Posted on 10/06/2005 7:12:45 AM PDT by linkinpunk
Gang: 'no alarm bells'
By Jonathan Allen and Alexander Bolton
The Gang of 14’s centrist Democratic and Republican senators met and gave preliminary approval yesterday to Harriet Miers as President Bush’s nominee to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on the Supreme Court.
Emerging from a meeting at the offices of Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said, “This nomination didn’t set off any alarm bells with any of us.”
The significance of this provisional endorsement, though presented in a low-key fashion, could be huge, for it means that unless damning evidence emerges during the Judiciary Committee’s as-yet unscheduled confirmation hearings the nominee is unlikely to be filibustered, and a party-line vote would mean confirmation. A party-line vote is far from assured because conservatives have not welcomed the nomination.
Yesterday’s meeting was the Gang’s first formal opportunity to discuss Miers, and several of the senators said they are still early in the process and under no commitment to vote for the nominee.
“This is the beginning of a lengthy process,” said Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine).
But the Gang’s raison d’être is to prevent both politically motivated filibusters and the “nuclear option,” a rule change to cut off debate. The Gang thus seems to be lining up to force colleagues to accept an up-or-down vote on Miers’s confirmation.
“I think it’s highly unlikely there would be a filibuster,” said Sen. Mike DeWine (R-Ohio). Senators declined to say whether they thought the president’s selection of Miers, who has generated more controversy on the right than the left, was evidence that the center is holding on judicial nominations.
An endorsement from the Gang of 14 would make it easier for Democratic Party leaders to support Miers. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has indicated that he is leaning toward backing Miers.
He appeared alongside Miers at a press conference Monday, declaring himself happy to be with her and lauding her credentials.
“Harriet Miers has served with distinction as a trial lawyer,” Reid said. “That’s what I am; I’m a trial lawyer. So anyone with that background makes me feel good — someone who has been in a courtroom, has tried questions, answered interrogatories, done all those things that lawyers need to do.”
But Reid backed away from his statements Tuesday, perhaps because of strong criticism from some liberals and Democrats about Miers’s sparse public record.
“Let me make clear that I have not endorsed this nomination,” he said.
Senate Assistant Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has also thrown his weight behind Miers.
That has focused most of the attention and suspense on the question of what will be the positions of conservative senators such as Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and John Thune (R-S.D.).
Many conservative activist leaders, such as Gary Bauer, president of American Values, a conservative advocacy organization, are disappointed with Bush’s pick. And conservative activists are contacting conservative senators such as Brownback and urging them to oppose Miers, said a GOP aide to a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
One conservative strategist said that a column by George Will published yesterday could serve as a tool to rally conservative opposition to Miers.
Will wrote: “It is important that Miers not be confirmed unless, in her 61st year, she suddenly and unexpectedly is found to have hitherto undisclosed interests and talents pertinent to the court’s role.”
“Otherwise the sound principle of substantial deference to a president’s choice of judicial nominees will dissolve into a rationalization for senatorial abdication of the duty to hold presidents to some standards of seriousness,” he wrote.
In an interview with ABC News yesterday, Brownback said that if Miers testifies during the Judiciary Committee’s hearings that she views Roe v. Wade settled law he would likely vote against her. Roe is an anathema to conservatives because it provided the legal foundation for a woman’s right to an abortion.
On Monday, Thune issued a press release announcing that he would reserve judgment on Miers’s nomination. Likewise, Coburn and Sessions have not made any commitments to supporting Miers.
It will be difficult for these conservative senators to generate enough opposition to defeat Miers’s nomination, even if they forge alliances with liberal colleagues such as Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) or Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.). The Gang of 14’s support of Miers makes the prospect of defeating Miers even more unlikely.
A Gang of 14 green light for Miers would likely influence more mainstream Republican and Democratic lawmakers.
Memo to those running around screaming about Reid supporting Miers: Why do you believe a weasel like him? What on earth possesses you to cite him as a reason to oppose Miers when he also did a bait-and-switch on Roberts? If you think Roberts was a good nominee, and Reid gives Miers the same treatment as Roberts, are you intellectually honest enough to chalk that up as a positive for Miers? Or will you just drop that talking point and move on to the next point of attack, the way Dems do?
