A Uniter, Not A Divider

Who thought George Bush could become a lame duck by winning a Supreme Court fight?

The Miers pick will be deemed to have been brilliant if it reassures the nation that a Republican can be trusted to nominate sensible, moderately conservative judges, thereby picking up more votes in the center than it loses on the "why did we bother?" right.

Subject, of course to the caveat that Miers had better be both sensible and a moderate conservative.

Are the Dems delivering more than perfunctory opposition to Miers?  Should they, since a new nominee will be almost surely better known and more excitingly Right?  I have not surveyed reaction (and my time management has collapsed), but feel free to let me know below.

UPDATE:  A broad round-up from The Moderate Voice; Hugh Hewitt rallies the defense; Glenn has lots, as does Michelle Malkin:

Well, it's a new day. Upon sober reflection, President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court appears...even worse than it did 24 hours ago.

This may be a moment when the right blogosphere discovers something that our friends on the left have come to terms with (or not) over the last several years - bloggers are not representative of public opinion.  It may be that Bush actually gets a boost in the polls from this - a grandmotherly moderate conservative (she gave to Gore in 1988 instead of his own dad!) - what's not to like, if you are the sort of person who spends five minutes a week on this sort of stuff?

But full disclosure - so far, that line of reasoning has not brought even one of my right-wing buddies in from his window ledge.  The collective complaint - We elected fifty-five Senators and broke the threat of a Democratic filibuster so Bush could appoint a stealth moderate?  It looks weak (Dems smell blood), it gives nothing to the base, and it is implausible that Bush can be hoping to form a new centrist coalition built around Lieberman and Leahy.  Bush seems to be conceding the argument that a true, visible conservative cannot be confirmed,despite his control of the Senate.  And it looks like cronyism, mainly because it is.

Looking a bit down the road, I'm worried that Miers will have to recuse herself in the to-be-bitterly contested 2028 Presidential election between Chelsea Clinton and George Prescott Bush.

MORE:  T-shirt idea: "I Went to the Mattresses for George Bush, And All I Got Was This Supreme Court Nominee".

Comments

[kim]

NOW will get(?) hysterical. She's pretty clearly against R v W.
================================================

[kim]

Now know NOW's no.
==========================

[Jerkweed]

perfunctory Demo opposition? You really are behind the times.

Actual conservatives may try to sink the nomination.

[kim]

Yet none dare speak bad to her face.
====================================

[TexasToast]

The possibility of rejection would be a strong motive to care in proposing. The danger to his own reputation, and, in the case of an elective magistrate, to his political existence, from betraying a spirit of favoritism, or an unbecoming pursuit of popularity, to the observation of a body whose opinion would have great weight in forming that of the public, could not fail to operate as a barrier to the one and to the other. He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure.

">http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/fed/federa76.htm"> Alexander Hamilton - Federalist #76 .

[kim]

I was gonna guess Reed.
========================

[kim]

The surest way to make a monkey of a man is to quote him. That's Thomas B.
==================================

[TexasToast]

Isnt that Robert B?

[paul]

The only thing the dems can do is attack her religion.

Without a paper trial to comment on, and the caveat that she can't disuss any pending matters, gives little room for the dems to argue.

They will be compelled to argue, or become irrelevant to their base as they try and position for 2008.

Bush did not make this pick alone.

The attack on her religion is a winner for the GOP. Once the 'onslaught' begins, a groundswell of support from the right will be forthcoming. No one was prepared for it...much like Roberts. As the angst of the Dems grows, it will provide for the fight that everyone has longed for...

The dems will be in the postion to say that she is unqualified, without having anything to base it on. Judge her by her enemies, but you'll have to wait for the enmeies to declare their opposition.

Dems will be far more nervous as information is provided, the GOP will be assuaged by the research Neas wil rpovide for them.

Bottom line? Way more conservative than O'Connor.

[kim]

And the surest way to make a monkey of yourself is to misattribut a quote. Robert B. it is. If I'd been feeling any better we would have know that.

I was led astray by the goobar 'reed speaker house quote nepotism'. That slip is from undeserved intimacy with and untoward dependence on that warped searcher.
===============================================

[Gary Maxwell]

Cheer up everyone ( since I am feeling charitable today you too Texas Toast). Think of it this way. Who would surely have been on President Kerry's short list of lawyers for the Supreme Court? Hillary Clinton. Now in comparison I am liking Miers just fine.

