Posted on 10/11/2005 4:03:06 PM PDT by Crackingham
If you have praised John Roberts for his many charms, you will need to find other charms if you wish to praise Miss Miers. What was striking last week was the swift and certain verdict from conservatives that no competing set of charms was possible in the case of Miss Miers.
The conservative community wanted a stellar nominee and wanted Mr. Bush to fight. It seems likely to me that Mr. Bush placed a high value on avoiding the prospect of a High Court "nuclear option" scenario, in which Republicans in the Senate queued up a simple majority to change the filibuster rule in order to confirm a new justice. There are three plausible reasons for that: First, there would be a certain taint on a justice who assumed the bench on the basis of a rule change. Second, the nuclear option is itself an escalation — an escalation in response to a prior escalation in the form of a filibuster of a nominee, but an escalation nonetheless. Third, how certain is it that there are 51 GOP votes to change the rule? Is there really a nuclear option? In the course of his consultation with the Senate, Mr. Bush heard of Senate minority leader Harry Reid's now-notorious affection for Miss Miers. This perhaps looked like an opportunity to win without a big fight. He took it. A fight with the left, that is. The question for connoisseurs of politics now is this: Can the right make Mr. Bush pay a significant political price for his selection of Ms. Miers? This is more than a question about the blogosphere and the op-ed pages. Can the opposition to Mr. Bush over Miss Miers turn into declining approval for Mr. Bush among his conservative base, the bulwark of his support?
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Just from what we have seen of her track record so far, it appears she is far more interested in what she sees as socially favorable outcomes as opposed to constitutionalist or conservative ideology. She donated to Dimwits, her law firm remains a highly significant contributor to Dimwit campaigns, including Hillary's. As a Dallas city council member, she was well-liked by her liberal colleagues as someone they could easily work with in spite of being pro-life. She was with them on almost everything else.
In short, she looks like a typical country club type of Republican. Totally okay with big government without constitutional limits, a heart of gold when it comes to social spending, and particularly inclined to let government erect barriers to entry so that big companies can maintain their advantages and collect the taxes to keep the thing running.
GOP leaders, sensing the Democrats' bind, expressed confidence yesterday that the Senate will confirm Bush's eventual nominee, no matter how ideologically rigid. "I think there is every expectation, every reason to believe that there will be no successful filibuster," Majority Whip Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said on "Fox News Sunday."Under the "Gang of 14" accord, the seven Republican signers agreed to deny Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) the votes he needed to carry out his threat to bar judicial filibusters by changing Senate rules. The seven are implicitly released from the deal if the Democratic signers renege on their end. Yesterday, key players suggested the seven Democrats will automatically be in default if they contend a nominee's ideological views constitute "extraordinary circumstances" that would justify a filibuster.
Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), one of the 14 signers, noted that the accord allowed the confirmation of three Bush appellate court nominees so conservative that Democrats had successfully filibustered them for years: Janice Rogers Brown, William H. Pryor Jr. and Priscilla R. Owen. Because Democrats accepted them under the deal, Graham said on the Fox program, it is clear that ideological differences will not justify a filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee.
"Based on what we've done in the past with Brown, Pryor and Owen," Graham said, "ideological attacks are not an 'extraordinary circumstance.' To me, it would have to be a character problem, an ethics problem, some allegation about the qualifications of the person, not an ideological bent."
Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.), a leader of the seven Democratic signers, largely concurred. Nelson "would agree that ideology is not an 'extraordinary circumstance' unless you get to the extreme of either side," his spokesman, David DiMartino, said in an interview.
Pact May Hinder Efforts to Block High Court Nominee
By Charles Babington and Susan Schmidt
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, July 4, 2005; Page A01
So in reply to the information you posted in #22, I gotta ask WTF Bush thinks he is doing? Why NOT nominate a Janice Rogers Brown or a Michael Luttig?
The conservative PUNDIT community...
