Redstate

Urged them both to reject this nominee regardless of her qualifications. Responsible members of both parties should condemn the kind of cronyism that led to this nomination.

In the days after 9-11, Bush said "I can hear you. The American people can hear you. And the people who did this to you will hear all of us soon."

Well Mr. President. "I hear you. The pro-Constitution movement hears you. And the Republican Party will hear all of us in 2006!"

again that Bush did what he intended all along, to put pro-corporation justices on the court.  How a justice may rule on social issues is not as important to Bush as it is to most here and it is also much harder to gauge how someone may vote on those issues once seated.  As a former corporate attorney Bush was probably very confident he could trust how she would vote on those issues and not make the social ones a priority.

That sums up my feelings pretty darn well.

The opportunity cost of Miers over, say, Luttig, is so great as to justify opposition to her nomination regardless of other factors.

It's this simple: if a generic Republican was President, what chance would Miers have of being nominated?

That's easy. Zero. None. Nada.

Bush betrayed his supporters directly-- he lied to them-- but more fundamentally he betrayed the movement that made his rise even possible. This goes beyond specific cases and into the very core of conservatism.

Indeed, his mistake was totally his own fault... and it was a mistake of Presidency-, Court-destroying proportions. Miers cannot get a pass. It's too bad a nice person, if she is one, has to attacked in the process.

"But from where we sit now, this is a profoundly disappointing nomination, a missed opportunity, and an abdication of responsibility to make sound, well qualified nominations."

Bingo!

Amen and Amen!

With Roberts, at least the conservatives could say that he is an incredibly well-qualified justice and deserved his confirmation.  But looking simply at Mier's credentials, and keeping her politics (as well as my own) out of it, why does she deserve to sit on the highest court of the land?  

If someone can answer this question to my satisfaction, I will have some respect for Bush's decision.  But lacking sufficient justification, I would have to say (agreeing with many posts I've read already) that she does not deserve to have an Fed. Appeals seat, much less the SCOTUS, and is another example of cronyism (see FEMA's ex-head Brown) that has been prevalent throughout the beltway (including my own Dems).

International Court, tax increasing and gay rights supporter with no judicial experience?

Over on dkos they are "outing" her as a possible lesbian? What reality am I living in? Is this what we fought for? What are the positives of this nomination? At least with Gonzalez we would have been courting the Latino vote.

I pray the conservatives ally themselves with the ultra-leftists in the Senate and crush this nomination!

Either way, I see where the President's allegiances are and I will not support this man or this party one minute longer!

I was already falling off the fence with this administration's stances on illegal immigration and spending but this is absolutely the final straw! The Constitution party and the Libertarians will receive all of my financial support from now on.

We as conservatives have taken a lot of lumps for this president and solid conservatives being appointed were all that we asked in return. Confirmed or not, we wanted to know that the president would stand by us. This shows that he will not, thus I will no longer stand by him.

I am so disappointed, feel so betrayed and am so outraged at this pick that I can't even put it into words. This is the final straw!

Part of the question we're all grappling with, purple.  I'll assure you that as much as anyone who is a dyed-in-the-wool Leftist would oppose almost anyone Bush nominated, what you're seeing here this morning is an (almost) equal degree of consternation by people on the Right.  

Finally, something that brings the parties together.  What an achievement!

If you're sincere about wanting SCOTUS to move away from what you term the "authority to answer many of these questions," isn't the only issue whether or not Meiers is an originalist?

By highlighting that you're hoping she's "right on life issues," though, you're undercutting that, no?

The first word I have seen on 'outing' Miers (which is just as ridiculous as it sounds) was on the GayPatriot website.

From Ryan Lizza's reporting we can infer Ms. Miers supported the International Criminal Court, tax increases, and a prohibition on laws that would prohibit gay adoption.

The report doesn't state that Miers or any other members of the Select Committee supported any of these measures but merely that they be brought forward for consideration.  The report doesn't "recommend" or "support" any of the items, it merely provides the information about them for the Delegates who ultimately decide whether to vote them up or down.

My own views on Harriet Miers and how we should deal with the nomination can be found here:

2)    We need to be careful and make distinctions in how we compare and contrast issues.  Just as many of us favor changes in the leadership in the House and Senate, it doesn't mean we have to believe every trumped up charge that's thrown against them.  In deciding whether to support or oppose the Miers nomination, we need to separate the wheat from the shaft and condemn those outrageous arguments that people will be throwing around even if the person or group tossing them out there might share the same the views we have on whether to support this nomination.

I'd strongly encourage you to update your post so that people who are undecided don't get fooled by what appears to be a TNR hit piece on the nomination and misrepresents the actual report of the Select Committee of the House.

If you're sincere about wanting SCOTUS to move away from what you term the "authority to answer many of these questions," isn't the only issue whether or not Meiers is an originalist?

No.

By highlighting that you're hoping she's "right on life issues," though, you're undercutting that, no?

No.

Because I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but:

(1) Nothing is gained by sandbagging this nomination.  The next nominee will necessarily be more of a squish, not less;

(2) We will know in less than a year whether our fears are warranted, by the time she votes in the Solomon Amendment cases and the parental notification case.  If she votes "wrong," THEN I'll commit to staying home in '06;

(3) Notwithstanding a brief 2-year stint on the Texas Supreme Court, her credentials are roughly analogous to those of Alberto Gonzalez.  Among the many (justified, to my mind) objections raised against Gonzalez, I don't recall anyone suggesting he wasn't "qualfied;"

(4) I'm glad redstate wasn't around when Clarence "I've never thought about Roe" Thomas was nominated.

"She could be great, but we're coming out against her because we don't know yet a few hours after her nomination."  This is a good way to lose influence.  You've certainly lost a bit with me.

Contrast this knee-jerk reaction to Beldar's remarkably thoughtful and well researched defense of the nomination.

By the way--are you seriously arguing that close ties to the judiciary are vital?  Seems to me that people who want to see the authority of the judiciary limited should be jumping for joy at a non-judge taking this position.

Don't believe everything you read in the New Republic.  The article Eric cited was a hit piece on Miers and they completely misrepresented an agenda of items to be discussed by the Delegates by claiming that it was a "recommendation."

What we need is pressure placed on conservative senators to stand up and say this:

"We will support this candidate for an appellate court seat, but not the Supreme Court."

All it takes is one to get the ball rolling.

If Bush was so high on H.M., why not just nominate her now to Robert's old seat?

why, as Dana Carvey says, the answer is always no.

But he brings up a good point. It seems to me that Republicans have made their no-rejection-only-on-ideology bed, and now they have to sleep in it. To try to go back on it now would be to march right into a Democrat's campaign ad.

even though your monosyllabic responses are ripe for snarking, I actually am curious.

Is it important for the next Justice to be "right" on issues so the court can return to a more "originalist" sensibility?

In other words, if you get strict originalists on the court, doesn't that more or less make their personal opinions on the hot button issues null and void?

Remember him? One of Nixon's first SCOTUS nominees. Less than stellar. Senator Hruska from Nebraska, trying to defend Carswell's nomination, said, "Even if he is mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they?"

Maybe now we have G. Harriet Carswell.

Well-put Strac... it seems that Bush is hugging the principle of keep everyone happy to keep support; but I really wish someone would have reminded him that a nominee like this is not going to keep his base and no one wins without a base (and moderates do not count)

Miers also has no practical experience with the SCOTUS, has never argued cases before the SCOTUS, nor she any reputation as a Constitutional or SCOTUS scholar.

This bit about her supporting an International Criminal Court, advocating for adoption of children by gays is absolutely staggering.

Obviously Bush, Rove, Cheney (who was just defending Miers on Rush Limbaugh), and so on believe that they can thumb their nose at their conservative base without consequence.

Well, we'll see about that in both '06 and '08, won't we?

I've voted Republican in natinoal elections since I was old enough to vote, because I knew that the Constitutional party would never be able to win. I voted for GHWB even though I didn't care for him, because I didn't want Clinton.

But I'll vote my conscience now. At leats I know where the Constitution party stands.

Given the out of control spending Bush has singed into law, his horrible track record concerning border security, his amnesty ideas for illegals, his kowtowing to the EU while the mullahs in Iran develop nukes, the bloated entitlement prescription benefit for seniors, his failure to get anywhere on social security, his pandering to Dems and "moderate" Repubs, his lip service to a Constitutional Amendment declaring that marriage is an instution between a man and a woman, his penchant for nominating "stealth" candidates to the SCOTUS, his cronyism, and so on, I believe its fair to say he is a RINO.

"Read my lips," no more donations or votes for the Repubs until they grow a spine and stick to their promises.

The Meirs nomination is another reflection of the narrow cadre of "insular group thinkers" that have run the Bush Presidency from the beginning.  The Chaney/Rove team has certainly been effective at winning elections for Republicans, but when it comes to governing the Nation, and materially impacting world events as the sole superpower, the Administration sorely lacks principled, determined, analytical thinkers, with strong character and a solid sense of their place in History.  Bush seems to actively avoid or dislike reaching out to strong people for advice and input.  He appears to rely on a very small group of like minded advisors, probably battle weary (literally) and suffering a bit from siege mentality that most organizations develop overtime. As WoPo writer, Hoagland recently suggested, Bush would be well served by binging in some new, experienced strong minded leaders.  

Looking back, one of Reagan's great strengths was his reaching out for diverse opinions, and surrounding himself with very strong statesmen-like advisors.  Reagan also benefited from Nancy stepping in at times and telling him what he needed to hear, not just what he wanted to hear.

In the case of the Meirs nomination, the Bush Team got nailed by a brilliant Reid sucker punch: encourage the Administration to pick someone that will be perceived  by the general public as another unqualified Bush crony, and by his core base as a traitor to their central beliefs and policy objectives.  

Very lucid and well-thought critique.

the stuff in the TNR article is pretty slender in details. Note that it is talking about an International Criminal Court--not the same as an International War Crimes Court. Remember there are some international criminals out there (drug lords and the like) whose wealth and power indemnify them from the authority of any purely local justice system: an international effort against such big-time scum would not necessarily be a bad idea.

As for the gay rights thing it simply affirms what is already public policy in most states: that being gay is not per se a bar against adopting a child "when it is the best interests of the child". Also, note that both these issues were being dealt with legislatively, not judicially so the fact that the lady may have supported these initiatives in that form does not mean that she would rule that way on the bench. Even Clarence Thomas said he would have voted to overturn the Texas sodomy law if he were seated in the legislature, but he did not vote to overturn it judicially.

As for rumors of lesbianism, this is beyond the pale--utterly and totally. I cannot believe that people are repeating Kos slanders here as if they were the Gospel truth. And even if it is true, it ought not matter at all.  "Gay" (or "lesbian" is not a synonym for "liberal" and more than "Black" or "Jewish" are,

If you're referring to the Capital One commercials.

The verdict is already in: Miers is a disappointment at best - worse if you look elsewhere.

It seems they want their banzai charge (never mind past failures like Mediscare and the 1995 budget battle), and if they don't get their bloody "death or glory" charge, they will sulk.

If a prospective jurist believes that the Constitution required abortion on demand, we don't believe that they are strictly interpreting it.  That same desire to loosely interpret its words likely would apply to other areas as well (which explains why the liberal pro-abortion justices were in the majority on Kelo).

Others obviously disagree, but now you know our opinion.

...at least it will be on a party or on candidates that actually care about what I care about! Maybe they'd never win, but if they did, they would stand for what I believe in.

My heart and my head have been pulling me in this direction for a few years now, but this is the catalyst for action.

Let's see how far being the party of Lincoln Chafee gets the Republicans!

This is what my hours, days and months of election anxiety (three times since 2000) were wasted on? This was the ball-game and we just punted!

Luttig, Brown or Estrada would have given America a clear choice. Win or lose, we would have been on record as a party of priciple. Now, we're the party of mush!

At least I don't have to care about how the President is going to defend the Katrina criticisms anymore. If he thought the left and the press were throwing a lot at him, wait until he realizes his rear security has just bailed on him!

He used us, abused us and we let him. I promise you, it won't happen again for this conservative!

I'd say the answer is yes, that's correct.  If a jurist is a real, bona fide originalist, such a person will not flavor the law with their own policy preferences.

But why you're not being addressed seriously is (besides past history) that you make a federal case out of what was clearly a tiny sidebar ('right on life issues').  And also, whether or not Miers is really an originalist is by no means the only issue.  

If Luttig or Edith Jones had been nominated instead, there would certainly be a war in the Senate, but there's not a person on either side who would go to bed tonight wondering what the judicial philosophy of our nominee would be.  And a whole bunch of us have a problem with this.  We have a deep bench of highly qualified candidates, with known records and positions.  We have a pretty good idea how most/all of those would handle the bright lights.

With this stealth nominee, we know nothing.  If history is our guide, we have Kennedy, Souter, and Sandy-O to guide us, regarding the question of 'how's that stealth nominee doing'?

I agree with much of what you say, but you shouldn't fool yourself into thinking that a Gonzales pick would benefit the GOP in any significant way with Hispanics.  Nor would a Garza pick, or an Estrada pick, or any selection of a latino.  Its a pipe dream.

But of course excellent judges like Garza should be considered for the Court because his record suggest he would be an originalist/conservative.  Bush the Elder should have gone with him over Souter.

I recommend the link. The idea that this nominee is someone Bush knows well enough to know where she really stands on things -- That's compelling.  That's about as ... anti-Souter ... as is gets.

Maybe we're misunderestimating.

It isn't that I dislike her as a nominee, to be honest i know next to nothing about her or her views and thus have no reason to dislike her for her for that reason.  I am just profoundly dissapointed in her lack of credentials...

