posted
I don't have a linky yet, but it is being reported on several outlets that Harriet Miers is withdrawing her nomination as a Supreme Court justice.
My immediate reaction is "good for her." Not that I think she is inherently unqualified--that remained to be seen, IMO--but I don't want anyone to be subjected to the 3 month Spanish Inquisition that is the Senate confirmation process. Heck, the Bush Administration pretty much admitted a few weeks back that the reason she was nominated in the first place is that there were several other nominees who flat-out turned Bush down when he asked them. No one wanted to be another Robert Bork, unfairly demonized by political enemies. In mentioning Bork, I don't intend to indicate that only Democrats can unfairly malign a person's character. Several right-wingers were responsible for it in Miers' case.
Anyway, I pity the next person Bush nominates...
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh yeah? If I wouldn't have added in my editorial opinion I would have still beat you. So take that, you evil conservative!
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmmmm. this is conveniently timed, given the leak investigations going on... but it was certainly warranted. Regardless of political affiliations, Miers definitely seemed to be a candidate whose only real justification was her close relationship to Bush. It appears that "cronyism" has been defeated, at least for the time being.
I have to wonder, though, if an even less reasonable candidate is coming up next.
posted
Hey now, when I call people liberal I get yelled at! No fair..... I should be able to respond with something about whiney liberal
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Anyway, I pity the next person Bush nominates...
I think that all depends. The confirmation process for John Roberts wasn't all that long and painful. If Bush's next pick is someone with credentials similar to Roberts', things will probably proceed pretty smoothly.
I wasn't surprised by this. Yesterday, I watched while both James Carville and Laura Ingraham predicted Miers would withdraw. That pretty much clinched it for me - they're both pretty astute and coming at it from opposite ends of the political spectrum.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm disappointed. I'm sure she would have been an excellent judge. Also, it would have been worth seeing her confirmed just to relish in the rage and spittle that would have come forth from the rabid, hardline republicans, whom I dislike almost as much as the rabid, hardline democrats.
Posts: 609 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
She couldn't become a Supreme Court Justice because nobody could come up with an argument for why she should be. She had a near complete lack of publicly available information. No Senator should vote for a candidate for the Supreme Court of the United States of America unless he or she can go back to his constituents with a list of publicly available material that makes clear to the reasonable person the candidate is eligible to serve on the Supreme Court.
I don't think anyone could do that for Miers. Even the senators she persuaded who had been against her she did by interview, not based on anything objective. I don't care how nice a person interviews, that's not a reason to support her for one of the highest judgeships in the land absent the "basic" qualification.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The really big news about her resignation, to me, is who really killed her chances at confirmation. It wasn't the liberals (or what passes for "liberals" these days) - it was the heart of Bush's "base" - Christian Conservatives.
That's really big news - enough to make other Republicans in Congress nervous. And it might even get through the psychic force field at the White House.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
A coworker of mine, who is a Bush supporter, feels very strongly that the nomination of Miers was a ruse, and that Bush intended all along to eventually have her withdraw herself from consideration. He claims that her nomination was intended to draw a lot of fire from both sides of the isle, leaving people on both sides spent and more willing to approve his next nomination relatively quickly.
I don't find this to be a particularly compelling argument, but perhaps it's because it was poorly explained to me. Anybody here share his opinion? If so, can you provide me with a better explanation of what you think the thinking behind such a move was?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think Bork was maligned all that unfairly. He probably drew more fire than he deserved, but someone whose response to pressure from above to get whistleblowers fired is to say "Absolutely, boss!" probably doesn't have the kind of character that warrants a seat on the highest court in the nation, no matter which way he might swing politically.
I don't know about Miers. I think it's more than a little perverse to appoint someone who's close to you and then claim you can't turn over their information because, well, they're close to you.
I do suspect that the next nominee will be worse. And I'm surprised more people aren't flying red flags that the conservative core has more or less publically put out that they have the right to make sure a nominee is their flavor of politically correct. Uh, wasn't there some platitude about activist judges?...
