Redstate

I never thought I'd say it.  I contributed money and worked for his campaign.  What a freakin' moron.

I really hope I'm proven wrong.  Please, please, please turn out to be a conservative.

Good lord Mr President.  Have you lost control of your faculties?  Al freakin Gore?  Wake me up from my nightmare.  It's still early in the morning out here on the west coast.

Powder Blue Report

Who was running for President for the Republicans in 1988, when Miers forked over to the DNC?

I can actually see a Texas Republican giving money to Al Gore in 1988, back then he seemed to be a southern conservative.  But the DNC in November, 1988?

What happened? Was Laura the last one to speak to him? Did they draw straws. Did someone take a stupid pill?

This pick is outrageous! Ann Coulter is going to write ANOTHER book over this outrage.

I thought you were asking about the Dem candidate.

Kind of ironic, huh?

who was she giving $1,000 to help Dukakis defeat in 1988?  It escapes me.

For perhaps the first time since November 2000, I think we've witnessed George Bush "blink" when confronted by an important challenge.

It is not a pretty sight.

It's probably only going to get worse from here on out.

FTR: I know little to nothing about Meyers - but with the multitude of qualified Appellate Judges who could have been nominated (and just as easily confirmed), to pick a stealth nominee (somone with almost no paper-trail and precisely zero experience as a judge) who could so easily attract the "cronyism" charge seems to indicate a level of non-seriousness that I find troubling.

Scalia?  C. Thomas?

Not.  Even.  Close.

Aside on that point: any doubts remaining that any third pick is FAIAP reserved for AGAG should be tossed.  Loyalty above all else seems to be the order of the day.

Golf isn't particularly my game, and with many of the folks here (Thomas?  Clayton?) opting for that particular activity, I think perhaps (having led myself already 90% out the door over fiscal issues) I'll just get better acquainted with the Mrs. and progeny.

Cheers.

that's right!

So in the interest of comity, let her work on the Clinton Bush tsunami hurricane earthquake plague of locusts relief committee, not the Supreme Court.

Let's keep in mind that Al Gore back in 1986 was a pro-life Democrat.

In fact, I worked on Al Gore's campaign in 1988.

It was his and several other "conservative Democrats" switch to being pro-abortion that lead me to switch to the GOP.

I'm surprised that Bush picked her, but here goes the loyalty factor again.

We won't know until after this first round of cases if Bush made a good pick or not.

W's daddy.

Granted I would have loved a Michael Luttig nominee, but these donkey political donations were back in the 80s when there was still something called a "Southern Democrat" which were generaly socialy conservative.

I hate the not knowing but I think we need to pause before we make a knee-jerk reaction.

Giving money to Dukakis (DNC) five days before election day 1988 may be.

Granted it may have had something to do with Lloyd Bentsen.  But still.  Maybe if she had a judicial record to examine instead, this wouldn't stick out so much.

and get down to the hard business of deciding what Mrs. Miers actually believes in. THEN we can decide whether or not to slit our wrists, or wage an insurgent, blogo-war to thwart her.

Since early 2000 I've donated a fair sum of money to the RNC, to the Bush campaign, and to the Bush-Cheney campaign.

I want it all back.  Every penny.

When candidate Bush said that he was going to pick Justices in the mode of Scalia and Thomas, I took him at his word.  It was a compact between him and those who were going to vote for him.

I think we should sue the s.o.b. for fraud.  Anyone know the statute of limitations for fraud?

is the character assassination over this donation. At the time, Al Gore wasn't considered quite the lefty loon he's since become. In fact, he was seen as pretty conservative for a Dem. And I have to believe that some of you, those older and in the south or west, may well have voted for a conservative Dem at some point in your life, at least when that party had a few hawks in it. While I try to vote 'R' as much as I can, I draw the line at voting in incompetence or pure patronage. (hmmm.. I did vote for Bush twice now..ok there are exceptions).

These hearings are going to be interesting.

A few thoughts from the other side of the aisle:

1. I have no idea what sort of jurisprudence she would practice, which makes me uneasy, but it's hard to imagine that she would be in the cut of Scalia or Thomas and still be a stealth nominee.  Usually the brightest luminaries of judicial thought aren't trackless.
   
2. She's old.  Amazing.  Bush has an opportunity to lock away SCOTUS for years and he picks someone who could be realistically ready for retirement in 15 years.  Even if she turns out to be in conflict with everything I believe, she could be off the bench before Thomas will.
   
3. She divides the Republican party.  Even if she turns out to be a die-hard anti-roe vote, and picks up more conservative support for that reason, she still seems, well, something of an insult to the ardent right that has been expecting a bit more payback for their unswerving support.  If her greatest defense is that she is loyal to Bush, that really doesn't help her in the hearts of conservatives who wonder whether Bush is really on board with the mission.
   
4. This makes for an interesting confirmation process.  Obviously some Democrats will oppose here as they oppose everything done by the other guys in kneejerk fashion.  Conservative Republicans, particularly ones with presidential ambitions, could make a principled opposition of her as well, which could lead to defeat in the Senate at the cost of really inflaming an intra-party dispute.
   
5. I still can't think of the overarching strategy for this pick.  The only thing I can come up with is that, since she has never been a judge, she is the closest thing a Supreme Court pick can be to a complete outsider, and perhaps her view of the Judicial Branch is hostile.
   
6. I tire of cronyism in this administration, and it appears it has raised it's ugly head once again.  Why would he do that?  Is it arrogance, a sort of let them eat cake to his critics?  What's the play here?  This honestly doesn't make sense.

Anyway, looking forward to some RedState parsing to help this Democrat get inside the machinery and see how it works.

Here's what I know for sure:

1. Karl Rove is not an idiot.
   
2. Bush is not afraid to take political heat in order to do the right thing. (qv, Iraq)

I am definitely not happy with the pick but I think we just have to wait and see how she performs in the short term.

If she's not up to snuff, 2006 (and 2008) are going to be a slaughter for the Republicans.

I am sure Bush and Rove know this. I am sure they were prepared for the "cronyism" charge and how this appointment will look at first blush. There is no way they could not have anticipated this reaction from the red-state red-meat crowd as well as the opposition.

Putting it all together I think it means she's going to be a good choice, politically calculated to get through nomination, show her colors, and reinvigorate the base.

i wouldn`t worry about her contributing to both sides most law firms want to cover their butts depending on who wins. we really don`t know what this woman stands for but she seems to be acceptable to the democrats so that should tell us something.over at  kos they are saying bush is afraid of the plume case and wants some friends on the high court in any case  i`m sure in a few days the right will calm down if i remember there was a lot of  unhappiness with roberts at first. with his low approval rates bush doesn`t want a fight i guess.

