Replies

I swore to stay off these Miers threads...but sometimes the urge is just too irresistible.

Its like watching a potential train wreck in slow motion, you want to turn away, but cant resist looking to see if the truck is going to get off the tracks in time.

Let me say up front that IMHO this nomination process is pretty much over...its a done DEAL...unless something embarrassing comes out this week regarding her activities back in Texas...or if the revolt becomes overpowering to the RNC, and they persuade Miers directly to withdraw.

The horsetradn's over, the preliminary vote counts are in...there are enough pub AND dem votes there right now to put this woman over the top. Bush is not going to withdraw her no matter what.

All thats left is the spinning and the stage management, and the reachin' out to diverse groups to shore up the votes...like the squishy soccer mom middle via the MSM outlet on the Today show.

I agree with Rush...I think that this nomination is a turning point for the contemporary conservative movement...its a mark in the sand. I think it will galvanize and focus us in the coming months and years to come.

But I also think that a Meirs confirmation is ultimately going to provide some millstones around the conservative movement...thats why the dems want her on the court...as damaged goods. (The dem leadership wants her that is...the base is basically clueless..they need to be 'managed' as well.)

The reasons actually have little to do with this womans qualifications directly...she may turn out eventually to be a fine justice and a reliable vote...nobody knows for sure....that aspect is a house favored odds craps shoot at this point, however.

The first millstone is one of PRECEDENT... picking a close personal friend, personal and political lawyer, AND WH counsel all rolled up into one...for a lifetime meritorious appointment. Federalist 76 is not the law of the land, but the intent of one of the most influential founders is pretty clear to any reasonable person. If Meirs had a stellar record of legal scholarly achievement, all this would be a moot point, but as Levin makes clear...she does not. So we at least have the appearance of impropriety here.

I know somebody can go back over the last 200 years or so, and find where a similar nomination has occurred..but it has not to my knowledge happened in recent history. Now extrapolate what this kind of appointment could mean down the road should a corrupt treasonous pol from the OTHER side get in the WH...I shudder to think.

The other millstone is one of RELIGIOUS QUALIFICATION, it is offered here by Bush himself. He is making ...perhaps indirectly...the argument that religious belief should be an aspect of qualification for SCOTUS. ...bad bad move.

Lets assume that this is an indirect enough qualification in this particular case to not be overtly unconstitutional. What if down the road this woman does turn out to be a true originalist in the mold of who know who...Bush has given the libs the very ammunition they can use to argue effectively, in the court of public opinion...that the decisions and judgments rendered by this woman should be suspect...because they were those of a qualification suspect woman who was acknowledged by her nominee to have strong religious beliefs which factored directly in her being chosen in the first place.

We may win the Miers votes...but long term we may be put on the defensive in the war of ideas we must also win to succeed as a movement.

Aside from all this...the issue of the hearings IMO is a little complex and unpredictable...it depends on where the conservative members of the committee want to go ...how far they want to push it.

I think its likely she wont reveal much of anything to the average observer, though experts in con law may pick up clues that she is just reciting chapter and verse from a well rehearsed script (She's cramming on con law and being drilled as we speak).

Of course, Arlen, Lindsey, and Orren will be there to 'help' her through the hearings.

Threes also other potential landmine issues...making the Presidents policies themselves the object of the hearings...and getting her to go on record as being involved in those decisions...and thus liable for future recusials if those cases come before the court. It negates in effect..one of the reasons given for her being on the court in the first place.

All in all...IMO a very poorly thought out strategery..which if the blog rumors are to be believed...Andy Card rather than Rove had a hand in. Im not sure that I buy that...but its good for Rove to distance himself from this snafu...it only verifies my conclusion that this is not the master strategery that we had all hoped for.