The wire is reporting that Miers has withdrawn her nomination, and that is not surprising, considering she neglected to return her questionnaire revisions to the Senate last night. The President has ‘reluctantly’ accepted her withdrawal, and Red State has the President’s statement.
Personally, I am mad at the White House for this nomination. It was a stupid pick, it was arrogant, and it was unfair to Harriet Miers.
*** Update ***
To show you how bizarre Armando’s perspective on the world is, he notes the Miers withdrawal and states “Wingnuts Win, Miers WithDraw,” and credits a 1993 speech by Miers as the straw that broke the camel’s back. No mention that most of the people who were against Miers have been against Miers for weeks now, and for principled reasons.
I guess if you oppose unqualified cronies with no established judicial philosophy, you are a wingnut.
*** Update ***
Loyalist to the end, Hewitt writes:
I think Ms. Miers has been unfairly treated by many who have for years urged fair treatment of judicial nominees.
She deserves great thanks for her significant service to the country. She and the president deserved much better from his allies.
At least Hugh stuck to his guns.
*** Update ***
Ok, perhaps I am the one with the bizarre worldview (as noted in the comments), as Patterico echoes Armando:
Harriet Miers has withdrawn her nomination. The 1993 speech was clearly the final straw: clear evidence of her liberalism, overlooked by a shoddy vetting process.
The 1993 speech meant nothing to me. I simply felt this was not the best choice for the Court, and that we should not be appointing the President’s unqualified personal attorney to the bench. At least not this bench.
*** Update ***
Even more evidence that I am the one with the bizarre worldview. My own Red State writes:
Paul Mirgenoff of Powerline and Ed Morrisey of Captain’s Quarters are two of the most well-read and reasonable voices on the right side of the conservative blogosphere. Prior to the revelation of the EWD speech, Mirgenoff had argued eloquently that Miers should be confirmed on the basis of Presidential prerogative, whilst Captain Ed sat on the fence, encouraging conservatives to show more civility toward one another. In response to the EWD speech, both are now firmly in the anti-Miers camp.
John Cole, Party of One.
pleasewakeupy'all
Yep. Expecting something different for some reason?
Pug
Look for a true off-the-deep-end, red meat right-winger now. Gotta appease the base so they’ll stick around after the indictments.
When times get tough, pick a fight with the libruls.
Slide
Can you say, Lame Duck? oh.. wait, PC police may get upset, lets just call it physically challenged fowl.
Gratefulcub
If the base hadn’t turned on him, she wouldn’t have withdrawn. That’s the point about wingnuts winning. I am not really defending Kos, someone I don’t spend much time reading, but this withdrawl is about losing his wingnut base.
Krista
Pug, I think you’re right. With Fitzmas approaching, the WH is going to be trying to make as much diversionary noise as possible.
And I agree with you to a point, John. I do feel kind of bad for Miers, as she’s been put through the wringer in the last while. But on the other hand, she must have known that she really wasn’t qualified for that role, and that the nomination process would surely uncover that. Why would she accept the nomination in the first place?
Stormy70
I thought she was qualified, but the base is ready to go to the mat on this nomination. Miers was not worth the battle, in the opinion of many. It will be interesting to see who goes up next. I hope it’s Janice Rogers Brown or Priscilla Owens.
Matt
So much for every nominee deserving an up-or-down vote, huh?
Slide
sorry John but once again you are wrong about this. The far right was the driving force behind this withdrawal. Many moderate Republican senators might not have thought her qualified but they weren’t going to buck their president and vote against her if the anti-choice wackos weren’t so increasingly against her. The speech that she gave was “the last straw” for at least a couple of anti-choice organizations that had not taken a position but now came out against her.
What a pathetic leader Bush is to even think that his personal lawyer was qualified to be put onto the Supreme Court, especially after all the recent charges of cronyism. The worst POTUS never fails to show us what an intellectual midget he is.
Andrew J. Lazarus
Stroke of genius for Harry Reid. If the next nominee is a right-wing loon, look for him to point out that there’s a very recent precedent for killing nominations (without their even getting a vote).
I say it will be Patrick Fitzgerald, in return for his stopping the Plame investigation.
Jorge
From my perspective of what’s best for the country, I’m not sure how this is going to pan out. If what Bush is pushed to do here is to put up a conservative judge with a long career of making sound legal decisions, then we all win. The sun does not rise and set on Roe. Heck, reproductive rights don’t rise and set on Roe.
However, if Bush rolls out some thinly veiled theocrat that is charming and clever enough to get 51 Republican votes then we will all be wishing that we’d have gotten Miers.