I am withholding judgement on whether I support her or want her rejected until I hear more about her and her post law school qualifications - to be honest, as a person who has been in college/graduate school for 9 years now, college is what you make of it, it is what you do afterwards that is much more important to me... and from what I have seen, while impressive in some ways, I am not impressed overall with her qualifications for supreme court justice.

Interested in talking about this particular aspect of Miers' background.  I want to know the facts about her involvement with the ICC, and I think we need to work to get those facts out sooner than later.  I don't want rumors -- I don't want "guilt by association" charges, and I would appreciate if it were put into historical perspective.

This is a question of singular importance to me, and it should be to everyone.

The full text of what Lizza cited turns things around quite a bit.

The title alone reads "Potential agenda items".  We can also take a look at text almost at the top of the agenda:

This list includes issues which may be presented for consideration at the 1999 Midyear Meeting of the House of Delegates.

So, what she submitted was a list of potential items that would come up at a policy meeting for the ABA's House of Delegates.  This does not strike me as worth the collective hyperventialtion I'm seeing.

Thanks, get a glass of tea and start over.  A whole new batch will be here tonight and will need your perspective as well.

Yes, it may very well be more difficult to predict how a justice will vote on social/cultural issues, especially over time.  I mean, who thought that Anthony Kennedy would vote to create a right to sodomy based on some absurd (as Scalia puts it) 'sweet mystery of life' doctrine.  

But you can increase your chances of getting a judge who will rule properly (i.e. like conservatives) on such issues by picking among those with a record of such rulings on lower courts and of espousing such a judicial philosophy in writings and speeches.  

That Bush hasn't done that with either pick can be taken in any number of ways, but to me its speaks to a lack of will to fight.

... there were several more well qualified and more appealing picks for the conservative base. The qualifications and secondly, the views of this nominee are troubling at least, and appalling at worst!

I don't claim to know whether or not she is a lesbian. I think I'm safe in assuming that those conservatives who went to the polls in November of last year were not doing so to see Bush appoint a lesbian or even a possible lesbian. It's just one more characteristic of this nominee that doesn't jive with what the base actually needed.

A look at the document in question.

It merely lists potential agenda items for the a meeting of the ABA House of Delegates.  Nothing in this report construes any support by Miers for the ICC, gay adoption, or tax increases.  Unless you believe in "penumbras" or other such nonsense...

I was merely citing the fact that if we were going to get someone who met our needs on social issues at least we could have gotten a nominee with a possible upside and some better credentials!

Whatever...So much for that campaign promise.

I think "profoundly disappointed" dials it down far too much. The nomination of Harriet Miers is an absolute disaster. This is not like Rehnquist (as Erik already noted) nor is it like Roberts.  Harriet Miers was not a foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution like Roberts was (with memos to prove it). She is a foot soldier in this President's "revolution" and readers of this website know the difference.  

If Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer are out there praising Harriet Miers, this is absolutely the wrong time to wait and see and be convinced. GOP Presidential candidates need to be out there demanding more from a nomination and promising a hard NO vote on the Senate floor.  Now is not the time to trust the President (who has been SO conservative) or any political outfit that has been intoxicated by the WH's friendship to have already spouted their praise when the record on her conservative credentials is somewhere between scant and nonexistent.  Message to Senators:  Bring the nomination down!  The base said no more Souters, and we meant it.

Aleks311 wrote:

As for rumors of lesbianism, this is beyond the pale--utterly and totally. I cannot believe that people are repeating Kos slanders here as if they were the Gospel truth. And even if it is true, it ought not matter at all.  "Gay" (or "lesbian" is not a synonym for "liberal" and more than "Black" or "Jewish" are,

This has got to be one of the dumbest statements I've ever heard hear before.

First off, I have no idea if Miers is gay, and I didn't say that she was, nor do I believe anything that ever gets posted at Kos. So don't hang that canard around my neck.

Second, your point about how being gay does not equate to being liberal is blatantly and patently false. Who do gays vote for? Liberals. Who pushes the gay agenda in this country? Liberals. And don't bother mentioning any Republican names that support gays, as I consider them liberals and RINOs as well.

Finally, when you equate "gayness" with race, you are making a fatal mistake. They are not born that way, as people are born with a particular skin color, it is a lifestyle they choose, and a morally reprehensible and perverse one.

Now I'm sure you'll trot out the "homophobe" canard, and let me assure you that won't phase me one bit. I have no qualms whatsoever calling proponents of abortion propopents of murder, nor do I have any qualms about calling proponents of homosexuality proponents of perversion and immorality.

Its not homophobia to be disgusted with a perverse lifestyle like homosexuality any more than it would be for a person to be disgusted with people who advocate bestiality, rape, or child molesters. Its called common sense.

So I'll say this. If Miers was gay (which I have no idea if she is or not), I would say that would disqualify her to sit on the bench. Its a liberal view that "gay is ok," not a conservative view.

if we were going to get someone who DIDN'T meet our needs...

Here's what's happening: W has nominated this manifestly unqualified law-nun to the highest court in the land knowing full well that she will not make it out of committee. Then he can blame the Senate and nominate the man to whom he owes so much, Alberto Gonzales.

I really can't believe all you sharp guys and gals don't see this already. It's got KR all over it.

Because she has said she'd be ok with judges who returned abortion to the states. In the end, pro-choice or life, no true conservative can support the activism of Roe v Wade. If you are an originalist (Thomas) textualist (Scalia) or federalist (Rehnquist) you CANNOT support Roe vs Wade.

Attending law school at an Ivy League school, or Stanford, shouldn't be thought of as some prerequisite to being on the Sup Court, nor even should prior service as a judge as the Constitution makes no such demands.  

But I have to agree with you on this specific case.  I don't see what Miers has done to warrant this selection.  If Bush was set on making a diversity pick, then there were many women and minority candidates who seem more worthy.  Some may have been harder for you guys on the left to argue against (like Roberts), and some may have set off the war over judicial philosophy that I would like to see.  But either way seems preferable to the path Bush has chosen.

I've seen these before, many times.  Nothing there there.  If anyone else has any info., please bring it to the table.

Thanks for the perspective.

The early morning let down of thinking Luttig and getting Miers just about got me.

Now, I'm chillin'.  Or at least coolin' off a little.

Either the Directors didn't double-check the assertion from Lizza's piece on The New Republic website, or they simply ignored the fact that it was merely a document that listed  potential agenda items that would come up in a 1999 meeting of the ABA House of Delegates, and nothing in it or the cover letter indicates any support for these items.

I'd like a clarification on this.

A superior nominee - such as Luttig, Alito, Jones, and Rogers Brown - would not have required Vice President Cheney going on the Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity radio shows today to try and convince grass roots conservatives about the nominee.

This is a hack administration that has just nominated a hack crony.

Call and e-mail the Republican National Committee, your state Republican Party, and every Republican U.S. Senator and demand Miers name be withdrawn.

nm

Seriously guys, what was Bush smoking on this nomination?

As a Democrat, I am utterly stunned.  Someone who has a history of donating money to Democrats, including Al Gore?  

Excuse me for a second.  

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Heh.  Snort.

Hey, someone who supported Al Gore can't be all bad.  There is a rumor of a 1991 donation to Clinton.

She appears to be pro-business, but that is just fine with me.  Sure she is a crony, but I expected no less.

The good news?

Miers is pro-education in that she supported a 7% increase in property taxes during her tenure on the Dallas City Council.

Mrs. Miers also appears to tilt towards the left on Gay Rights.  While chairing a committee, she submitted a report which supported the enactment of laws and public policy which provide that sexual orientation shall not be a bar to adoption when the adoption is determined to be in the best interest of the child.

She also recommended the development and establishment of an International Criminal Court.

Oh, she was also a trial lawyer.

Wow, just wow.  

Honestly, I expected the next S.Ct. nomination to be an ultra conservative who would earn a fillibuster by Democrats.  

Just in case you conservatives were wondering, Ms. Miers was on our "no-fillibuster" list.  Thanks, Mr. Bush for your most excellent nomination of a woman who is an excellent lawyer and who clearly supports our social agenda.  

Pro Gay Rights.  Pro Education.  Pro Rule of Law.

Practically everything we actually wanted in a nominee.

-Democrats

You can obviously never say with certainty that membership in a certain group automatically gives away the politics and ideology of an individual member of that group.  

Afterall, didn't the lesbian member of the Mass Sup Court vote not to impose gay marriage on the state in that insane decision?

But having said all of that, you can definitely say that membership in a certain group makes it more likely that you hold certain views.  A white southerner is likely to be a conservative Republican.  A black voter is likely to be a Democrat.  

And its reasonable to assume that a homosexual judge would certainly be more likely to use the courts to advance a leftwing agenda.

This action will have severe and grave consequences for the Republicans in '06 and '08 if I'm reading the conservative tea-leaves correctly.

And I do believe I am.

Why now?  I don't get it.  For five years, George W. Bush has done nothing but nominate conservative after conservative jurist to the Appelate courts, it was his administration, make no mistake about it who tacitly if not overtly supported the use of the Nuclear Option in the Senate, it was his adminisration that renominated multiple justices who had been fillibustered by the democrats during his first term, and yet when he had the chance to reshape the court and there is no doubt that adding Luttig and Roberts would give the right three gigantic intellectual minds (Scalia) for at least the next ten years and the former two for at least 20-25 years, he blew it.

Given my moderate social beliefs (mostly pro-choice, anti- school prayer etc.), I'm ecstatic, even given that Miers could join the Right wing of the party, but no one can deny that Luttig, Roberts and Scalia on the Court would have provided the court with one of its most impressive intellectual blocs in the Court's history, no matter what side of the aisle one sits.  So to repeat, from a President who has not once paid attention to Democrats on any significant piece of legislation (except for NCLB) or major policy decision and who has gone out of his way to satisfy his base on tax cuts, appellate nominees, Iraq, the Environment, etc, why would he choose to make this nomination now?

I don't get it.

It basically says "Trust Bush" on the Miers nomination.

No thanks. The POTUS is proving himself to be a moderate on nearly every issue since his reelection, from spending, to immigration and the border, to his pandering to the moderates of his party as well as the Dems, cronyism, pandering to the EU on Iran, etc.

I for one have run out of patience, and "Trust Bush" articles are not going to restore my confidence one iota.

Once the anti christian attacks start

any minute now

and no later than harball tonight

the discussion will be 180 degrees

see

http://www.americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=3273

http://www.worldmagblog.com/blog/archives/018821.html

http://www.worldmagblog.com/blog/archives/018816.html

About Cheney on Redhot:

What does it say about the administration that they've had to send out Vice President Cheney to reassure the base. I say that they know they have a crap nomination.

Maybe it says that Planned Parenthood and Emily Bazelon from Slate Magazine knew something nobody at RedState did.

"White House Counsel Harriet Miers has been vetter-in-chief of the Supreme Court candidates. What if Bush selects her over them, in the Dick Cheney tradition?"

-- Slate, September 20, 2005

Point number 4 is a good one, but surely you can understand the sense of doom and gloom.  I mean, how many SCOTUS picks in recent history have proven to be more conservative than thought or hoped for?  Maybe Thomas does fit that, but other than that you'd probably have to go back to JFK's pick of Byron White.

Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter.....the list doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

I have some negative feelings regarding this candidate, but "cronyism" is not one of them.  Just because the potential candidate was known and liked by the President does not BY ITSELF make that candidate a poor choice.  

I refuse to believe that W has sold us out.  I have to trust the President I have come to respect and admire has nominated a SCJ we will be proud of.  I am not going to jump on the antiW bandwagon just because he picked a SCJ that was a bit unexpected.  I wouldn't doubt that he and Karl have planned this out, and know what they are doing.

Thomas was no constitutional or intellectual giant when he was chosen.  We all know that there were many "better" choices from the elitist viewpoint.  Meirs is really in the same mold - a competent person who has worked hard to get where they are, a "minority" who has non-judicial experience.  (Thomas' was almost non-existent). I think she is a good pairing with Roberts. She will probably be better than the woman she replaces, whose judicial reasoning was occasionally questionable.

Come on, Bush knows Miers will never get confirmed. He chose an obviously unqualified and controversial candidate so that all the press and blogs would talk about his decision, which serves to take attention off the damaging Plamegate revelations made over the weekend. He did the same thing when he rushed Roberts' nomination to deflect attention from the then-recent news of Karl Rove's potential role in the Plame thing.

but since you're taking me seriously now, I'll press on. Taking

you make a federal case out of what was clearly a tiny sidebar ('right on life issues').  

and juxtaposing it with

We have a pretty good idea how most/all of those would handle the bright lights.

suggests to me that my "tiny sidebar" is actually the main source of the disappointment/anxiety here. Yes, I get that a desired judicial philosphy is important (and, honestly, I respect that), but I guess what I'm responding to is the way that a return to originalism seems to offer hope of the means toward a desired end. Not an end unto itself. Perhaps that's an unfair reading, but I honestly don't think so.

Hard to tell if you're being serious, but in case you are, then surely you're not serious about Bush owing Gonzales anything are you?  Its the other way around.  Giving his buddy the Attorney General slot should be enough to satisfy his 'loyalty' instincts towards Gonzales forever.

Agreed that she was "a big gamble."  But maybe we should be calling her "Dick Cheney's Big Gamble" and maybe that's why Dick Cheney was on Rush Limbaugh today...and maybe...and maybe...

walk and chew bubble gum.  I thought W. was a man of principle.  Do you actually think he'll throw a close, personal friend under the bus to save Karl Rove?

(1) Nothing is gained by sandbagging this nomination.  The next nominee will necessarily be more of a squish, not less;

Then let's test the proposition.

If Miers goes down, and the next one is worse, half of the present membership will know that the GOP is no longer the place for them.

