Congratulations to you Justice Alito!

It is a great day for conservatives who have fought so long and hard to return the SCOTUS to an Originalist view of the Constitution.

The final vote was 58 for, and 42 against.

This is an outstanding choice, and we congratulate the President on his choice. He has kept his promise to appoint justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. His nominee deserves an up or down vote by the Senate, and the nominee deserves to be treated with the respect he has earned.

The extreme left has already begun their attack. The best way to insure that Judge Alito is confirmed quickly and decisively is to insure that a Democrat filibuster never see the light of day.

The following is the contact information for the Republican members of the gang of fourteen:

Senator McCain E-mail Contact
(202) 224-2235

Senator Warner E-Mail Contact
(202) 224-2023

Senator DeWine Senator DeWine’s Website
(202) 224-2315

Senator Chafee E-Mail Contact
(202) 224-2921

Senator Snowe’s E-Mail address is olympia@snowe.senate.gov
(202) 224-5344

Senator Collins E-Mail Contact
(202) 224-2523

Senator Hagel E-Mail Contact
(202) 224-4224

Senator Graham has already given his opinion on Face The Nation. Here is his statement from yesterday’s show, (transcript is here, HT to Hugh Hewitt ):

“Well, number one, we’re not going to let Senator Schumer define mainstream conservatism. He’s my friend, but that’s not going to happen.

Here’s why I was part of the Gang of the 14, and I’m going to lay it all out on the table for you on a Sunday morning. I’m not for filibustering. I think when you start ideologically driven filibusters that are partisan, you erode the people who want to serve over time in the judiciary because it becomes reprisal politics. `We’re going to pay back the Democrats.’ So partisan filibusters based on judicial philosophy or ideology erode the judiciary, weaken the presidency and hurt the Senate. So I wanted to stop that and we did. We had a chance to start over.

But here’s what you’re going to get, Chuck. You’re going to get a solid conservative. He ran on the idea that `I like Scalia and I like Thomas and I’m going to send a conservative up.’ He is not going to pick someone in the mold of Sandra Day O’Connor because we tell him he has to. There’s no ideological swap test here. He’s going to do what he said he did in his campaign. Roberts was in that kind of mode. Alito, Luttig, all these people are solid conservatives, and if they’re filibustered based on ideology and philosophy, that’s setting aside an election and the filibuster will not stand.”

We have included Senate Judiciary Committe Chairman Arlen Specter who needs to be reminded now and again who it was who helped get him elected.

Senator Specter E-Mail Contact
(202) 224-4254

Contact these Senators to help insure that a Democrat filibuster is avoided, and that we get a quick up or down vote on this great nominee.

Here is a copy of her resignation letter on National Review.

As we stated here, we have a process, God is watching, and we trust in Him.

Thomas at Red State has written a compelling argument against Ms. Miers in his article, Thirty Pieces of Silver. Thomas cites three reasons for his support of the Republican Party during the past thirty years. Two of the reasons he has supported the party have already been shattered, fiscal responsibility, and less government regulation on all of our lives. The final reason for his support of the party has been the promise that some day Roe would be overturned. He writes the following:

” Oh, not happily. But I can accept it because I thought I understood what I was getting in trade: The end of Roe. For that, I would trade a lot — I have traded a lot. I’ve made peace with the fact that Republican politicians like to get re-elected as much as Democrats do, which means that the budget goes Up Up Up! I’ve accepted the fact that no one has the spine to push even Bush’s half-hearted Social Security proposals. I’ve accepted the fact that this White House sees money as power to be applied, not something to value for its own, or for prudence’s sake, and the Congresscritters agree. I can accept that, as long as it means that the power is being used to achieve other ends.

I’ve eaten my own bile, and made peace with the fact that Arlen Specter is part of the caucus, for the same reason.

All pro-lifers have asked, lo these thirty years of blood, is for a chance to persuade. Before the Supreme Court invented a right to terminate unborn children, this issue, as with most contentious issues, was resolved through appeal and compromise and resignation on all sides. And that small, simple thing is what we have been promised all these years by the Republican Party, and it is a vital part of one of the legs of my support for this Party.