Shygetz
I’m happy that an unqualified hack did not get on the Supreme Court, but I’m anxious about his next pick. If he picks someone ideologically radioactive, then I will mourn for my country. If we were talking nuclear option over a few appeals court spots, I cannot imagine the distaces the theocratic wing of the Republican party will go to in order to put on a true believer.
Chris Johnson
I see she’s not completely stupid or obedient. Good for her.
ppGaz
Good grief. If MoDo or Arianna said something like that, you’d be all over it.
No, John, being a wingnut is what makes a person a wingnut … unless you want to pretend that there isn’t such a thing as a wingnut, or wasn’t until the Miers nomination?
Pug
It will be interesting to see who goes up next. I hope it’s Janice Rogers Brown or Priscilla Owens.
Precisely who I had in mind when I said “red meat right-winger”. The winguts are so predictable.
akaoni
Yes, we all know that Harriet made this decision on her own. Let’s be real, the heat on the White House is tremendous right now, and Bush needs to rally all the support he can. A hyper-conservative judge will rally the base, and controversy over the pick will (they hope)rally the base, and distract from the inditements. I’m with Pug and Krista on this one…
John Cole
Actually, the difference between you and me (and me and Hugh Hewitt, for that matter) is that if they had said that about someone who I agreed was an unqualified crony, I would acknowledge it and move on.
gorillagogo
Cmon John. You’re smarter than that. Plenty of us libs were against Miers from the get-go for the same principled reasons you were.
You’re free to disagree, but I think the big story is the far-right criticism, that Bush lost the lockstep support of his most fervent backers. Armando may be guilty of oversimplifying things, but can you blame him? We’re used to seeing our principled objections get ignored.
Sojourner
Frankly, the Dems need a blood-and-guts fight if they’re going to rally their base. Bush’s nominating a head case like Janice Rogers Brown might be just the ticket.
A few Libby/Rove perp walks combined with images of strip joints perched in suburban neighborhoods (Brown is, of course, against zoning laws) would make for an interesting message to the American public.
And if the mainstream Dems aren’t up to the task of shutting down a Brown nomination, it would open the way for the Democratic arm of the Democratic party to take control of the party. Patience is wearing thin with the current leadership.
It may take another couple of rounds of elections but the ground work would be set for finally returning the country to its senses.
Blue Neponset
John, it is possible for different people to have different reasons to dislike Miers’ SCOTUS nomination. The non-wingnuts didn’t like her because they thought, and rightly so, that she was unqualified, and the wingnuts didn’t like her because they thought she would vote to uphold Roe. I am sure there are people who didn’t like her for both of those reasons.
If Miers had a vehement anti-Roe record do you think the wingnuts would have put up enough of a stink to make Bush withdraw her nomination? I don’t and that is the point Armando was making.
Can we be adults for a few minutes and stop pretending there is no abortion litmus test for a SCOTUS nominee?
Steve S
Armando is right, and it is John Cole’s world which is bizarre. The finding yesterday of the 1993 speech became the straw the broke the camels size six shoes.
http://www.nysun.com/article/22140
Yet another Jeff
I wouldn’t say the pick was arrogant. I think it was born out of weakness. He wanted a pick who would please various groups. A woman to please the feminists. Pro-life for the conservatives. No paper trail. And someone who the Democrats could accept. And with those criteria we got Miers. Persoally I wish he had the balls to not care about pleasing feminists by picking a woman. And hopefully for the next pick he stops worrying about pleasing various groups and just picks the person most qualified for the job.
ppGaz
Cute, but it misses the point: The wingnuts weren’t opposed to Miers because of cronyism. They were opposed because they didn’t think she had the chops to carry their crusade onto the court. If she’d had those chops, they’d have been defending her agressively, crony or not.
Don Surber
Slide:
Lame?
Dead. Kaput. Living impaired. No longer breathing. Schiavo-ed
Steve S
Let’s again be clear.
Accusations of cronyism, no big deal. Accusations of sponging off the tax payers with a land deal was no big deal. Lack of qualifications, no big deal. All of this and more has come out over the past several weeks, and to this the Whitehouse never responded except to call you sexist.
It was that 1993 speech that killed the nomination, because at that point the Whitehouse lost the whackadoodle wing of the Republican party, which they are most dependent upon. Up until that point, Pat Robertson, Jimmy Dobson, Tony Perkins and the core of the GOP were all supportive of Miers.
So let’s not be purposefully obtuse, and try to claim that Miers was withdrawn because of executive privilege document arguments, or that the President cared about the cronyism accusations. To do so is to be intellectually dishonest with oneself.
Slartibartfast
This may come as a shock to you, but some of us right of center were opposed because we didn’t think she had the chops for the job, period. If she was a crony and head-slappingly great candidate, I’d have supported her. Crony and mediocre-wannabe, I oppose.