By the way the Dallas Morning News has quotes from all kinds of legal types and politicians. Its uniformly consistent in being positive. Most dfescribe her and "very conservative." I think Rove put another one over on the Demos.

[Jerkweed]

Not really Maxwell. The schadenfreude the left is enjoying watching wingnutters attack each other is worth giving Roe back to the States.

[kim]

However, I'm sure that must be a recurrent theme. We are monkeys after all. Perhaps after I mow a little out front and clear the acorn mash out of the roof's gutter and the acorn butter from where the driveway meets the street's gutter, once done puttering, unshutter the guttural clutter.

Ever see a flock of birds get loaded on rotting mulberries? Squirrels are digging in the gutters but they're not dropping out of trees like the birds will do.
============================

[Gabriel]

I was really hoping the President would nominate the kind of candidate he told he would nominate. Had the nominee been a "Scalia or Thomas" mold then the Senate would have produced terrific fodder. I want to see a real battle over the SCOTUS. It would be nice to at least force the PFAW to utilize their newly constructed action center to try and derail a nominee.

Motion pictures are awful lately. The people deserve good theater. The President could have delivered it.

[kim]

Patience, my boy. Just building dramatic tension.
===================================================

[JayDee]

The craving of the rightwing for a fight is hysterical, if infantile. Many of the objections to Miers from the right seem to be disappointment that they won't get a chance to "bury" the Dems publically. It's a bizarre kind of patriotism to be so openly hostile and belligerant towards one's own countrymen, to the point of being disappointed in losing an opportunity to behave like bullies.

On the other hand, this apologism that Bush "had" to nominate someone with literally NO paper trail is an admission of extreme weakness. Why would any American WANT a Supreme Court justice with no qualifications or record?

It seems the Dems could ally themselves with arch conservatives and defeat this nomination with a straigt up-or-down, if they so chose. I don't see that coming, not at this point, but only because the Dems - to the hilarious consternation of the ever-belligerant conservatives - have so far been mum.

An extremely bizarre appointment from a pathetically weakened president who seems almost helpless against his addiction to cronyism.

[TexasToast]

GM

I have no doubt she will be conservative - and that Roe is on thin ice - it is interesting however to watch the right wing go ballistic because she isn't the "in yo' face" pick thay wanted.

BTW, Delay has been reindicted by a different grand jury - for a law that has been on the books for a century.

[JayDee]

Delay's lawyer may have messed up. Penalty for the original charge was up to 2 years. Penalty for the new one is LIFE....Oops.

[Appalled Moderate]

TT:

DeLay was reindicted because the first indictments were based on a law that wasn't in effect at the time of the initial indictment. Not impressive. The man gets outlawyered by judges and bug exterminators.

I don't think Ronnie Earle has the stuff to bring DeLay down. It's probably ging to take the Feds, once they get Abranoff singing.

[Lurking Observer]

TT:

And indicted on a charge in less than a day of the new grand jury's empanelment, that the previous grand jury had consistently refused to indict DeLay on.

Verrry interrresting.....

[Jim E.]

I also concede that Miers is conservative. I'm not so convinced, however, that she's a consistent conservative. Maybe she's a climber who veered to the right in order to get herself politically promoted.

Here's a quote from Miers in 1992:
"We will be successful in solving our massive crime problems only when we attack the root causes. All of us, men and women, young and old, must pledge ourselves to address the ills that surround us in our communities.

We all can be active in some way to address the social issues that foster criminal behavior, such as: lack of self-esteem or hope in some segments of our society, poverty, lack of health care (particularly mental health care), lack of education, and family dysfunction."

That's conservative? Maybe George "the most brilliant man Harriet ever met" Bush set her straight starting in 1994.

[Jerkweed]

Just superb-now Ponnuru, Patterico, and Bainbridge are all arguing against Hugh Hewitt.

Hewitt is the most obsequious moron on TM's blogroll (the competition is fierce though)- and now he's being attacked by the only slightly more sensible right-and Hewitt's firing back.

The stakes are high-since the heretic always faces worse torture than the pagan. But who is the heretic and who the defender of the faith? Those on the right have to choose! Thanks, Uncle Rove!!! This is the bestest Christmas ever!!!

It's like Godzilla vs. Megadon-a great battle to watch-and since they're all just vapid pea-brained sub-reptiles, their suffering just adds to the mirth!