And yet, now, I see that leg bending, near the breaking point. And that’s a problem, because you see, there are three reasons why I’m a Republican. Two can suffice. One is not enough. And as it happens, you, collectively, are systematically destroying the thickest leg of all.”

His article is worth reading and expresses what many in the pro-life movement are thinking as a result of the Miers nomination.

Mark Levin expounds the strategy of President Bush’s nomination in his article McCain’s Blunder, where he writes this:

“Lest we forget, Majority Leader Bill Frist and the overwhelming majority of his Republican colleagues were poised to defeat the unprecedented and frequently used (or threatened) filibuster tactics that had been unleashed against President Bush by the Democrats to weaken his appointment power. The big media editorialized against it. George Will wrote at length (albeit unpersuasively) against it (see here and my response to him here). And Bill Kristol’s favorite presidential candidate in 2000, John McCain, the leader of the Gang of 14, was all over the media making clear he would torpedo such an effort. And that’s exactly what he did. This in no way excuses the president’s blunder in choosing Miers. But the ideological confrontation with the likes of Senator Charles Schumer and the Democrat left that many of us believe is essential, including Will and Kristol, was made much more difficult thanks to the likes of McCain and the unwillingness to change the rule before any Supreme Court vacancy arose. This president has been poorly served by his Republican “allies” in this regard. Bush is the first president who has had to deal with an assault of this kind on his constitutional authority. And unless and until the filibuster rule is changed, a liberal minority in the Senate will have the upper hand.”

Levin’s perspective and rationale are very much worth reading.

Hugh Hewitt stresses the political process unfolding before our eyes when he writes in Real people have paid real prices, the following:

“Part of my disappointment with the conservatives piling on the White House is the refusal to look at the entire political situation as it exists right now, 10 months into a 48 month term, 13 months before a crucial election, a week before the Iraq election and four years into a war that will go on for decades.

Bush and his team made a judgment on what was best for the cause of reforming the judiciary now, and he’s been stalwart in that cause throughout. Judging his judges on the Miers nomination is lousy analysis, especially as the case isn’t ripe. Talk to me in 2009 about the Bush judicial legacy. As of today, it looks extraordinarily good, but some conservatives seem intent on snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. “

Finally, Newt Gingrich writes, Conservatives can trust in Miers, where he makes a solid argument for trusting President Bush’s judgement for picking Harriet Miers. Read this:

” Mr. Bush governs with a very straightforward methodology: He says what he’s going to do. He does it. And then he does it again. This has been true with taxes, the war on terror and now with judges.

In both presidential campaigns, the president repeatedly promised to appoint justices like Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia to the Supreme Court.

With the president’s knowledge of Ms. Miers, his stated commitment to rebalancing the judiciary and his conservative record – not only in appointing judges but on big decisions in general – conservatives should feel comfortable in taking the president at his word that he has just now delivered another nominee in that tradition. “

Because we don’t have a lot of written documents about Harriet Miers, we have to trust in something, which is precisely what we stipulate here.

Most readers of this blog are “Christian Cultural Conservatives” who believe deeply in the preservation of life from the beginning in the mother’s womb until it’s natural ending.

The murder of babies both in the womb and outside the womb has been going on for millenia. The strategy for destruction of a race or nation thousands of years before Christ was for the conquering army to rip open the bellies of conquered pregnant mothers in the hopes of wiping out any descendents in order to prevent future retaliation. It is a known fact that archeologists have discovered thousands of infant skeletons in the bottom of the Tiber River in the ancient city of Rome indicating the practice of infanticide.

All of the great societies who practiced infanticide have ceased to exist. Rome lasted a thousand years, but finally fell because of political corruption and moral decay from within. The United States has been in existence for a little over 200 years, and is already seeing vast political corruption and moral decay.

The framers of the Constitution put together a document and process for the perpetuance of a Democratic Republic. They did so with a firm belief in God to oversee and guide their endeavor. The evidence of that trust can be found inscribed on our money, stamped into our coins, engraved into our buildings and monuments, and in our pledge of allegience.