Pug
John, the fact of the matter is that your party forced the withdrawal of the nomination based not on the principled stand of those like you, but because the fundamentalist far-right was ready to abandon ship.
Concerned Women for America, The Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, The American Conservative Union, Rush Limbaugh, David Keane, James Dobson, Tony Perkins, Wendy Wright. These are the people who run the Republican Party these days. They deliver the votes, they call the shots.
Ancient Purple
It will never happen. The right is petrified that if they flat out said there is a litmus test on abortion for the SCOTUS, they would lose the fight once and for all.
Capriccio
“At least Hugh stuck to his guns” ???
More like Hewitt has his lips permanently stuck to Bushboy’s ass. He not only championed this nomination for phantasmagorical “ConLaw” reasons, but because he saw it as intimately tied to his heartthrob’s legacy and his recurring wet dream of a One Party State.
Lines
Not everyone that is a Conservative is a wingnut. Wingnutism takes a special kind of person, someone like Malkin, that gets all crazy eyed over little slights and imagined crescents. John, you’re no wingnut.
Those around center, which I believe make up most of the commentators on this blog, tend to dislike the Miers nomination because of her lack of qualifications and paper-trail. Cronyism may also have been part of why some were against her nomination. You have to get out towards the fringes to find those that went after Miers for single hot-button issues such as abortion.
But please, keep taking offense. I’m sure its appealing to someone out there in the blahosphere (hat trick shot to ppGaz).
ppGaz
Two things: One, the fringes are the wingnts. Two, the “fringe” in the GOP now runs the party. Tail wags dog. Which of course is the whole problem with both the GOP and the wingnuts. When you have high officials clearing their actions with the likes of James Dobson, you have a serious problem.
Which is the whole point, you see. It’s the Dobsonites who killed this nomination. The people who (correctly) called “cronyism” could not have killed it by themselves.
Serenity Now
To show you how bizarre Armando’s perspective on the world is, he notes the Miers withdrawal and states “Wingnuts Win, Miers WithDraw,” and credits a 1993 speech by Miers as the straw that broke the camel’s back.
Patterico: “Harriet Miers has withdrawn her nomination. The 1993 speech was clearly the final straw: clear evidence of her liberalism, overlooked by a shoddy vetting process.”
Rick
Like I said yesterday, sometimes like is real peachy. Now Bush gets a mulligan in order to put forward a decent nominee in the Roberts mold.
And the ChiSox break the 88 year hex. And the U.N. continues its death spiral. Whoo-hoo!
Cordially…
demimondian
Nope. Bush is much more deeply wounded by the collapse of the Miers nomination than you think.
He knows that if he brings forward someone who opposes Roe publicly, then then left will filibuster — and, in the current climate, win. He knows, now, that if he brings forward a moderate conservative in the mold of O’Conner, the right will fight. The left will in fill behind them, and the nomination will fail.
My prediction is that there will be no nominee this term, and, quite possibly, next term, either.
Poor Justice O’Conner.
Defense Guy
I think your wrong, and the next pick will have the left up in arms ready to fillibuster.
Blue Neponset
That would be a good title for a Chuck Norris movie.
BumperStickerist
In case anybody’s interested, Aravosis found out that former SCOTUS nominee and confirmed bachelorette Harriet Miers NetFlix preferences were:
1 – Personal Best
2 – Beyond the Valley of the Dolls
3 – Bound
4 – Desert Hearts
5 – Ellen Degeneres – Here and Now
6 – AmericaRock – SchoolHouse Rock
7 – Gigli: The Director’s Cut
8 – Faster Pussycat! Kill! Kill!
hmmm … Gigli? …
maybe her withdrawal was a good thing.
Hmmmm…… Gigli?
7
RA
I thought Miers would overturn Roe. Bush could not have worked with her for 15 years without knowing that.
Now all the conservative critics will see what RINO Republicans can do with their choice. What if they refuse to change the rules to end the inevitable filibuster? What if they tell Bush to choose a more moderate pick?
We will have lost a vote against Roe and screwed ourselves again. I hope Bush puts Brown up, just to see if she can be nominated by the RINO’s.
Rick
Nope. Bush is much more deeply wounded by the collapse of the Miers nomination than you think.
Nope; it matters much less than you think. And a fight is welcome. The peachiness of life continues to ripen.
Cordially…
Otto Man
I think Bush will go with a far-right nutcase (Luttig, Brown, Owens, Jones) in order to rally the base around him and distract the media when the Plame indictments come down.
