AccessMyLibrary provides FREE access to over 30 million articles from top publications available through your library.
Create a link to this page
Copy and paste this link tag into your Web page or blog:
That's what the chattering classes seem to be advising President Bush. Things are different now, they say, than in July, when he nominated John Roberts for the Supreme Court.
Sure, Roberts was impressive and hard to challenge. But Bush wasn't nearly as weak then as he is now -- what with DeLay in trouble, Katrina complaints continuing and bombs still going off in Iraq. Just look at his poll numbers.
To all of which, Bush should say: "Read my lips: When I ran for the presidency in 2000, I said I wanted strict constructionists -- judges who interpret law rather than make it -- on the Supreme Court. And when I ran for re-election, I said I hadn't changed my mind -- that more Scalias and Thomases are what I have in mind."
The nomination of a justice to replace the retiring Sandra Day O'Connor will be a defining moment for this administration -- perhaps the defining moment.
Many of the president's supporters put him in the White House just for this reason -- to return the nation's high court to its original purpose of judging the laws of the land, rather than legislating from the bench.
If the president doesn't come through for them now, no amount of "moderate" support will save the important Bush agenda that remains. His core support will be gone and he risks winding up like his father.
As for those worrywarts who think Bush will be punished at the polls for acting boldly, think again. A survey released just last week by the American Bar Association shows Americans will have little tolerance if Congress tries to compel Bush to pick another liberal social engineer for the Supreme Court.