At this point, a Guiliani nomination would confirm it.

In fact, her name appears first and foremost on the submission letter that accompanied the report.

Tell yourself whatever you want.  Democrats are very happy with this nomination.  A trial lawyer who donated money to Al Gore!  Awesome!

Even if she doesn't survive committee or the nomination process itself, what does that say about the President and his relationship with his Republican controlled congress?

Could you imagine if George Bush's own party sunk this nomination?  The political ramifications of such an event would be very damaging for Republicans.  They would no longer be able to use the "Democrats are Obstructionists!" frame in 2006.

Don't stop working to make the party better.  Leaving to join a fringe group might seem satisfying, but it will just leave more work for those of us who STAY IN THE BATTLE.

When the going gets tough, the tough get going!  We can use all hands on deck, so suck it up and get back to your station.

Remember, for better or worse, the USA is a two party nation, so joining any third party is tantamount to just making yourself irrelevent.

It is my understanding that Jay Sekulow, of ACLJ(American Center for Law and Justice), has had some kind and reassuring words about this nominee.  If Jay is for her, that's enough for me.  Too bad Jay wasn't the nominee.

The idea that she is a decoy for Democrats to gun for while Bush and Rove prepare the real nominee needs to be put to rest.

I'd pay to see Ted Kennedy  go after her biblical views.  That's Entertainment!

She was in the meetings with Bush, Rove and Cheney to select the nominee.  She was part of the frank, open conversations about what qualities the person needed to have. She was there with the president bemoaning the risks involved in possibly selecting another Souter.

In short, she had to be on board with the entire Scalia/Thomas/originalist/pro-life checklist.

And yet, she won't be required to reveal just exactly what she said as the president's advisor, and she didn't have to be guarded in a tense interview while making the president understand where she stands on the issues.

Perfect.

Get it?

is that we needed a nominee who would sail through confirmation in order to BE ON THE COURT in time for the 2 abortion cases that are coming up. Yes a known (to us) quantity would have been preferable, however, such a known quantity would have been dragged out in the Senate for a while, leaving O'Connor on the bench ruling in those cases.

I honestly think he is drinking the cool aid on this one.  

"Given my moderate social beliefs (mostly pro-choice, anti- school prayer etc.)"

Wouldn't that mean that your social beliefs are more liberal than 'moderate'?

But anyway, there are several possible answers to your questions;

1.  Bush is afraid of a fight in light of his low poll numbers.
   
2.  Bush always intended to do as he promised with regards to appellate and district court nominations, but never intended to follow through on the Sup Court because of the fear that doing so might actually deliver a conservative court for the first time in decades, and then with the Left left to fight (and lose in most places) the cultural war where it belongs in the proper democratic arenas at the state level, then the GOP would not be able to whip up the base for national elections over cultural matters because they will have largely been settled.  This is the coldest and most treacherous explanation, but it may just be the correct one.
   
3.  Bush truly believes that Miers is in the mold of Scalia and Thomas, and therefore believes his is fulfilling his promises while avoiding a big fight.

I've been saying both here, and on ConfirmThem.com that only two criteria should come into play in choosing a nominee:

1. Judicial Qualification/Credentials; and
   
2. Judicial Philosophy

At this point, you could convince me that Miers was "100% Originalist" on criterion #2, and it wouldn't matter.

She clearly fails criterion #1. It's not even close.

Erick's sources implied that Bush was looking for "Roberts II" - i.e. someone with impeccable credentials. Miers fails this test outright.

It astounds me that this was the choice when there were at least a dozen, a DOZEN better choices, who "passed" both criteria.

This almost plays like a joke.

It's cronyism at its worst.  

This is the end of Bush 43 II. It's over from here on in. He's a lame duck. If anyone ever asks you the date that it happened - it was Mon., Oct. 2, 2005. Time stamp it.

That's why I recommended the diary that I recommended a bit earlier today.

Just because the potential candidate was known and liked by the President does not BY ITSELF make that candidate a poor choice.

Ordinarily I'd agree with you; if this administration DIDN'T have a regrettable tendency to elevate cronies to positions of responsibility, then I'd be in Thorley Winston's wait-and-see camp.

However, this administration DOES have that tendency. And since we're talking about a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court...

This administration has not earned my blind faith, sorry.

she is a fundamentalist christian. Bush has outfoxed reid. She will be unmercifully attacked by the left but can also keep the spineless gop sens.

I think this is a brilliant strategy given the weak senate spines less than 50.

to promote the President's SCOTUS picks?

We've expressed OUR opionions and a REPUBLICAN president has made HIS selection.  Bush is a conservative.  It's not a matter of 'just trust Bush', it's that this is a political decision made by the elected (thank God, not Kerry!) president. Lets get behind this choice!  

It was aimed at the entire RedState community.  I knew already that you "got it". I should have been clearer.

...but I'll be interested to see the historical record (when it becomes available in future years/decades) as to his actual level of involvement in all of them.  I suspect that the lower court nominations was much more of the White House machine running it, and his level of review/approval was much more yes/no.  

And skip over the "trust Bush" parts if you must.  There are plenty of facts in there that should put the lie to the "unqualified" complaints.  

But clearly, you've made up your mind already.

that Bush might be thinking here.  If that is the case it could save the pick.  If not I dont understand it.

We're having a bad enough day already. We don't need "clever" trolls stopping by to throw inane bug-muffins at us. Consider this your one warning. Another one like that one, and it's off to The Pile™ with you.

In my neck of the woods, more than a few Christians are going to be unhappy about her service on the lottery commission.

had better wake up.  You're so fixated on Roe that you are oblivious to the political damage to the GOP that would be wrought if the Supreme Court actually overruled it (which it won't).  While I appreciate the earnestness with which these views are held as a moral issue, I think a lot of liberal Democrats would secretly welcome an overruling of Roe because they believe it would usher the GOP right out of the White House in '08 (and possibly the U.S. Senate).  Regardless, to overrule Roe would not outlaw abortion.  In other words, be careful what you wish for. . .

A friend asked me if Bush would betray the conservative movement with his next SCOTUS nominee.  My response was, "I think he'll do the right thing."  I'm eating my words a bit this morning.

Harriet Miers seems to be well qualified and experienced.  She has many advancements as a female lawyer in a state (Texas) dominated by the male personna--excepting Ann Richards, and we all know what a wonderful thing that was for the Lone Star State.

While reading through the RNC talking points email today, I was struck by the repeated references to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and the similarities draw between Miers and her.  Especially this one,

Like Justice O'Connor, throughout her career, Ms. Miers has been a female trailblazer.

It is evident that this choice was strongly influenced by a fear of two things:

   

                     
1. A nomination fight based on hysteria drummed up by the Democrats if a male nominee was chosen.

   

2. The desire to avoid any comparisons to Justices Thomas or Scalia.

How sad.

Maybe I am wrong and she is a star, but I doubt it at this point.  Will she be bad?  Who knows.  One thing is for sure, it is likely we won't get any worse than O'Connor.  It just seems likely we won't get much better.  And the one who said in 2004, "I want Justices who have the temperment of Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia," in an attempt to drum up the conservative base in a tough election seems to have buckled under the pressure of falling poll numbers in the aftermath of Katrina.<

Since you are "time-stamping" this event, you might want to get the date right.

I don't see how the Religious Right can support this nomination when Mrs. Miers has a history of supporting socially liberal causes.    Also, she supported Al Gore.

I guess this is the moment when Bush's Base cracked, at least according to IJB.

Now, Democrats can thank Mr. Bush for his best case scenario nomination of a social liberal.  

Bush is a uniter.  Who knew?

Bush is a conservative.

You keep a-using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means.

Hat tip to the first person who correctly names the movie that line comes from.

There's plenty of time to see who was or was not drinking the so-called kool-aid.

I don't think that you are a homophobe so much as out of date.  100 years ago people felt the same way about masturbation.  I don't care if Miers is a lesbian or not - I just don't think she's qualified to be on the Supreme Court.

There's a good number of Gays who vote for the GOP - to suggest that someone who is gay would be liberal for that reason means that Thomas should be a liberal as well because most blacks are.

I'd second that motion.  I am always incredulous when that man has the audacity to talk about anything to do with morality.  What a hypocrite!

But you'd practically have to go back to Byron White to find a Dem appointment who lasted long enough to disappoint.  If you're willing to go back farther, Frankfurter, Jackson, Reed, and almost all of Truman's appointees could be considered disappointments to liberals -- if Ike had done his job we never would have even had incorporation of the Bill of Rights, much less Miranda.  And while Breyer is no Whizzer White, he comes out "conservative" on a surprising number of issues.

I guess I just look at it this way.  When I was a kid, I very much wanted a Mighty Men & Monster Maker for Christmas.  Don't ask, but I thought it was a really cool toy.  When Christmas came around, I could tell by the size of the presents that I didn't get that Mighty Men & Monster Maker.  I was despondent until I found out that I got the Legoland castle, with working drawbridge, and which was wayyyyyyy cooler.  

People here are looking at a wrapped present, and have convinced themselves that, because it isn't the Mighty Men & Monster Maker, that it must therefore be an ill-fitting tartan sweater, rather than the Legoland castle.  I know people here have convinced themselves that Bush is actually the frumpy aunt who wears too much perfume and who would likely give you the sweater or even worse -- socks.  I just haven't seen that, like I said, I think he's been pretty straightforward about who he is and what he will do.

Shudder.....do you really want Chucky and Teddy ramming home Hillary's SCOTUS nominees?

Yeah, but I think the fact that she went to SMU is one of those tag-on attacks on her. It's clearly not the major point here.

I for one don't have any problem with a Supreme Court justice coming from a non-Ivy League school. Ivy Leagues are the very bastion of liberal elite snobbery, and I see no reason why we should consider having attended such a place to be a positive rather than a neutral or even a negative point.

Chucky and Teddy ramming home Hillary's SCOTUS nominees

That image is now seared in my brain, and I am repulsed.

Is it too late to have Teddy drive home Hillary's nominees?

Are conservatives suddenly of the opinion that Judges really do have some sort of special powers?  Getting a non-judge on the court will be a very, very good thing, especially as far as reining in judicial power goes.  And as a non-judge, she has fantastic credentials.  If she were running for Senate, RedState would love her.  

And as for "supporting socially liberal causes," keep dreaming.

OK, I am perfectly willing to kick this around some.

The 2 things you juxtapose are utterly unrelated as far as I can tell.  First, the tiny sidbar:  The editorial expresses, in great detail, how and why this pick is disappointing.  Lost amongst the 1000 words or so, prominently including the 'we don't know anything about her', is this little tidbit, What we know is encouraging to the extent that she might be right on life issues.  Edward, it's just a little comment (if I may put words in the mourths of our Editors), meaning, approximately, that if she proves to be less of an originalist than we hope, perhaps at least she won't stand on the desk and wave her NARAL flag around during deliberations, along with Ruth Ginsburg.  There's no reason to build an entire conservative conspiracy theory on that little comment.

My reference to the 'bright lights' is this:  we have a sad recent history of having GOP presidents pick for SCOTUS candidates pretty light on appellate judgeship,  while showing tendencies of being 'real' originalists.  When these (Sandy-O, Kennedy, Souter) arrived, then it seems that the 'bright lights' in the big city have swayed them to the point that they have become worthless in terms of protecting the Constitution as an originalist would consider it -- giving us things like Kelo, Simmons, Casey, (nearly BSA), and so on.

I (feel that I) know where you are headed with this.  The fact that for many on both sides this whole long-running judiciary war is a proxy fight about abortion does not mean that it is like that for everybody on the right.  You seriously misjudge the right if that's what you believe.

Read this paragraph carefully.  It is the fundamental reason that leftists/progressives/liberals do not 'get' conservatives. The natural bent of conservatism is toward 'rule of law'.  Activist courts are contrary to that, because making laws is a legislative function, and by legislating from the bench they badly usurp their Constitutional authority.  The fact that activist courts imposed Roe v Wade on us is an important reason alot of us fight the good fight, but the foundation is still 'rule of law'.  The minute Roe gets overturned (in this generation or the next, and we all know it will happen), abortion will not be illegal.  It will finally be left, as it always should have been, to Americans to govern themselves in that manner, via our elected representatives.  Edward, THAT is what makes conservatives conservative.  No doubt there's a certain percentage of 1-issue people, but I'm telling you, it's a lot fewer people than you think.  

Let's not let the discussion degenerate.  We all have a lot to think about in the next few days, and there are so many people here who are making incisive and honest comments without slipping the leash into disgusting metaphors.  Let's not do it, OK?

I'd rather be beholden to a principle than to a political party.

They'll make our case for us and give us the fuel we need to create a new conservative rebirth.

Goldwater gave rise to the beginnings of this conservative movement in 1964 by taking a beating in one election. Those principles he fought and lost for, were the foundation of the power base that fueled Reagan's two terms, the '94 revolution and this Bush's two victories.

Those same principles were the ones betrayed by this President with this selection. To say that this "majority" has betrayed and neglected these principles for a while now is an understatement.

The underpinnings of this new ideology will be the right and necessity of our federal government to defend our own borders from illegal invasion, the true cutting of goverment (federal, state and local) and a return to the principles of federalism that this Republican party espoused so eloquently, yet did nothing about when they had the chance and a real commitment to the social values that got this President elected.

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me! Maybe next time we'll get it right!

Is that I think she is precisely the type of Justice I DON'T want.  

Let me preface my comments by saying that I still need to learn more about this woman.   But I have a strong feeling that she is Clarence Thomas Part Deux.

I believe that the President feels that she is a strong Conservative.  I think he feels that he could NEVER get such an ardent Conservative confirmed, who had any sort of paper trail.  

