immigrants now in the country become legal immigrants without going home is not an amnesty?

Since when?

than your democrat friends

I'm not a Democrat.

9:51 PM  
Blogger Eddie Huff said...


A guest worker program is not an immigration plan. In Europe there are thousand of guest workers who will never be allowed to become citizens. They have to leave the country and reapply every few years.

I did not say you were a Democrat, I said your Democrat friends.

10:01 PM  
Blogger DarkStar said...

This ain't Europe.
Bush's plan ain't Europe's plan.

8:40 PM  
Blogger DarkStar said...

And Miers goes down.

So, the question is, why put your faith in a man?

11:19 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home