Of course, the Senate Dems now have all the immediate precedent they need to block such a nomination, even using a filibuster. Bush is toxic now, and standing up to him will not only not hurt a moderate politician; it’ll help.
Steve S
Defense Guy writes:
Yep, and the left will win. Why? Because the Republican party just confirmed with Miers that it is perfectly acceptable to oppose a candidate based on a litmus test.
demimondian is correct, the Republican party just had a public outing and showed themselves for the hypocrites that they are. The truth is, there is no such thing as a strict constructionist, there is no such thing as upperdown. All there is is an abortion litmus test.
It doesn’t matter. If Roe is overturned, the Republican party will lose their economic base on libertarian issues, as well as remove a reason for the wingnut base to continue to vote for them in lieu of economic issues. They can’t afford to have Roe overturned, as it would cost them elections.
Daren
John,
I hate to be the one to let you know this, but the Republican party is controlled by the social conservative far left. Without the last speech, she gets pushed through. You’ve seen it with 4 tax cuts, you’ve seen it with prescription drugs, the farm bill, etc. etc. While, you may have been making a principled stand in opposition, a large segment of your party was jumping ship purely on idealogy.
Defense Guy
Sure they did, and coming from an expert insider of the Republican party, you would be the one to know right?
Another very narrow reading of the facts, which is helpful for propping up your view of the opposition, but not much else. Unfortunately for you, and the Dems of late, this seems to be the favored tactic. Describe events in ways that are most pleasing to you, and appear most favorable to the Democratic party. That it’s crap means nothing.
Happy fun time weaving tales of fantasy continue.
Geek, Esq.
What that speech and its effect proves is that the movement conservatives are just as dedicated to a litmus test as those awful liberals.
The movement conservatives will get their reincarnation of Bork, the Dems will fillibuster, Frist will try to go nuclear, and Bush’s legislative agenda is officially dead.
Blue Neponset
So tell us all what really happened DG. Did Miers’ nomination get pulled because of attorney/client priviledge issues?
SeesThroughIt
Precisely. That’s what sort of worried me about the whole thing once it started becoming clear that Miers wasn’t gonna make it to the court. We had the devil we didn’t know (Miers), who could prove to be staggeringly inept, but now we have the devils we do know (Brown, Owens), who will prove to be slaves to soome of the lesser portions of conservative ideology.
Bush pissed off the nuttier portions of his base with the Miers nom. He’ll have to do something nutty to win them back, as he desperately needs any approval he can get right now. Enter far-right wacko judges. I’m not entirely convinced this whole thing is going to turn out very well for the country
demimondian
The only thing the Republican party insiders share with the validity of Steve S’s comment is that the word “public” is inside the word republican. What the republicans think or don’t think of themselves doesn’t mean anything — it’s what the broad public thinks of you that matters, and, after the Miers debacle, the public thinks of you as incompetents in thrall to the widely unpopular social conservatives.
Otto Man
What are the odds Bush swings for the fences and nominates Roy Moore?
Geek, Esq.
I say Edith Jones. A woman and an Alpha rightwinger.
She was my pick last time. But, I think that Bush is now more afraid of the wingnuts than he is of the Gang of 14.
metalgrid
Better the wingnuts of the LP than the wingnuts of the GOP. Ready to leave yet?
Lines
It really disgusts me when people play the “Soft bigotry of low expectations”, like “we should have voted Miers in because the next appointment could be a total wingnut”.
How about we don’t vote any of them in? If they are bad for America, they are just bad. Voting them in because they are viewed as the lesser of the evils is just idiotic, and is partially what got us into this Bush fiasco we’re in.
No bad judges, period.
Rick
Another upside: no chance of office hanky-panky between David Souter and Harriet Meyers. Now, if Souter is hitting on Ruth Buzzi Ginsberg, that’s another matter.
One that doesn’t bear contemplation.
Cordially…
Geek, Esq.
The problem is that there isn’t anyone out there that is considered an acceptable pick by both the movement conservatives and the Senate Dems.
To put it another way, there’s not going to be another John Roberts.
Defense Guy
Sure they will. Now a blankie and a nice lie down will make those mean old Republicans go away.
Lines
Here’s an interesting question:
If Bush nominated John Edwards to the Supreme Court, would Hugh Hewitt tell us to trust the President?
As for your comments, Geek, I have to believe that there are plenty of judges on the circuits that can please the centrists, and thats what will give Bush a real bump in the polls and give him some power again. Pleasing the fringes just doesn’t last long enough anymore.
demimondian
You know, you’re absolutely right. You guys gave our current president a blankie and a pacifier, and a copy of “My Pet Goat” — and now you all are going to go away.
Wow! DG was actually right about something political.
Blue Neponset
Oh yeah, says you!