This seems to be a completely politically motivated selection and that the President will give a wink to the Republicans in the Senate and they will know while the Democrats will have little to grasp onto and may need to confirm her because they won't get any political traction on her.

So we should be pleased to put the Republican party in office for the sake of having Republicans in office, regardless if they behave in such a manner that made us want to vote Republican in the first place?

Splendid. Move along, nothing to see here.

that the moderates and those that many of you are so fond of calling RINO's make
up the majority of the party. You will never get unaminity on the many
hot button social issues. You can have it on fiscal and foreign policy.
If only social conservatives voted Republican there would not be many
Red States at all.

I too am utterly disgusted by the Miers nomination.  If Miers supports gay adoption and the International Criminal Court, then Miers is not in the mold of Thomas or Scalia, as Bush promised.

The problem with the pick is that no matter how many nice things are said about Miers (e.g., she's a strict constructionist, she loves animals), there is nothing concrete or verifiable that Miers judicial temperament is conservative.

Bush's pick shows an unwillingness to thank the social conservatives who busted their butts and split their ink securing his re-election.  My view on Miers could change as well, but something more that "Trust me" from W. isn't going to cut it this time.

The variable is a potential backlash from the right, but my sense is that Miers will be confirmed, and that she will vote reliably originalist, thus, tipping the court.

I've read some interesting speculation about Bush's calculation with this choice. He may be betting that he'll get at least one more SCOTUS nominee. Hence, he's playing safe now, and getting ready for Armageddon with his next choice.

For your information, the liberal blogosphere also ordered an info hit on Jack Roberts, John Roberts' son, because Jane made a face when Jack was mentioned in the nominating speech.

The reason they wanted the info? They suspected Jack was gay.

What they didn't know was that Jack was about six years old (or however young he is).

The moral of this story? Don't trust the liberal blogosphere. For all their vaunted talk on the left about being in favor of tolerance, they use homosexuality or rumors of it to smear people like you simply don't see anywhere else.

letting Ted drive home Hillary?

I'm simply arguing that it may be hasty to assume that this is a dangerous pick. It might be the opposite.

(BTW -- Despite much hue and cry from NARAL, overturning Roe would probably only cause restrictions on certain abortions, and even then only in certain states.)

Roe V. Wade is merely a symptom, not an illness, correct?

You'll forgive those of us on the left though, because Dobson and his ilk are not arguing for originalism, as far as I can tell, and by merging forces, the two do seem as one from this POV.

You and I have both pointed out that the claim that Harriet Miers "recommended" anything regarding the ICC or the "gay adoption" aren't actually supported by the underlying documents that were part of the TNR hit piece.  The documents showed that her committee presented the agenda for the items that were going to be voted on and nothing shows a recommendation one way or the other.

Unfortunately we seem to have a lot of knee-jerk posters who as soon as they saw something claiming that she supported the ICC or gay adoption immediately chose to believe it rather than follow the actual links.

Whatever concern I have with the President's choice for his second SCOTUS nominee has been overshadowed with my disgust at the willingness to of the Directors to participate in TNR's "mobying" of a judicial nominee.

There's no question about your motives here -- you've established your own 'paper trail' here, and I very much doubt you're anything but what you seem to be.

And so your perspective is quite interesting.  You're fearful (forgive the oversimplification) that she's Clarence Thomas in drag -- and let's all just breathe deep and get a good, lasting mental image here.  And we on the right are fearful that she's Souter in drag.

If it's any comfort, let me offer this thought.  J Michael Luttig, if nominated, would be confirmed.   Big, ugly, bloody fight, but he would be.  And where with Miers, let's say that there's an 80% chance of your worst fears being confirmed, if Luttig was in there, well, that's a 100% chance.  So just hold on to that 20% differential, friend.

If you think the Repubs can be successful without their socially conservative base, I've got a bride in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you. Spit on that base enough, and we'll be seeing Demorats winning in '06 and '08 when the base doesn't turn out for the Repubs. Its happened before. "Read my lips."

Also, your claim that the Republican party is in large part made up of so called "moderates" is by and large false as far as I'm concerned. Social conservatives may need the moderates (as much as the die hard liberal extremists need them), but moderates need the base just as much if not more.

There's a reason they are called the "base" in the first place.

has been my dream.  I was hoping for Williams or Jones for O'Connor, but if Miers ends up being that, then fine.

I just dont want a liberal.  If she ends up being fine, then good.

I am worried about this pick but some of the stuff about her being an Evangelical is important to me and is softening my stance.  Do we have any other Evangelicals on the court?

For those of you out there who are SoCons .. Dobson is backing her.

h/t Bench Memos

not a "bride."

Barnes writes:

The president and others at the White House have had long discussions with her about judges. She and Rove were involved in questioning at least five candidates for the court vacancy Roberts has filled. From those talks over the months, I'm told, it became clear to Bush that she had exactly the philosophy of judicial restraint he favors and that she wouldn't "grow" as a justice and turn into a swing vote or a liberal.

Also, I'm told, the president is fully aware of the stakes in this nomination. Roberts's replacement of William Rehnquist as chief justice was simply a conservative replacing a conservative. But Miers would succeed a swing justice. With her, I'm told further, Bush believes he would be altering the ideological makeup of the court, moving it to the right.

... Conservatives shouldn't throw up their hands in despair, at least yet. They should wait until they hear from Miers as a witness before the Senate Judiciary Committee. It's then that we'll begin to find out if Bush was correct in his view that she's the person to fulfill the dreams of so many conservatives and finally shove the Supreme Court to the right.

While Ivy League schools are full of snobbs (I will definately be the first to agree with that, having attended Harvard for undergraduate and medical school), there is a reason they are ranked as some of the best schools in the nation year after year.  It is not because of their political affiliation - it is because of the quality of education that students receive.

While it is not crucial for a SCOTUS nominee to have graduated from an Ivy League school, the fact is that these schools often produce some of the best legal minds in the country (see Rehnquist [Stanford and Harvard], Thomas [Yale], Scalia [Harvard], etc).  I see this as just another indication of the mediocrity of this candidate.  I'm sorry, but being a member of a City Council, a trial lawyer, the chair of a Lottery Commission, and being on the staff of a close friend is not enough to warrant one a seat on the most prestigous court in the world.

but this kind politically naive analysis will ulimately undermine the so-called conservative "agenda" for which some Republicans purport to advocate.  Roe v. Wade is irrelevant.  If overruled tomorrow, abortion will be legal in California and illegal in Alabama.  So what?  If this is the only issue on your mind, you can be happy that fetuses aren't being aborted in Birmingham.  Fantastic.  Meanwhile, you can be assured that either (a) a "moderate" Republican will be the party's nominee in 2008 or (b) Geena Davis is but a preview of the real Commanderette in Chief debuting on Pennsylvania Ave. beginning in January 2009.  To so-called conservatives, Roe is highly symbolic but ultimately inconsequential.  

I don't think the White House cares what Redstate's BOD or members think. So I believe your best bet to stop/oppose this nominee is to call, fax, email and protest any senator who will support the nominee (especially the 2008 aspirants). Bush is not running for office again, but the GOP senators will, so call them and let them know your thoughts. Also, cronyism by either party should be condenmed and this nominee is a crony. And finally, even though we don't know what we don't know, I can tell you that Bush et al, truly don't want Roe overturned (they are afriad of losing the white female suburban vote). Think about it, if I wanted someone to do something I truly valued and believed, why would I go with a blank slate rather than a proven horse. Bush would have gotten Luttig and Garza confirmed, even if Chafee, Snowe and Collins bolted (Specter would as always talk from both sides of his mouth but cares more about being in office and being chairman he'd vote to confirm them anyway). Nelson of NE and the Dakota senators would have buckled under pressure, and you would get your 53 votes to confirm. End of story....it was that simple from day 1!!

Hold your fire.

Frankly, it's part of what has got me wondering about the conservative movement for a while.

that I have not read through all these posts and may be re-hashing an issue that has been beaten to death.

bush campaign promise: appoint justices like scalia and thomas.

roberts and miers: not scalia and thomas.

hard to argue with that.

I'm going with John's analysis at Powerline instead:

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011862.php

Jimmy Carter is an Evangelical Christian.  The Democrats may attack her if they find her too "socially conservative" but her being an evangelical won't be the basis - there IS a difference.  

I disagree with that. Why should folks just beleive someone cos they said something? It makes no sense that conservatives and/or liberals should support someone over and over again with no record on key issues and just keep following them cos they say so? Nah..I think, if there was ever a conversation, it was to ensure that Miers would be a business friendly judge and NOT overturn Roe, cos by doing that, she'd open a pandora's box that would threaten the GOP's long term political strategy..however wise or unwise that is.

25% of homosexual voters supported President Bush in 2000 and in 2004. They helped him to win Florida in 2000.

I think the liberal agenda pushes a plan satisfying gay money groups like Human Rights Campaign. But the average homosexual can have more conservative leanings.

If your definition of 'gay is okay' means okay to mandate homosexual marriage or to prosecute ministers and preachers who denounce the practice, those are liberal views. If your definition of 'gay is okay' means okay to live with a person of the same sex or to share some limited form of benefits with that person, the public tends to support that view.

I don't want any pro-homosexual marriage judges on the court but I would take a pro-life homosexual over a heterosexual abortionist.

Who were and are very close to the International Criminal Court and I wanted to make sure that this so-called "evidence" is vetted very throroughly by Republicans before they start objecting to her on that basis, because to be honest with you, I never heard her name in connection with the ICC among any of the people that I know.

And the ones that I do know were some of the most influential individuals in the establishment of the Court.

You might be right, but it's rather hard to say. You can come from a somewhat undistinguished background and still be simply brilliant. We will know whether or not that is the case with Ms. Miers when the hearings begin. I am optimistic.

split with the evangelicals years ago when he went with the cooperative baptists that broke off from the southern baptist convention.

The lib interst groups and far left that controls the money and hence the real power in the party will not abide such a  christian with no record of rejecting the views of the church.

I give it 6 hours

see hardball tonight

If your estimate that 25% of gay voters voted for GW Bush is correct, then it follows that 75% of them voted against, eh? And if thats the case, then it would show that gays are more liberal (much more) in their voting habits, would it not?

Therefore, it is not incosistent to state that the gay vote = a liberal vote.

Where it would have been a lot funnier rather than sounding creepy.

Good point - since we really don't know much about her, she may be one of the most brilliant minds of our time.

However, to find this out, the confirmation hearings are going to be tough, and the Dems will be looking for a lot more info than on Roberts.

on the TNR piece. I am a paid member and would like to get it. I keep an eye on the sane opposition and like beinart and others.

For your information, the liberal blogosphere also ordered an info hit on Jack Roberts, John Roberts' son, because Jane made a face when Jack was mentioned in the nominating speech.

The reason they wanted the info? They suspected Jack was gay.

Actually that's not quite true.  What happened is someone in a comment's section over at Kos suggested looking into whether Jack Roberts was gay but he was almost immediately troll rated and condemned by a bunch of other Kossacks who rightfully found the suggestion despicable.

Moral of the story: be careful about spreading rumors about the bad conduct of your opponents.

...which I can't.  But the reason we're fearing the Argyle Sweater is beacause we got the judicial equivalent of all Scotland's wool production when Bush 41 gave us a Souter for Christmas.

The Senators will be circumspect, but they'll explore every angle that remotely reflects on Roe, and Mier's faith will come under scrutiny.

But the NARALs and Moveons will attack her faith viciously. She'll be compared to the Mullahs. Bank on it.

Wait, so if it's condemned, it effectively means it didn't happen at all?

The point is that it happened, and it wouldn't matter if the suggestion that Miers is a lesbian was troll-rated either. It still happened.

Yes, and include the fact that I don't think most of the Republicans on the committee, perhaps save John Cornyn, have too much confidence in this nominee. I would expect to hear some tough questions from people like Brownback and Coburn.

In his diary which you can read here.  It does a pretty good job of showing how the TNR piece misrepresents the ABA report.

I hope that The Directors get around to fixing this because everytime someone reads this piece without realizing how misleading it is, it does more damage.

the fact is that these schools often produce some of the best legal minds in the country

Yes, but they also produce putrid garbage.  

Anthony Kennedy - Stanford

David Souter - Harvard and Yale (now there's towering intellect!!)

Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Harvard

(and these are just the first three losers I checked - I'm sure there are more)

I'm sure some extraordinarily intelligent people have graduated from SMU and I will not even consider that as a slam against her.

Whether you agree or will consider that, perhaps that's another question, but that is what I'm saying.

As for Dobson, well, I'd agree that his crowd are agenda-driven, but on both sides there are gobs and gobs of special interest groups like that.  NOW and NARAL, I doubt they give 2 sh**s about the Constitution per se, and I'd bet that the 'living Constitution' philosophy, to them, is merely a means to an end, since they can't get anywhere democratically.  So in terms of political mechanics, I don't see alot of difference.

and your correction is noted.

As to your other points - IMHO it is more likely that the party would win

without the social conservatives - those who the only issue is Roe or Gays or

XYZ than the other way around.  Just a quick google for polls on the Roe issue

where there is a party breakdown:

  "More than thirty years ago, the Supreme Court's decision in Roe versus Wade established a constitutional right for women to obtain legal abortions in this country. In general, do you think the Court's decision was a good thing or a bad thing?"

Republicans:  good/bad/both/unsure

41 55 2 2

 "The 1973 Supreme Court ruling called Roe. v. Wade made abortion in the first three months of pregnancy legal. Do you think President Bush should nominate Supreme Court justices who would uphold the Roe. v. Wade decision, or nominate Supreme Court justices who would overturn the Roe v. Wade decision?"