[Appalled Moderate]

JayDee:

If the prosecutor can't figure out what law he should be using, how good do you think the evidence he's got is?

[Gary Maxwell]

TT

Hugh Hewitt is calling them ther "shoot first and think later conservatives" He is spot on. Roe had 7 votes not 5 so I dont see this being anything in jeopardy but Kelo could be in for a pasting.

As far as Ronnie Earle goes, well that is all you need to know. He indites under a law that came into existence after the alledged crime and DeGuierin points it out to the court. Earle runs around and empanels a nbew grand jury and gets them to indict the same day? Is he serious? How long before Deguierin eats him up on this piece of political theatre? Its like watching Don Knotts in the ring with a heavy weight. You know the knockout is coming and there will be blood everywhere. And Dan Rather cant try to shape the public opinion in the meantime.

[TexasToast]

DeLay was reindicted because the first indictments were based on a law that wasn't in effect at the time of the initial indictment.

Thats the Delay spin. The "new" law simply codified existing case law. Seems to me they must have pretty good stuff to get such a quick indictment - and it might have something to do with the withdrawal of the waiver of the statute of limitations.

[Freaknik]

How out of control do you Delay ass-kissers think the grand jury in Texas is? Either Delay is corrupt or the State of Texas is-either way it's a problem.

And perhaps Earle has some fairly non-complex eveidence he could present to get an indictment that quick? Possible, yes?
You really think it's just pure blind obedience from a partisan grand jury?
Where's your evidence.

And what's with Delay waiving the SOL on the original charge? Isn't some sort of deal implied there? I think Delay's lawyers got too cute here.

And please quit quoting Delay's lawyers arguments (i.e. the law didn't apply) as post appeal certified legal conclusions-it makes you look stupid.

[JayDee]

Yeah, some people are speculating that it may have been DeGuerin that that got taken

So why am I so sure he'll plead? A line in the indictment notes that his lawyer waived the statute of limitations on the conspiracy charge during grand jury proceedings. Why would a competent lawyer waive a complete defense? Because worse was on the way if he did not.

Initiates know the practice as charge-bargaining. You see a funnel cloud barreling at you and you ask your local prosecutor, quietly, "on what charges are you willing to take my client if he pleads?" I suspect DeLay will enter a plea late in the year.

Whatever the outcome, none of it could be happening to a more deserving fellow.

[Appalled Moderate]

TT:

Then why didn't Mr. Earle indict under the statutes that the case law interpreted? The man has been investigating DeLay for years. Don't you think he would have figured out the statutes he should be indicting him under? The law may be complicated, but c'mon. Earle has got to know that every misstep he makes beings up grounds for appeal, or another reason for a judge to get thinking about outlawyering him in the name of justice and the GOP.

Earle is working real hard at looking like a hack.

[Freaknik]

The speculation is Delay had already reached a plea deal. Why else waive the SOL?

[Appalled Moderate]

Freaknik:

Now there's a name to strike terror in the heart of an Atlanta guy like myself...

Whatever makes you think DeLay would willingly give up power? What makes you think he has any concept that he could ever be brought to account for his actions? He signed the waiver so he could do exactly what he did. If signs the SOL, he delays the indictment a month, figuring that the charge is under a bogus law, and figuring he just might slip out from under the indictment. if it doesn't work out ... well, he's stayed House Majority leader another month longer.

[Freaknik]

Now I agree with you. The lefty theory is Delay's team miscalculated: they made a deal to waive the SOL for only taking the conspiracy charge. Once the clock runs out-they attack the indictment. But they get screwed b/c Earle gets a new indictment on the last day of the limitations period.

IOW premature exoneration.

[JayDee]

I think the point of the article I linked to is that DeGuerin may have gotten too cute. He bought the conspiracy indictment, trying to pull a fast one on Earle, not thinking Earle had the goods to indict on the laundering charge. Now it looks like the grand jury didn't even need a day with the evidence to come up with the new indictment. There must be something fairly convincing there.

Maybe Deguerin just got outlawyered. Seems like Hubris is an epidemic in republicanland these days.

[Appalled Moderate]

Freaknik:

I have a hard time believing DeLay would make an explicit deal to plead or Earle would believe an implicit deal. These two ought to know each other by now.

Well, if the speculation was correct, the gamble here on earle's side is that the whole enterprise does not make him look an indictment happy fool. If he really has the goods, it won't matter. If his case is aggressive or borderline, I think this little scramble will end up hurting him.

