So Harriet Miers has withdrawn her nomination, rather than going down in flames and scorching the Bush Administration has a result.
The thing is, I don’t know how to feel about it. I mean, my instinct is to figure that if this is someone whom conservatives feel isn’t conservative enough, that’s good enough to gain my full support. Because Bush’s alternative is to…what? Nominate someone aggressive and openly conservative who’s a guaranteed lock to overturn Roe V. Wade? How is that better?
On the other hand, I bridle at the naked cronyism and the fact that I have an old-fashioned notion that a SC judge should have a demonstrably high-quality legal mind experienced in complex judicial matters, and there’s no indication that Miers is qualified as being anything other than a Bush pal…and we saw how well that worked out with Bush’s head of FEMA.
PAD
• 
Luigi:
Rush helped get Clinton elected by bashing George the Better during that campaign, so this is not the first time Rush has bashed a Republican.
—————–
If Bush were left to his own thoughts and allowed to speak freely, he would not have been elected in the first place, let alone re-elected. He has not the brain cells (remaining) to speak coherently.
—————–
Has it struck anybody else that Bush surrounds himself mostly with incompetent people, perhaps so as to make himself look better?
Or is it just that he wants incompetent women around him so he can feel better about his masculinity?
Ever since the unfounded attack on Judge Bork, this process has become vicious.
If everything listed about Robert Bork on Wikipedia is true, then I can’t say I’m sad to read his confirmation failed.
This guy comes across as somebody who wants to go back to “the good ol’ days” of pre-Civil War America.
I’ve been a little busy lately (more on that later) so let me try to catch up:
SCOTUS justice approval has become so viscious that Bush’s top candidates refused him when he asked them to accept a nomination. Or so it’s been reported.
I respedt Miers’ withdrawal, but what else could she do? Short of mind control, there’s no way she would have been confirmed, and I don’t think Bush is the kind to let himself lose.
As for those that don’t think the GOP has an “IOKIIAR” or however that goes, take a listen to some of the comments from GOP member trying to deflect Libby indictment: they essentially say that, since there was no crime actually commited, to indict someone just for lying about something that’s not illegal seems rather technical and unimportant. The implication being, why bother with an indictment when there’s no other crime? I think Chris Webber, Martha Stewart, and countless others might have thing or two to say about that.
As to what I’ve been up to: My wife gave birth to our first child wednesday night…baby boy, Xavier Paul, 8lbs, 4 oz, 22 in., and doing just swell. Mom’s still a little sore, but we’re all doing well.
So, every once in a while, just insert some long-winded centrist/liberal comment for me. Oh, and the occasional comic comment, too.
If everything listed about Robert Bork on Wikipedia is true, then I can’t say I’m sad to read his confirmation failed.
Well, I won’t say that there wasn’t unjustified attacls on Bork…but based on what I’ve read, I don’t think Bork was a good choice for the Court, being insufficiently respectful of precedents and being inclined for…judicial activism.
Ya know, women are always moaning about that whole giving birth process. 😉
Wow Bobb, CONGRATS!!! That is beautiful news!! I’m glad to hear that both mom and baby are healthy and that you have come through the experience with sanity intake. I hope that your first weekend as a family of three!!
Best,
Fred
Congrats, Bobb — and, more importantly, to Mrs. Bobb! Brings back memories of 14 months ago for me. Wonderful, wonderful news. Enjoy these first weeks, ’cause trust me, your memories of them are going to be foggy at best. 🙂
TWL
Bobb said –
I think Chris Webber, Martha Stewart, and countless others might have thing or two to say about that.
You’d think Bill Clinton would as well.
Bobb said –
My wife gave birth to our first child wednesday night
Congrats!
You’re in for many long but worthwhile days ahead (while I don’t have kids, I’ve had my fair share of diaper changing due to younger siblings and cousins).
roger said –
judicial activism
Well, this is just the latest in a series of phrases the right has come up with in an attempt to vilify anybody who doesn’t agree with them.
I caught a few minutes of that Tom Brokaw special earlier this evening, where he was talking about the Evangelical movement.
One of the pastors (or whatever) basically summarized their whole movement as: anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, getting religion back in government and schools, and against the so-called “judicial activism”.
No, nothing to be worried about.
But hey, nobody cares about a little “Congressional activism”, “governor activism”, or “Presidential activism” when it came to Terri Schiavo, eh?
I also found it amusing that the guy said that people came to America to escape religious persecution. Last I checked, the heavy-majority Christians aren’t being persecuted.
I think it’s the rest of us that need to be worried.
Starwolf comparing President Ford to President Bush: At least he was aware of his screwups and admitted them sometimes. When was the last time Shrub did so as he stumbled?
I dunno about when was the last time, but the incident that leaps to mind was pretty darn 1) funny and 2) public. At the 2001 Gridiron Club, he said the following after quoting Garrison Keillor’s comment that his “mouth is where words go to die:”
“Those stories about my intellectual capacity do get under my skin. You know for a while I even thought my staff believed it. There on my schedule the first thing every morning it said ‘Intelligence briefing.'”