              Uphold    Overturn  Notsure

Republicans       36       47       17

So what do we see?  A slim majority of our party thinks Roe was a bad thing and

less than a majority think it should be overturned.   Both those %'s include

people who agree but do not consider it the #1 priority.  I'll even give you

70% of those who said overturn are one issue party members.  That works out to be

only 1/3 of the party.

The bottom line is that there is a great deal of common ground in the party, but

there are also differences in view and priority on a handful of social issues.

And if the party was ever going to fracture because of it, it will probably be

in the next 2 years.  Reagan didn't win and get this party to where it is by

running on overturning Roe. The life issue was important to him, but not to

the detriment of the rest of his agenda and he handled it in a way not to

break the party apart.  Really do miss the guy.

If Bush had nominated an obscure judge from the Florida Supreme Court on the advice of family friends, I'd be right there with you.  He knows this woman.  If he doesn't have good cause to believe she's not a squish, then we're really screwed, we'll find out in less than a year, and I'll sit on my butt in November of 2006.  I might even vote for Allen's opponent (I live in VA) in an attempt to teach Rs a lesson.

Enough of the hysterical assertions about Miers not being qualifed!

While I'd love to see her transcript from SMU, it would be from 35 years ago, so who really cares.  I've been a lawyer for 28 years and a legal academic for over 25 of them.  I've known many people - faculty, students, and practitioners - from top 10 rated law schools . . . .  Probably the top half, and certainly the top quarter of about 50 other law schools are just as smart and capable - and usually much better educated - than the entire bunch from the top 10.

The big differences are arrogance and elitism . . . of which the top tier has largely cornered the market.

I wish Miers had some law review articles I could read . . . but, frankly, so what . . . most of them are never read by anyone of significance and they amount to nothing.

There are, I am confident, several thousand people in this country well-qualified to serve on the Court.  Miers attended a good law school when it was tough for women to be admitted . . .and then she clerked for a federal judge . . . and then she worked for a major law firm and became a managing parter. Those things don't happen to people who are unqualified and less than very smart.

She was President of the State Bar of Texas . . . so she had to be a fairly good people person.  She served on and chaired some ABA committees . . . that tells me she can get her views across and work well with others (you might be surprised at how many academics cannot do that).

She grew up Catholic and became disallusioned with it . . . and then she joined a mid-sized, but robust and conservative Church in Dallas and taught Sunday School.  She gets along with ordinary people and does ordinary things.  She's not a hermit like Souter (appears to be) or arrogant like Scalia or Ginsberg (appear to be) . . . she appears much more in touch with reality than probably the entire Senate, most of the House, and unfortunately much of the federal judiciary.  That does not mean she is mediocre.  It means she probably has some sense.

Roberts was fine, and yes, he was "impressive."  Preppies tend to be.  I'm sure he'll be a good Chief Justice.  But I really doubt he'll make much of a mark.  He'll vote the right way most of the time . . . but he'll do his share of screwy-stuff, too.

Miers will be confirmed (I predict).  And I believe she'll show the common sense we need on the Court.  And I believe she'll win you all over within a few years.  Give the lady a chance!

As an experienced corporate lawyer, and as a manager, she'll be able to read a statute for what it says and for what it does.  She not a PI lawyer, for goodness sakes.

Will she legislate from the bench?  I doubt it  A conservative religious background, strong family ties, a strong work-ethic, good political instincts, and the long-trust of W tells me she'll be fine.  Probsbly stellar.

I'd much rather have W give us a very good person he trusts and he has talked to extensively over a long period of time . . . and one with her friendships and associations . . . than an in-your-face nominee who would be divisive to the country and who would thus take away from other important issues.  Face it: right now, he is a bit weak.

Except for some pork in the highway bill, I don't see where W has let me down . . . he's not perfect, but he's a heck of a lot better than most of the alternatives I see.

And what is that nonsense about cronyism?  I'd much rather he nominate someone he knows well than someone he doesn't.  That resulted in Souter and Warren and Stevens and Blackman (all Republicans).

And all the stuff about the ABA report.  She was the chairman . . . . the various sub-committees surely prepared some reccommendations and she passed them on . . . there is no evidence to the contrary and every reason (including my life experience in similar situations) to suggest that is all it was.

Take a xanax or have a glass of nice wine and calm down.  This will be fine.

Maybe . . . just maybe .  . . Stevens will do the right thing and step down.  As I've said before, 85-year old men just are not up to the task.  He's been less than stellar for decades and it just gets worse.  So put your pressure there . . . on the media . . . to rid us of him.  Then we'll see a change.  Then then nuclear option would be well worth it.  But not now.

Stevens is likely to die or retire with a Republican in the White House and with Republicans in control of the Senate . . . as long as some of you guys don't mess things up and split the party.  Be patient.  Have that glass of wine . . . relax . . . and listen to the hearings . . . and look at the evidence.  The right time will come.

that the ACLJ has a case before the Supreme Court this term.  It would be unwise of them to get down and dirty with a nominee who might be deciding their case.

As an addendum, you are right after all. That's not the point that I was trying to make though. The point I was trying to make is that the homosexual smear stuff is something we have seen about Jack Roberts, some even said about John Roberts himself, David Dreier, and now Harriet Miers.

What I was attempting to demonstrate was that this is just a continuation of a pattern of trying to smear people as being gay, and that it can be found in certain nooks and crannies on the liberal blogosphere.

I don't mean to say it was a DSCC press release or something that was applauded, brought to the forefront, and everybody was saying. Far from it, as you've described. But the fact still remains: trying to smear Miers as a lesbian is just the latest in a string of these incidents in recent weeks and months.

Many have, to their detriment.  As I said earlier, Jay Sekulow of the ACLJ, who has been before the SCOTUS on numerous conservative causes, has had good things to say about Miers.  Jay is someone who has been there, has been kicked around and kicked back, and would be in a better postion to make a judgement on Miers than many of these so-called conservative experts who have been trouncing her and Bush.  I'll take my lead from those who are in the best position to know.

what if you get a nominee who is not an originalist - let's say they're "right on life," and whatever other issues you feel strongly about - but it's solely because those are their policy preferences, and they want to use their judicial power to make those preferences into law?

Because that may be what you have here.  Some people think she must be "right on life" because she belongs to an evangelical church.  But if she votes the right way because of her religious beliefs, not because of her judicial philosophy or her beliefs about the original meaning of the Constitution, then isn't the Supreme Court still acting as just a "super-legislature," albeit a legislature that votes the way you want it to for the time being?

I'm genuinely curious how people feel about this.

Reagan didn't win and get this party to where it is by running on overturning Roe.

Well, he did write a book called Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation, and he did spend an inordinate amount of time at the bully pulpit about the value of unborn life, and he may have sometimes even drawn Catholic voters into the fold by hammering home the abortion issue, but whatever floats your boat, go for it.

You could certainly try harder.

Oh, that's just silly.  More hispanics vote Dem as well - does that mean that Hispanic vote = a Liberal vote?

I don't think that the Log Cabin Republicans would consider themselves liberal somehow.

The way this Administration is fumbling just about every major issue, dont rule out huge gains for Democrats in the mid-term elections.

Good luck confirming even a John Roberts under a Senate Judiciary Committee headed by Leahy.  

Damn, this pick makes me mad.

... the commonly accepted notion of what the judiciary was supposed to be. I've written at length on this topic in particular and I don't think we can get back to a type of judiciary that actually works within its constitutionally imposed boundaries. I wish we could but that doesn't seem to be the case. So, in that sense, we've got to play ball on the field we've been given.

There is a difference between strict constructionism and conservative judicial activism.  Whatever your views, just be honest about them.  If the Supreme Court were to rule tomorrow that a morning prayer in the public school was not only permissible but required, many of the same politicians who now decry "judicial activism" would be singing the praises of the Court.  

I live in Phoenix, and Sen. Jon Kyl was just on the radio here. Kyl is on the Judiciary Committee, chairs the Republican Policy Committee and a Bush loyalist.

He used the name Abe Fortas referring to Miers and said loyalty to the Prez should not be a litmus test for the S.C. He said he would have preferred if Bush had selected from the excellent crop of conservative apellate judges.

He said it was a "reasonable conclusion to draw" that Bush may not have been up for the fight this time around.

Another quote:

"[Bush] did not do anything to solidify the conservative base with the Harriet Miers selection."

Kyl is a conservative up for reelection in '06 against a well-funded Democrat opponent. Based on his radio interview, he is clearly not happy with the pick.

At least Kyl came out and said it. Cornyn just looked embarrased on Fox earlier trying to sing Mier's praises, and he's a Texan.

At least as to the "fire" part. Logical speculation is fine, and there's plenty of that interspersed here amongst the outrage.

One Devil's advocate view not being expressed is the "crony" charge, and rebutting it.

Ms. Miers is far from a crony. She had a long and independent career well before she met the POTUS, and has only served in responsible positions for him (and yes, chairing a lottery commission counts). In one day of free flying allegations, I've yet to see any allegations of misdeeds which would indicate "cronyism". Personal friend, confidant, trusted advisor - yes to all.

But "crony" - no. No evidence of being an enforcer, a bagman, a launderer, a fall guy (gal), no useless jobs, no placeholding positions, no bureaucratic sinecures.

If the left succeeds in tagging her a crony they will have debased another useful word, and coincidentally smeared any number of future allies of their own.

Who comes to mind? I'm curious.

She could be a Lincoln in a haystack. I doubt it though. But, could be.

Rehnquist went to Stanford.  

Thomas went to Yale.

Leaving out CJ John Roberts, who we all know was a Harvard guy who clerked for CJ Rehnquist and served on the DC Circuit...

AJ John Paul Stevens...

A.B.: University of Chicago

J.D.: Northwestern

Clerked for AJ SCOTUS Rutledge (1947)

7th Circuit Appeals Court (1970-1975)

Nominated by Ford in 1975

AJ Sandra Day O'Connor...

B.A. and LL.B.: Stanford

Assistant AG of Arizona (1965-1969)

Arizona State Senate (1971-1975)

Maricopa Cty (AZ) Superior Court (elected, 1975-79)

Arizona Court of Appeals (1979-1981)

Nominated by Reagan in 1981

AJ Antonin Scalia...

A.B.: Georgetown

LL.B.: Harvard

Numerous academic (Harvard, Virginia, Stanford, Georgetown) and governmental positions

DC Circuit Court (1982-1986)

Nominated by Reagan in 1986 (confirmed 98-0)

AJ Anthony Kennedy...

B.A.: Stanford and London School of Economics

LL.B.: Harvard

9th Circuit Court (1975-1987)

Nominated by Reagan in 1987

AJ David Souter...

A.B.: Harvard College / Oxford

A.B. and M.A.: Oxford

LL.B.: Harvard

New Hampshire Assistant AG (1968-1971), Deputy AG (1971-1976), AG (1976-1978), Superior Court (1978-1983), Supreme Court (1983-1990)

1st Circuit (1990)

Nominated by Bush 41 in 1990

AJ Clarence Thomas...

A.B.: Holy Cross

J.D.: Yale

Assistant AG Missouri (1974-1977)

EEOC Chairman (1982-1990)

DC Circuit (1990-1991)

Nominated by Bush 41 in 1990

AJ Ruth Bader Ginsburg...

B.A.: Cornell

LL.B.: Columbia

District Court Clerk (1959-1961)

Law Professor (Rutgers 1963-1972, Columbia 1972-1980)

DC Circuit Court (1980-1993)

Nominated by Clinton in 1993

AJ Stephen Breyer

B.A.: Stanford

B.A.: Magdalen College

LL.B.: Harvard

Clerked for AJ SCOTUS Goldberg (1964)

Various governmental positions

Professor Harvard Law (1967-1994) and Government (1977-1980) Schools

1st Circuit Court (1980-1990), Chief Judge (1990-1994)

Nominated by Clinton in 1994

People can attempt to argue that Harriet Miers' qualifications to serve as an Associate Justice of the SCOTUS stack-up against these folks - I will not.

I know this is begging for flames and/or a ban, but what the heck....

As a fiscal conservative, social libertarian, gay Republican who believes that I earn the fruits of my labor and that my most sacred right is "the right to be left alone," I have watched this administration with horror over the past five years.  Time and again I watched the President throw sops to the socially conservative right as he squandered our treasure, besmirched our values, trampled our rights, and indentured our children.  The right carried this scorpion on its back through two elections, watching as he stung right and left, knowing that one day he would deliver.

That day has come, and today the right has felt the sting of the scorpion.  May the lesson never be forgotten.

I'm still not decided on the nominee but you make one of the best cases I've seen for her on this forum.

Hat tip to you...

Cheers.

No, he is doing exactly what he said.  He has proven time and time again, in his lower court nominations, that he intends to abide by his promise to appoint originalists to the courts.  Even to the point of reappointing filibustered judges over and over.

He campaigned as a "Spend The Money" conservative, and has spent the money.

He campaigned as a "Courts Shouldn't Make Law" conservative, and has appointed judges in that mold.

I would have liked to see it in big, bold, red letters (e.g. Luttig, Alito) but I'm not going to jump ship yet.  No evidence suggests that he has gone from pushing JRB for her seat to pushing Souter II for O'Connor's seat.

Or so my father always said.

I am not happy with this appointment.  However, there is also another saying:  The Proof is in the Pudding.

I don't know Miers.  I can't say if she is a god choice or not.  That's why I am disappointed.

However, the nomination has been made.  What are we to do about it.

Some have suggested that we pressure Republican Senators to oppose Miers.  I think this is premature.  The message I am send my represenative is this:

"I have serious concerns about the dependibility of a Justice Miers on matters that are most precious to me.  Including, but not limited too, overturning Kelo, overturning Roe, and issues concerning religion in the public square (specificly dealing with the pledge of allegiance, and governmental support of the Boy Scouts).  I do not know Ms. Miers.  You are my represenative.  I am depending upon your judgement in this matter, and will hold you responsible for the results.  If Ms. Miers turns out to be undependable on these issues, I will vote for your opponent.  So make sure that you are sure about Ms. Miers before you vote for her.  Because if you are wrong about her, you will pay the price of losing the support of a large portion of the Republican base."