She's still 60. How are you going to spin that one?

... up until a few hours ago, I would have agreed with you that we did, in fact, know 1) and 2) to be facts. I am no longer certain of either.

Ok, I am in no way endorsing this nominee however, I just want to point out that  Newsmeat shows that she gave to Al Gore back in '88 also shows that George Soros donated a total of $7000.00 to , Arlen Specter, John McCain, Constance Morella & William Brock III.  I am not at all happy with this nomination and would love to see the name change but I think there is going to be too much made of this Al Gore donation.

I've already slit 'em...

Phil Gramm--former Democrat but very conservative.

Zell Miller--Great speech at convention Zell.

Reagan--Feeling better about Miers yet?

Remember: A conservative Democrat on the court would be just as devistating to the liberals as a conservative Republican and much more so than a moderate Republican (because they always seem to turn liberal).

I really don't get this either.

How can you nominate someone to the Supreme Court who's never been a judge?

Disclaimer: I am a kooky liberal. But I always felt that Bush was not actually a conservative, rather much more self- or clan-interested. When he needed the religious or the business right, he was their darling, but nominating this woman seems to be buying Bush a few friendly rulings (?) at the expense of those constituencies.

and press firmly. Then consider that the word from David Frum is she's a pro-lifer with conservative leanings.

And it really comes down to the fact that I just don't know.

None of us should be sitting here this morning wondering about the latest SCOTUS pick. Are the R's so weak and pathetic that Bush has to pick a stealth nominee?

Because at BEST, she's a stealth nominee, someone we might all eventually be happy with.

I, too, am deeply disappointed, but as far as the donations go, her record shows that, unlike John Roberts, this nominee spent her legal career on the "political" side of the law - running a major law firm, heading up the local and state bar associations, and so on.  That type of role usually involves currying favor with actual politicians of all stripes.  Most major law firms, for example, support candidates on both sides of the aisle, and do so through the contributions of their attorneys.

There's a lot more to dislike about this nominee  - say, her need to recuse herself from many cases likely to reach the high court - without piling on about her contribution record which may or may not reflect her actual views.  

Williams is looking better now, isn't she :-)

<crys in his Pepsi>

Since early 2000 I've donated a fair sum of money to the RNC, to the Bush campaign, and to the Bush-Cheney campaign.

I want it all back.  Every penny.

When candidate Bush said that he was going to pick Justices in the mode of Scalia and Thomas, I took him at his word.  It was a compact between him and those who were going to vote for him.

I think we should sue the s.o.b. for fraud.  Anyone know the statute of limitations for fraud?

If we take up a collection and mail you a check, will you stop raving like a lunatic?

No matter what the SOL is, it generally would accrue based on "discovery" of the fraud... i.e. today.

So depending on the state, you've got at least a year (possibly two to five).

And, at least in my state, this would not constitute fraud but breach of an oral contract, again accruing as of today.  Florida's SOL would be two years from today.  (Since the breach, if it is one, occurred today.)

Add another thoroughly disappointed conservative here. Miers appointment reeks of cronyism and makes no sense at all, other than she'll probably get a pass from the ABA because she's a charter member of the bar "old girls club" -- although as one who supports a conservative president, don't count on it.

She's a graduate of an (at best) third tier law school (SMU) with practice experience primarily in Texas. The judicial system in Texas is roundly disliked by the bar in the rest of the country because of cases like Texaco v. Pennzoil and many outlandish tort cases. This is not a bar respected like the Supreme Court bar or even the Delaware Chancery bar, where the most sophisticated corporate and takeover cases are argued. Then again, she was apparently long a Democrat -- supported Gore in 1988 and Lloyd Bentsen. Oh, I know she may have been a DINO (but didn't support Reagan apparently), but it looks to me like she's cozy with whomever is in power. Which I'd expect from the chairman of a major law firm whose partners have to win cases no matter who's in charge. So, other than her personal tie to Georger W, I see no serious conservative record at all.

I very much fear we have a Sandra Day O'Conner in Bush clothing.

Also, at 60, she's very old if Bush wants to create a legacy on the court. In fact, maybe that's the deal with the Dems: he can pick a nonentity woman who may or may not be a conservative (so the Dem's have shot of corrupting) but won't last too long on the court in any case, so if the Dems are back in power, they'll get to pick up the seat. Color me disgusted with Bush. You would think he learned his lesson with the disaster of Michael Brown.

Not only am I unenthusiastic, I'd actually be inclined to vote against her on what little I know now. There are far far more qualified women conservatives available.

What next, will we find out she was a sorority sister of Laura Bush at Southern Methodist U????

How can you nominate someone to the Supreme Court who's never been a judge?

10 out of the last 33 Supreme Court justices were appointed from within the President's administration.

Those include Byron White and William Rehnquist, neither of whom had served as judges before joining the court.

Miers was a deputy to Gonzalez when he was WHC, which means she has all of the same recusal issues he would have had.  Also, it makes her open to all of the same lines of attack by the Dems:  torture memos, Guantanamo Bay, yada yada.

The early tack from the left is unqualified crony.  I heard Nina "The Slayer" Totenberg of NPR interview a former Chief Justice of the TX SC named Phillips this morning on the way to work.  She questioned him on how long it would take for Miers to get up the courage to rule against her former boss.  Clearly, the Dems are going to oppose based on her resume and presumption that she will not be independent.  Oh, and just for fun, when asked Phillips compared her too...wait for it...Justice Powell.  Ruh-Roh

Anybody who donated to Phil Gramm can't be all bad. The red flag donations to Screaming Al Gore happened seventeen years ago [before his head exploded ] and even murderers can repent and reform.  Perhaps an act of pennance at the grave of Barry Goldwater or a in memorium tribute to Strom Thurmond.   On the other hand things might just have started to look up for the Libertarian Party,whom I supported in 2000,either that or a write in vote for one of the two gentlemen mentioned above.  It is amazing after so many years the Rep. Party can so consistently ignore and even cast aside it's base,it's organizational backbone.

Although I would tend to agree, it's worked out ok in the past:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rehnquist

Benjamin-

Is he not afraid to take political heat in order to "do the right thing"

or

Is he not afraid to take political heat in order to "do whatever he wants to do."

Though the two may sometimes mesh; but they are not the same thing.

There is no shortage of well qualified judges out there whose conservative credentials are well established.  Seems to me that "would have been the right thing."

Whoa whoa whoa, a lot of loyal Republicans nowadays, especially from places like Texas, were still Democrats back in the late 1980s. Lloyd Bentsen and Al Gore circa '88 are far, far from the liberals who run the party these days.