The question for “Christian Cultural Conservatives” today is, “In Whom Do You Trust?” Do you trust in the God who “removes kings and raises up kings” (Dan 2:21 NKJV) and of whom the Apostle Paul says “the authorities that exist are appointed by God”, (Romans 13:1 NKJV) or is your trust in man and his ability.

Did not a friend of President Truman say, upon his signing of the document recognizing the State of Israel, “it was for this day that you were born”? Some get it, and others don’t. That is the reality we must face.

The United States will ultimately continue to exist or fall, based on her adherence to the Constitution and the principles of God’s law.

When we who have been advocates for overturning Roe v. Wade for thirty years and more have done all we can do to fulfill our responsibilities as men, we must put our trust in the process set forth by the framers, and put our trust in God.

We don’t claim to be the brightest bulb on the christmas tree, but we do try to apply some common sense when addressing issues such as a Supreme Court Nominee. You can read any article in our Saturday Evening Judicial Review Post category on your left and will soon discover how seriously we take this subject.

The stakes are high, and the nominee if confirmed, will sit on the court for the rest of her life. There are many conservatives who have raised questions and expressed doubts about whether Harriet Miers should be confirmed to the Supreme Court.

Rush Limbaugh stated yesterday that this was a choice made from weakness here. We seldom disagree with Rush, but there are times when we do. This is one of those times. How many times in the past has Rush told us how George W. Bush has outsmarted his enemies. We have watched the progress of this Presidency from 2000 onwards, when conventional wisdom said the closeness of the election would cripple anything the President would try to accomplish. Such has not been the case. It is our opinion that President Bush has made his choice from a position of brilliance.

We have read many other conservatives in the past twenty-four hours who have given valid reasons for concern. Some have questoned the President’s judgement. Others have questioned Ms. Miers experience. Some of those questioning are writers whom we have read and trusted over the past few months and years.

Erik over at Red State is a great writer, and one whom we have learned to trust in these matters. He has kept us well informed for months about Supreme Court nominees. He has written the following here:

“The White House is on a campaign to prove Miers is not only an “originalist,” but also qualified. For now it seems that will be a very tough case to make.”

You can find many more such doubts at Confirm Them, Southern Appeal, and Bench Memos. The writers at Powerline Blog have raised some doubts here and here as well.

Most of the publications mentioned above are written by lawyers, among them some of the most conservative and smartest in the country, including Mark R. Levin whose book, Men In Black has been such an inspiration for us in this battle.

That is the point that needs to be made. If one reads history, you will soon discover that this country was run by merchants, farmers, and business people who were elevated to positions of power because others could see in them a greatness of leadership and soundness of mind that made them highly qualified to hold the positions they were elected, or were appointed to.

Others whom we have read, and have come to trust in the recent past have a different view on Harriet Miers.

Hugh Hewitt writes these thoughts here:

“Conservative opposition or contingent approval was reflexive, and disappointing. Because they did not know her, they assumed she could not be worth supporting. The cronyism of the chattering class seems to have triumphed over any kind of analysis or credit-according the sort of experiences that ordinary Americans value.

I hope the disappointed right will get over its sulk quickly as the fight over Miers is going to get very ugly very quickly as both the secular left and the anti-religious left realize that the president has nominated a thorough-going Evangelical of character and tough disposition. The light is going to go off over there that the president’s eyebrows went up when Harry Reid scribbled Miers’ name on the Minority Leader’s list of acceptable nominees.

Taking the ball and going home because the nominee doesn’t know you by your first name is hardly principle at work, and the refusal to see what she brings to the table isn’t argument. It is entertaining, and also a sort of wish for a return to the days of old when the president was a Democrat and brick throwing made life as a pundit easy.”

Mr. Hewitt also includes some insight from a reader who E-Mailed these words about the same post:

“Miers was, I am sure, involved in many discussions about what it was that W wanted in a nominee. She knows that he wants an Originialist, that he wants someone in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. She also knows that the court is his legacy.