[Appalled Moderate]

JayDee:

Or they figured that if the first grand jury could indict, they should too and not just DeLay finesse them.

[JayDee]

AM, I'm no lawyer, but is that how grand juries work? Do they care about "being finessed"? Why would twelve anonymous Texans have that concern?

Time will tell. In any case, if Earle screwed up, at least he fell on his sword for a worthy cause. Delay is done.

[Geek, Esq.]

Miers is a lifetime sycophant, is a far-right fundie, has donated money to anti-abortion activist groups, and thinks gays should be imprisoned.

She'll vote the social conservative line on EVERY issue they care about.

I guess they're whining because Bush is appointing someone without an "In Your Face" taunt to Democrats.

[Tollhouse]

That's a cute scenario. Didn't even need a day you say? Or do you mean, they only had a day.

[Tollhouse]

In any case, if Earle screwed up, at least he fell on his sword for a worthy cause. Delay is done.

That's peachy.

[Appalled Moderate]

Jay Dee:

I would say a convincing prosecutor and evidence of a prior finding, and a knowledge of an impending deadline caused by a slick stunt by the target would impel a grand jury to do the indictment, without a whole lot of weiging of the facts in the case. This is just my assessment of human nature leavened by my experience as a juror a few years back.

[JayDee]

Geek, that's my point also. There's a very unseemly LUST for confrontation from the right these days. And Bush's unwillingness to cater to that lust, when he so dearly needs their support, is very telling. This guy is weak, almost frightened. You have to wonder what they know about the Fitzgerald inquiry that we don't.

I don't know if you're right about Miers though. No one does. The only thing that seems clear is that she's a sycophantic loyalist, which casts serious doubt on both her impartiality and her competence.

I'm still wondering if we'll see a Congressional fight from the right on this. That would be news.

[Geek, Esq.]

What I don't get is why the right is so much more outraged by the cronyism than the left. Is it because this is old news to us moonbats, while the wingnuts are seeing Bush's corrupt cronyism with fresh eyes?

[TM]

I guess they're whining because Bush is appointing someone without an "In Your Face" taunt to Democrats...

What I don't get is why the right is so much more outraged by the cronyism than the left

Ahh, same answer - Reps aren't looking for an "In your face" choice - they are looking for a clear conservative, not a "trust-me" pick.

Bush could have gotten Miers with the 49 Senators he had in 2001; why did we bother to get him up to 55?

[Jerkweed]

Can you now grasp in practice what you failed to grasp in theory?

Bush unequivocally sucks.

[Geek, Esq.]

He may or may not have gotten Miers with 49 R's. Dems would be striking a much different tone if conservative activists weren't so opposed to her.

[Gerry]

"This may be a moment when the right blogosphere discovers something that our friends on the left have come to terms with (or not) over the last several years - bloggers are not representative of public opinion."

From your keyboard to my blog. Or is that vice-versa? (Actually, a coinkydink).

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

'Bush could have gotten Miers with the 49 Senators he had in 2001; why did we bother to get him up to 55?'

I doubt it, not an evangelical, anti-abortion (Al Gore used to be pro-life), managing partner of a huge law firm with clients like Microsoft.

As for 55 Republican votes, some of them are named Collins, Chaffee, Snowe, Specter, Voinovich.

[The Unbeliever]

Permit me to float a theory here--Bush and company knows something we don't know: another SCOTUS seat is opening next year.

Think about it: Roberts just sailed through and is now Chief, despite the left's hysterics about various issues. Judicial nominations aren't something that gets the center fired up, only the hard base on both sides. A major nomination equals a chance for rallying the base, fundraising, solidarity, etc. Bush's numbers are a bit low now, so he could use a spectacular fight for a rally. However...

Mid-term elections are next year, meaning that if Bush nominated a staunch conservative now--sparking battles, filibusters, the nuclear option, and other expected public drama--the GOP will "peak" too early; by this time next year, the base will have forgotten the battle. But if he can start a judicial battle next year, right before the election cycle...

Imagine this: a seat opens up sometime around August 2006, and Bush nominates Janice Brown. She's black, a woman, solidly conservative, and highly qualified. And that's the image the GOP carries going into the elections, the poster they rally around in an election with traditionally lower turnout. The Dems are caught between alienating the liberal base, and facing a higher GOP turnout than usual.