Of you to give us the benefit of the doubt instead of assuming we were "mobying" her. </sarcasm&gt

In fact, one of the editors pointed out Lizza's piece.  We added it as a foot note then went off to our day jobs.  The Editors cannot edit a "Director" post, but called it to our attention and we have updated it.

But, thanks for believing in us.

It's just another Moby.  They're coming out of the woodwork today.

Ignore it.  If it doesn't die soon, Thomas will harpoon it.

Where did I say I was a one-issue voter, or that social conservatives are? Perhaps you should read my other posts as to why I am disappointed with the Bush administration. This Miers debacles is merely the last straw in a long line of things that have the conservative base disgruntled.

Secondly, social conservative agree with low spending, low taxes, strong national defense, gun rights, common sense immigration laws, so on and so on, the issues that "moderates" cite as the reasons they vote Republican. Social conservatives may be inclined to overlook some tomfoolery when it comes to these kinds of issues, but if the POTUS is failing on these issues AS WELL as social issues, then he can expect the base to dump him en masse.

I'm quite frankly getting sick of people saying that social conservatives are one or two-issue voters (gays and abortion). Its a stereotype that borders on the absurd. Yes, social conservatives want to move their agenda when it comes to these issues, but those are not the only issues for them.

Bush has failed on more than the conservative social agenda, in case you haven't been reading the news lately.

If you think that Republicans can win elections without the social conservative base, you're out and out nuts.

on a natural fire ant preserve.

And may she be the left's Souter.  BWHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Could Ms. Miers be a sacrificial lamb, destined to be rejected so that the next appointment might get better reception?  In spite of the lack of qualifications for the position, her hearings will take some of the hype away from the Delay indictment and buy some time.

If she'd graduated #1 in her class from SMU like Rehnquist did from Stanford, not only would she be a more qualified pick, but she would also have had a much more distinguished career that might have led to a LEGITIMATE nomination to SCOTUS.

Absent impeccable academic credentials, one must have established a steller career deserving of SCOTUS consideration. SOMETHING SHE DOES NOT HAVE!

I'm with Manny Miranda - this is the least qualified nominee to the Supreme Court since LBJ put HIS personal attorney on the high court, Abe Fortas.

I'm an embarrassed Texas Republican right now. And my Senators won't even stand up for what other their constituents believe and oppose her nomination.

Nice summary - why don't we add one more:

AJ Nominee Harriet Miers

B.S. (in Math): SMU

J.D.: SMU

Head of Dallas Bar Association: 1985

Dallas City Council (1989-1991)

Head of Texas State Bar (1992)

Attorney at Locke Liddell & Sapp (1972-1999)

Texas Lottery Commission Chairwoman (1995-2000)

White House Staff Secretary (2001-2003)

White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy (2003-2004)

White House Council (2004-present)

Now, I am not saying that she does not have an impressive resume - may we all be so fortunate!  However, does this seem like the resume of someone who will help decide the course of this country for generation(s) to come?

On a second point, I read somewhere that she clerked at some point, but I have not found anything of this sort - anyone know about this?

The President is clearly no fiscal conservative, and he no doubt leans socially conservative, but in what way has his administration trampled anyone's rights? I think you'll find that many soc cons are disappointed, too.

Now a question. You seem to think that the President kowtows to the soc cons. How then is this nomination a sting?

The way to do that would have been to go hard right.  Then you would have either a successful shift to the right, or an opportunity to put forward someone more "reasonably" right.  This is nothing more complicated than it appears.

I believe Harriet Miers has been on the search committee filling all those lower court seats.

She has certainly been respectful of originalists there.  Maybe this is all a false alarm.

As I've said elsewhere in this thread, Jay Sekulow and the ACLJ have had numerous cases over the years before the SCOTUS.  I don't think that having one case pending is going to change Jay's attitude about who should sit on the court.  He will have many more fish to fry and probably other nominees to contend with in the years ahead.  If he really thought this was a bad pick, I'm sure he would tell us.

Then call Hillary, Chuckie, and Teddie and tell them to sit down and shut up.

If you're all turning into originalists, then we don't have to worry about squishy Rs and filibustering Ds.

Go back to Kos and send up a diary.  Maybe your illustrious leaders will follow.

I believe it's "White House Counsel", not Council.

Otherwise - you've hit my point rather nicely <snark>for a liberal</snark&gt.

On your second point, I got nothing.  The Google is silent in my early attempts.

Cheers.

It is a very long way to '06. So much could happen between not and then...we could win and lose this election 3 times each in that amount of time.

`Oh yeah? So what you going to do?'

Vote Democratic?

Stay home and let `em win?

Honestly, you guys sound a lot like the Dean supporters last year...mad as h*ll and nowhere to go.

Anyone going to vote against Santorum? For Corzine? Against Kilgore?

The anti-marriage amendment -- in my universe -- was an attempt to trample my rights, but that's a bit of a dark tunnel to travel down in this thread, and one on which I know I will find no agreement here.

The overreaching of the Patriot Act(s), the increasing secrecy of government operations, the detention of U.S. citizens without due process, the condoning of torture, the creation of the largest Federal law enforcement agency in history ... these are the very things libertarians fear.

I don't believe Bush kow-tows to the social right.  Rather, I believe that he uses them entirely instrumentally, hence my analogy to the tale of the frog carrying the scorpion on his back.  He throws insubstantial bones -- limits on discussion of abortion and whatnot in foreign aid, FMA, while carrying on a substantive agenda that has nothing to do with the Christian values I'm familiar with.

Now, I don't know anything more about Harriet Miers than anyone else.  Heck, maybe she is the "second coming of Scalia and Thomas."  But I don't think so.  I have no doubt, given their long association, that Bush knows exactly what Miers thinks about what.  But at the end of the day, I don't believe Bush is a hard-right conservative.  I think at the end of the day, he just doesn't care and is, as I said, entirely instrumental.  And that, perhaps, is the greatest evil of all.  That is the sting.

Maybe we are missing something.  Bush has requested that Miers be confirmed by Thanksgiving.  Maybe he belives O'Connor will rule against Bush's position and so he decided to pick someone who would be confirmed quickly, and would rule differently than O'Connor.  One of the big issues coming up is parental notification for abortions...   Maybe in six months we will look back and think that Bush knew what he was doing.  (Or maybe this is just wishful thinking).

The President has picked someone he has worked with, supports his presidency and shares his philosophy. And that's a bad thing?

Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, who knows her too:

"I just wanted to say how happy I am for America today that Harriet Miers has been nominated to the Supreme Court. She is a brilliant, decent, thoughtful, caring, balanced person. The nation will be very well served when she is confirmed.

"Her values are those of the mainstream of America beyond question. She's had an illustrious career that reflects balanced judgment. She's very good at drawing out arguments on both sides of the question, as a great lawyer and former litigator would. I know she'll look at each question that comes before the court during her tenure with care on a case-by-case basis as our greatest justices have.

"Harriet is very self-effacing and modest for all her terrific accomplishments. Maybe some people mistake that as shyness. She is a very good advocate, very clear thinking, very forceful. She's fully the equal, intellectually, of anybody who will be asking her questions. You watch, she'll do just fine."

I trust and respect Mitch Daniels' judgment. But I suppose he's just a crony.

(credible or not, I'm not sure) that Miers has some evangelical leanings (don't go with the "fundamentalist" tag just yet), but her church in Texas is certainly well within the evangelical movement of Christianity... How much that tracks with her own personal views I just have no clue.

I'm going to hold off in condemning this choice until I have more information.  I do not share the view that her experience is not enough to qualify her to the bench, as the idea of qualification is a very subjective standard.

I want more information, and I hope that a clearer picture will appear soon... but lets not sharpen the swords and pointy sticks just yet.

This is to those of you who are blasting your brothers and sisters on the right who are miffed as heck right now:  

You just don't get it do you???

The way I see it, this whole debacle has VERY LITTLE to do with whether Miers will be a Scalia/Thomas.  Chances are, she probably will be, though I have my doubts.

It does, however, have a TON to do with Bush has:

1. Pandered to the moderates
   
   
2. Not been willing to take on the left over any issue dear to Reagan Repubs.
   
   
3. Essentially told the base to "shove it"
   
   
4. Spent ALL of the "political capital" that WE gave him (with our blood, sweat, tears mind you) on some no-name crony
   
   
5. Ignored the heavy weights of Luttig/Alito/JRB/Jones
   
   
6. Not started a national debate about the Supreme Court's liberal philosophy
   
   
7. Demoralized the base
   
   
8. Set the stage for a Liberal Revolution in the next 2 elections
   
   
9. Been completely, utterly, and totally ignorant about the socialist direction the GOP has taken over the last 5 years.  

That, my friends, is EXACTLY why we, your conservative brethren, are lighting our torches and preparing for war with our GOP Senators, should they ignore our cries.

the same feeling you do about Bush's principles, but either way, I don't think this would necessarily be throwing Miers under the bus. Who knows -- she could actually get confirmed. And if she doesn't, as another poster suggested, Bush has fodder for condemning Dems for not playing ball.

And yes, I think he probably values Karl Rove over Miers.

Just interesting timing, is all.

I think the big difference between Miers and Souter, and Thomas for that matter, is that the President probably knows a great deal about her personal beliefs.  I suspect she is a religous and very conservative person.  Now it is possible that, when she becomes a justice, her jurisprudence may win out over her beliefs but I suspect she will be someone that will fit very comfortably in Thomas/Scalia camp.  

Now truth be told I don't know if that means she is in favor of overturning Roe or not and it is entirely likely that the President doesn't know either.  But that's like in the big city.

I think that you greatly exagerrate the chances of a Luttig or Jones getting confirmed.  These confirmation proceedings are not about headcounting Republicans and Democrats.  They are about public perception.  If the public perceives that a candidate is unfit, either professionally or ideologically, then the candidate will not get confirmed.

The President understands this so he's choosing a stealth candidate.  Roberts was the "safe" pick.  With Miers I think he went for the jugular but with political deftness.  

Agh, my ignorance is exposed to all.  Cursed liberalism - too many big ideas turns the brain to mush!

are you referring to, exactly?

Glad to see you're OK.  I know it's a worrisome day for you.

I'm on your side, you know.  And on the bright side, I know we win eventually.  On the cloudy side, I know it took the Israelites 400 years to get out of Egypt, so we may not be quite done.

I think that you greatly exagerrate the chances of a Luttig or Jones getting confirmed.

People call me naive for beleiving in my principles and voting according to them. It reinforces my belief that I'm wasting time voting in the first place.

Is a relative term. We'll see how it plays out tonight.

Thanks for your support.

The extremists, both left and right, may be the most outspoken on some issues, but the moderates are really the majority of the base on either side. Shun them, and you lose the election. That's exactly why Bush brought out folks like the Governator and Giuliani during the conventions, instead of folks "Dr. Dobson" or other extremists.

I don't agree with your characterization, but I can see how a libertarian might be concerned, but I find your claims wildly exaggerated.

How many citizens have been harmed by the Patriot Act? How many by outrageous federal income taxes?

But if I vote for people who act contrary to my principles, that leaves me totally voiceless.

At least by bolting, we FORCE the Republican strategists to take our positions seriously.

And American history is littered with parties that were destroyed and replaced.  Should Harriet Miers be another O'Connor (or worse), perhaps now is the time for the Republican party to go the way of the Whigs.

Who knows if Miers will get confirmed or if Stevens or Ginsburg will retire.  

Here's another lovely person insisting that we vote for Republicans, even if they behave like Democrats.

I'll pass, thanks. You have fun with that, though.

I chimmed in with Ann Coulter in finding Robert's a technocrat, lacking any vision to restore the lost contitution. Roberts subsequently, before the Senate, affirmed that the socialist reading of the commerce clause was A-OK with him!

Is Miers any different? Not if David Frum, who worked with here, is to be believed.

While neither is a Souter, neither is a Thomas or Scalia.

Call me hugely underwhelmed.

I'm joining the Libertarians. $*@# these loser Pubbies.

But the only people who believe you are over at Democratic Underground and allies.

While I bet you and I would disagree on many or most of the substantive issues you list, this is exactly my point about the overarching failure of this President, and the "sting" to which I refer above.

So many stood by him through blooper after blunder, and carried his water believing that he was "one of the good guys," yet when the time came, what did he deliver?  His lack of principle and wildly flipping moral compass have been obvious from early on, yet on and on they marched for him.  

To both the right and the left, I say, next time, pick someone who believes in something, and will stand for it.  That, at least, is worthy of respect.

The President has picked someone he has worked with, supports his presidency and shares his philosophy. And that's a bad thing?

If this president had a track record of appointing people who, despite their personal relationships with and loyalties to him, were uniformly qualified for and competent in their positions, then that would be one thing. But from where I sit the record appears, to be charitable, rather mixed.

Either qualifications are your primary criterion, or they are not. This woman has no discerable qualifications aside from some testimonials. Yet she's been nominated for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land.

If you're not appalled by that, I'm appalled at you.

Gave us Kennedy and O'Connor in the first place.  If he'd done those nominations right, we'd not be dealing with some of the bad decisions we're dealing with...

This is the solution. We've got to get behind the Laffeys and the Pat Toomeys and KATHERINE HARRISes of the world early.

I've already sent my donation into Katherine.

We need more unapologitice free-trading Fiscal and Social Conservatives in Congress - especially the Senate.