...with Michael Brown?

It is only recently that justices with bench experience have been more prevalent.  Some of the most influential justices had no bench experience.  

Our Constitution is not some complex tax code that is beyond the ability of a layman to read and understand.  It was written simply for a reason, and that reason is so that the people can read and understand exactly how our system works, and what their rights are.  It is a straightforward document.  

It is only when justices think they are Gods, and can recreate the words in the Constitution to fit their own political persuasion that our ingenious system breaks down.  Warnings of this behavior permeate the founder's letters and writings.  

That judicial activism has become synonymous with being a "liberal" is not a good thing for anyone.  To be an activist is to not understand the most basic premises of our Republic.  Case law is not law.  Precedent should not constitute either edict, or law as passed by duly elected representatives.  

If Miers understands the role of the Supreme Court, stays true to her oath, , and interprets the Constitution as it is written, and not as she thinks it should have been written, she will be a fine justice.            

Actually, Al Gore was an asshole in 1988 too.

So, let's see:

• she's too old
• has no experience
• is a Bush crony
• has unclear views but with troubling peripheral clues

Wow, brilliant. This is worse than I ever imagined.

I support a filibuster.

Not only am I unenthusiastic, I'd actually be inclined to vote against her on what little I know now.

Which means you just came down a case of Bush Derangement Syndrome.  Why not wait to educate yourself before having such an irrational, emotional reaction?  Why assume Miers isn't as conservative in her judicial approach as Scalia or Thomas?  The President probably has a more complete picture of Miers' legal philosophy than virtually anyone else he could have nominated.

It looks judicially sound, and politically smart (to thwart the ability of the moonbats to confuse the issues).  The only political liability is the chicken little brigade here, who are apparently determined to lose their minds for no good reason.

"Chicken Little Brigade" is a little rude, don't you think?  Many of us have worked for years to get an anti-Roe majority and an originalist Court.  Can't you understand some of the emotion that people are feeling?

This is an excellent point about the politics of political donations when you're in a major law firm.  If you want to go after Miers, do it on other grounds.  How about this:  Donald Rusmfeld gave money to Bill Bradley in '00.  If this is the worst thing you can come up with on Miers, I would say she's a pretty solid pick.  After all, she's the one that picked Roberts.

"Bush is an Idiot", "What a freakin' moron."? I understand many people have very strong feelings about this choice of nominee, but don't resort to name-calling when things don't go your way - That's what democrats do! Have we sunk THAT far!?

I was a little disconcerted when I saw her earlier donations to democrat candidates, but then I remembered how many people have dumped the democrat party since 2001. Many who are firmly in the conservative camp now were still voting democrat 6 years ago, so this is not an indicator of another "Souter".

I admit, I am a little wary of this nominee, but I know a lot less about her that President Bush does. I will reserve judgment until we get to know her better.

This nomination may represent the reaping of the "whirlwind" brought about by "the sowing" of justifying the practice of not being required to answer questions or not being required to reveal very relevant work history records...

This "under-the-radar-is-ok" procedure has been shown to be dangerous to all concerned.  It may be fine for short term gain, but ultimately, it will bite back.

We simply must require nominees to be THOROUGLY vetted.  Once that's done then let the chips fall where they may, but not UNTIL THAT'S DONE.

gosh...I looked the way to a lot of things bush did that I disagree with.  I did so because of the Supreme Court nominations.  I feel duped! I feel robbed! I feel let down.

John Cornyn is on tv right now...and though he's being a faithful soldier, he's having a hard time defending Meirs.

This post is actually a very, very good point on Miers.  In many ways I would rather have her than someone with a decade or more on the bench.  Even Rehnquist had his "I am a God" moments.  I think there's a possibility that her lack of prior judicial experience could help her resist the clarion call of activism -- after, she's had a very successful and notable life; what does she care what Linda Greenhouse thinks?

As far as the political donations go, people have made very good points, but I think they're missing the most important one:  In 1988 in Texas it was very difficult to get by as a Republican.  The state had only 10 Republicans in its delegation, up from 6 in 1983.  This was before the partisan re-districting of 1990.  Dems had huge advantages in the statehouse, and held most of the statewide political positions other than Governor.  

Under these circumstances, it bothers me not a whit that she gave to some fairly conservative  (for the time) Democrats, or even if she WAS a Democrat at the time.  I bet Phil Gramm made some DNC donations in his day, probably relatively recently before he switched parties and became a very good GOP Congressman and Senator.

I'm hardly raving like a lunatic.

Bush made explicit references to the types of Justices he'd appoint.

I'm not asking for Janic Rogers Brown, someone who I've long suggested was unconfirmable, but I am asking for someone with a proven track record of being a conservative originalist with a strong backbone.

Rehnquist, when appointed, was not a Nixonian crony but someone who happened to be working for the nixon administration.  He had an indpendent reputation as a scholar of unusual depth.  Miers' reputation is that she clear brush with George?

Give me a break.

about the Miers nomination is the carelessness that it betrays in the Bush administration.  We've heard about how much the Supreme Court means to Bush, about how he intends to leave a deep and lasting imprint on the institution.

Well, there's nothing in Miers' record to suggest she's an intellectual heavyweight, and her age (60) means she'll probably be looking to retire in 15-20 years....and who knows who'll be president then?

Maybe she'll turn out to be more conservative than O'Connor.  But Bush handled this like he was appointing the ambassador to Trinidad.

I'm surprised reading all of the comments condemning Harriet Miers. From what I gather, she's being berated because she was not the choice of the one posting. One needs to look at what is known about her, as what is not known cannot be discerned anyway.

She has been a close confidant to our President. He chose her to be his personal lawyer, many years ago, and now he's chosen her to be on the Supreme Court. He would not have chosen her if he felt that she would be the sort of justice who stood at odds with his personal beliefs and what he felt was correct for a Supreme Court Justice.

He was elected by a majority of the electoral college and we, who live in Red States, knew that seats were going to come up on the Supreme Court. Part of the reason red states went for George W. Bush was because we felt that he would make the correct decision on a justice for the highest court in our land. I think we should trust in that judgement.

As for Ms. Miers having made contributions to democrats, having grown up in Texas, that's what one has had to do. It's only been in the last 4 years that Republicans have had a majority in out state government and many local governments are still very much in the Democrat camp. I'm just a few years older than Ms. Miers, and I can tell you that I have voted in more Democratic primaries than Republican because that's where one had to vote to have a say in local government. One also had to donate to the best candidate, with a chance to win, who also, usually was a Democrat.

I agree with all of the points you have made, and I am on the opposite side of the aisle from you.    

