This is going to be a bruising battle. Problem is, Bush has chosen to pick his fight with his own base, not with the Democrats. Color me unsurprised.
The problem is that conservatives have just been burned to many times with "trust me".
Initially, I opposed the Miers nomination. Then, Dr. Dobson influenced me to support it. Now, I oppose it again after listening to many arguments from other conservatives. With this nomination, a division has occurred in the pro-life ranks. This is sad because any president who sincerely cared about the issue would not have allowed this. I am an evangelical, but I know evangelicals who are pro-life and support a right to choose. Miers may be like this. Of course, I think this would be a contradiction. Bottom line: I oppose the nomination and think pro-life senators should vote against it unless Miers speaks out against Roe at the hearings which is unlikely. Every attempt by conservatives to defeat this nomination should be made.
Here is comes Sen Brownback.
The "Bush can do no wrong and is a small Government Conservative" brigade will be here soon to accuse you of being a communist, wanting to run for President, wanting to be loved by Hollywood and the Media and for kicking puppies.
The "strategery" behind this has been incompetent.
I have read arguments that Miers was expected to be an easy confirmation and was chosen for that reason. Why ? The Democrats could not accurately argue that Roberts did not have the qualifications to belong on the court. They did not like his positions but they couldn't sell that as reason enough to vote against him. So half the Democrats had to ignore their activists and confirm him.
It cannot be argued that Miers is a brilliant legal scholar with the qualifications to be on the court. So the Democrats have a superb argument to make to moderate voters for not confirming her.
This is the strangest feeling. Gratitude toward the Dems for standing on liberal principle. =D Way to go Brownback. Now if 15 or so more Republicans can just join him...we might be able to force Bush to nominate someone qualified.
The only argument I have against Miers is that there are many better qualified candidates.
One irony in all this is that it will illustrate how utterly worthless these hearings and senatorial grillings are. If Miers follows the same course as Roberts, we will not know anymore about her afterward.
Some of what we are learning about Harriet Miers is genuinely encouraging. She has been identified as an evangelical Christian with deep Christian commitments.
This means that Harriet Miers is not a product of the tight and relatively insulated world of legal scholarship and the judiciary. Her real-world experience in litigation, management, church, and life means that she is less likely to fall prey to the "inside the beltway" syndrome.
"It is time for all good men to come to the aid of their party."
Sam Brownback BUMP.
I feel heartened when I see an inside-the-Beltway politician put principle over party.
It seems as though she has principles and will not kiss his ring.
THe disturbing thing about this report, if true, is that Brownback is NOT saying he won't vote for her because she is unqualified, instead he said he would oppose her because she refused to give him enough information for him to know how she would vote on a Roe V. Wade case.
Up until now, the principled conservative position was that a candidate would be disqualified if they started offering how they would vote on cases in exchange for votes.
DOes that apply ONLY if we already KNOW the candidate will vote the "right" way, so we can keep the democrats from asking the question?
Regardless of how you feel about Miers, is it appropriate for Brownback to specifically ask her about her "willingness" to re-address Roe-V-Wade, and then to vote against her simply because she won't give him an answer?
I'd feel better if he had come out and said that after questioning her, he didn't believe she really understood judicial restraint, or would be a strict constructionist.
But either she gave him good answers on that subject, or he was so busy trying to find a way to get her to promise a vote in a case in exchange for his vote that he didn't get around to asking the proper question.
Am I wrong? Are we comfortable with a process where the nominee is asked how they will vote, and if they say 'for your position' the senator will give them a yea vote, but if they say "i won't answer" the senator then says if she doesn't come up with a better answer he'll vote no?
Thomas Sowell got it right. Senate Republicans are a bunch of weenies.
fyi ping
Would a Brownback led 9-9 'no recommendation' from the Judiciary Committee change some more conservative Senatorial minds perhaps?
I wonder how much of this is principle and how much is it to get your name out there for a Presidential Run? He sure would be a hit with the conservative media if he votes against her.
Whatever happens, this Supreme Court season is chocked full of varied cases. If she is confirmed we all will know whether it was a good appointment or not.
What's worse is that if Bush *did* have a stealth candidate strategy, it's backfiring bigtime.
Conservatives do NOT want to risk another Souter. It's that simple. Give us some real assurance you really will be an originalist. If Miers can't make those assurances stick even in a closed-door session with a Senator, I would prefer we take the fallout of a failed nomination than 20 years of smarting over a missed opportunity to put a conservative on the court.
What he was thinking I just can't fathom. All the hoopla about strict, constructionist judges... and he picks his legal counsel.
BTW... George Allen's been getting the same emails from his constituents.