“Let me make clear that I have not endorsed this nomination,” he said.
Now why would he all of a sudden start backing away from her nomination? The cynic in me wonders if he thinks by doing this he thinks he is actually helping the process along(As in since the public now thinks he has his doubts that maybe she really is a good pick). I don't for one minute believe it's because his handlers don't like her.
Emerging from a meeting at the offices of Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said, “This nomination didn’t set off any alarm bells with any of us.”
Maybe that's why?
Because the simps of 14 seem ok with a Pro-Life and Religious pick.
Because he never expected that the President would appoint Miers any more than he expected the President would appoint Mike DeWine, who he also suggested earlier this year. His bluff has been called, and now he's screwed.
Nobody REALLY knows this nominee except for GWB. The hearings won't change that. She's going to get through the Senate.
We need to demand that the Reps heavily fund primary opponents for every one of the turncoats in their party, slash whatever pork they are bringing into their states, and do everything possible to drive them out of Washington.
After it became clear that Miers was an evangelical Christian, the left made an about face, and has decided to fight her.
I think you've nailed it. Thats why I was never upset about Reid's "endorsement", it is likely he mentioned her not expecting Bush to call his bluff. Poker, anyone?
" How can you site something he says today as evidence that we shouldn't believe what he said yesterday. How would you know which is real, and which is politics? If you are saying you can't believe him, then you can't believe what he's saying today either.
The fact that he has to backtrack and clarify proves the point that he did in fact gush over her.
And he's a liar. And he did a 180 on Roberts.
So what is your point here?
My point is it's absurd for you to use a liar's words today as proof that he was lying yesterday. In fact, there's no contradiction. He's tempering what was intially gushing enthusiasm. He probably got feedback to tone it down. Point being, today could be the lie, not his initial reaction, and you have no way of knowing.
And my point is, the folks pointing to Reid's initial support of Miers are treating a liar's word as truth. And if they believe Reid is truthful, then, if he changes his mind, they should see that as a positive.
But they won't, IMO.
I don't think he's changed his mind. He's tempering his earlier gushy enthusiam for political reasons. The truth is he couldn't contain himself.
The Gang of 14’s centrist Democratic and Republican senators met and gave preliminary approval yesterday to Harriet Miers as President Bush’s nominee to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on the Supreme Court.
Well, whoop-dee-doo! I guess all of us peons can rest easy now. The 14 most knowledgeable, important, intelligent, fair-minded Capitol Hill types have handed down their opinions. (sarc & barf!)
Uh, Guys...I haven't heard this idea spouted anywhere
yet, and correct me if you think I'm off-base re President
Bush's nomination of Ms. Miers.
Is it possible our Commander-in-Chief has already been
tipped off about ANOTHER pending USCC resignation, and
he's using Miers as an intermediary appointment...
kind of a "cooling off" period for Congress?
Consider: John STEVENS, b. 1920, apptd. by Pres.
Ford, 1975. (yep...85 years old!)
Antonin SCALIA, b. 1936, apptd. by Pres.
Reagan, 1986.
Anthony KENNEDY, b. 1936, apptd. by Pres.
Reagan, 1988.
David SOUTER, b. 1939, apptd. by Pres.
Bush, 1980 (yep! 25 years ago!)
Clarence THOMAS, b. 1948, apptd. by Pres.
Bush, 1991.
Ruth B. GINSBURG, b. 1933, apptd. by Pres.
Clinton, 1993.
Stephen BREYER, b. 1938, apptd. by Pres.
Clinton, 1994.
Three factors could be in play here. AGE, ILLNESS,
or just plain POOPED and ready to call it a day!
Then, there is the PERSONAL reason as in the case of
Sandra Day O'Connor: She wants to spend some of her remaining years enjoying retirement with her husband,
3 sons and and grandchildren. She was born 1930
and married her husband, John O'Connor in 1952. She
certainly deserves retirement from the Court after
24 years.
Comments?
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/justices/fullcourt.html
Nothing by George Will is ever going to "rally" anyone. Even readers who agree with him know that he despises them.
Souter was not appointed in 1980. He was appointed much later by the first President Bush.
You're right! Type should have been 1990!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.