I appreciate the level of importance the President places on loyalty, particularly in postions of patronage, but I am very nervous about him appointing a seemingly unqualified individual with little record of jurisprudence to this critical position.  

In light of the fact that the paper trail on Ms. Miers' beliefs is extraordinarily thin, the donations to Gore and the DNC become more important, even though they occurred 20 years ago.  When you don't have much to base your decision on, you go with what you know.  So far, this is what we know.  Yes, I understand the fact that as head of the TX ABA she needed to demonstrate some impartiality in treating both parties equally and that the Democratic Party has changed in the last 20 years, but common sense tells you that it's not going to go over well with the base of your own party if you nominate someone who donated to the DNC and to Al Gore, a harsh critic of the Iraq War, the Vice President for Bill Clinton, and the Democratic Party standard-bearer in the not-so-distant-year of 2000.  

Do you think the Democrats would be happy if the President were a Democrat and he/she nominated a Supreme Court candidate who contributed to the RNC and to a current critic of their administration?  I doubt it.  It seems the President is becoming too cute by half.  

Conservatives supported Bush because they believed he represented them.  Whether he likes it or not, his SC nominees need to demonstrate some conservative bona fides.  So far, his nominees have been glaringly lacking in that area.  

This is a prime opportunity for any would-be GOP Presidential candidate to make a name for himself or herself by questioning why the President is nominating someone with questionable conservative and judicial credentials.  

Except that Souter was a friend-of-a-friend-of-a-friend.  This is a longtime Bush associate, someone whom I'm pretty sure he has a good bead on as a potential squish or not.

Well so far, the only objective facts people have adduced to suppoort their emotionlaism is that:

A)    She's 60 years old

B)    Once upon a time she donated some money to Democrats

C)    She's an administration insider.

I fail to see why any of these facts should produce such breast-beating hysteria.

Well so far, the only objective facts people have adduced to support their emotionalism is that:

A)    She's 60 years old

B)    Once upon a time she donated some money to Democrats

C)    She's an administration insider.

I fail to see why any of these facts should produce such breast-beating hysteria.

Sen. John Cornyn was just interviewed on KLBJ-AM in Austin. The interviewer brought up the contributions (which they have been discussing all morning). Cornyn seemed a little surprised by the information. He eventually suggested that it was not surprising for Texas Republicans to donate to Democrats in the 80's, since this was largely a Democratic state at the time, but he definitely seemed a bit thrown off by the question.

The more I think about this, the less it bothers me.

Bush promised us another Scalia or Thomas.  He didn't promise us Luttig or McConnell or Rogers Brown or any such.  Why are people suddenly confident that he hasn't given us those?  Just because WE don't know anything about her doesn't mean that Rove and Bush don't.  

I have a feeling everything is going to be fine -- great, even.

For all the fuss made about Souter as a "stealth candidate," Thomas was viewed as a stealth candidate who accepted Griswold and had never thought about Roe.  Given that Bush knows Miers well, what type of stealth candidate do you suppose she is?

To both Gore and the firm's PAC definitely suggest this was a bundled contribution...

Has anyone checked whether a head-honcho in the firm was a Gore fundraiser?

When Miers name was first floated a week or so ago, I looked up what I could find about her and thought about it considerably.  My objections to her are several:

1.  Her judicial philosophy is a complete unknown.  Once I would have trusted Bush, but there have been too many bad choices recently: Brown at FEMA, Julie what's her name at immigration.  She might be fine, but then again, she might not. It's just the kind of risk I am not willing to take after Souter, O'Conner and Kennedy.  Not to mention Earl Warren appointed by Ike.   I truly think W could have done a whole lot better.
   
2.  While she's been active in the bar (which is notoriously liberal, so she couldn't have been an active conservative), and worked at a major Texas firm, she does not have a distinguished record of legal scholarship.  Just doesn't.  
   
3.  She is the graduate of a third tier law school.  Without real demonstrated first rate intellectual ability (by which I do not simply mean success in trials in a state known for runaway juries and flamboyant grandstanding attorneys), I would have great difficulty supporting anyone who did not graduate from a first or upper second tier law school as a law review editor.  There are only 15-20 (depending on your list) law schools that are real national law schools where the faculty come anywhere close to the intellectual caliber of the better universities.  There are conservatives there, even if they are not common.  (Condi Rice was provost at Stanford, for example).
   
4.  The reek of cronyism is strong.  Is she Laura's sorority sister? I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised: they were at SMU together.

These all seem to me legitimate reasons to be concerned.  I did not say I would not support her, only that based on what I know I'd be inclined not to.  If you think she's so great -- or if George does -- make the case.  George sure didn't this morning.

This will be a great week for talk radio.

Good question. She was the head honcho at the firm....

That anuerysm has undoubtedly blown in outrage.

Once she gets that patched up, she'll be in front of a microphone telling everyone she told us so, and for once Coulter's right.

Republicans control the Senate with 55 votes.  Now is NOT the time to nominate a blank slate!  A Harriet Miers is what you pull when you are in the minority in the Senate.  There are so many highly qualified conservatives out there... sheesh.  This woman is not even in the top hundred of qualified conservative candidates.

I like Bush a lot, but this kind of choice really makes me question his judgment.  This is the Supreme Court we're talking about.  This woman has never been a judge on any court.  Her academic qualifications and work experience (prior to her current job) are not impressive, compared with who Bush could have chosen.  

It just kills me how there are so many better qualified conservatives - who we don't have any questions about - and Bush nominates Miers.

This is a HORRIBLE pick.   GWB wanted a chance to remold the court and he had that opportunity with this pick, he passed over an entire list of people who are infinitely more qualified and gave us a nobody.  

This is the best woman he could find?  What happened to Williams?  Get real.   This pick reeks of political cronyism, exactly what GWB doesn't need right now.  He's basically handing the Democrats the "she's not qualified" argument on a silver platter.

I still can't believe he made a decision this bad; I'm so disappointed right now.

Roberts was supported from day one by conservatives and moderates alike because he was unquestionably qualified.  Every Dem had to include those words as a preface to their contrived criticisms...

They spent the summer like a wet cat on glass....   no target,  no traction with America.

The Miers appointment has none of this.  Put her personal political leanings / affiliations aside:  she is the least qualified of any person discussed for this position.   Period.

The Dems will be able to portray her as extreme right, whether it is true or not, because there is no judicial record.  The wet cat is not on glass.

You will see an unholy allicance of Republicans (not qualified)  and Dems ( too extreme right) defeat this nominee.  That will make it harder for Bush to appoint a Luttig...

