So Harriet Miers has withdrawn her nomination, rather than going down in flames and scorching the Bush Administration has a result.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
• 
Hey, maybe this time W will actually conduct a search that involves more than asking Karl Rove who he should pick, or simply sticking his head out of the Oval Office and yelling, “Hey! Who wants to be a Supreme Court Justice?”
Paul
I am of the opinion that this has been the plan all along. W and the Busheviks sent her up to be shot down (c’mon, Trent Lott opposes? please). Now they will put their REAL nominee forward who will sail through confirmation when the Democrats fail to join together to oppose the nomination (as usual).
No, I am not paranoid, why do you ask?
-Nick
Regardless of how she may or may not have ruled, Miers was clearly not a good choice for the highest court of the land. At best, she was a mediocre lawyer who held a string of bureaucratic and mangerial jobs that said nothing about her actual knowledge of the law. Her statements about Bush being the smartest man she knew were chilling. This isn’t surprising. Bush has always valued loyalty (to him) over competence and it’s clear he saw the second opening on the SCOTUS as a opportunity to move another crony into a long-term position of political power. Miers was just the biggest kiss-ášš with a law degree he could find.
As who he’ll send up next, I don’t think he has the “political capital” left to try and force through a rabid ideologue. That many social conservatives didn’t buy Bush’s “I know her heart” signals wasn’t the only reason her nomination was sunk. Small government conservatives like George Will were dismayed by her lack of real qualifications.
I’m optimistic that we’ll see another Roberts: Conservative, but not of the “foaming of the mouth” vein. Hopefully, this time, Bush will consider relevant qualifications instead of what church they attend.
Nick, the problem with that theory is that I don’t think Bush clever enough to pull a scam like that off. Not with Rove distracted and his poll numbers down. If anything, the democrats are going to look even harder at the next name sent up precisely because of fears that it’ll be a blinkered ideologue. They were content to let the GOP eat its own with Miers and let Roberts sail through with only token opposition, so they have plenty of room now to put up a huge fight and not look like obstructionists.
I thought the GOP said everyone deserved an up or down vote?
LOL!
actually payl i heard the opposite view
former clinton white house adviser
dìçk myers
said on the radio today that miers wouldnt have been nominated if rove hadnt been distracted
by the leak case
he said its roves job to keep the base happy
and this didnt do that
i think miers was bushs mistake
and until we find out
who he picks next
i think her withdrawl was a good thing
sorry paul didnt mean to misspell your name
type too fast
Aloha Nick!
I think you’re probably as close to “on target” on the reality of the situation as anyone has been.
As for the notion that Bush isn’t clever enough (or too dumb/stupid/inept/whatever)… I find it continually amusing that dumb ol’ W is able to pull one over on the left… over and over again.
The left needs to stop working towards the notion of “let’s destroy Bush,” and start working towards the next election. The left is still stuck on stupid. That is to say, they’re still stuck in the past, trying to win elections that have already come and gone. They need to move on.
RLR
Well I’m glad she took herself out. Whether or not she would have ruled the way I like is irrelevent–I think it set a bad precedent to nominate someone of such unknown qualifications.
Glad to see that Republicans don’t just follow the leaders of their party, right or wrong. Hopefully if some future Democratic president makes the same mistake his own people will be as insistent that he correct it. Actually, one hopes that this will make such an error less likely altogether.
Between crony and ideologue, I’ll take the crony.
This does not bode well.
As a White Sox fan, I like to think of it as just another part of a really bad day for Texas.
This resignation is a good thing for the Conservative side. It was an act of weakness that Harriet Myers was nominated in the first place. That has now been rectified.
“I thought the GOP said everyone deserved an up or down vote?”
Sheah, right. When was the last time the GOP said something they truly believed in? The party is guided by one principle these days — IOKIARDI (It’s OK If A Republican Does It).
As for Miers, my ideal scenario would be for Bush to keep nominating safe “moderates”, and having the religious right pressure Republican Senators to shoot them down. Because that’d show the rest of the nation how we’ve been hijacked by a bunch of fundamentalists, and vote those guys out of office and out of power.
–R.J.
“Sheah, right. When was the last time the GOP said something they truly believed in? The party is guided by one principle these days — IOKIARDI (It’s OK If A Republican Does It).”
I don’t like the Republican party much, but I have to disagree a little bit with that statement. If they believed IOKIARDI then they would have been okay with Bush nominating Myers in the first place.
