The farther to the right, the better for Republicans

Seemingly, Bush is steering a harder Right course. He has nominated someone with a reputation of being a strict-constructionist to the point that Judge Alito has been nicknamed “Scalito”. This is EXACTLY the type of individual we need on the Court, exactly the type of person I suggested: in the vein of Janice Rogers Brown. Granted, I have NO access to the President and few if any read this blog.

Bush should WELCOME the nomination fight. The more of a fusillade there is over the nomination, the more the Scooter Libby indictment will be suppressed and the less hamstrung Bush will be. In fact, Rush Limbaugh suggested this afternoon on the radio that those Senators seeking the Republican nomination for President in ‘08 will HAVE to vote FOR Alito, or be outed as moderates who will never be able to win the nod. Rush specifically mentioned that RINO McCain. This was a good insight by Rush, and I hope he’s correct. We’ve had enough of moderate Republican Presidents. George H.W. Bush was just an OK President, and at times, the current President Bush has been a disaster. What America really needs is another Ronald Reagan.

Back to the topic at hand. In fact, if the moderate Senators with an eye on the nomination all step in line and vote for Alito, Bush will look strong in having his nominee sail through the Senate. So, Bush MAY come out of this nomination fight with some steam. If he does so, he needs to have his Congressional liaisons cherry pick the best portions of the Kyl-Cornyn, McCain-Kennedy, Hagel, and the President’s own immigration bills, and Shepard those provisions through Congress. As I have said, if Bush can sign good immigration reform, he will supercharge the conservative base for victories in ‘06 and ’08. This will be especially true if he so charges the conservative base that he can also revive hopes of Social Security reform and sign a good reform bill into law.

I just don’t understand why the President would work wonders for the Republican party, only to dash all of his own hard work. The man helped the party set first time records in picking up seats in interim elections. Before Bush, this had NEVER been done. But of late, he’s been tearing down his own work. To leave office with any kind of decent legacy, I see no other path for the President than what I have suggested…but we’re all human, we’re all imperfect, and there may be plenty I’m not seeing.

Long live the memory of Rosa Parks

Rosa Parks is lying in honor at the Capitol building. I wish she could lie in honor there for a few hours more. I’d like to see her casket at the Capitol, like I saw Rhenquist’s at the Supreme Court. Any individual who has the cajones to stand up to racial oppression and tell another to take a hike and find another seat is superlative in my book! To think that that one simple act of defiance to tyranny would have made such a lasting impression is unbelievable. We ALL owe Rosa Parks at least acknowledgement of the impact she’s made. May we all remember her defiance and pass on her story for the rest of humanity’s generations. We have suffered another great loss. Rosa Parks, I salute you.

Suggestions for ramming through conservative Supreme Court nominees

A recent conversation with David Ridenour of the National Center for Public Policy Research prompted this entry. I've thought along similar lines to David's suggestions for quite some time.

Historically, the Senate used to just rubber stamp a President's nominees to the Supreme Court. The bitter political fights are a recent phenomena. Any President has a number of tools to get who he wants on the Court and shift the masses' bitterness to the Seante.

First, the President should notify the Senate that he has a long list of nominees and the Senate should be resigned to accept one of the nominees, no matter how objectionable, sooner or later because the nation has other business to deal with and the Senators will want to pass their bills. The President should have 2 sections to his list. The A section should be serious heavy-hitters who would make stellar Justices. The B section should be people of note that the Senate will reject out of hand...like Jerry Falwell, or Ralph Reed, or Grover Norquist. The purpose of the B section will hint at the extent of the President's patience with the Senate.

Once the Senate Judiciary Committee has the list of potential nominees, and the Senate receives the 1st nominee, the President should demand an immediate hearing and vote on the nominee or he'll refuse to sign their bills. If the Senate is not in session, the President should use his Article 2, Section 3, to convene the Senate until he gets a a nominee on the Court. Yep, that section suggests the power to convene Congress arises from extraordinary occasions. As far as I'm concerned, I think the filling of a Supreme Court seat is pretty extraordinary.

Finally, if a Supreme Court justice is wily enough to announce his retirement, or happens to die, while the Senate is recessed, the President should use his Article 2, Section 2 power to make recess appointments without hesitation.

Now, I intimately understand that this works both ways. If we have another socialist President like TR, FDR, Truman, LBJ, Nixon, Carter, or Clinton, we could end up with horrors like Bader-Ginsburg, Breyer, and Souter. But that makes Presidential nominations all the more urgent and may energize the parties' bases. In fact, that's the way things used to be. In this nation, we used to have something called the spoils system. The winner of a Presidential election used to oust the workers of the previous administration and install his own people. That system took considerable heat under good ole' Andy Jackson's reign. So, we have a historic precedent of the winner taking all. If it means taking Supreme Court seats...so be it.

Bush can salvage his Presidency if he steers hard Right.

With the withdrawal of Harriet Miers' nomination, I believe the Bush White House has an opportunity to regain some momentum. Even despite the investigations into the CIA name leak, if Bush nominates a Right-wing activist to the court, along the lines of a Janice Rogers Brown, and Bush signs decent immigration legislation, I believe the conservative base can be re-energized...enough to even pick up seats in Congress and retain the White House. In fact, I could see Bush being able to revive hopes of Social Security reform if he nominates a rabid conservative to the Court.

My point? When Republicans steer hard right, we win elections and we leave a shining legacy. When we act like Democrats, the masses would rather vote for Democrats. For example, when the New Jersey "Republicans" in the legislature acted like socialistic Democrats, they lost the majority. In '94, with the Contract With America, Republicans steered to the Right and we picked up seats. Despite Reagan's spending and despite Iran-Contra, the rememberance of President Reagan upon his death was almost worshipful. Reagan got votes from Democrats because he provided a clear, right-wing vision for the country.

So, if Bush caters to his conservative base, it will give him the momentum he needs, and the party needs, to change the composition of the court, to pass decent immigration reform, to reform Social Security, to pick up seats in Congress and perhaps the State legislatures, and to leave a legacy that will be remembered fondly.