Sadly,  Bush has volunteered for his own  "Iran-Contra",  i.e., placed his second-term political capital in limbo...

Mr. President, it's not too late...   Withdraw her name from this nomination TODAY.

We have only ourselves to blame.  This appointment is hardly shocking - indeed it is entirely in keeping with W's approach to things.  Brownback should filibuster it.

Some people were looking for any excuse to drop President Bush, and now they're using donations from nearly two decades ago to do it.

It seems clear to me that someone who gave to Lloyd Bentsen in 1987, then gave to Phil Gramm in 1996, had a change of heart.

Perhaps she crossed over in 1994?

But sheesh, anyone who drops President Bush before the hearings, let alone before she's written a single opinion on the Court, isn't worth having around anyway.  Let's find out what     she does before we evaluate whether the President kept his promise.

Same with CJ Roberts, too.  Just give it time.

This is from the American Spectator.  It was published before the Miers nomination:

"THERE'S ONLY ONE SOLUTION to this: leadership from the White House that takes the initiative, acts decisively, and pushes a real conservative agenda. Bypassing the media, talking directly to Americans and getting back to core conservative principles, he can provide the leadership the nation, and the conservative movement, need and deserve. The first step is the next Supreme Court nominee.

This week the president will nominate someone to replace Sandra Day O'Connor. The president should -- and I believe will -- come up with someone who is conservative to the core. The Dems, after reading the talking points they get from the NYT and CBS, will go bonkers. Presidential aspirants, such as Biden, Hillary, and Evan Bayh, and every Blue senator representing a Red State are under the most extreme pressure to accede to the demands of the hyperlibs. The presidential wannabes know they can't vote for any nominee or even fail to join in a filibuster against anyone with a drop of conservative blood in their veins and still have any prayer of being nominated by the MSM Party. Those who want to hold onto their current jobs know their political futures ride on how the home folks feel about social issues.

The president knows he has an opportunity to reshape the court for years or decades to come. That is why he should discriminate among the candidates on one principal basis: age. Chief Justice Roberts is a young 50. Clarence Thomas is not all that much older. Antonin Scalia, though older, is in very good health. If another young conservative can be added to the court, the Roberts Court could coalesce around the fourth. A conservative court will produce results that solidify the conservative base like nothing else can."

It's a good description of what was lost today.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8830

"Roberts was supported from day one by conservatives"

Roberts was also called a Souter from day one, for having never been vocal on the judicial issues we care about, and for having helped the liberal side prepare for Romer.

beginning to see that Bush really doesn't care about the issues of social conservatives beyond the GOTV power they have?  Isn't Laura pro-choice?  Anything being done on gay marriage at the federal level?  Any of that political capital being expended on your pet issues?

I've been saying it for years, Bush is not really interested in the religious conservative movement.

Here's a clue, crybaby.  George W. is not your friend.  Do you really think he wants Roe vs. Wade repealed?  Then the abortion question would go to the state legislatures, hurting the Republicans outside of the sun belt.  George W. wants it both ways.  He wants to keep Roe, while attacking it to make you and your friends happy.  He's using you.  So live with and quit whining.

I went to Florida for W, have given money to his cause since the 90's, and hundreds of volunteer hours.   Thanks to the hard work of the grass roots, nothing else, W has what Reagan and H.W never had - 55 Senators.   Ask yourself, would Reagan had nominated Kennedy or some unknown super lawyer if he had 55 Senators in 1987 ? No, he would have surely named a known conservative. Would H.W. have nominated an unknown ? Possibly not. W should have gone to the bench left by his predecessors. This is "Groundhog Day" for Souter. It's time for me to do what I have never done before, stay home.  

Perhaps she'll be an O'Connor conservative, or a Kennedy conservative...nothing wrong with that.  she'll be pro-business; pro-goverment....which lots of reps are happy with...but, the president had Luttig, Brown, McConnell, Owens, Garza, Alito...even Cornyn...rather he chosed a crony.  He wasted a tremendous opportunity to put on the court a thoroughbred conservative and have the argument about the proper role of the Constitution...all of that was thrown down the toilet....Plus, she's 60, which means she may be out there during Hillary's second term.

Go back to DemocraticUnderground where you belong.

1 Her judicial philosophy is a complete unknown.  

To us, not W.  Again, people on the Right are apoplectic about Bush not appointing a Scalia or Thomas, but no one knows that he didn't.  This President has kept most of his campaign promises, for better (tax cuts) or for worse (no child left behind, prescription drugs), and I'm guessing after working with the woman for the better part of a decade, he knows he's keeping this one.

2. While she's been active in the bar and worked at a major Texas firm, she does not have a distinguished record of legal scholarship.  Just doesn't.  

I guess I'll go back and read all those brilliant law review articles penned by Clarence Thomas, or the groundbreaking decisions from his whole two years on the bench.  Oh wait.

While she doesn't have a whole lot of academic experience, she has one thing that is sorely lacking on the bench -- REAL litigation experience.  She actually knows how a case works, and will understand the ramifications of her commercial law decisions.  As a commercial litigator (on the defense side), this is a very, very good thing, and I hope we might actually get some of the major splits in the circuits on commercial legal issues resolved.

3. She is the graduate of a third tier law school.

Some might think this reeks of snobbery.  Actually, I'd love to see the liberals press this argument (and I speak as someone with three degrees from fancy universities).

By the way, the majority in Plessy v. Ferguson had Justices from Harvard, Georgetown and other distinguished universities of the time.  It had one dissenter, the first Justice Harlan.  He studied law at Transylvania University.  I don't think they even have a law school any more.  Point is, Harvard has given us such luminaries as Oliver "Three generations of imbeciles is enough" Holmes, Columbia gave us William "Sure, I can issue and injunction against the bombing of Cambodia" Douglas, while Boalt Hall gave us Earl "prophylactic constitutional rights" Warren.  I'm kind of relieved she isn't from there.

4. The reek of cronyism is strong.  Is she Laura's sorority sister? I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised: they were at SMU together.

A valid objection.  So is the fact that, as one Volokh commenter noted, if it were "Harry Mier", this never would have happened.  Not enough to reject a nomination on, though.

What did Clinton do when Democrats had control of the Senate in 1993 and 1994 - nominate an "unknown" stealth candidate?

Hahahahahahahah - not on your life.

He nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a clear leftists, and Stephen Breyer, who is center-left.

We have no idea what Miers thinks.  And the problem is, she may not, either.

We've seen this history before.  It's called Warren, Brennan, Blackmun, Stevens, and Souter -- all Republican appointees who in their own way have done incalculable harm to this country.

what was the incalculable harm that Earl Warren did to this country?