“Nobody realizes that as a hobby I enjoy mapping the human genome. My idea is to clone another Ðìçk Cheney — then I won’t have to do anything.”
And in further reference to people who thought Cheney was running the show: “To those people, I say … Ðìçk, what do I say?”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1241240.stm
Well, the word “persecution,” when used by the religious right today, has much the same definition as it did at the time of the first European settlers. (Discounting the Vikings, of course)
That is to say, they call it persecution when we get sick of them trying to shove their own puritanical beliefs down our collective throat and actually have the gall to try and do something about it.
I think it was Greg Proops who said something along the lines of, “Sure, they celebrate Thanksgiving in Europe, but there they call it “Fûçk Off, Puritan!” Day.”
-Rex Hondo-
Bobb, congratulations!
Oh, and congrats, Bobb!
-Rex Hondo-
If true, it is still a weak reason to nominate her. The “just trust me” really does not work in this situation. While I think a little too much emphasis is put on someone being a judge, clearly there is a need for some exprience before the Supreme Court
I would hope that experience as a judge should be one of the biggest qualifiers of being a SCOTUS! You’re only ruling on cases that will affect the entire country for decades, if not longer!
Suggestion for the title of Peter’s next blog entry:
SCOOTER IN THE FOOT
😉
congrats bob welcome xavier paul!
A few thoughts:
First all, congrats, Bobb.
Based on what I’ve read about Bork, he would have been the quintessential judicial activist. Of course, none of his defenders will admit that, since their definition of judicial activism is “anyone who made a ruling we don’t like.”
Jim said that he didn’t believe Miers’ pick was cronyism and that Bush actually thought she was well qualified. Bush has a long history of valuing personal loyalty to him over compentence, so to his mind, he doesn’t see any difference between appointing a loyal crony and someone who is qualified. To him, being a toady is the primary qualification for any job.
maybe bush thinks of it as appointing someone he trusts
Well, of course it’s matter of trust for Bush. I think he’s shown that he values personal interaction and his personal judgement of people he’s met in the flesh over paper credentials. And that’s why he’s so hostile to science he doesn’t like and to environmentalism.
Bush’s hostility towards science stems from his general anti-intellectualism. He’s made it clear time and again, that science and other fact-gathering activities exist only to be used in support of his preconceived beliefs, not in any real pursuit of the truth. He distrusts scientists because scientists believe in going where the evidence leads and not tailoring the evidence to support a decision already made.
All presidents appoint someone they trust to every position, but Miers was such a kiss-ášš that I wonder if she had been confirmed, would she base her decisions around, “What would George do?”.
http://picayune.uclick.com/comics/bo/2005/bo051030.gif
Tone doesn’t convey well on the internet… It was a serious question. Has anyone met him? It isn’t a chastisement. Say what you want. The people I know who have met him say he’s very intelligent. I was wondering if anyone here had the ability to disput it based on an actual conversation.
I, personally, couldn’t handle Bush the First. I met him once and he had the warmth of a dead tuna and a way of looking at people that made my skin crawl. Jeb is very personable and I hope he does eventually run for President.
GWB’s “smirk” really sets my mother off, too, but I’ve never seen it as a smirk at all. Different eyes, different perceptions.
Bu$Hitler Picks A Non-Womyn For SCOTUS
More evidence of the arrogance of SCOTUS-Selected ChimpFace Smirky Dumbya Bu$Hitler!!! If a Lyberal, I mean, Progressyve, Elected-President were in office, instead of the drunken, coke-head frat boy (who, incidentally, was born the year after Hitler committed suicide, so who knows where Hitler’s eternal inner darklight went, hmmm?) there would have been a womyn nominated to replace Judge Sandra Day O’Connor who is, by the way, a womyn hirself. Instead, we get yet another white non-womyn. We must all contact our Senatorial perits to let them know that we will not be happy unless the replacement for Ms O’Connor is a womyn, preferably a minority womyn. After all, what have white non-womyn ever done for all of us?
Man, and I thought that X-Ray was hard to understand after his vowels were taken away…
I’m thinking that IS x-ray, trying some comedy.
At any rate, the new pick is way better than Miers. Very qualified. Which means he may get 53 votes.
Yeah, way better than Miers. However, I do hope he explains why he defers so much to the Executive branch, and expands on his reasoning in last year’s decision on strip searches.
Alito is a much better choice than Miers. I’m not suprised that he’s a judge that defers a lot to the executive branch. This further fits into my theory about these appointments being more about the expansion of federal power than Roe v. Wade.
This further fits into my theory about these appointments being more about the expansion of federal power than Roe v. Wade.
And here I thought the Republican party was all about small government.
Oh, wait, that’s right: neocons like Bush & Co. aren’t Republicans.