“As for Miers, my ideal scenario would be for Bush to keep nominating safe “moderates”, and having the religious right pressure Republican Senators to shoot them down. Because that’d show the rest of the nation how we’ve been hijacked by a bunch of fundamentalists, and vote those guys out of office and out of power.”
Again, I want them out of power as well, but my ideal, pie-in-the-sky scenario is that Bush nominates a qualified cadidate who will defend our rights and that the senators will do their job and
comfirm said person.
I know, I know. It’s so highly unlikely that I shouldn’t even mention it, but Bush and various GOP senators have to know that if they fail to find someone appointable, it won’t look good for the party in general come election time. (A few senators may be benefit from saying to highly biased supporters “Look how principled/loyal *I* am, I wouldn’t let them confirm anyone lukewarm/not on ‘our side.'” Still, it doesn’t say “My party is competent.”)
Somtimes I wonder if we’d be better off if Presidents and Senators had a shorter term, increasing turnover. (Yeah, we’d have more election-related scandals and hyperbole, but it might be worth it.)
the name i hear being mentioned a lot is michael mconnel
a judge of the 10th district in denver
he has a conservative record
but he was opposed to bush v gore and opposed the impeachment of president clinton
we could do worse
Bill wrote:
“Glad to see that Republicans don’t just follow the leaders of their party, right or wrong. Hopefully if some future Democratic president makes the same mistake his own people will be as insistent that he correct it. Actually, one hopes that this will make such an error less likely altogether.”
Isn’t it nifty that the Republicans have given themselves an example of how they’re really looking at the qualifications of these candidates now, effectively nullifying one of the primary arguments Democrats may have had in a fight over a more pronounced and sternly ideological candidate?
The left needs to stop working towards the notion of “let’s destroy Bush,” and start working towards the next election. The left is still stuck on stupid
That’s because Bush keeps finding new ways of redefining the word.
It really comes down to the fact that Bush has the best propoganda money can buy.
I can only imagine what the next three years will be like if his propoganda mouthpiece, Rove, gets indicted. Although we might not have to imagine for much longer.
Isn’t it nifty that the Republicans have given themselves an example of how they’re really looking at the qualifications of these candidates now, effectively nullifying one of the primary arguments Democrats may have had in a fight over a more pronounced and sternly ideological candidate?
I only WISH republicans were all as smart as some of you think they are. This was a botched nomination, nothing more. If any good comes out of it, all well and good, but only the most crazed Bush lover (or equally nutty liberal paranoid) could possibly believe that this was all some grand plan.
Mr. Finn: That’s the funniest thing I’ve read all day. Thank you for that.
“The left needs to stop working towards the notion of “let’s destroy Bush,” and start working towards the next election. The left is still stuck on stupid. That is to say, they’re still stuck in the past, trying to win elections that have already come and gone. They need to move on.”
To paraphrase from the Simpsons, “It’s easier to critize Bush. Fun too.”
i doubt if bush has a masterplan
that it includes shooting himself in the foot
was the nomination a grand design? no
was it a mistake that may have weakened bush ?yes
only time will tell
how bad a mess this really is
Funny thing is, taking her name out of the running was the most virtuous, patriotic thing Meirs could have done. I respect her now, and wish her well, and I didn’t before.
This is a welcome relief. Sorry, she might be a nice lady and relatively smart, but there is no way, any objective person could say she was the “most qualified” person Bush could choose. Yes, Bush was wrong on that one. But, after nominating her, what was he supposed to say?
As George Will and many others have stated: A Supreme Court position should involve more assurances, for either side, than “trust me”. It doesn’t matter if she would have “voted the right way” on Roe v. Wade or not. Because the traditional conservative position has been that you do not rule based on ideology, but based on a strict interpretation of the Constitution. Even conservatives who are absolute libertarians and feel government should “stay out of the bedroom” simply feel that Roe v. Wade was a poorly reasoned decision and simply bad law.
Throwing pro-lifers a bone on Miers did not work. Bringing up her religion was a mistake, and saying anyone who opposed her were elitist sexists was a joke..Because when it comes down to it, Clinton can nominate someone like Ginsburg. The Democrats don’t provide stealth candidates. Why should conservatives do so? Put someone forth like Janice Rogers Brown or Edith Jones and let the debate begin. It is one the country needs and deserves.
i like gary’s style
i think more posts should be like this
blank verse reminiscent
of “archy & mehitabel”
that way even when you disagree
you can still admire the artistry of the post
and who knows
maybe some of these posts
really are being written by a cockroach
🙂
My personal opinion is that this isn’t a grand scheme on Bush’s part, he had a crony and decided to award her. I believe the fact he has never lost a fight really and has had a congress doing nothing but rubber stamping him was their miscalculation. Rowe is distracted, poll numbers are down and since the guy can’t be bothered to read a newpaper for a look at the real world he was moving along on the status quo.