As a woman of faith and obvious integrity, do people honestly believe you would accept the nomination while knowing in her heart that she would shatter all of her president’s plans?

I doubt it. If she was going to be a Souter, don’t people realize that if she had any integrity she would say, “Thank you Mr. President, but I am not what you are looking for.”

As I recall, Bush 1 made the mistake of picking someone else’s compadre, not his own. W knows what he is doing.”

David Kopel writing for the Volokh Conspiracy has researched her view on the Second Amendment which can be found here.

Thomas Lifson writing for the American Thinker in Don’t Misunderestimate Miers says this:

“Other conservatives are dismayed that the President is playing politics (!), rather than simply choosing the “best” candidate. But the President understands that confirmation is nothing but a political game, ever since Robert Bork, truly one of the finest legal minds of his era, was demonized and defeated.

The President’s smashing victory in obtaining 78 votes for the confirmation of John Roberts did not confirm these conservative critics in their understanding of the President’s formidable abilities as a nominator of Justices. Au contraire, this taste of Democrat defeat whetted their blood lust for confirmation hearing combat between the likes of a Michael Luttig or a Janice Rogers Brown and the Judiciary Committee Democrats. Possibly their own experience of debating emotive liberals over-identifies them with verbal combat as political effectiveness.

In part, I think these conservatives have unwittingly adopted the Democrats’ playbook, seeing bombast and ‘gotcha’ verbal games as the essence of political combat. Victory for them is seeing the enemy bloodied and humiliated. They mistake the momentary thrill of triumph in combate, however evanescent, for lasting victory where it counts: a Supreme Court comprised of Justices who will assemble majorities for decisions reflecting the original intent of the Founders.”

Finally, James Dobson said yesterday as recorded on Radio Blogger regarding President Bush and his nominee:

“But on judicial appointments, this man staked out his territory in his claim in the campaign. And he has not wavered from it one inch. It’s also true of his pro-life stance. He has been absolutely consistent with what he promised to do in his campaign. I applaud him for that, and he knows Harriet Miers as well as anybody in government. He has worked with her for years. He knows who she is. I do not believe that man is going to put somebody on that Court that thirty years from now, is going to represent his legacy, and he’s going to be blamed for fooling the American people. I just do not believe that.”

From all that we have read, we still believe that President Bush has made his choice from a position of brilliance. There will still be the ugliness from the Left. There will still be the educational process for the American people, maybe more so because the Right will be researching as much as the Left. The far left will be exposed in their outrageousness simply because there is in reality, nothing to criticize. There will still be a battle, but we already know the outcome.

We leave you with this final question. What general would send his army into a bloody skirmish when he can simply outsmart his enemies without ever firing a shot?

President Bush has again outsmarted the smart guys.

He will long be remembered for his conservative views and his determination to adhere to the US Constitution. His legacy is that he was a judicial originalist who led in the fight to strike down any law or ruling which did not comply with the original intent of the written Constitution.

Thank you Mr. Chief Justice for your long years of service and hard work.

The New York Times reports in a piece by David D. Kirkpatrick entitled, Senate Democrats Are Split on Tactics for Questioning Roberts (registration required) on the struggle in the Senate Democrat caucus. Here is the dilemma they are facing according to this article:

“Officials of the groups have warned Democrats that if Judge Roberts becomes a Supreme Court vote against their causes – for example, in a New Hampshire abortion rights case expected to be decided before the 2006 elections – they will hold accountable any senator who votes to confirm him. “I think it is a big problem for pro-choice senators if they vote to confirm Judge Roberts and he votes to uphold the New Hampshire law,” said Kate Michelman, former president of Naral Pro-Choice America.

On Monday, the Democratic Party plans to weigh in with a request under the Freedom of Information Act asking for files relating to Judge Roberts’s work during the first Bush administration, according to the party’s Web site. Senate Democrats had requested the same files, and the White House refused them.

