My daily (kinda) Miers post

Since the beginning of the Miers nomination debacle, we have been hearing from the "the elite Republican Priesthood" that our CIC, the head of our party, has made a decision, and that we need to be good little foot soldiers and fall in line. To that, I politely say BUNK!

Limbaugh had it right the other day in the WSJ editorial, emphasizing that rather than a conservative crack-up, this phenomenon is a conservative crackdown!

Folks, we live in the United States of America, under a government "by the People, of the People, and for the People", not "by the Party, of the Party, and for the Party." Ours is a bottom-up government, not top-down, and the rule is by the consent of the governed.

As citizens, we not only have a right but a duty to set our elected officials straight when they make decisions that can have a deleterious effect on the workings of our nation. When we work to have people elected to office, we have the right to expect that they will perform as promised, and a right to expect that the people we help elect will be good stewards of the Constitution, not in the interests of immediate political gain, but rather in the interests of preserving our Republic as the Founders intended for generations to come.

I, for one, am not going to sit idly by while the waters of freedom are poisoned for the sake of fleeting political expediency.

***UPDATE***

The Raw Story relates the latest John Fund piece that states that Cheney's office rejected the Miers nomination from the get-go. Also, it relates that religious conservatives like Dr. James Dobson and other prominent conservatives were verbally reassured prior to the nomination that Miers would indeed vote to overturn Roe. This will necessarily give the pro-death crowd and the pro-abortion ghouls in the Senate some red meat to chew on.

Again, let me reiterate that I would not like anything better than to have RvW overturned. But one does that by appointing a strict originalist to the Court, and RvW as well as other speciously-contrived laws will of necessity wither on the vine on their own lack of merit. I wouldn't expect (nor should there be) a litmus test when appointing any judge, regardless of who appoints that judge, save for the strict constructionist litmus test. It should not take a litmus test on the stance of one or two laws in particular to be able to discern how a judge will vote. It is my continued strong belief that when a strict constructionist philosophy is applied, bad law, whatever its nature, will be overturned. The important thing, above all else, is how religiously the candidate will adhere to and apply originalist principles in his or her decisions.