I just thought I would respond in kind DG. Don’t bother telling us why our analysis is wrong.
Geek, Esq.
My favorite take on this was Shit Sandwich Suprisingly Tasty; I Give It A B+
by Hugh Hewitt
You try telling the movement conservatives that. If Bush sends up AGAG, the Republican party will explode.
Defense Guy
The analysis is wrong because the opposition has been largely coming from moderates, not the so called ‘extreme religous right’. The claim has been she is simply not qualified for the job, and that Bush’s request to ‘trust him’ on it is not a compelling reasons to choose a Supreme Court Justice.
Blue Neponset
Thanks DG.
I don’t mean to play a game of ‘gotcha’ with you, but…do you think Miers’ ‘fuzzy’ position on Roe, Griswold, etc. was irrelevant in regard to her nomination being withdrawn? It certainly wasn’t the only reason, but it was a major issue IMO.
scs
Too bad. I was looking forward to hearing Miers out and her showing everyone her chops. The whole thing is just sad and, despite all the pious protests otherwise, shows the country has not come as far in terms of elitism and sexism as we think. Because she, 1. did not go to an Ivy League School and 2. was not appointed a federal judge by Bush earlier for the requisite 2 years, she was judged to be ridiculous, the worst appointment ever, incompetent. It was like appointing your local kindergarden teacher to the bench people said, and she had NO understanding of the (what, maybe a few page?) Constitution whatsoever.
Of course no one raised these objections when Al Gonzales was being talked about to be a nominee when he was, like Miers, the White House Council. He was talked about in respectful tones- he was a “brilliant legal mind”. And the main difference between these two successful Texas lawyers, both in effect Bush cronies, was that a few years back, Bush CHOSE to put Miers on the lottery commision for a few years and CHOSE to put Gonzales on the bench for a few years in Texas. Apparently that 2 year appointment by Bush increased Gonzales’s IQ points exponentialy and turned him into a brilliant legal mind while at the same time Miers lottery job dimmed her IQ, turning her into a woman who had “no understanding” of the constitution whatsoever. Amazing what 2 years can do to a person.
It’s funny how people think that knowing about the constitution is like being a technical specialist on the space shuttle. To them it’s a techinician’s job. Kind of an engineering formula, you plug in the equation from the Constituion, plug in X, Y, and Z and calculatate the outcome. If you don’t know all the minutae from all the case law, you just will not be able to use the Constitutional formula to arrive at your decision. I think it’s even more funny how the people who were the least worried about her lack of case law in the Constitution on here were the lawyers on here. They say that good lawyers know that law is less about memorizing the cases and all the laws and more about being able to “think” legally.
To me, being on the Supreme Court is even LESS about this technical legal aspect. Of course you’d want some consitutional background, but it’s also about good judgement and having a well rounded background in the workings of this country from all walks of life. As a successful lawyer in Texas, head of a large law firm, President of her Bar Association, working in goverment in town councils, lottery commisions, and having inside access to the White House as a top political lawyer, and successful at all of her jobs, Miers had insight into all levels of the working world, the legal world and the government in her career. To me that made her more than qualified than some lawyer who got appointed to a bench and lived an isolated life writing arcane opinions for years on end. I guess the founding father agreed with me on the need to have a well-rounded justice. That’s why a Supreme Court Justice doesn’t even have to be a LAWYER.
Well, there were so many other better qualified female judges they said Here are all Republican appointed federal these judges roughly under age 55 out there
Armijo, M. Christina Bowdre, Karon, O.Caldwell, Karen, K.Camp, Laurie Smith,Clement, Edith Brown,,Eagan, ClaireProst, SharonRobinson, Julie A
Yup, all 8 of them. Sure is a whole lot. Now I guess Bush will have to pick from one of them, as to think outside the box is unacceptable in this country. Or now he will pick some other Ivy League man. I guess that is what will make most people the happiest.
Veeshir
John Cole, Party of One
I was with you John. There were a bunch of reasons. The biggest of which was the “Trust Me” reason. That speech merely reinforced what I had already felt.
Since he signed campaign finance reform, sided with affirmative action and the whole Schiavo affair, I didn’t trust him on the Constitution.
Also, I didn’t like the wink and nod over Roe. Any case should be looked at on its merits, not in the hopes that one could overturn Roe.
Defense Guy
No, I am sure that it had impact. I just don’t agree that it was the beginning or end of the criticism. I am not sure if anyone knows her real position on Roe.
To many, I suspect the more important issue is whether the decisions, like Roe, can be suitably taken from the words of the Constitution. In short, the discussion of Roe really has 2 seperate and distinct components, one a social one and the other a constitutional one. It is possible for someone to oppose Roe, not because they want to see abortion outlawed, but because it is a galling decision based on its lack of constitutional merit.