Supporters of Judge Roberts have already ramped up campaigns in relatively conservative states to convince Democrats that “there is a price to pay at the ballot box” for voting against confirmation, said Gary Marx, executive director of the Judicial Confirmation Network, which helps coordinate the state efforts.”

Democrats are certainly at a loss. They are at a loss for ideas. They are at a loss for leadership. They are at a loss in winning elections. Now they are at a loss in their approach to the confirmation hearings.

The real loss they are facing, is that even if they win 100% of their liberal base, that won’t help them win in 2006 or 2008, and they will still be at a loss.

We believe the article was published on purpose to stir up the liberal fringe base of the Democratic Party. The response was swift and certain. The Washington Post has published another article today which reveals just how tight the leash is on Democrat members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Today’s article, Democrats Feel Heat From Left On Roberts , exposes a different Leahy and Kennedy than was referenced yesterday. Here is a portion:

“The response was quick and pointed, as two key senators unleashed their sharpest criticisms yet of Roberts and sought to assure activists that the battle is far from over.

Sen. Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the Judiciary Committee’s ranking Democrat, said in a statement: “Those papers that we have received paint a picture of John Roberts as an eager and aggressive advocate of policies that are deeply tinged with the ideology of the far right wing of his party then, and now. In influential White House and Department of Justice positions, John Roberts expressed views that were among the most radical being offered by a cadre intent on reversing decades of policies on civil rights, voting rights, women’s rights, privacy, and access to justice.”

Leahy, who previously treaded more softly on the Roberts matter, said the White House’s refusal to release other documents being sought leaves Roberts “with a heavier burden to carry during his upcoming hearings.”

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), the committee’s senior member, also took his criticisms of Roberts to new heights yesterday in a letter to colleagues.

In a further bid to dispel an air of inevitability that liberals think too many Democrats have embraced, several organizations told allies that they will call for Roberts’s rejection this month rather than wait for the Senate hearings to start on Sept. 6, as some members of the anti-Roberts coalition have urged.

The senators and liberal groups were reacting in part to a Washington Post article noting that many Democratic lawmakers have expressed little interest in mounting a strong fight against Roberts, barring unexpected disclosures. The senators’ tepid stance has frustrated the organizations, which are important to the party, because they feel the information being gleaned from thousands of documents is starting to portray the nominee as someone considerably more conservative than the justice he would replace, Sandra Day O’Connor.” (emphasis mine)

We stated yesterday the need to be cautious concerning the supposed concession on the Roberts nomination. The following was what we predicted yesterday:

“As a matter of history, we anticipate that Senate Democrats will still attempt a smear and delay campaign just because they need to pacify their extremist base.”

It has only been one day since the conciliatory article was written, and now we have another scorched earth position being taken by Senators Leahy and Kennedy. We need to continue our vigilance and support Judge John Roberts at every available opportunity.

“Democrats have decided that unless there is an unexpected development in the weeks ahead, they will not launch a major fight to block the Supreme Court nomination of John G. Roberts Jr., according to legislators, Senate aides and party strategists.

In a series of interviews in recent days, more than a dozen Democratic senators and aides who are intimately involved in deliberations about strategy said that they see no evidence that most Democratic senators are prepared to expend political capital in what is widely seen as a futile effort to derail the nomination.

Although they expect to subject President Bush’s nominee to tough questioning at confirmation hearings next month, members of the minority party said they do not plan to marshal any concerted campaign against Roberts because they have concluded that he is likely to get at least 70 votes — enough to overrule parliamentary tactics such as a filibuster that could block the nominee.

“No one’s planning all-out warfare,” said a Senate Democratic aide closely involved in caucus strategy on Roberts. For now, the aide said, Democratic strategy is to make it clear Roberts is subject to fair scrutiny while avoiding a pointless conflagration that could backfire on the party. “We’re going to come out of this looking dignified and will show we took the constitutional process seriously,” the aide said.”

This will not be the last word on John Roberts. As a matter of history, we anticipate that Senate Democrats will still attempt a smear and delay campaign just because they need to pacify their extremist base. Roberts will continue to require support from conservatives to stave off any diversionary tactics at the last minute.