So how does he set this up now? Simple: avoid a pitched battle, avoid the charge that he only nominates radical right-wingers. Let a stealth candidate through, and save the energy for the battle next year. The better nominee chronology for this strategy is minor controversy, minor or no controversy, huge battle; rather than minor controversy, huge battle, huge battle.

[Jerkweed]

An alternative theory Unbeliever: Bush is an idiot.

[The Unbeliever]

Now that I painted my little conspiracy, here's why I think it's plausible.

We know that Bush doesn't back down from a fight, or from partisan opposition; he doesn't do centrism for compromise's sake. Love it or hate it, "compassionate conservativism" is still conservative--it simply involves more spending than any solid conservative is willing to stand.

Even with low poll numbers, I don't see Bush backing down on his nominees just to avoid a battle in the Senate. It's not in his nature to care about politics that much, and I don't see him giving away a position on the Court just to placate his critics. At this point, Bush has no reason not to cater to his base with JRB... unless he sees an opportunity for bigger gains down the road.

Embedded in all the conservative hue-and-cry over the last 36 hours is the message that even though they're disappointed with Miers, they're glad that Kerry didn't get to make the nominations. The Dems aren't going to pick up any gains from Miers--no centrists annoyed with a right-winger, and no Republicans suddenly deciding to trust the Dems. The GOP still has its base, and if Bush can get a red-meat nominee battle going in 06, everyone but a few pundits will have forgotten Miers in the rally.

Granted, this is all speculation based on a third seat actually becoming open. But unless Bush has suddenly capitulated with 3 years left on his term--which would be highly uncharacteristic of him--I think Bush/Cheney/Rove et al may be going for a trifecta: 3 justices (one a Chief), a base rally, and another midterm pickup of Congressional seats.

[Jerkweed]

Change your handle to The Unbelievable.

[JayDee]

What Unbelievable is saying, is it doesn't matter that a complete non-entity is being used as a placeholder on the Supreme Court of the United States of America, because later the Bushies can USE the highest court in our land as a political football to be exploited for partisan gain.

This is conservative style "patriotism" apparently, 2005.

[MDP]

... bloggers are not representative of public opinion. It may be that Bush actually gets a boost in the polls from this ...

Maybe David Letterman is more representative of public opinion:

Top Ten Signs Your Supreme Court Pick Isn't Qualified

[The Unbeliever]

"Bush is an idiot" is the kind of simplistic analysis that leaves the Dems playing checkers while Rove is playing 3D chess. Do you really think that Bush, who is still sticking out the Iraq war after a year and a half of domestic and international criticism, suddenly decided to duck and cover because some whiny Senators may not like his nominee?

Miers seems like a pick that Bush can be comfortable with, but he can't tell his base why without alerting the Dems to this fact. That's the whole point of a stealth nominee--get them approved before the other side realizes what hit them. Bush is playing politics with the judicial nominees, and it looks to me like the conservative pundits/bloggers got themselves caught in the crossfire.

Like I said, the above theory is just speculation. I have no good reason to believe that Bush actually knows about a third seat opening up. But there's more to the Miers nomination than many people are guessing, and if you just write it off as "Bush got scared", you're misunderestimating him... again.

[JayDee]

Did you see him at his presser today, Unbeliever? He looks worse than scared. He looks ill.

[The Unbeliever]

JayDee, what I'm saying is that Bush is taking the court seriously. He has a certain idea of who he wants on the court, and he thinks Roberts/Miers/JRB fit that mold. The pressing question is, how can he successfullly get them on the Court?

Look at it from the Administration's perspective: JRB, Luttig, etc could probably be defeated right now unless the GOP exerts a lot of influence and money to crack the filibuster. Bush wants those kind of minds on the court, but if they're defeated he's stuck. So he first nominates Roberts, and the Administration downplayed his obvious conservative credentials to quell the noise the left was raising. Now he nominates Miers, and he pulls the opposite tack. In both cases, the person who best knew their tendencies was Bush, but the public perception had to be manipulated. Do you think Bush's criteria for judges suddenly changed in the short time between Roberts' nomination and Miers' nomination?

The 2006 play I outlined isn't just about a Congress pickup--it's about putting pressure on the Dems to confirm a nominee they might not have confirmed otherwise. If he nominated Janice Brown, Bush could make a huge issue of any Dem who votes against a qualified black woman for the highest court in the land, and that may shake loose the 5-6 votes needed to break a filibuster.

