80% of Potential SCOTUS Nominees on W's List Decline His Offer

Fox News | 10-11-05 | freedom4me

[freedom4me]

During the 11:00 p.m. (CST) newsbreak, Donna Fuducia reported that Karl Rove told James Dobson that 80% of the potential SCOTUS nominees on the President's list declined his offer because of they didn't want to undergo the grueling confirmation process. Perhaps this sheds new light on the reason why W chose Miers.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

"I don't fault them for fearing all the intense media attention and attacks though. Particularly when they attack your family members."

Exactly so. That was apparently the main motive for bowing out. One thing we conservatives value is our families, and we seek to shield them from unnecessary pain.

[BamaGirl]

Exactly so. That was apparently the main motive for bowing out. One thing we conservatives value is our families, and we seek to shield them from unnecessary pain.
---
Yeah that's the problem with being one of the good guys. It is so much harder to succeed than if you were one of the bad guys, because you have ideals to follow.

[oceanview]

well that's an easy one - name Rick Santorum. he's likely going to be defeated anyway - he's young, conservative, and we know where he stands.

Do you think Santorum could be confirmed? I don't.

[cyncooper]

Pukin Dog: Great work in your last opus. Many knee jerk freepers owe you an apology for making fun of what you said.

I heard this was discussed on Fox News Sunday roundtable, before PD's "scoop".

[KC_Conspirator]

While that may be true, one does not have the MSM, the Washington crowd, the special interests groups, or Pat Leahy smearing you and your family when you take the top job.

[Map Kernow]

Here's a post from Kathryn Jean Lopez of NRO's Corner blog today:

A journalist friend just spoke with a top Texas lawyer who spoke with Priscilla Owen last week. He says that she "most emphatically" did not withdraw her name from consideration to the Court. If the White House spin is that Harriet Miers got the job because nobody else wanted it, it would seem that the White House is at a desperation point.

KLo's too much of a lady to say it: we're being lied to.

[BamaGirl]

While that may be true, one does not have the MSM, the Washington crowd, the special interests groups, or Pat Leahy smearing you and your family when you take the top job.
---
MSM -- you mean that gag reel which is the NYT? Special interests like Code Pinko wimpies? Pat Leahy? Pffft. Oh that guy is such a dork.

We have to start laughing at our enemies, and not be scared of them. That's the easiest way to dsicredit them. Especially so because of their goofy ideas and lack of logic.

[Map Kernow]

However, you did refer to the story as "steer manure", a nice way of saying "bull s**t". Taken to its logical conclusion that implies one of two things.

Nice of you to rely on an alternative implication to derive an inference that I was accusing Dobson of being a liar. I didn't ask you for a lesson in logic or a lecture on civility---I asked you to show me where I had accused Dobson of being a liar. You didn't manage it. So long.

[maryz]

I just thought you considered any idea of Harry Reid's a disqualifier.

[Map Kernow]

Here's another interesting take from NRO Corner, Ramesh Ponnuru this time:

Defenders of the Miers nomination seem to have shifted from saying that there's no point in criticizing it because confirmation is assured to saying that criticizing it is destructive because its withdrawal or defeat would cause large Republican losses next November. The shift in emphasis seems to suggest the nomination's increased vulnerability. Even if it doesn't, the electoral point is worth taking seriously. Looking back at the Bork debacle of 1987 won't settle the question, but may be worth doing. Conservatives were far more invested in the Bork nomination than they are in the Miers nomination. Bork was defeated, not withdrawn. And the president was further embarrassed when his next nomination had to be withdrawn, too. These events have had long-lasting negative effects. But their immediate electoral effects were not so large. Republicans lost one Senate seat, and kept the presidency, in 1988.

Conclusion: even if the nomination is in jeopardy, even if it is withdrawn or defeated, it won't cause the kind of electoral harm people like Hugh Hewitt are now trying to tout.

[ContemptofCourt]

Probably the harshest criticism leveled at Miers stems from her only foray into pure politics: her two-year term as an at-large member of the Dallas City Council from 1989 to 1991. She didn't run for re-election after she won the State Bar presidency. It was a tumultuous time on the council, with contentious issues such as the Wright Amendment, Dallas' light-rail system and council redistricting all in play. Although none contacted would speak for attribution, some of her former council colleagues still criticize Miers as uncommunicative and worse. Yet others praise her.

. . .

Says Miers: "I'm not universally liked by everyone because I have very strong views of what's right and wrong, and I take my positions seriously and I fight for them strongly. And the role on the council was different in the sense that you really, in that arena, have to take the positions you feel are in the best interest of the city. And on a variety of very controversial issues, I felt very strongly about them and took a very aggressive position, and as to some of the council members, that made me unpopular because they were on the other side of those issues."

-------

But:

For the most part, Miers operated in the background, leaving her colleagues perplexed about her political ideology. She also had a tendency to switch stances on critical issues, a trait supporters said showed her thoughtfulness but that critics labeled indecision.

"We spent about 1,200 hours together and had in excess of 6,000 agenda items, and I never knew where Harriet was going to be on any of those items until she cast her vote," former council colleague Jim Buerger said. "I wouldn't consider her a liberal, a moderate or a conservative, and I can't honestly think of any cause she championed."

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051009/REPOSITORY/510090326/1013/NEWS03

[counterpunch]

I just thought you considered any idea of Harry Reid's a disqualifier.

Why would you think that?
It would be an assumption without evidence if you did.
I think taking advice from the opposition leader on specific names the opposition would like to see on the court and then using it as a selling point to your own base is really inept.