Veeshir
As for the Wingnuts winning the battle,
Krauthammer and George Will aren’t wingnuts.
I don’t always agree with Will, but he’s no partisan hack. And Charles Krauthammer is one of the most intelligent and intellectually honest people out there.
Veeshir
From the Will link
In addition, the president has forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution. The forfeiture occurred March 27, 2002, when, in a private act betokening an uneasy conscience, he signed the McCain-Feingold law expanding government regulation of the timing, quantity and content of political speech.
Ex-fricking-zactly.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Hmm I already hear the Dems pushing “this is a win for the far right” mantra that I said they would. Time to spin. Spin away my democratic pals. Let’s hope it works.
On a side note. How can Scalia call himself an originalist when he has such strong opposition to church and state? Originalists are suppose to look at the Constitution and what the founders intended. I mean the man said that the founders intended for our nation to be one nation under a single god…I’d like to know where he got that from.
Not to mention, so-called “strict constructionists” who are are the same way when a “strict constructionist” is suppose to take the Constitution at face value–The last time I checked, the word God wasn’t mentioned ANYWHERE in the Constitution. So I’d like to know where these people get their ideas on the establishment clause from… Their interpretations are far from what the founders believed/wrote down.
Perhaps someone could explain these apparent contradictions to me?
KC
Go Roy Moore!
Geek, Esq.
I oppose a nomination of Roy Moore.
That guy needs to run for
AyatollahPresident.Blue Neponset
I think that is the main point in this whole thing. Those opposing Roe, for whatever reason, weren’t sure about Miers’ position on Roe or her judicial philosophy from the beginning. Once that speech of hers was unearthed the Roe opposition crowd became even less sure about Miers position or judicial philosophy and let the WH know they would no longer support or they would no longer keep quiet about the nomination.
If the above scenario is the one the public hears from the MSM it is going to make it harder for the Repubs to claim that the President should get his nominee unless that person is unqualified. It seems clear to me the nomination was tanked because the people who needed to be reassured about Miers’ judicial philosophy bailed on the President. The fact that Miers actually wasn’t qualifed to be a SCOTUS Justice might help the Repub’s a bit, but I think the bottom line is the Miers’ nomination has hurt Republicans public position on the confirmation of judicial nominees.
iocaste
She actually did submit the answers to her questions, just very late at night (seriously). SCOTUS Blog has it: http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2005/10/strange_but_tru.html
Sojourner
Bullshit. Justices are not supposed to use their “background” to make a decision. They’re supposed to understand what the framers intended and what that intention would look like when applied to problems the framers could never have anticipated. It’s not common sense, it’s not cultural values, it’s understanding the constitution and the body of law that has subsequently been created.
You’re right, the job is not comparable to being a legal technician. Which is why only those who have spent years studying and/or applying constitutional law should take one of those precious slots.
I love these cries of elitism and sexism. If you had heart problems, would you go to a doctor who had spent little time studying cardiology just because you thought she had an interesting background? I sure as shit wouldn’t. I’d want the doctor who had the best background in that area.
Sojourner
Krauthammer is a joke.
ppGaz
Yeah, sorry, but you are describing how to pick judges for the State Fair Baking contest.
On the SCOTUS, the standards are a little higher. Or, should be. Hell, even the wingnuts recognize that … how unsubtle can it be??
Tim F
If it doesn’t burn your eyeballs to read it, Kos has a credible post-mortem on the Miers saga.
gorillagogo
I don’t buy it DG. I think this is a great example of your earlier assertion:
You’re free to believe that the bulk of the opposition came from moderates, but we’ve been seeing GOP moderates become more and more marginalized for years. Funny how they’re suddenly powerful enough to derail a SCOTUS nominee without an up or down vote.
Personally, I think Josh Marshall nailed when he argued that the real problem for Bush was that there wasn’t a powerful group willing to defend Miers. The fact is that lots of different groups opposed Miers for varying reasons, be it cronyism or her lack of qualifications or a litmus test on abortion.
Tim F
There was a time when Bush’s word alone would have created a loyal constituency for Miers. It’s worth noting that, save for Hugh Hewitt and practically nobody else, that time has passed.
Greg
Party of one indeed.