You people in North Dakota, Colorado, Louisiana, Florida, Nebraska, NEVADA!!!!, South Dakota and other Red States who keep electing Democrats are part of the problem. Maybe if Bush was more sure he could get a Janice Rogers Brown through the Senate with Republicans representing both Senate slots in these states, he would have given us JRB or someone like her.

No excuse for his weakness, but...it's time we started getting more involved in these primaries and getting real Conservatives elected.

Consider the black vote. Normally less than 10% of the black vote has gone to Republicans. The overwhelming majority of black votes are therefore liberal. This has been the case for a long time.

If the gay vote goes 75% to the Dems, and the black vote goes 90% to the Dems, that it is NO stretch at all to say that those voter blocks are liberal. Everyone in both politial parties understands this. Why you don't is beyond me. Why do you think Mehlman is out campaigning amongst black voters? Because he wants to erode the decades long tradition of the black vote going to liberal Dems.

The hispanic vote is different, because its not as lopsided. Thus, I would not characterize the hispanic vote as "liberal." Its more evenly split, and the Repubs have been trending towards picking up more of that voting block.

IF the black vote or the gay vote shifts towards the Repubs, I'll be perfectly willing to say that that either voting block can longer be reliably labelled as liberal. Until then, I'll reiterate that the gay vote is a liberal vote, given their overwhelming penchant to vote Dem.

I was listening to his radio program the other day, and he said that he, along with two others, (Ed Meese and C.Boyden Gray I think) were a special group of consultants to the Pres. on this.

Secularists would swallow their tongues, but I really, really like Jay and am VERY glad he is there.  It was one more reassurance for me.

One is not required either to have blind faith in Harriet Miers, or to oppose her.

It is a reasonable and honorable position to withhold judgement until the facts are in.

P.S. Lighting the fires of revolution is entirely anti-conservative, no matter how  conservative you think your cause is.

How many citizens have been harmed by the Patriot Act?

Impossible to know, isn't it?

But the vast increase in federal police powers and bureaucracy, whether or not used for repressive purposes today, is what's so deeply troubling.

How many by outrageous federal income taxes?

And how many generations of our children will be paying the debts incurred today?  A tax on their income is easily more vile than a tax on mine.

Over 75% of African Americans voted for Democrats in 2004. Many African Americans would say the exact same things you have said about homosexuals, and then they would go into a voting booth and vote for John Kerry all over again.

I agree with Rush...Moderates wait around for a majority to form and then they join it.

So, technically speaking, yeah...I guess Moderates are a majority by definition. But mostly just because they're too weak-minded and stupid to have any principles that would lead them to take a position that would leave them in the minority.

It does not matter how well you trust the President (and if you trust Bush more than Reagan, then I'm sorry, but you're a fool), it matters how well you can trust the nominee. The "We trust this President, don't we?" argument is hogwash, as illustrated by Reagan.

Those crazy Kos kids.

He said that we have not had an evangelical Christian confirmed to the SC for decades.  Now this is the kind of diversity I like.  I'm glad we finally have one.

BTW, I don't know if any of the current sitting members are EC.  Anyone else?

Probably for the first time ever, even.

He is a smart D.  If he doesn't like the smell of it, it's good news for us.

No offense, FH.  :]

Leon H is in favor of this, I know, but it makes me very uneasy.  What would happen to the Republican party if Senate Republicans went against the President on this?  It seems to me that the President would win because of his bully pulpit and the party would be in shambles.  A leadership vacuum would form that would really hurt the party in 2006 and 2008.

Despite what I've said about the Constitution party in another post, the party is a hard habit to break.

Oh, please. Spare me the sanctimony and posturing.

She's suitably qualified, but not by the narrow standard that requires some refulgent law professor, appellate judge, Harvard-Yale-Stanford.

I think of her as the equivalent of Sandra Day O'Connor, that is, a local lawyer with outstanding political experience who would bring that experience to the bench. An accomplished woman who lives her faith.

Yes, not my preference, but to suggest she's unqualified falls prey to the perfectionist mindset that must sometimes give way to politics in this political world.

And the charge of cronyism is just sloppy thinking. Which annoys me. But then, I'm not as easily appalled as some.

that Dobson said he was privy to information that he couldn't talk about in his support of Miers.

If she were running for Senate, RedState would love her.

But she's not. She's be appointed to the SCOTUS. That's the issue.

Getting a non-judge on the court will be a very, very good thing, especially as far as reining in judicial power goes.

Even if I agree with that proposition, this was absolutely the WRONG time to do this, politically, for the Court, for the Party, and for the Base.

And as a non-judge, she has fantastic credentials.

And there's the problem right there.

If this were a District Court appointee, no one would have a problem.

But for SCOTUS, there were about a zillion better, more qualified, more certain choices.

In light of all the various factors, this was a terrible choice. There's no getting around that.

Well, perhaps you just want to stand by and let the party we have given so much to, shoot themselves in the foot?  I don't.  My GOP loyalties run deep.  But I refuse to blindly support them when they are wrong.  They have pandered far, far too much over the last 5 years, and I have no more patience.

You referred to the "fires of revolution."  I don't think that was what I said at all.  But I would venture to say that a new Republican Revolution needs to take place...in our own party!  

I will not support a Socialist GOP.  If that is the direction they are going, it is my responsibility, as the person who gave them their power, to correct their actions.  That is what any parent would do to a child who was not doing what they were supposed to do.  Same deal with our GOP brothers and sisters on the Hill.  They need to be corrected.

Maybe we don't need a "revolution" per say, but we are in desperate need of a transformation.

I agree, if Fh is uneasy, maybe there's something to it.

I'm still appalled, but since we're stuck with her, I'm hoping she's Thomas in a skirt, not Souter.

It may be hard, but some of us are arguing that.

You are right. When Fortas was nominated for chief justice, many Dems refused to support the president's nominee, the filibuster was successful and Fortas withdrew.

That revealed a Democratic president so weak and a party so divided that they crumbled in the next election and have been in decline for almost forty years since then.

If the GOP torpedoes Miers or is complicit in the downfall of her nomination, history may repeat itself.

and Luttig would have been confirmed.  No.Doubt.In.My.Mind.

It might have been bloody, but it would have been worth it.

rallies much support from me.  O'Conner didn't even know what her judicial philosophy was.

Dittos.

But I don't make that assumption just because someone is "right on life".  

If someone is opposed to judicially mandated rights to abortion on demand and, in addition, says that they believe the judicial branch is not a legislative branch, they start out with a couple of points.

Remember, he was originally appointed to fill SDO's seat, not Rehny's.  So, I'll give Bush that one.

Honestly, I was hoping for a fire-breather like Jones, but would have been happy with Luttig, Estrada, or several others mentioned on here.

As for Miers=Scalia, Thomas, I'll believe it when I see it.  For now, the kool-aid still tastes pretty darn bitter.  Blech!  

> A tax on their income is easily more vile than a tax on mine.

Nicely put.

Re: Second, your point about how being gay does not equate to being liberal is blatantly and patently false. Who do gays vote for?

Yes, gays as whole do tend to support Democrats more than Republicans, no doubt because they have not been treated like fetid lepers by Know-Nothings in the Democrat party (not that there are no Know Nothings in the Democrat party-- visit Kos for a sampling of that demographic! just that Democrat Know Nothings don't dump on gays). But please note that in the last two elections, and despite the fact that in today's GOP the anti-gay Know-Nothings have been raving like besotted mantics, one quarter of self-identified gay and lesbian voters voted for George W Bush! That's a much better percentage than Bush racked up among Blacks or Jews, almost as good as his take among Hispanics. So catigating these people as being all liberals is obviously a huge fallacy. Indeed, I would say the GLBT vote, rather than the Black vote, might be a more fertile place for the GOP to seek converts.

As for the rest of your post I will not bother to reply. It is simply beyond the pale of political decency.

Moderates make up the majority of the Republican party. Extreme right-wingers are outspoken but are in the minority. They help in elections, but it's the moderates who get people elected. Trying to shift everything to the extreme right will only splinter the party.

Re: this ain't 1976 and Carter split with the evangelicals years ago when he went with the cooperative baptists that broke off from the southern baptist convention.

Last time I checked Baptists (whether Southern, Texan, Northern or whatever) officially disavow the Evangelical label. That said, Jimmy Carter did profess to be a Born Again Christian, and in popular parlance that would make him an Evangelical regardless of what church he attends.

That's a sound rebuttal there, Ez...

The moderates win the elections for people, because they know that everyone has different views and different issues that are important to them, and if a party focuses on only one view or issue (which pretty much defines extremism) -- well, that party loses.

she's a corporate crony. It's not because of any fielty to social issues -- I suspect Bush wouldn't give a da*# about abortion or gays if there was no political advantage to demagoging those issue.

...According to the 5/1/00 newsletter Class Action Reporter, Miers headed Locke, Liddell & Sapp at the time the firm was forced to pay $22 million to settle a suit asserting that "it aided a client in defrauding investors."

The details of the case are both nauseating and highly troubling, considering President Bush is considering putting Miers at the top of America's legal system. Under Miers' leadership, the firm represented the head of a "foreign currency trading company [that] was allegedly a Ponzi scheme." The law firm admitted that it "knew in March 1998 that $8 million in [the company's] losses hadn't been reported to investors" but didn't tell regulators.

This wasn't an isolated incident, either. The Austin American-Statesman reported in 2001 that Miers' law firm was forced to pay another $8 million for a similar scheme to defraud investors. The suit, which dealt with actions the firm took under Miers in the late 1990s, was again quite troubling. As the 9/20/00 Texas Lawyer reported, Miers' firm helped a now-convicted con man "defraud investors and allowed the firm's [bank] account to be used as a 'conduit.'" The suit said "money from investors that went into the firm's trust account was deposited into [the con man's] bank accounts and was used to pay for his 'expensive toys.'"

snip from dkos

You can accuse me of sanctimony and posturing all you like, but at the end of the day you're left with a "local lawyer with outstanding political experience" who "lives her faith" -- in other words, a hack with nothing to recommend her except her religion and a few testimonials.

Sloppy thinking? At least I'm actually thinking, rather than letting George W. Bush and Mitch Daniels do my thinking for me.

jumping on a "snip from dkos".

We'll need to see more than this quick little tidbit to take your bait.  Nice try though.

Nicole Devennish just went on Hardball and stated that Harriet Miers was "the best qualified person" for this nomination.

As Bill Simmons might say, I will now bury myself alive.

For an invitation to troll.

on grounds that her face looks like a broken turtle.

Stay home and let `em win?

This pick makes me uneasy as well, but although I share many of flyerhawk's political sensibilities, my main concern about Miers is her seeming lack of qualification.  I had hoped that we might be entering an era where we could focus more on the quality of jurisprudence than on political ideology.  A Miers nomination seems like a significant setback to that optimisim.

The President set an awfully high standard with Roberts and had me thinking he was really looking for the most qualified candidates for the job (who happen to be fairly conservative).  Now, it seems like he's just trying to avoid much of a political fight.  That's odd.

Other than that, I don't have any information that would leave me to like or dislike Miers.  I'm sure we'll find out more later.

Your main compliant is that Bush hasn't fought the fight when we know we can win.  I agree with you.  When a struggle has been long and difficult I prefer the sure way: open, frotal assault.  I say we take our lumps and get the butchery over with.

However... I can understand the position of others who prefer a more devious approach.  They want to achieve the same end, but avoid the uglyness of a confrontation.

My attitude is this:  I want to win.  That's why a prefer the sure way: Go nuclear and appoint Janice Rogers Brown.  However, if Bush wants to go the devious route (riskier), I'm fine with it.  As long as we win.

In other words.  I don't want a fight for the sake of a fight.  I want a fight because I want to win.  Winning is what's important.

   Of course, on an issue this important I want my fate in my own hands. To use a football metaphor, I want to carry the ball, but I'll be just as happy if someone else catches a touchdown pass.

I would love for someone to prove this is wrong! That's part of why I posted it here. Having a corporatist on the Supreme Court is not an advantage to anyone but the wealthiest among us... and that sure doesn't include me or anyone in my family.

35-40 years in the real world have to count for something.

Maybe she wasn't #1 in her class, but what was she?  Decent grades?

Either way, she has obviously done pretty well for herself since then.

. . . since when is being gay a "smear"?  Not that any of the aforementioned people necessarily (or probably) are.

If she votes with Scalia/Thomas/Roberts -- I am not disappointed in the least.  I have heard enough from people I trust to see the expediency of this pick.  Without a confirmation fight, she will replace O'Connor's (possibly swing) vote many months and many cases ahead of a "stronger" nominee.  

"since LBJ put HIS personal attorney on the high court"

/shrug

Edith Jones.  To name two.

Roy Moore probably would.  Edith Jones would not.  Unlike most of the liberals on the Supreme Court, it has been the conservatives who have actually defended the First Amendment against government intrusion.

I got banned after my first post and had to email thomas personally to get reinstated!

(ok, it may have been my second post  --  I was unimpressed with some extremely vague terrorism warning, to save you all the research)

Is this considered valid information now?

I wish you guys could understand there are some of us out here who are trying to wake people up to see who is really benefitting from a divided, fighting populace. Unless you belong to the elite class or are a corporation it's not you and it's certainly not me.

We're playing right into the hands of big business and it's going to take all of us to take them on. I hope I live long enough to see that day and it's not another burden we leave our children and grandchildren...

Locke Liddell & Sapp's agreement to pay $ 22 million to settle a suit

alleging it aided a client in defrauding investors is expected to serve

as a warning to other firms that they must take action when they learn a

client's alleged wrongdoing may be harming third parties. The

Dallas-based firm agreed April 14 to settle a suit stemming from its

representation of Russell Erxleben, a former University of Texas star

football kicker whose foreign currency trading company was allegedly a

Ponzi scheme. Erxleben pleaded guilty last November to federal

conspiracy and securities-fraud charges and is to be sentenced in May.