[kim]

Believe the Unbeliever. In three years there will be another seat. The dramatic tension will be there for '06 or '08.

Fools. Bush is playin' y'all.
===================================

[Appalled Moderate]

What sounds right to me is the viewpoint that Bush knows that Miers reflects Bush's views on the legal issues that surround the War on Terror. Not good news, if civil liberties is one of your causes.

[TexasToast]

If you are correct, Unbeleaver (and I'm not saying you are not - I suspect you are), than the court will move sharply to the right for the next 20 years. Lets say that Janis Rogers Brown is the "fight" Based on her dissent in American Academy of Pediatrics v. Daniel E. Lungren, 940 P.2d 797 (Cal. 1997), we can look for federal preemption of state privacy protections. "Flying to Disnyland", as Tom suggests, won't be far enough for women wishing to obtain an abortion.

The choicw will be a ticket to Europe, a coathanger, or an unwanted child.

[kim]

You can choose to enjoy a child.
================================

[TexasToast]

You can (and I have certainly enjoyed my children), but my children were born to parents who wanted them. Making abortion illegal does not take away anyone's right to enjoy a child.

[Gary Maxwell]

I think a bunch of libs have damn near hijacked this thread. But here is the beauty of it all. An "idiot" has just played the minority leader in the Senate and the Sr Senator from NY like a Stradivarius. I blame Rove.

Oh what a our virtuous prosecutor in the Peoples Republic of Austin. He is searching for any evidence to back up his theory du jour. Maybe Rove is behind this too, cuz Earle sure is making himself look incompetent to go with hack.

It really sucks to be in the minority dont it?

[kim]

I was trying to say you can choose to want a child.
===================================================

[The Unbeliever]

TT, I doubt Roberts+Miers replacing Rhienquest+O'Connor will signficantly move the court to the right. But depending on who JRB would replace, she could very well do so, and I think that's why Bush is content with Miers for now if he thinks it will open the door for JRB/Luttig/someone equally conservative further down the road.

And as AM said, we can be sure Bush knows Miers' views even if the rest of the world doesn't. Unfortunately that forces him to rely on the "trust us" defense to his conservative base for now. And as various posters over at The Corner stated, now is not a time when conservatives are inclined to trust the conservative instincts of the President after the highway bill, Katrina spending proposals, Michael Brown leaving FEMA, and talks of using the military for disaster response. Hence the sudden explosion of righty pundits unwilling to trust the President on Miers, despite all the reasons why they should.

[kim]

Hear, hear, and believe.
Oh yes, he not deceive.
===========================

[TM]

Well, Letterman may not like her, but Brian Williams, anchoring the most-watched news show in America, did not belittle her lack of experience, which may help the CW.

[JayDee]

Not good news, if civil liberties is one of your causes.

There was once a time, oh back in the 1770s or so, when civil liberties were every American's cause. It's a different country today, making all this talk of "strict constructionalism" sound pretty damn moot.

An "idiot" has just played the minority leader in the Senate and the Sr Senator from NY like a Stradivarius.

He should have at least alerted the conservative media before he pulled this little act of artistry, because they're going freakin' ballistic.

[Tollhouse]

It's hard to believe this is another rope the dope scenario because this extra nomination fell into his lap. A good solid fight on ground of the President's choosing after the soft walk of Roberts and the president balks. What else is anyone supposed to think! The base passed on Roberts because of the carrot of the second nomination and then this stealth candidate that no one has ever heard of, has nothing to her record that would reassure anyone. People seem to forget that had the last Bush not gone wobbly the Court would have been reliably conservative for the last 20 years.

Damn right people are pissed and feeling a bit betrayed.

[Paul]

Unbeliever, you're showing the kind of depth of thought that the "Bush is an idiot" crowd simply is incapable of handling. It's the same type of strategy that Bush-Rove have developed time and again to outwit the witless lefties so drunk on their self imagined sophistication that they are blindsided repeatedly and left red faced and foam flecked in enraged impotence.

The thing to remember is that Bush knows Meirs VERY well...she undoubtedly embraces the philosophies and values that reflect his own.

As to the left's hysterical rantings about back alley abortions and coathangers, even if R vs. W were overturned every state except perhaps Utah and LA would pass laws making abortion legal and that's how it should be decided, democratically, not by some activist court.

[richard mcenroe]

"Either Delay is corrupt or the State of Texas is"...Texas is a big state. There's room for both.