The irony is that speech was making me reconsider my opposition to her nomination.
slide
Veeshir said:
Yeah, but Will and Krauthammer have been against the nomination from day one and yet Bush kept supporting her. Her name only NOW got withdrawn when the “final straw” of her speech was made available sending wingnuttia into seizure as this shows:
So Bush was fine with Harriet while Will and Krauthammer wrote their scathing columns but if Operation Rescue is opposed, oh oh. Wingnuttia in full control of the GOP.
slide
My hope is that Bush goes for the big fight. Let him pick a far right wing nut job like Pricilla Owens. The Dems will be 100% against her. The GOP will threaten to go nuclear. But they won’t be able to muster the votes because GOP moderates won’t go along with it. It would be the kiss of death for Chafee to go nuclear so wingnuttia can put in a supreme court justice. That would mean that bush loses his second Supreme Court nomination in a row. Go for it Dubya. Bring it on. Make my fuckin day.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Well personally I hope Bush nominates a moderate, but I think eventually he will have to nominate a moderate like O’Conner. Like you said, if he nominates a far-right judge, the Dems will have legitimate reason to block them and they will have the talking points to do it (Miers withdrew bc she wasn’t extreme enough, etc). And as you said I don’t think the Repubs would have the votes to do the Nuclear option.
gorillagogo
You’re more polite than I am Sojourner.
Defense Guy
gorillagogo
I think part of the problem is that ‘extremist’ has taken on such a flexible meaning lately, when applied to right leaning individuals. I just didn’t see the great backlash coming from those normally associated with that word, such as Dobson and his group. Not that I am sure they deserve to be fitted with that label in any case.
You are correct, of course, that it could just be a problem of my perception. Then again, maybe not.
gorillagogo
Fair enough DG.
Rick
Ha! Rove is going to flummox you guys, as always. He’s Lucy with the football, and you’re hapless Charlie Brown.
Cordially…
slide
It would be a good opportunity for the Dems to stand up for something. To fight for what they (supposedly) believe in. when they do that, like with Social Security, they are a powerful force. Enough of this Republican light shit. America likes fighters. Even if they may disagree with some of what you are fighting for. Passion. Intensity. The dems have been sorely lacking in these qualities. Shit, Kerry didn’t even fight back when he was called a coward by the Swift Boat liars. I hope the Dems start learning the lesson. Being terminally timid isn’t a recipe for success.
gorillagogo
Right. I here he’s extra-flummoxy in an orange jumpsuit.
gorillagogo
D’oh!
I also hear …
Kimmitt
Er, yes.
slide
thought that was Jeff Gannon’s job?
Tim F
Possibly even all of them. heh.
Tim F
To put a finer point on my post above, John Cole’s sitting at a table for three at least. Considering that the other two are National Journal and Kos, they should have some spicy table talk.
Shalimar
Dobson also issued a statement saying he thought it was for the best that the nomination was withdrawn because he was reconsidering his support after revelations of the 1993 speech.
Just so you know, Armando’s interpretation may have been right this time but many liberals at Daily Kos think his win-at-all-costs, everything-is-politics worldview is bizarre. You’re hardly alone in that opinion. Plus, he’s pretty much an asshole to everyone he disagrees with, which doesn’t make him popular.
Tim F
Armando irritated me since his days as the world’s loudest diarist. Kos remains indispensable but Armando’s contributions are flyover country for me.
Chris Johnson
People, you don’t get it. Bush’s only intentions in nominating Harriet Miers was to make a Supreme Court justice who was PERSONALLY loyal to him. Period. He was not trying to please any other groups at all… you keep saying he’s trying to appease the wingnuts, or the moderates, or this group or that group and he’s not interested in anything except the nominee’s personal fealty at this point.
I’m not joking. And all the more since I think Rove is getting ready to betray Dubya in a big way. That guy, too- people go on about how loyal he is to his old buddy, and it’s rubbish because what he’s really loyal to is The Most Powerful Man In The World, and now that that’s not Bush any longer, Rove will drop him like a hot brick.
The same way Bush has dropped, and will continue to drop, all pretense of loyalty to his constituencies (nutty or otherwise) in desperation to come up with a Supreme Court justice which will show personal fealty. He’d appoint god-damn Hillary Clinton if he thought she would be guaranteed to personally shield him from harm.
The next nominee, if any, will be someone whom Bush can reasonably expect to show personal fealty. Not to the President, or the Constitution, or overturning Roe, or any constituency. To him, personally.
Shalimar
I can handle Armando’s diaries and contributions to the front page, though he does have a tendency to be holier than thou even there. It’s in comments where he becomes abusive and insufferable. I understand a lawyer needs a big ego, but he should exercise some control over broadcasting it all over the place in a public forum. For the most part though I agree with you, Tim, Daily Kos is essential reading despite him. They had so many others who used to post on the front, and now almost all of them seem to have stepped down. I wonder if there is a story there?