If he throws out a religious wingnut, we aren’t going to see what power the white house has left, it will be a demostration of the power of the religious wingnuts in the congress that we will witness if the person gets through or not.
My hope right now is that Rowe gets nailed, my gut feeling is that with Rowe gone, this White House will then go down the same path as Nixon or at least become completly ineffectual. Rowe is definently the architect of the coverup, with him gone and the party broken in congress, I don’t believe the puppet has enough ability to maintain the course.
I have to admit, I was positively impressed by how people like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, who usually appear to me to do nothing more than march in lockstep with whatever the right-wing or conservative party line is, actually criticized Miers’ nomination, something I don’t ever recall seeing before from them. Almost makes you wonder if the Apocalypse is coming.
Dear President Bush,
If the money is right, I’m available.
Best wishes,
Tom
The problem with any debate over a SCOTUS nominee is that, in three seconds, it becomes all about Roe v. Wade. I think it’s a huge mistake for both sides to distill an entire nomination down to how they will rule on this one case. I think there were other reasons why Bush wanted a crony in on the SCOTUS that has nothing to do with abortion.
One of the hallmarks of this administration has been a quest for expanding the power of the executive branch at the expense of the other two. What they have wanted more than anything else was the freedom to do whatever they want without the courts or Congress second guessing them.
Put another way: Is a coincedence that Miers withdraws her nomination as soon as Specter indicated that he wanted to question her about about the kind of legal advice she gave Bush regarding the treatment of prisoners at GITMO?
He should nominate Judge Roy Moore. Judge Moore won’t even have to have his monument of the Ten Commandments hauled to the SCOTUS…they already have them on display. God Bless America!!
I don’t think this was part of a fiendish plot, either. To paraphrase the old phrase, I’m not going to attribute this to malice when it can easily be explained by whomping huge incompetence.
And unlike PAD, I’m definitely happy about this. I’ll take a conservative who is clearly very qualified over a liberal who very clearly isn’t. Just as an example, while I expect to disagree with most of Roberts’ opinions on the court, I fully accept that he should be on the court instead of me. 🙂
(And hey, if this whole incident helps to reveal Bush as the small-minded dolt that he is when it comes to appointments, I’m not losing any sleep over THAT, either.)
TWL
Because the traditional conservative position has been that you do not rule based on ideology,
Which should tell you right there that the Bush Administration is made up of individuals who are not of the “traditional conservative position”.
This Administration is all about ideology: from the Patriot Act, to the war in Iraq, to how they treat detainees (up to and including Padilla) and more.
It’s another reason why I cannot understand the mindless support for Bush by your average, every day conservative and/or Republican: the people involved in the Bush Administration (and those who brought this Administration to power) are called ‘neocons’ for good reason – they are not the type of conservatives from years past.
Bringing up her religion was a mistake
Well, it was a mistake, imo, mostly because he said Roberts religious views should NOT be part of the discussion.
So what’s the first thing he does with Miers? Brings up her religion.
But otherwise, I agree with the thought that abortion should not be the single defining measuring stick of a SCJ nominee.
Whether they think “intelligent design” is science or theology should certainly rank up there as well. 😉
Moses and the 10 commandments in the Supreme Court are part of a mural displaying other lawgivers including Hammurabi and Muhammed. It would be difficult for anyone to take the mural as a whole as validating one religion over others.
Funny thing is, taking her name out of the running was the most virtuous, patriotic thing Meirs could have done. I respect her now, and wish her well, and I didn’t before.
I wonder if the individual she thought was so smart asked her to.
Whether they think “intelligent design” is science or theology should certainly rank up there as well. 😉
We’re talking about lawyers here. The only group that I expect to miss use and misrepresent science more than journalists is lawyers.
“I have to admit, I was positively impressed by how people like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, who usually appear to me to do nothing more than march in lockstep with whatever the right-wing or conservative party line is, actually criticized Miers’ nomination, something I don’t ever recall seeing before from them.”
They wanted someone who had “TOOL OF THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT” tattooed on her forehead. Instead, Bush gave them someone who had “TOOL OF GEORGE W. BUSH” tattooed on her forehead.