[Geek, Esq.]

The problem with the "Bush snookered the Democrats" theory is that he seems to have snookered his base as well--in a really self-destructive way.

[kim]

Y'all are still snookered. Where else are you going to find someone who doesn't need to look at privacy to be against R v W.
============================================

[The Unbeliever]

He hasn't quite "snookered his base"--the right is just having a normal paranoia to Miers' lack of provable conservative credentials. But after Roberts, with the Administration downplaying his conservative background to get him through the Senate, the Dems were bound to oppose whoever was next, and Miers stymies that opposition. Plus, the conservative uproar gives the Dems cover to place yet another person who agrees with Bush onto the Court; borrowing a comment from another site:

"First, let me make sure I've got it right. The way I understand it, President Bush has nominated a Pro-Business, Pro-Life, Pro-Gun, Evangelical Christian to the Supreme Court with the result being that the Conservative Republicans are "Enraged," and the Democrats are dancing a jig with Glee. Do I have it about right?"

[kim]

The Masque of the Red Death is cutting the rug at the Democratic Party, and the dancing and the delusions are tarentellic.
==============================================

[kim]

Damn, I should have said 'at the Democratic Costume Party'.
============================================

[TexasToast]

Harry Reid is pro-life - why should he be upset given the alternative of a Brown or a Luttig or an Estrada?

There is no convincing case for going to the mat on this one given the Dem's minority position in the senate and the likely nominees should this one go down.

The next one is the tipping point. I sore hope Stevens is eating his Wheaties every morning.

[kim]

Effervescing Frosted Flakes.
=============================

[kim]

Sorry about that Post, Toastie.

You too, Island Wear. I mean Guam Attire.
=================================================

[JayDee]

It's funny how the precious few conservative voices supporting Miers really are just litmu test puppets. She's pro-life, nyah nyah nyah...When the issue really should be, for all concerned, is she even minimally qualified for this esteemed office?

George Will sure doesn't think so.

(T)he president has forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution....is important that Miers not be confirmed unless, in her 61st year, she suddenly and unexpectedly is found to have hitherto undisclosed interests and talents pertinent to the court's role. Otherwise the sound principle of substantial deference to a president's choice of judicial nominees will dissolve into a rationalization for senatorial abdication of the duty to hold presidents to some standards of seriousness that will prevent them from reducing the Supreme Court to a private plaything useful for fulfilling whims on behalf of friends.

Ouch. He doesn't sound snookered so much as profoundly humiliated at having such a worthless fool representing our nation as president. Welcome to the club.

[kim]

A life time with the law and these are undisclosed interests and talents? Sometimes George Will is so taken with the sound of his outrage as to not even hear what he says.
==========================================

[kim]

Missed again. Sound of his fury would have been better.
=====================================

[dmc]

I think that's "went to the mats," not mattresses.

[Inspector Callahan]

Regarding the George Will column (by the way, Will is not a lawyer, as far as I know), here's a good, simple entry by a lawyer that explains why Will is full of it:

Link

TV (Harry

[JayDee]

That's quite an argument, Inspector. Basically it doesn't matter then WHO we put on the SC, as long as he/she passes the requisite litmus tests of having evangelical bona fides. Talk about embracing a Culture of Mediocrity. Just another victim of the Bushification of America - the loss of excellence. Jon Stewart wasn't really that far off base then, according to your HogonIce genius, when he suggested Bush do something really groundbreaking and just nominate a monkey.

[Inspector Callahan]

No experience? Like a monkey? Examples:

Lewis Powell, Arthur Goldberg, Earl Warren, Tom Clark, Hugo Black, William Douglas, Felix Frankfurter, William Rehnquist

And a score of others. Look JayDee, if you want to argue that she'll be too conservative, then fine, make that argument. But the no experience argument is a cop-out.

TV (Harry)

[kim]

Now JD, that wasn't the argument at all. C'mon, can't you do better?

Speak, Monkey, speak.
==============================================

[kim]

Mattresses probably doesn't misrepresent some of the efforts.

Anybody remember the Black Panther 'prone' comment?
==================================================

[kim]

Harriett. Err I? Ha!
======================

[JayDee]

Her conservatism is a given. It's her qualifications that are in question. The hearings should be quite a show, given that the most vociferous objections to her by far have come from conservative quarters. Brownback and Lott have both stated publically that they are unhappy with the pick. I'm actually beginning to envision the scenario where this nominee doesn't make it out of committee - due to Republican objections. Sensing Bush's appalling weakness, might we be looking at a conservative mutiny?