She could easily serve another 30 years.

this morning.  :)

I have much that I want to write, but I simply can not do it without a string of expletives right now.  I must breathe deeply, for a long time, and then, maybe I can find the right words to express my utter outrage at this morning's announcement.

Looks like she's been firmly in the Republican camp since 1988 (16 years).  A lot of former Dems have seen the light.  Zell Miller, anyone?

For those assuming (as I am) that this is at first glance a really dumb pick, and wondering whether the strategy will emerge down the road, as befits the Bush/Rove team; I offer a possible scenario:

• Bush is not at his best decision-making ability at the moment, due to the stress of Katrina/Iraq/etc.
  
• Rove is not swooping to the rescue as he perhaps has in the past. Rather, he is cutting loose and looking for a new horse for 06/08.

The first plus the second offers a reasonably plausible explanation for this pick based on the facts we know now, IMHO.

are often the most zealous. Wait on actual votes on the court. Bush deserves to be trusted on his promise. He never promised what his strategy would be. I too don't like the stealth or the timidity, but maybe its best given his own and possible the spinelessness of less than 50 gop senators.

Bottom line: we want an originalist. Bush knows her.

Have you ever heard of Miranda case that Warren authored, and the "exclusionary" rule that Warren created out of whole cloth?  

Please don't respond that Miranda was recently upheld and that "even Rehnquist" signed on to the recent case upholding it.  

Miranda was only the best-known of a host of pro-criminal, anti-law-and-order decisions that Warren either authored or signed on to.

The consequences of these decisions - primarily an explosion in crime - are well-documented and really should need no explanation on this forum.

I just need to cool off before I can make any serious statement...... and by gum, right now I just feel like cursing, alot.

youwouldno, I'm with you 100%, but you can make your point without the dKos language.  Hey, OTOH, you can get away with terms that capture the meaning:  a-hole, a**hole, butt cheese, Bubba's girlfriend, etc.....

As a Black Christian Conservative, I contributed to B/C '04, worked long hours on the campaign, chaired a county effort, made lots of calls... All because the future of the court was at stake.  

Grew uncomfortable when the President gave a high profile to former President Clinton with the Relief efforts after the Tsumani and Hurricanes but "understood the gesture"

I had concerns (and voiced them) about Roberts' lack of history and questioned if he really was a strict constructionist.

Gave the benefit of the doubt to the POTUS on Roberts but said the 2nd pick will tell the story.  

Now we have the nomination of Meirs...another stealth nomination when there were plenty of well qualified strict constructionists out there (we do have the majority, right?)

Should I continue to support the Republican Party without question?

I'd say this one is a deal breaker.  

You know - (&()@#)(&@#&)@&.

I'm serious in asking - I always wonder if people take this for real, or as Elmer Fudd screaming at Bugs.

Sorta like Ohio State fans wearing Muck Fichigan T shirts. That bothered me, but Elmer Fudd never did.

Just wondering.

I'd encourage you to never support any political party without question.  Having said that, there wasn't an alternative to Bush in 2000 or 2004.  We all need to do much better, and vote smarter, in the primaries.  I'll vote for a squishy Conservative over a hard core Liberal any day, but only if one gets foisted on me in the General Election.

Coburn / Rice in 2008

Your responses don't convince me:

1.  W may know her philosophy. We don't. "Trust Me" just doesn't convince me anymore, not when there were clearly better qualified conservative choices.
   
2.  Pointing to Thomas doesn't amount to an argument.  Scalia was a well-published scholar. Roberts has a track record of great achievement as a  lawyer.  Admittedly I see this from my position as a corporate lawyer practing in the New York metropolitan area, but I'm not impressed as to legal acumen and the kind of legal intelligence necessary for a distinguished career on tne Supreme Court by her career in Texas.  Can she get along with the ol' boys and girls? Sure. Can she manage a firm? Sure.  Can she win a Texas trial? Sure.  But, can she really do first rate legal scholarship?  Not at all clear.  We've all known successfuly lawyers whose great strength was their ability to get along and convince juries, but whose knowledge of the law was limited at best.
   
3.  Call me an elitist, but the one thing about the elite law schools you can be pretty sure of, especialy in the late 1960s when Miers was in law school, was that they have the highest standards in legal scholarship.  Law review editors at these law schools have demonstrated the ability to do legal scholarship.  While I always want a distinguished post law school record, graduation from a top tier law school as a law review editor at least lets you know that the abilty is there.  That's just not the case for a graduate of a third tier law school.  At that level, the training is often (especially in those days) more practical and focused on bar passage. That may be good in a trial lawyer, but not in an appellate level judge.

absolutely -- my opinion, and I'm not an editor here.  I would say the cartoon swearing would be rather tame compared to some of what's commonly used.  I think the official policy is that there's 'not a banned word list', and that the Life Ain't Fair policy is at all times in force -- i.e., the rule is whatever the editors say it is.  Not a democracy, more like a benevolent despotism.  If you've established decent creds around here you can flirt with the line a bit more.  I regularly use terms like 'a*h**' (I use this literally, not the 'real' words there) to describe guys like Senators Schumer, Leahy, and Kennedy -- and who wouldn't, after all.  We're striving I think for some decency and intelligent discourse in the main -- although I think for many of us today the Mier pick just REALLY YANKS OUR CRANKS.

IMHO, I would say that the Muck Fichigan starts skirting close to the edge, though.  

And nobody says it better than George Carlin.  You can prick your finger, but you can't finger your....

What kind of amazes me is this issue of nominating someone without judicial experience.

I don't have a problem with this, and think it's a very interesting idea. The reason it's interesting is that it opens the door for individuals with tremendous experience and intellectual capabilities that are precluded by their lack of judicial experience.

However, that's what gets me about Miers. I'm sure she is a smart, loyal, kind person who make for a reasonable nominee.

BUT come on. IF you're going to open the door to nominating someone without judicial experience and thus broaden significantly the pool from which to draw from, is Miers THE best, most qualified person in America?

I mean, that's what we're really talking about here. If you're not going to restrict a nominee to judicial experience, is Miers the best this country has to offer?

Hard to believe.

I understand the feeling, but this is your warning.

We heard "Scalia and Thomas."  We get a cipher who may have "conservative leanings?"  With all due respect, I'm incredibly disappointed, verging on distraught.  This is what we worked for?  

If I were a Republican, which i am not, i'd be somehwat concerned.  Everyone here is raving about her political contributions, but i don't see that as being quite so telling.  What raises my eyebrow is her personal background: never married, no childern.  It is very non-traditional for someone of her age.  Nothing says conservative less than that sort of non-traditional background. In addition, though of less importance, she is not particularly wealthy.