Mr and Mrs American seem to be just fine with this.
I'm as puzzled as you are. I don't know if it's from weakness, or fear, or cronyism, or he put too much trust in his advisors, or it's a simple error in judgement, or he is dismissing social/constitutionalist conservatives.
I have no idea why. But I do not like the nomination, and it isn't because I have any dislike for Harriet Miers. I picture her to be a sweet, competent (at least average, and probably better than average) lawyer, who has ambition, heart, and lots of charity. I feel bad for her.
Unless she's really a cold witch like Carly Fiorina - but that's her - my beef is with Presndent Bush for not standing up to the Senate.
Folks, Judges are always picked like this! The real problem is that GWBush picked outside the judicial monestary.
People who want judicial spots DO campaign, they DO politic. They DO curry favor with those on judicial committees, THEY EVEN HIRE "CONSULTANTS"!
Judicial job seeking is not a pure and vituous pursuit that the MSM would have you believe.
Love it. Since Repubs outnumber the dems in the senate, it shouldn't even be an issue.
Concur, but it is central to the issue at hand.
The "gang of 14" spokesmen said months ago that they would not stand for filibusters based on ideology. Therefore I fail to see the f'ing problem.
The "f'ing problem" is Arlen.S who is not the spokesman you refer to and would have killed their nominations in the committee he should not chair.
The "f'ing problem" is Arlen.S who is not the spokesman you refer to and would have killed their nominations in the committee he should not chair.
The fact that you think those issues have any real gravity leads me to believe you sip too much (D)rat koolAid.
If you really think Arlen's primary opponent would won an open Senate seat in a state that voted for JF'inKerry ... then your just wishin'
I'm going to respond by what I wrote earlier:
"The President has done an A+ job of picking judges the last 5 years and I don't see him messing up on his most important judicial selection after doing a flawless job the last 5 years. I believe that Miers is a stealth conservative, a Scalia disguised as a O'Connor. If this is the case, we have the best of both worlds, the conservative we want with no fight to get her on the S.C. I believe next July when the S.C. goes on recess, conservatives will never doubt the President again on judicial nominations."
Apparantly have 5 years of picking excellent nominees you suddenly believe Bush is going to pick a not so excellent nominee for his most important judicial nomination of the last 5 years. I trust him on this one. There is one thing I've learned about the President the last 5 years, he's certainly not his father and learned alot from his father's mistakes.
Yeah, that Bush, wishy-washy coward, rolling over for the Dems so they can once again stick it to him and us.
blahblahblah.
According to THIS PAGE Miers left the Dallas City Council in 1991.
According to THIS PAGE she underwent a fundamental political transformation by 1994. The smaller PAC donations may have been more for professional goodwill than serious political commitment. But the seriousness of the actual campaign contributions shows where her real core is now, in my opinion.
This does NOT mean I'm thrilled she was nominated; I was rooting for JRB or Michael Luttig myself. But in attempting to be more objective and less emotional, I wish to put Miers' past indiscretions in their proper perspective. I was a DemocRAT once too, many years ago, and I know first-hand transformations can be sweeping even while you keep your old 'rat friends, business associates and clients.
It took you this long to figure that out?
I am willing to bet that she will get a free ride from the Dims in the confirmation hearings. They have plenty of dirt: executive priilege and the holding back of documents, the Texas Lottery Commission and relationship with Barnes, her role as gatekeeper during the days before 9/11 and the runup to the war, etc. They will basically touch none of it, and make the hearings a love fest.
Why? They know the Republican base is disenchanted and they want to keep us that way into 2006. Frankly, I am disenchanted. At this point, I'd rather have an inneffective liberal government than an effective moderate, corporatist one. And I think quite a few conservatives agree with me.
Kinda makes me think of Jerry Jones making the choice for Dallas' first round draft pick, when it is typically left up to the GM....
Aha! Good points which definitely need to be taken into account. Thanks.
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.