[kim]

It might be interesting to watch Spector. The tent is now officially big enough to hold prize fights.
==================================================

[Inspector Callahan]

Sorry, JayDee, you don't get off so easy.

If her conservatism is a given, why make mention of the "evangelical bona fides"? And why make mention of her lack of experience when some of the judges I mentioned above had just as much experience?

Don't make the point about her conservatism if it's a given, unless that's your main gripe. Because, once again, her lack of experience is moot, and a cop-out.

I'm going to do the smart thing - hold out for more information.

As for your mutiny comments - you may well be right. And President Bush will have no one to blame but himself if that happens.

TV (Harry)

[kim]

The argument was that she is experienced at constitutional law, and he hasn't come near addressing that. Just TP the place.
====================================

[kim]

And Brownback's an idiot. Appointed to the Senate.
==================================================

[JayDee]

I mention her evangelical bona fides, Inspector, because the only defense of her I've seen on right wing sites has been that she's a devout evangelical, presumably anti-abortion and anti-gay. That seems to me to be the only issue being discussed, rather than her (nonexistent) record as a constitutional scholar. I understand the others you mentioned were not judges, but there were Governors, Senators, SEC members, scholars etc. among that group. If nothing else, their public records were discernible, which seems only fair in a free and open society.

Her conservatism isn't my gripe, or rather it's a moot one. Roberts was a conservative blueblood, but no one could question his credentials, despite his also having very little judicial experience.

In any case, I'm looking forward to her hearings more than I was to the Roberts ones - though it seems like they may be a very pathetic sight. She seems like a nice little old lady, who is about to take one hell of a pounding - from her "allies".

[kim]

And you are directed to a site that gives a defense of her constitutional law capability and you return with hobgoblins?

There are none so blind as he who will not see.
==============================================

[JayDee]

Missed that link, kim. The hog on ice link basically said she doesn't need any credentials because she can just delegate all the work, George Bush style. Sorry, I'm not a believer in that philosophy, and Bush's performance doesn't recommend it either.

[kim]

I don't think you read to the end of the link, or else you are deliberately misrepresenting his argument. His argument is that the Constitution and it's interpretations have daily usefulness to lawyers. She certainly has reached a very high rank in her profession, one you don't reach without an 'intense interest' in the Constitution, and it's derivatives, our laws.
=================================================

[kim]

Except that you have walked all around the Hog argument, I'd accuse you of poor reading comprehension; instead I'll accuse you of deliberately misrepresenting the Hog link.

Sophist. 'Spits.'
=====================================

[Gary Maxwell]

Hey where are those guys really excited about Delay being indicted. Did you see where Ronnie Earle admitted another Grand jury turned him donwn on the indictment beofre he finally found enough liberal fools on a jury to pass on an indictment? Yup its true. Now how is that going to play in front of a judge? Wrong on the law. Switch laws ( after you indict under the wrong law). Cant get a grand jury to indict? run to another grand jury. The prosecutorial malfeasance is wafting this way and it reeks. A good judge will throw this trash out and levy sanctions on Earle.

[kim]

I'd guess the only thing protecting those not so grand jurors is anonymity.
======================================

[The Unbeliever]

JayDee said: "Ouch. He doesn't sound snookered so much as profoundly humiliated at having such a worthless fool representing our nation as president."

That's taking George Will's argument out of context. He argued that the President threw away his Constitutional credibility when he said McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional, then went on to sign it. A good counter-argument, stolen from Bench Memos (emphasis added):

"Will's third argument is equally weak. He basically says the President has forfeited his right to be taken seriously because he didn't veto McCain-Feingold. As an initial matter, if the President can't be taken seriously for signing the bill into law, the Senate can't be taken seriously for having passed it. McCain-Feingold was a bad law, but bad laws get enacted all the time, and at least the President had the sense to have GOP political lawyers challenge significant components of the law in court."

Bush's Constitutional "credibility" is the setup for Will's statement that "the sound principle of substantial deference to a president's choice of judicial nominees will dissolve into a rationalization for senatorial abdication of the duty to hold presidents to some standards of seriousness". But if Will thinks the President has lost the credibility to nominate judicial candidates, then surely Congress has lost the credibility to confirm candidates.