Hardly a surprise, as the modern-day GOP has shown that they will turn on anyone the moment he (or she) ceases to toe their line (look at Richard Clarke, Paul O’Neil, or General Eric Shinseki, just to name three high-profile examples). Their feality to Bush lasts only as long as he hews to their agenda; the party is the first thing — and often the only thing — they truly care about.
And if that sounds like an echo of previous groups in recent history, well…
–R.J.
As an aside: I read a lot of you calling Bush an idiot, but how many of you have actually met him and spent some time with him?
I haven’t, but I know several people who have and every one of them says he is a very intelligent man. Not all of them are Republicans, either. Two didn’t vote for him. One has changed his mind on that, the other hasn’t, but they agree he is far from stupid.
I would just like to point out that as a “true” conservative instead of a “moral” conservative, that i have more to complain about Bush and any liberal out there. Bush since elected has done nothing but two things, move away from fiscal conservative viewpoints and turn the republican party from a conservative political movement to an attempt to allow religious views to dictate policy. While i think that the religious views that a person have are very important to their decision making ability (religion establishes a basic moral code of ethics no matter what religion you are, they just might not be the same code of ethics) , i do not think that attempting to make religious doctorine law is a good step. History and current world situations prove that theocracy does not work. If the Republican party does not turn away from a moral viewpoint and move back to a conservative viewpoint, i might have to find a new party to affiliate myself with.
I think that the Republican congressmens refusal to except her has a supreme court justice is a movement away from the Bush attempt to change the party to perhaps the party moving back to the right wing of politics and out of the realm of religion.
As an aside: I read a lot of you calling Bush an idiot, but how many of you have actually met him and spent some time with him?
Do I need to?
You scold us for basing our opinions of Bush based on what we read and see, yet you’re doing the exact same thing – basing your opinion based on what others have said.
I’ve never seen anybody that carries the same smug look that Bush always has, whether he’s talking about something good or bad. It’s like it’s permanently fixed on his face (until somebody gets a snapshot of one of his many funny faces).
Some talk about his ‘electability’ because he comes off as a charming man. I completely fail to see it – he completely puts me off every time I look at him.
He could be talking about how we’ve discovered the meaning to Life, the Universe, and Everything, and I wouldn’t care because I can’t stand the man at all.
Well, except for the debates last year: that really showed how incapable he is, when he didn’t have Rove around to spoon-feed him stuff to say.
he should just do what the wingsnuts want, nominate James Dobson and be done with it. I mean, it’s totally ridiculous for the Democrats to expect he’s going to nominate anyone who MIGHT NOT overturn Roe v. Wade at the first opportunity (although, if Roe V. Wade is, as Roberts said, the “settled law of the land,” wouldn’t overturning it be considered activist?). The GOP controls the House, Senate and White House, and can revoke the Democrats ability to filibuster any time they want to. They can pretty much run the table. It’s time for the Dems to figure out how to get their act together (and no, waiting for the GOP to implode doesn’t constitute a plan). By this point after the 1996 election, the GOP and already settled on GWB as their horse, and had raised umpty-ump million dollars on his behalf. Dems need to get behind someone fast and start making it happen.
As an aside: I read a lot of you calling Bush an idiot, but how many of you have actually met him and spent some time with him?
My wife’s aunt has met him several times. She ran the White House travel office for the first few months of his presidency.
I’m sticking with “idiot”, thanks.
TWL
As an aside: I read a lot of you calling Bush an idiot, but how many of you have actually met him and spent some time with him?
I’d be more inclined to believe that he was intelligent if he actually began speaking in complete sentences for a change.
As an aside: I read a lot of you calling Bush an idiot, but how many of you have actually met him and spent some time with him?
He’s the President of the United States; we judge him on his words and actions. Why SHOULDN’T we be judging him on that?
There have been other President who have had trouble with public speaking, they just didn’t have the media there to critize them like we have today.
“When a great many people are unable to find work, unemployment results.” — Calvin Coolidge, ex-president, discussing the United States economic situation in 1931.
“President Carter speaks loudly and carries a fly spotter, a fly swasher — it’s been a long day.” — Gerald Ford
“Things are more like they are now than they have ever been.” — Gerald Ford
“I love sports. Whenever I can, I always watch the Detroit Tigers on the radio.” — Gerald Ford
“That is what has made America last these past 200 centuries.” — Gerald Ford
Ford actually has alot more great ones, i just can’t remember them all. FDR had a few aswell, I did a paper in college over public speaking folies of presidents, but i can’t find it to give them all. The only two presidents who didn’t have public speaking folies were George Washington (never gave a live speach for people to report on) and William Henry Harrision (died 28 days into office).