Tim F
No story. Kos rotates his front page for the same reason the Pentagon rotates four-stars: it keeps the tactics fresh and prevents any one from building enough of a constituency to constitute a threat to the man on top.
As annoying as Armando gets though, Hunter is a gem. When the guy starts his own blog he could rival Billmon.
scs
.
I think you are all not informed as to what a Justice is. If you have a mistaken belief as to what the qualifications of being a Justice are, i.e. a constitutional law professor or a Federal judge for at least 2 years, then, yes, Miers is not qualified.
But who said that was the qualification? It is not just a position for a legal technician who can write briefs that disect the constitution in fancy language and wow lawyers. It is someone who can see the big picture and make decisions that effect the everyday lives of people! That is why the founding fathers did not even require a justice to be a LAWYER for gosh sakes.
The person would just have to be a “respected” member of soceity, that’s it. I was watching Greta Van Susteran tonight, a non-partisan (her husband does work for Kerry) who is supposed to be a well known lawyer and whom I respect a lot, and she was talking about the misperception that regular people have that a Justice position has to be reserved for a former judge. I think you all need to educate yourselves about the system because I think you are all just not informed.
Now maybe Meirs wasn’t the best one for the job, I don’t know, we never got to hear her. The point is people judged her before she even opened her mouth. If you think that she wasn’t opposed because conservatives stepped up the propaganda machine cause they didn’t know if they could count on her in Roe, you are all fooling yourselves. Oh well, give the people what they want I guess. An Ivy League educated man.
Sojourner
I never said these were the qualifications. However, I will insist that a minimum requirement is to be well versed in the constitution, its application, and the body of constitutional law that has been created over the last 200 years. That does not mean the person has to have been a judge. They could have been an academician, they could have been an attorney who has argued in front of the court. They could have worked in government (doing something more than correcting W’s spelling).
I don’t even know what you mean by see the “big picture” and how it affects people’s lives. Whose big picture will you choose? A Manhattanite’s big picture? A North Dakotan’s big picture? Whose would you choose?
What does “respected member of society” mean? A Washington socialite? A member of Daughters of the American Revolution?
Way too touchy feely for me. No, I want someone who understands the Constitution inside and out, and the law that has grown out of it.
Nobody said it had to be an Ivy League educated man. But it had better be somebody with some serious experience and expertise. Sandra Day O’Connor wasn’t an Ivy League man but she was a serious thinker. Meirs’s mash notes and her inability to produce a questionnaire that hit even the most minimal standards suggests the lack of a serious thinker. It dumbfounds me that the WH couldn’t even be bothered to help her cheat on the damn thing. How idiotic is that?
scs
It is funny that those who are stressing the importance of “knowing the constitution” as paramount for a potential justice don’t seem to know the constitution or what the founding fathers laid out. I forget the exact wording, but the founding fathers just said that a potential Supreme Court Justice just has to be a person of esteem or respected by soceity chosen by the president. That’s all. There is no constitutional knowledge litmus test. So you all are asking something OTHER than what the constitution specifies.
Now whether Miers was that qualified I don’t know. Apparently she didn’t impress the senators etc, so it’s possible she didn’t have what it takes. It’s also possible the senators were just saying that to discredit her cause they were afraid of her Roe vote. Maybe she was very qualified, maybe she wasn’t. But my point is she was judged before anything was known about her.
It’s funny no one demeaned the WH Council position like that, in other words implying it’s a gloried secretary position, when Gonzales was being talked about. You basically make my case for me right there. Underneath it all, was sexism.
scs
By the way, Bob Abrams on MSNBC, a respected, knowledgable and non-partisan lawyer, also ridiculed the idea yesterday on his show that Harriet Miers with her experience was not qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice. Sorry, I will take the word of two lawyers I trust, Greta Van Susteran and Bob Abrams, to inform me about the qualifications for a justice over the word of non-lawyer pundits and bloggers who don’t always seem to know what they are talking about.
Sojourner
Correct. I never claimed otherwise. I stated MY opinion, which is that a SC justice should be thoroughly educated in the Constitution. In my opinion, Miers was not qualified. Just as Bush technically meets the qualifications for president but he’s not competent either.
Huh? I’m no fan of Gonzales either. I don’t think the SC is the right place for the torture czar.
You’re accusing me of sexism? Please. I worked as the sole female technical person in my group for years. The one thing I learned is that an incompetent woman put in a high-visibility position is disastrous for other women. People are quick to assume that if a woman fails in a specific job it’s because the job is too hard for women, not that the specific woman is simply incompetent. That’s the reality, although it is slowly changing.
Sojourner
Greta Van Susteran?? Good grief. She’s a f’ing talking head! Wtf does she know?
Who is Bob Abrams? Never heard of him.