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Noemon, I've had that feeling since Meirs was first nominated. She was a sacrificial lamb.
Roberts didn't get the big fight some were expecting, so I think Bush sent someone out to draw some fire.
I think he'll nominate Gonzalez next. There is something of a stopwatch ticking away for the replacement on the Supreme Court and I think his strategists threw Meirs out there to chew up some of the clock time as well as the ire.
I have to say, the timing of the withdrawal seemed to coincide suspiciously with the indictment questions.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That ticking stopwatch is the election year coming up. The closer next November comes, the less likely moderate senators are to support a radical conservative activist. Wait even longer and Bush might end up facing a Democrat-run senate, which basically would mean he'd only get a moderate through. Thus, it's not in Bush's interest to chew up clock time.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There were 3 plausible scenarios for why Meirs was selected.
1) She was a staunch conservative who promised to back Presidential power to the hilt and/or scrap Roe V Wade at the first possible moment. President Bush nominated here because Roberts had a relatively easy time being confirmed partially due to the somewhat limited information about him the Senate could get out of the White House, so instead of facing a battle, the President was hoping to sneak a conservative idealogue into the Supreme Court mostly unmolestable. The entire White House was surprised when even his Base no longer felt comfortable with the President's "Trust Me" policies.
2) Facing so much resistance on everything from Social Security to Iraq, President Bush wanted to bring in a neutral, non-confrontational condidate, that he could trust. He knew Harriette Meirs and trusted her, so assumed she would be good enough. He is still surprised that people won't take his word on the fact that she is "good". Besides, they couldn't find anything wrong with her stances because the vast majority of them are covered under either Executive Priveledge or Lawyer Client Confidentiality.
3) The President, and other Republican power-brokers don't want Roe V Wade overturned. Abortion is probably the biggest cause that is keeping his conservative coalition together. With out the evil of abortion, how many on this board that voted for President Bush would have voted differently? To keep the social conservative backing what is in reality a big-business based administration (a Feeding-frenzy-for-the-connected-administration?) they need to sound and occasionally act like social conservatives. But they don't want to solve the proble that people are behind them on. It would be like someone working unpaid overtime to get their job done, knowing they'd be unemployed as soon as it was over.
Social conservatives are not stupid, by any means. Thier leaders were worried about such a betrayal, and would not let it happen.
I personally think its #2. I see the administration as more flawed human than evil empire. Ms. Meirs quiting means that I think we lost a chance at a moderate to replace Judge O'Connor, and I am worried about the conservative that will be offered instead.
What is more significant is that the polls are correct. A year ago, or five years ago, if the President would have said, "Trust me" the majority of this country, and the overwhelming majority of his base, would have and would have labeled unpatriotic anyone who didn't. Now, after Abu-Graib, WMD, Tax Cuts for the middle-class mostly helping the rich, the government's questionable response to Katrina (and now Wilma) and all the problems of Iraq, people don't trust him like they used to.
The polls say that our ability to trust him is at an all time low. When it came to Ms. Meirs, even his base responded to "Trust me" with "Why should we?" That is what I think is the most important aspect of this whole situation.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I heard a lot of talk on the radio about how Bush is now "free" to choose his nominee without considering gender. They spoke as if his nomination of Meirs was nod enough in that direction and she was shot down with no gender-based criticism, so no one can yell "gender bias!" Also, Barbara Bush strongly wanted a woman to replace O'Connor and now GW can tell his mom, "well, I tried" even if he chooses a man this time.
Personally I don't buy this reasoning. But if you do buy this reasoning, perhaps Bush has had another male nominee in the wings the whole time but needed a female lamb to sacrifice to appease the gender concious first.
Personally, I think that's too much advance planning for this Whitehouse, but it will be very interesting nonetheless to see who gets the nod next.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the end result is the same as if she had been a sacrificial lamb, but I don't think that means she was.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