There have been other President who have had trouble with public speaking
No president in recent memory compares to Bush.
Clinton and Reagan were good/great public speakers (although Reagan certainly had the advantage of being a former actor) and it doesn’t seem like Bush Sr or Carter were half bad either.
Bush is outright horrible. I present, Exhibit A: DubyaSpeak.com
Ok, not sure what happened to the link on that one. Just tack on a www. and it’ll work though. 🙂
Coolidge was using a term, “unemployment” that was still relatively new, so I don’t see this as a moronic statement given the historical context…. and Ford’s awkwardness has been lampooned since day 1.
Sure, almost every president has made a few gaffes in public.
None have come close to Bush in terms of the shear number of stupid, incoherent things that have come out of his cakehole, though.
Also, there is his long history of rewarding incompetence: Rice, Tenet, Wolfowitz, Bolten, Miers, Rumsfeld. Then there’s the fact that he says with pride that he never reads the newspaper, preferring to get all his news from his sycophants, I mean, “unbiased filters.”
After five years of seeing him in office, I feel very comfortable calling him the most intellectually lazy president in my lifetime.
And exactly who, besides Harriet Miers, has described him as intelligent?
Robbnn: As an aside: I read a lot of you calling Bush an idiot, but how many of you have actually met him and spent some time with him?
Luigi Novi: A potentially valid point when you’re talking about someone obscure who true personality and personal life are unknown and the subject to gossip and speculation, like actors and singers, but here, wer’e talking about the most public figure in the country, and possibly the world, about whom a great deal is known. This is fundamental to U.S. Presidents nowadways, from their early lives, to their professional credentials, and the public personas they craft.
From this, it is reasonable to opine that Bush is profoundly unqualified for his job, misinformed and ignorant, lacking in the objectivity, worldliness and perspective needed for holding hte highest office in the land, openly contemptous of intellectual pursuits and considerations.
To apply the question you ask not merely to people about whom necessary information is not present, but to someone like the President, is to misapply it. To pretend that this principle applies to the President, you might as well take the nihilistic attittude that all the opinions that we form of our elected officials (something to which we have both a right and an obligation to form), and for that matter, all people period, is null and void. You could argue, for example, that I can’t conlcude that Charles Manson is crazy, that I can’t conclude that O.J. Simpson is a double murderer, or that Einstein was intelligent, that Ben Affleck chooses his scripts poorly, that Britney Spears is of questionable talent, etc.
No thanks.
Curtis Rose:
Ford was and is made fun of for his many gaffs and fumbles. Hëll, he bacame Homer Simpson’s new best buddy once.
Robbnn:
Any man who makes a major speech declaring global warming is a good thing because it will give us longer harvests (while ignoring the disastrous effects on the coastline communities, increased power in land based storms and warmer coastal waters to increase the destructive force of hurricanes) and other no-thought warm fuzzy sentiments is an idiot.
Any man who wants to lead a nation but brags that he doesn’t watch the news or read the paper is an idiot.
Any man who puts buddies and yes men in major positions around him because he fears the truth and/or criticism and also places those people into major positions in major government offices is a fool, an egotist and an idiot.
Any man that does all that and more is the King of all Idiots.
I don’t need to hang out with the man. Bush is an idiot.
>”President Carter speaks loudly and carries a fly spotter, a fly swasher — it’s been a long day.” — Gerald Ford”
At least he was aware of his screwups and admitted them sometimes. When was the last time Shrub did so as he stumbled?
I have three thoughts:
I don’t think this was just “cronyism.” I think Bush really did think she was right for the job for a variety of reasons. This was someone I think he knew and deeply respected.
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.
The vicious attack by some of those on my “side” is disappointing. While I would prefer a stronger candidate (like Roberts), the issue became a little too personal.
Bottom line, I would agree with the evalutation that Bush made a poor choice in nominating Meirs. I don’t think she necessarily would have been a bad judge, but there was no reasonable evidence to show she would have been a good judge.
Side note: Ever since the unfounded attack on Judge Bork, this process has become vicious. It would be hard to find a reaonable person who would be willing to say yes to the job. I don’t think the person has a guaranteed appointment just because a president (from either side) nominates the candidate. But there should be a lot more room given to allow a president the opportunity to pick a qualified candidate.
Iowa Jim