But that is a specific idea that I find objectionable, not any idea. It is quite different than simply pointing to Reid's acknowledgment of the long Senate tradition of supporting one of their own.

Now if Reid's suggestion had come with the qualifier that it must be a specific Senator, say, Senator Robert Byrd, and Bush took that specific advice, then I would be critical of him for doing so. I see little difference between that and what Bush actually did.

[FreeAtlanta]

I would jump on it in a heart beat.

[Steve_Stifler]

The only way that a Miers' withdrawal causes lasting electoral harm to the Republicans is if Bush nominates a moderate candidate. Naming a superior conservative candidate with intellectual heft and a known track record would undo any damage, IMHO.

[maryz]

Well, because you said "now we're taking Harry Reid's ideas."

Reid did suggest names -- as I recall many of them were conservative. Without checking, I don't know how many came from states with Dem governors who would name a replacement. In any case, I'm sure Reid thought it would be a great idea to get rid of a conservative senator and get a Dem.

[counterpunch]

In any case, I'm sure Reid thought it would be a great idea to get rid of a conservative senator and get a Dem.

Sure, and that's a fine trade. Give him a pawn in exchange for a Queen. Rick Santorum is a conservative from a state with a Democrat governor. Nominate him and make Reid happy. Rick's probably going to lose his re-election to the Democrat anyways.

[TheCrusader]

"Are you at all familiar with these hearings or just commenting from afar?"

I am absolutely familiar with them.

"First, not all of the current justices went through this process as it is conducted today."

I believe that running from the vicious Democrats gives the other side exactly what they want, it's nothing more or less than liberal terrorism.

Which brings to mind some brave men like Clarence Thomas and the unflagging courage and conviction he summoned up to submit himself to partisan Senatorial questioning, including witnesses who impugned his character and slandered his name. Other patriots who placed the interest of our nation before their own fears include Justice Roberts and Robert Borke. Roberts faced down the vicious senators with fearlessness and class, and now he's more powerful than any one of them. Borke eventually got torpedoed, but he stepped up and faced what he knew were going to be brutal, partisan hearings. There were others who passed through the gauntlet as well.

"Secondly, politicians are not subject to this kind of direct, eye ball to eye ball questioning and have some control of their stages."

I think they are subject to it, by the hounding media. In fact, many politicians are subject to far more investigations, attacks and character assassinations, because there are huge political machines on the "other side" who have a whole lot of time and assets to dig up dirt on rival candidates. And the process lasts a whole lot longer than for judicial nominees.

"Third, this isn't about the honor of the men and women who might be nominated, it's about the lack of honor in the process. Consider that before you make your military comparisons."

I used a military analogy because they are such great examples of courageous people who put their very lives on the line for their country; whereas politicans and judicial nominees are merely subject to verbal assaults. So there is definately an element of honor involved, it's summed up by whether or not these nominees are grateful to the President who nominated them for this awesome role they would play in the destiny of America.

So I am staying with my original statement, that the President has apparently gotten some very bad advice, as he apparently considered only a handful of female candidates for SCOTUS nominees, who by-and-large were a group of selfish cowards. They were unwilling to put the welfare of their own country, (and maybe even the existence of America as we know it), before their own fears of facing a difficult hearing process. Where is their patriotism and personal conviction, and where was their gratitude and sense of duty?? Bush could have, and should have done better for those conservatives who supported him and helped get him elected.

[TheCrusader]

"It's simply not true that all of the sitting justices went through the character assassination that now prevails. The MSM gives a pass to Rat nominees"

I understand this, but those who decided to face the liberal attacks have been greatly rewarded, and so has America as a result. I am thinking of C. Thomas and Cheif Justice Roberts. Robert Borke too, though he got torpedoed by the rats he had the courage and conviction to step up to the plate in gratitude and duty to the President who nominated him.

It didn't do the President any good to release the fact that most of his candidates cut and ran from facing the liberals. Though I am very grateful the cowards were weeded out in the process, it gave the liberals a great moral victory in knowing they have terrorized conservatives into acts of cowardice. It also showed poor selection by the President. I voted for Bush in both elections, but I don't see anything wrong with taking him to task when he doesn't live up to his campaign promises.

But it's all moot now, we have Miers for the SCOTUS nominee and we have been 'assured' by the President she will be a good one for conservatives. Talk is cheap, only time will tell now.

[rbmillerjr]

I smelled a rat yesterday and I was correct.

P. Owen states emphatically that she did not take her name off the list...seems we have some on here that are either
1) lying to spin
2) trying to act like they are in the know and aren't
3) are Pary hacks spinning

Either way it needs to be called out for what it is...lying bullshit.

Here is the link
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1501301/posts?q=1&&page=336#336

[Dolphy]

I hesitate to compare anything going on in the Senate today with what has gone on in the past. The data mining is different, access is different with the internet and the unprecedented filibusters we have seen are different.

They were unwilling to put the welfare of their own country, (and maybe even the existence of America as we know it), before their own fears of facing a difficult hearing process. Where is their patriotism and personal conviction, and where was their gratitude and sense of duty??

Go ask Estrada about his personal convictions and gratitude. What in the world, with the stakes even higher, makes you believe these political realities don't exist?

Bush could have, and should have done better for those conservatives who supported him and helped get him elected.

I can name you dozen of Bush supporters with whom I volunteered on his campaign and none of us feel he's letting us down. The Senate and the RNC are different stories. Blaming the President and the cowardliness of would be nominees completely misses the point and more importantly, it doesn't address the problem. In fact it only provides cover for the problem and assures that it will continue.