It just isn't the sort of bio you would expect from a conservative SCOTUS nominee.

I'm a Democrat, which I preface so as not to be accused of trolling about, but honestly, I think you guys are thinking too much about the DNC donation.

Five days before the election in '88 everyone already knew that not only was Dukakis going to lose, but going to lose big.

Therefore, in my view anyway, there is no possible way that donation was made in an effort to elect Dukakis.

Ms. Miers' personal background is a unique one. Everything about her is non-traditional for someone her age. Most people her age have not been pioneers in the legal profession, worked for the Governor of Texas, worked for the President of the United States, run one of the largest law firms in Texas, and been nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court. So, yes, much about her is non-traditional for someone of her age. She has done quite a bit with her time.

I'm not sure what being "not particularly wealthy" has to do with anything.

for what?  This should be the least of our complaints.

Harry Reid is struggling to contain his enthusiasm at the press conference with Miers.

Reid said he's very happy to have "someone like her".

We should all be afraid, very afraid.

If that's your position.  I personally could not care less where she went to law school, given what she's done since.  She's managed a major national firm, served as President of a state bar association, and served as counsel to the President of the United States for the better part of a decade.  If you stand back for a moment, these are pretty impressive credentials.  She might not have a background as a professor (though she would have little problem getting a top-notch professorship with that background) or a judge, but that's hardly necessary to understand the need for a rigorous judicial approach, and I don't believe those are the only ways to be qualified to sit on the Court.

As for Thomas, I'm operating under the assumption that, for most of the people here, he and Scalia are the lodestar.  She's actually a pretty good analogy to one of those two.  It sounds like you were looking for just a Scalia, though . . . in that case you're probably right to be disappointed.

One final thing -- having spent some time as a summer associate in TX (and being Texas bar-certified), I can attest that SMU isn't exactly the Ralph Pepitto School of Law.  It's a top-50 law school (admittedly, barely) and is probably roughly analogous to Fordham Law School -- a fine legal institution from which you can get a rigorous legal education.  Given what she's accomplished in the 30+ years since she went to law school, I think its safe to say that she has.

I think you can guess what the intimation is.

The nominees name appears on the donations because the 400+ legal firm she headed gave money to the dems and their committe.  Like most corporations it gave money to both sides.  If you look at the zip codes, the ones recieving the scrutiny are from her law firm and are even titled as such.  Except for the one right in the middle.  It appears to have been edited out.  At the top of the list you can see the personal donation she gave to Phil Gramm.  The original poster of this thread was either dooped by this document, or is a charloten.

Mr. President, you've got some explaining to do. And please remember - we've been defending you these five years because of this moment.

What defending would you have not done had it been clear he'd choose a nominee like Harriet Miers?

In the context of this morning's discombobulation:

What defending would you have not done had it been clear he'd choose a nominee like Harriet Miers?

It's really like asking the question:

"Would you have defended your spouse in their efforts to become [x] if it had been clear they would cheat on you five years later?"

It's a stupid question, dude.  People make political decisions based partially on the past,  but also based on the present -- what happens in the here and now can, and should, have an impact on what they think and how they vote.

Would you have defended your best friend in an argument six years ago if you knew then that he would become an axe-murderer?  I'm being hyperbolic, but that has to be the silliest question I've ever heard asked on RedState.

Miers is basically an ambitious, politically smart lawyer who has put her career first and foremost in her life and risen the ranks without a paper trial.  Most of her life is protected by client-attorney privilege.  Moreover, we are told Miers is a conservative, strict constructionist.  This is the definition of a stealth nominee.  Fine.

Perhaps Miers is a true conservative who would pass the seemingly Democrat-controlled Senate?  Perhaps her nomination is actually a VERY clever Rove strategy to finally do away with the "stealth" nominee strategy altogether?  Perhaps it is something altogether different and unseemly?  Time will tell.  Btw, has anyone noticed that Miers looks an awful lot like Emperor Palpatine?

Palpatine Before

http://www.mellody.co.za/michaela/palpatine/gallery/palpatine11.jpg

Harriett Miers (while the picture lasts)

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1510765/20051003/index.jhtml?headlines=...

Palpatine After

http://www.mellody.co.za/michaela/palpatine/gallery/emperor11.jpg

Seriously, one thing is quite clear as of today.  True Conservatives, like their Liberal Left counterparts, are tired of waiting for their promised land.  They want real, clear action on their most dearly held positions.  Conservatives are ready to come out of the non-gay closet and truly rule.

Is Bush's nomination of Miers the proverbial last straw for true conservatives (tired of fiscal bloat, borders, gay marriage, Iraq)?  To quote the overlord, "poor fool, only now, at the end, do you understand."  God, I hope not.  There's just too much for the GOP to gain over the next 50 years.

Nonetheless, conservatism has suffered a setback lasting at least a decade.  Face it.  We will all vote GOP in 06 and 08.  Who wants Hillary and the Dems?  If Bush is the best the past conservative movement could do, though, it is likely the next GOP presidential nominee will be a moderate by comparison.  The conservative base will now not be roused enough, and the GOP must therefore rely more on the center ground.  Don't write obituaries for McCain and Giuliani just yet.

I encourage true conservatives to hunker down WITHIN the party structure.  The newly rudely awakened conservative right has a long haul in front of them.  The movement must be organized and disciplined to avoid the dark path of the Liberal Left.

If anyone's interested, I'm willing to lead this movement, but need support.  It's not as crazy as you think, once you've seen my background.  I will not share it online.  Only to direct conversations with meaningful connections/direction.

I've asked much stupider questions than that. Just ask Thomas. ;-p

Either way, I was asking krempasky.

I don't understand all this hand-wringing.  Nobody knows a thing about this woman's judicial philosophy or much, if anything, about her views on social issues.  And as a member of the Republican Party for a long time, I advise the mainstream elements of the party to get a grip on these nutjobs out here who aren't content with any nominee who won't go on record as saying that he or she won't rest until abortion is outlawed, gays are back in the closet, and criminal defendants are summarily executed in the public square.  You want to doom the GOP in '06, '08?  Then keep up that kind of talk.

You took the words right out of my mouth.  I was disturbed by all these issues, she is too old, she has never been a judge, and she is just seems to be a buddy of the President.  Sigh...

Law Review?

Moot Court?

Scholarhip Awards?

What...

join the ACLU.

Plus, she's a Christian.

Bush is willing to fight after all, because this is like showing a cross to vampires.

all be cool

Bush knows this gal

and just may have picked the perfect time and forum to have this fight

The dems will show their hostility to people of faith with the biggest possible audience and against an honorable woman that's one of them.

brilliant

The rules apply across the board. Deal.

you don't have to be a Nazi about it. I can read. So one time I express frustration. Don't treat me like some troll from DKos.

