Powered by TypePad

« Better Soundbite, Please | Main | Rove To Talk To Fitzgerald, Again »

October 06, 2005



While I don't think Mickey is completely wrong, there maybe additional plans at work. This could all be a political slight-of-hand. With the Right makes so much noise, the Left doesn't quite know what to make of it.
I'm looking for the Right to be doing high-fives when Miers is confirmed.


John O'Neill next.


Whadya bet Harriett figured things out one step ahead of Fitz?


Or better yet, one-step ahead of whoever set this trap.


I'm looking for the Right to be doing high-fives when Miers is confirmed.

Keep hope alive - I am looking for dry heaves.

Appalled Moderate

Neo --

Look for folks like Trent Lott, Rick Santorum, more in sorrow than in anger, make common cause with Chucky Schumer, and say they just can't vote for this nominee because they just don't know this nominee.


It sure won't be the left rejoicing. Even their present joy is ironic and the grapes will sour intestinally with resultant colic and biliousness. It's their karma.

Meanwhile high up on the ponies stirrupless backs we prod beehives, flail at pinatas, and goad gallbladders. One wild swing and wham! What fun!


This is just the beginning of the Fall of the House of Bush.

The only Constitutional issue Meiers better be up to speed on is Section 4 of the 25th Amendment.


I am not sure why anyone thinks there won't be a fight. For example, it seems to me Mier's position on abortion is pretty darn clear. Short of wearing a t-shirt with an aborted fetus on it to the hearings I don't know how much more provocative she could be. Frankly I am a little stunned at how much praise or, at least lack of outrage, we have heard from Dems and pro-choice groups. If they do start questioning her about abortion and Roe vs. Wade based on the public record I wonder how long it will be before the previously critical righties rally around her for the Big Fight.


Frankly I am a little stunned at how much praise or, at least lack of outrage, we have heard from Dems and pro-choice groups.

(1) If your opponent is burying himself, stand back;

(2) IF she withdraws, the next nominee will be a tub-thumping conservative.

That said, the Bush crony argument is a killer - I try to imagine talk radio or right wing blogs if Clinton (or Kerry, or Gore) had nominated their personal attorney.


Peter, you're exposing one of the most transparent defenses of the right wing when it comes to "judicial activism". Whatever her religious beliefs vis a vis abortion, and I agree they seem crystal clear, hasn't the argument always been that personal beliefs are irrelevant to judicial argument?

I find it funny how the rightwing has dropped this silly pretense now and started being open about the fact that they do in fact embrace judicial activism, so long as it's their activism. You can hear it in the one line defense of the few Miers supporters, which consists entirely of "she goes to an evangelical church". Not to mention Dobson's LOUD whispers that he knows things he can't discuss, things he "probably shouldn't". In other words, a creepy religious fanatic/activist (who inexplicably maintains tax free status) knows more about this nominee than our Senators - or the American people - will be entitled to.


I like Peggy Noonan's proposal that the Constitution be amended to term limit SOTUS members. (Say 20 years?)


(1) If your opponent is burying himself, stand back;

But what if all the right wing noise is just a feint. When they stop, the left wing will do what .. gasp most likely .. but it will be too late.

If Miers is able to placate the right at the Judiciary Committee hearings, it will be too late for the Ralph Neas of the world to pivot about and savage her.

Relying to your opponent to self immolate themselves is a bad strategy if they fail to finish the job.

Ultimately, Chuck "the schmuck" Shummer is responsible for this nomination. His insistence that all questions be on the table has now forced yet another level of obfuscation. Now we get non-judges. Next will be now-lawyers, but that's a good start.


Poor Aunt Harriet!

TM - Ironically, you and Mickey are wrong, at least to the extent that "cronyism" is code for "unqualified". The "she's not qualified" argument is a trap for the Democrats. Think: if you vote no on the basis that "she's too conservative," the fix is to put up someone less conservative.

If you vote no on the basis that "she's not qualified," especially by contrast to Roberts, the fix is to nominate Frank Easterbrook, or Michael McConnell. You want a resume? You can't handle a resume!


Please note Beldar's expose of Auntie H. as a constitutional law litigant.

The comments to this entry are closed.