Locke Liddell's settlement comes on the heels of an $ 8.5 million

settlement by Houston's Sheinfeld, Maley & Kay and attorney Lee Polson.

The two settlements, minus attorneys' fees and expenses, are expected to

bring investors a recovery of more than 60 cents on the dollar. And if

those large settlements don't get lawyers' attention, the American Law

Institute is considering making a lawyer's duty to a third party clear

in its Restatement of the Law Governing Lawyers.

The Texas disciplinary rules state that a lawyer may disclose

confidential client information in order to prevent the client from

committing a criminal or fraudulent act. Jim George, an Austin lawyer

who is a member of the ALI, said he favors making it clear that a lawyer

must tell people if a client is hurting them. "It's a very simple legal

proposition a lawyer can't help people steal money," said George, of

George & Donaldson.

George represents investors who lost $ 34 million they placed in

Erxleben's Austin Forex International. Daniel N. Matheson III, a former

Locke Liddell partner who represented Erxleben, said in his deposition

that he knew in March 1998 that $ 8 million in AFI's losses hadn't been

reported to investors. AFI, which was founded in September 1996, shut

its doors in September 1998. A few days later, Texas securities

regulators seized its accounts and put the company into receivership.

Harriet Miers, co-managing partner of Locke Liddell, said the firm

denies liability in connection with its representation of Erxleben.

"Obviously, we evaluated that this was the right time to settle and to

resolve this matter and that it was in the best interest of the firm to

do so," Miers said...  cont.

http://bankrupt.com/CAR_Public/000501.MBX

re the conservatives and the First Amendment.  But as someone who has appeard before Judge Jones, I have cringed at the utterance of her name during this process.  Luttig, great.  Wilkinson, fine.  McConnell, fine.  Williams, even better.  Not Jones.  I have read her opinions and attended events at which she has appeared.  Just because she's anti-Roe, it does not follow that she's an originalist (whatever that's supposed to mean).  She's a little over the top.  It's just not necessary to nominate the most outrageous judge you can find just because you can.

"She will be unmercifully attacked by the left"

Wasn't that Harry Reid practically offering to hold her jacket today?

I don't doubt what you say about the quality of an Ivy League education.  I mean, I doubt many people would turn it down if it were offered to them.  I just don't think that the pool of Sup Court candidates should be limited to those who did attent Harvard or Yale or the others.

That Ivy League schools are bastions of liberalism and leftist thought is obvious, but I doubt that public law schools or other private ones are much different in that regard, so I don't hold that against them.

Are looking at her as a potential "consensus candidate" according to NPR this afternoon.  Schumer, of course, is hedging his bets in his inimitable way, and he has "questions."

I've been coming around to the conclusion that she might not be such a bad pick.  It's difficult for me to say because I personally know so little about her, and I guess we're going to have to wait for the hearings (Hint to RedState:  have someone lined up to liveblog the hearings!!!) but in the past 24 hours I've been willing to give the candidacy the benefit of the doubt, and here is why:

It's personal.  She was a Democrat before becoming a Republican.  And I was a very, very, very far-left Democrat before I became one.  It struck me today that if the standard of someone's past thinking was the most important measure of their current thinking, I should really have never been allowed to post a single diary entry on RedState.  Instead, I should have gone back over to Democratic Underground or started writing articles for Common Dreams, or actually, Z Magazine.

I know that given the dearth of other information we have it's a thin reed, but I think we should be giving her the benefit of the doubt right now.

(Probably for the first time ever.)  Since we're all grumpy and they're brazen:  Ban first, ask questions later.  Maybe it will improve our mood.  I, for one, like the mayhem!  :]

What's the intention?

They have internalized the belief that conservatives and Republicans are intolerant of gay people, therefore they accuse people of being gay as a smear to try to drive the conservative base away.

I mean, you don't seriously think they're "just saying," do you? It's meant to be a smear.

. . . I've seen the same alleged here as on dKos.  Everyone has her own motives.  It's a shame.

that the comment can't be taken as representative of the liberal community, or even the dKos community.  After all, they trollrated it.  The comment has to be regarded as the viewpoint of some random person who liberals and dKos folk dislike.  

...any of these things you suggest:

"But "crony" - no. No evidence of being an enforcer, a bagman, a launderer, a fall guy (gal), no useless jobs, no placeholding positions, no bureaucratic sinecures.

If the left succeeds in tagging her a crony they will have debased another useful word, and coincidentally smeared any number of future allies of their own."

From dictionary.com:

crony  n : a close friend who accompanies his buddies in their activities

So I don't think the word crony is being debased as you suggest.  The probable root of the word is the Greek khronios, "long lasting", from khronos, "time" so, in fact, an acquaintance of 20+ years qualifies as a crony.

As far as "Cronyism," if you didn't like what I just wrote, don't bother to click here.

he used the bully pulpit to try to change peoples minds about a devisive

issue (after how many decades?).  He didn't try to force his view upon a

country that just wasn't ready for it - as is still the case now.  

Cronyism is that the new way to spell Kennedy?

Maybe my Chicago bias is showing, and I'm attaching too many negative connotations to it, but when I look for a standard bad example of Republican cronyism this is it:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/ryan/03ryan.html

I'm wholly withholding judgment on Miers, but I don't attach any of the negatives implied in the phrase to her. The problem is, what are the positives?

<tangent>Schumer is a complete putz. </tangent>

My negative judgement of Miers is based precisely on her "qualifications" and her connections.  If GWB were a Louisianian president, local radio would be calling her part of the "good ole boy network."  In Texas, everything's bigger.  Nationally, the stakes are no limit.

It doesn't make any difference whether your math is good or bad--it's irrelevant.

If a president were randomly choosing one person from  among 100 randomly selected homosexuals, then it might be more likely than not that a "liberal" would be chosen.

But there was nothing random about Bush's selection.  We're dealing with a single individual who is known to the president, has a history of being a big business-friendly corporate lawyer, and works in a Republican administration.  Given these and other relevant considerations (specific to this person) your "calculations" are laughable. Your statistics apply to groups, not individuals.

As for your earlier statement:

"Its not homophobia to be disgusted with a perverse lifestyle like homosexuality any more than it would be for a person to be disgusted with people who advocate bestiality, rape, or child molesters. Its called common sense."

What a textbook example of "begging the question."

You assume the conclusion you argue for and use that assumption as proof of the soundness of your argument.  This "logic" is remarkably similar to your math.  

Do homosexuals "choose" to be homosexual?  You make an unconditional assertion that is based on nothing more than your own unsupported opinion.

As for your contention that such behavior is "not homophobia," why not just be honest.  You're homophobic and proud to be so.  

John I can't say I have read all your posts, and even if I had, I might not

correctly attribute them to you.  I didn't mean to imply you were necessarily

a one issue person - but you have to admit there are quite a few here that are -

just judge by some of the comments about never voting R again because they are

not certain of her 'credentials' on Roe.  And I might add that your annoyance

that many social cons are viewed as one or two issue types kind of works the

other way too? Many moderates are sick of being called RINOs (or worse - Dems)

because they aren't vocally prolife, or worse prochoice (or exhibit indifference

or tolerance on the gay issues).

As to the composition of the party - I didn't mean to imply it would be easy or

even possible to win without the social conservatives, just that while they are

an important part of the party, they are not necessarily the majority.  I also

wanted to point out that even among people who agree on the a particular issue

such as the life issue, they may give it a vastly different priority and I some

times think many on RS forget this.  

And you are not the only one who is disillusioned and upset with Bush.  I think he

has had some good ideas in many policy areas, but it is amateur hour when it comes

to execution.  We used to bash Clinton for how inept his administration was -

regardless of the policy objective - and yet I can't really say the Bush crowd

is better, in fact they may be worse.   I hope beyond hope that he realizes

how quick things are going in the tank and makes some major changes in the

cabinet and staffing before year end.  I know they are darlings of many on RS

but Rove, Card and Rumsfeld need to go at the least.  Winning elections is one

thing (and its done now) - effectively executing policy is another - and they

have failed.

Its interesting though in this whole nomination day that many similar views have

come out that must have been lurking under the surface before now.  Perhaps you

are right in that for some this wasn't the nomination per se, but a culmination of many policy troubles.

And an egregious example thereof from the Sun-Times.

"I'm wholly withholding judgment on Miers, but I don't attach any of the negatives implied in the phrase to her. The problem is, what are the positives?

Excellent point.

I, for myself, think that this nom. is not a clever political maneuver-- it's insulting.  My wife needs the computer, so I can't list all the levels of insult right this second.  Somebody ask if you care.

with Dick Cheney this afternoon was good.  Cheney said he believes that she is a good pick and is what we will see as a good candidate.  He said that she's someone we can be happy with.  So let's not get too hasty here before her views are in.

I think we've built up to this point so thoroughly that our bubble is burst with the anxiety that's produced.  

Another is do a wee bit of research into what he believed his greatest regret was. It wasn't a failure to further lower the marginal tax rate.

I'll help you with something else too: A political calculus that forced O'Connor and Kennedy on him was not the same as a desire not "to force his view upon a country that just wasn't ready for it." He might have even said some words about all this at one time or another.

Dubya just doesn't care about conservatism.

No more Bushes. Ever.

Let's start a Bush moratorium movement.

Not Jeb.

Not George P.

No more Bushes for president. Ever.

The man just doesn't care.

I've waited more than 20 years for a conservative president to have a chance to reshape the Supreme Court.

Will I have to wait another 20 more?

That's all this is.  The White House is nervous about the hemhoraging going on in the base.  So, the sent out Dicky C to do some PR damage control.  He was on a couple shows today I think.  I don't buy it.

I'm ticked out how easily Bush made this pick KNOWING that his base would disown him.  How can you betray your biggest supporters and pander to your most ardent haters????

Bush has gone mad.  What else will Bush do to us?  If will go crazy on something this big, what is he gonna do in the next three years???

As a moderate, I'm scratching my head over this one.

We of the middle ground don't understand this nomination.

I mean, yeah, bipartisan support would usually = good for a moderate, since we prefer the middle ground, but picking this particular person at this particular time seems like the paramount of bad timing, in the wake of Katrina.

A nominee with bipartisan support would be good, if not for the fact that this nominee just reeks of "cronyism."  Were it a nominee with bipartisan support and a solid track record, and NOT a Bush insider, I'd be MUCH more receptive to the nomination.

But, as others have said, it's time to wait and see.  If Miers can convice people she's qualified for the job, then people won't be screaming "crony" quite as loud.

that the gay marraige ammendment trampled on your rights, but yet Bush advocates Civil Unions which would give you the rights you seek. Why then the need to support gay marraige when its sole purpose is to force the church to perform gay marraiges and if they dont, then to take away their non profit tax status.

What about the rights of the majority of Americans who are now forced to try to explain to their chilidren that depsite what television and democratic politicians tell them, they dont advocate the gay lifestyle. Why is it wrong for them to have their opinion that the choice of the gay lifestyle is incorrect, but that doesnt mean that they can not love gay people and interact. The word homophobic is thrown around a lot, and now used for anyone who doesnt support the gay agenda. It should be used for someone who think that gay people should be excluded from society, and other harsher things. This is abominable (sic) and is truly despicable. A person who does not condone the activities of a gay person, or their lifestyle choice is not homophobic if they do not let it influence how they interact with a person.

As far as Christian values, please.....

To wit, the Patriot Act, while a bit over reaching in some areas, has done more to curtail terrorist and criminals than to affect any innocent persons rights. Again, an innocent man has nothing to fear.

Reverting to this pick, its going to be a wait and see kind of thing, one wont know until cases are actually heard, but Bush is keenly aware of his legacy and determined to not make the same mistakes his father made, to a fault.

with this pick. Conservatives wanted someone with "proven conservative credentials" and he just thumbed his nose at them. The reality is that the conservatives predictability has completely marginalized them. They are now the equivilent of black voters in the Democratic party. You can take their votes completely for granted and while they might complain, you know they will never vote for the other guys. The GOP leaders know that the threat to "sit out" the midterms are completely empty. Conservatives are too passionate to risk letting the Dems get control of the House or Senate.

Welcome to the back of the bus, boys.

And so soon after '92.

There is simply no way to know.

We just have to hold up this theory, that President Bush acts according to political calculations rather than convictions, and see what that predicts.

Would he have sank his second term into the quagmire of Social Security?  No.

Would he have fought a battle in Iraq of great risk and mixed popularity?  No.

Would he adopt tax relieving, free spending ways that have many economists worried about inflation, instead of continuing the Clintonian policies in the name of stability for business?  No.

Would he have made the same mistake his fother made, committing himself to a specific, quotalble promise instead of making generic speeches against judicial activism?  Not unless he's an idiot.

Actually Southern baptists are evangelicals. I am one . My brother is a seminary professor.

Carter joined the Cooperative baptist fellowship when they split with us the 80's over biblical authority. He is still an evangelical, but is not in the mainstream of evangelical thought any longer.

Judge Luttig nominated to fill O'Connor's seat. Or Viet Dinh, or Emilio Garza.

But I feel that Harriet will not let us down.  I think that she will limit herself to the language of the Constitution and not see the Constitution as a starting point from which she is free to go anywhere.

If I am wrong, I will quit the GOP and re-register as an independent at least until she has been replaced by a conservative.  

But I hope and pray that my gut feeling about Ms. Miers is correct.

This was a gift W couldn't turn down. Harry screwed up putting her name on the list. This is manna. An inside job. No vetting required. And we will get the fight too. She's a Christian. She will be attacked.