Makes you wonder why your average Republican defends them so much. Are abortion rights and gay marriage that important to conservatives that as long as the neocons bring them up now and then, people will continue to vote them into office?
And here I thought the Republican party was all about small government.
That ended about 8 seconds after they realized they had control over all three branches.
Makes you wonder why your average Republican defends them so much.
The “It’s okay if a Republican does it” mentality?
Are abortion rights and gay marriage that important to conservatives that as long as the neocons bring them up now and then, people will continue to vote them into office?
The GOP has perfected the art of pandering to the religious right while painting the dems are anti-religion in general. However, this is starting to backfire on them. Many social conservatives are fuming that, after campaigning heavily for an anti-gay marriage amendment in 2004, Bush took it off the agenda as soon as his inaugural parade ended. It’s probably the main reason why they didn’t buy Bush’s “trust me, I know her heart” routine on Miers.
Those of us who still value freedom of religion in this country and believe that science class should be used for teaching science should be concerned, because if Bush doesn’t start making some concrete steps towards imposing a theocracy on this country, he may face a full-scale revolt from his base.
I was wondering if anyone here had the ability to disput it based on an actual conversation.
No, but I can dispute it on observation of the man in public. He’s been in the public eye for decades, first as the governor of Texas, then as the veep’s (and then president’s) son, then as President himself since 2000. That’s long enough to get over stage fright and learn to speak in public without stumbling over himself. He hasn’t managed it yet – he can’t handle a simple question-and-answer without embarrassing himself unless he has Rove’s notes and fake reporters feeding him softball questions. His speeches contain many notable errors of fact, his policies on the sciences are unvetted by a single scientific authority, and he’d rather believe his vice-president’s wild guesses about world matters than the information gathered by his own private spy service (yes, the CIA has some notable gaffes of their own to deal with, but they’re still going to be a better source of actual data than Cheney).
In short, the President has comported himself as a man overwhelmed by a position he can’t really handle. He has not evinced any great level of intellect.
And once again, we don’t need a president who’s a nice, personable guy – we need a president who’s smart enough to handle the immense data-flow of the office, and tough-minded enough to tackle the decisions that have to be made without too much reliance on polling of his supposed “core constituency”. Bush the First may have been a slimy, cold-hearted son of a bìŧçh who’d sell his own mother to the Russians for the right price, but you couldn’t call him stupid or uninformed…
We need a President who will have the most ethical administration in history: http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/ethical.html
We need a President who will have the most ethical administration in history
Well, it’s good to see that some folks will always fall back to Clinton in their defense of Bush.
I especially love that first one about the SBA.
Only $300k? You’d think that Clinton’s cronies would do better than that, especially seeing that Cheney’s pet project, Halliburton, has defrauded Americans out of billions of dollars.
Thanks, Bob Jones, I needed a good chuckle this morning.
“Well, it’s good to see that some folks will always fall back to Clinton in their defense of Bush.”
Yeah, that really takes some serious kind of stupid. Especially when one considers that Bush’s whole angle in running for the presidency was that he was going to restore respectability and decency to the White House.
PAD
Hey, Bob.
Read your link and it was a great morning giggle. If you kept up better you would know that much of that list was B.S. hyped by talk radio and has been debunked and many of the people involved in making the claims have admitted to telling porky pies.
Oh, and even that hyped up number of crimes still doesn’t match what went down under The Gipper’s watch.
🙂
from http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/faqs/faq_sl.html
Number of Reagan administration era convictions in the Iran-contra scandal: 14 (two overturned on appeal).
Number of Reagan officials convicted for illegal lobbying: 2 (Michael Deaver; Lyn Nofziger, overturned on appeal).
Number of Reagan officials convicted in Housing and Urban Development scandal: 16.
Total number Reagan era convictions: 32 (the number cited in the strip — 29 — arrived at by subtracting the 3 overturned cases).
In addition, Bush pardoned Reagan’s Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, indicted on 5 charges.
Moreover, the record of actual convictions doesn’t tell the whole story. Over 30 additional Reagan appointees resigned or were fired following charges of legal or ethical misconduct, including Secretary of Interior James Watt, Secretary of Interior Raymond Donovan, CIA Director William Casey and EPA Administrator Anne Burford. Many dozens more were investigated.
Contrast this to:
Number of Clinton officials indicted or convicted in Whitewater, Travel Office, FBI files, Monica Lewinsky, Bruce Babbit, Michael Espy investigations: 0
Asst. Attorney-General Webster Hubbell was convicted of embezzlement, a crime he committed before joining Clinton Administration.
NO.No.No. This was not some big mastered plan. You give bush to much credit. He obviously listened to daddy dearest, cheney, the voices in his head, or some other influence. She crashed and burned. Surprise Surprise Bush didnt mean for this to happen. This nomination is very important to my generation. I’m not saying we care now…but when i’m old it will matter who is on the bench. I think that bush was influenced and that this was NOT a master plan of his.
–12yo in the EAST
or 12yodemocratwhowatchesthenews