I just wanted to point out that Hitler did not go around telling people, "This is your warning."

And it's not like I don't understand the mood around here today -- you don't even want to get me started -- but I'm a big advocate of the broken windows theory. You may not mean anything by it, but someone out of the next fifty might.

I used the "support without question" to be discriptive of the average voter in national races (as opposed to local races where people are more likely to vote split tickets).

I'd say in 2008 the GOP is going to have to do better than a moderate althought the ticket you mentioned (in that order) is intriguing.  

I think the biggest winners today are the 3rd parties like America First, Constitution, Libertarian (maybe) and Independent American.  

In my mind the Constitution Party stands to gain the most, particularly if they run someone like a Michael Perotka or Roy Moore.

I've decided that wait and see is probably our best approach for a virtually unknown nominee.

I'm a fan of the profanity ban.  If you can't make your argument without profanity, it's probably not a very good argument.

But I suggest that the editors think about adding Nazi references to the list of things that get you banned.  Especially gratuitous references like this.  In grad school I had a professor that would say that whoever reverted to Nazi comparisons automatically lost the argument.  (Since I was often the one being called a Nazi because of my conservatism, I enjoyed the benefit).

To use such faulty thinking and symbolism as to conflate being warned about profanity to the mass extermination of millions of people is, well, absurd.

You're totally off the deep end. Are you familiar with colloquialisms? I was not actually saying he was a "Nazi," since obviously profanity bears no particular relation to National Socialism.

I also don't subscribe to sociologist notions such as the aforementioned broken windows argument, but really all I was asking was for a more polite rebuke than "this is your warning" like I'm a far leftist out to cause trouble.

Especially since what I said can be uttered without consequence on TV.

I don't really think that's off the deep end.  I am familiar with colloquialisms, I'm suggesting that this is one that should not be tolerated.

To suggest that Thomas is being similar to a Nazi in his enforcement of the ban on profanity is part and parcel of the minimalization of consequential events.  Nazis were, as I'm sure you'd agree, the absolute definition of pure evil.  Thomas' actions are not similar to the systematic execution of millions of individuals, but rather more like a rather strict referee fining TO for his excessive end zone celebrations.

Words matter, and absurd comparisons to the Nazis or Lenin and Stalin only serve to minimize the tru nature of their evil.

The left has done it with Che Guevera and their idolatry of that foul man.  They've turned him into a martyr and a god by associating any good thing that happened with him, thus elevating him beyond the mortal realm.

I wasn't trying to be harsh on you, just stating an opinion that I think that as soon as folks start saying the other side is as bad as the Nazis, they lose the argument.

I don't at all agree Nazis were a form of "pure evil." Were the majority of German people "pure evil" for a little while and then OK when we needed them as allies against the Soviets?

Perhaps I used the term because I'm not obsessed with droning on and on about the evils of National Socialism while giving the modern-day equivalents like Mugabe a free pass. I just had to use a word to convey meaning without cursing. Sue me.

Is it me or does anyone else see the irony in all of this? Now I am no Republican, but it does not amuse me that many Republicans are missing the big picture. Will republicans finally acknowledge that "W" is not a conservative?  Many on the left have been saying this since day one. The proper classification for Bush Inc. & his Neo-con allies is "Reactionary Status Extremeist".  If I were a real conservative I would feel just as used by my leader as many Liberals do by the Democratic party.

If there are any folks out there that still believe Bush is a conservative, I cant wait to see what you will be saying when he gives amnesty to MILLIONS of mexican immigrants.  

I use the term Reactionary status extremeist because it is more true to reality.

with respect to the guest worker program,

ask yourself who benefits from having all those guest workers.(Big Business)and who loses (the American working class family)

What all of this is about is driving down American wages and curtailing worker rights. This will be achieved by infusing millions of people who will not argue about low wages, or lack of health care, into our work force.

the effect will be that Americans will have to compete with these new workers by lowering what they ask for in salary and compensation.

As well as being forced to accept no health coverage from their employer. If this does not occur in the short term, within ten years America will begin to feel the crippling affects of this blatant display of Oligarchy.

Just think about how much this will change the standard of living for millions and millions of Americans.  

The people who make the real decisions in the Republican party are elites. From Bush, to Frist, to their masters; all Billionnaires.

On top of that, they are all in bed with the elites that run the Democaratic party.

They revolve from think tank to private sector to policy, to government.

One thing most knowledge seekers know is that Elites are rarely if ever true conservatives.

Fascist, maybe. True conservative?

If you cry until you turn blue, George may give you what you want.  But don't count on it.  The big money boys own the Republican Party, not the whiny social conservatives.

I neither conflated all germans with nazis nor lauded Mugabe's deplorable regime.  I would say that the Nazis were pure evil, but that's just me.  I would concur that Mugabe is also a pure evil and should be dealt with commensurately.

But we're way off topic, so we disagree.  Whatever.

OK, think of the Supreme Court as a jury.  If you were an attorney bringing a gay rights case, would u rather have someone on the jury who was married, had 2 kids and a house with a white picket fence or someone from a non-traditional background and, for whatever reason, spurned family and marriage?

I think, every time, u go with the non-traditional entity.  Chances are, that person will be more sympathetic to others who have chosen a non-traditional path.

I think the fact that the nominee met with a gay rights group in 1989 while running for the Dallas city council and filled out their candidate questionaire, is indicitive of just such a person.

The last donation to a Democrat on that list was seventeen years ago.  Considering that Ronald Reagan was a registered Democrat less than three years before he delivered the famous speech for the Goldwater campaign that made him a rising star in the conservative movement, pointing to that donation as a symptom of Miers' current political sympathies seems a bit. . .thin, shall we say.

and suggest that the appropriation of all elderly bachelors to homosexuality is in and of itself a product of the "agenda" which you presumably oppose?

distraught, or at least not until she starts voting.  THEN we'll see what kind of judge she's going to be.  But in any event, we really have no choice at this point.  If we sabotage Bush and the nominee, what happens when the Democrats decide that our divided conservative base can be beaten back over ANY future SCOTUS nominee?

Let's see now.  When was the last time the hardcore conservatives revolted against a Republican president?  Right.  The Buchanan brigade versus George the Elder.  How did that turn out?  Right again, grasshopper.  Eight years of Bill Clinton.  Will the angry whiteboys repeat their mistake?  Will Hillary take over where Bill left off?  Stay tuned for more episodes of Conservatives Eat their Young.