Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

MIERS & LAST-MINUTE DROP-OUTS (Priscilla Owen did not withdraw her name)
National Review Online: The Corner ^ | 10-12-2005 | Kathryn Jean Lopez

Posted on 10/12/2005 12:26:51 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite

MIERS & LAST-MINUTE DROP-OUTS [Kathryn Jean Lopez] 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. Posted at 12:07 PM


TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: harrietmiers; miers; priscillaowen; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 381-395 next last
To: Map Kernow

Your good!


101 posted on 10/12/2005 12:56:06 PM PDT by chris1 ("Make the other guy die for his country" - George S. Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: tomahawk
Edit #88:

"but I think he [dobson] should NOT inveigle himself in internal Washington pr wars.

102 posted on 10/12/2005 12:56:09 PM PDT by Shermy (Consigliere Miers, please report back to the lottery office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Huck

"Even if they would have filibustered, so what?"

Ok, let's think this through. You can't get Miers through. Good or bad, it's a reality. Who's next?

Al Gonzales? I can tell you, it won't encouraged anyone, conservative or otherwise, who was THINKING of putting themselves forward as a candidate, to put themselves through what Rush has accurately described as a long drawn out public anal exam.

Seriously...if that is the outcome with a nominee that many of the CONSERVATIVES are opposed to, how likely is it really that you would get a second nominee MORE conservative.

I'm not saying that is how it should be. It's like that old Jack Nicholson movie..."It's doesn't have to make sense. It's Chinatown."

"It's Washington."


103 posted on 10/12/2005 12:56:17 PM PDT by Keith (now more than ever...it's about the judges)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Keith

Good idea. Let's get rid of Bayh ;)


104 posted on 10/12/2005 12:56:35 PM PDT by mosquitobite (What we permit; we promote. ~ Mark Sanford for President!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: deport

"The wingers and their unnamed sources...... LOL"

Just like the 2nd and 3rd hand reports of her bonafides, eh?

"My hearsay can beat your hearsay!"


105 posted on 10/12/2005 12:56:50 PM PDT by flashbunny (Sorry, but I'm allergic to KoolAid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Keith
I believe I read recently that the WH was told by members of the gang of 14 on BOTH sides of the aisle that Owens and Brown would be filibustered.

Then at least 1 is changing his tune from earlier in the year.

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


106 posted on 10/12/2005 12:57:36 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Itzlzha

BWHAHAHAHAHA!!! You owe me a new monitor!!


107 posted on 10/12/2005 12:58:42 PM PDT by mosquitobite (What we permit; we promote. ~ Mark Sanford for President!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Shermy

That is how insane this nomination really is.


108 posted on 10/12/2005 12:58:54 PM PDT by chris1 ("Make the other guy die for his country" - George S. Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: michigander

Karen Williams also did not decline...


109 posted on 10/12/2005 12:59:18 PM PDT by ContemptofCourt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Stellar Dendrite
Now KLo has linked to a Reuters story that states in pertinent part:

Some Supreme Court candidates withdrew from consideration but that had nothing to do with President George W. Bush's eventual selection of White House lawyer Harriet Miers, the White House said on Wednesday.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan confirmed what conservative Christian leader James Dobson told his radio program about an October 1 telephone conversation he had had with top White House aide Karl Rove, in which Rove tried to convince Dobson to support Miers for the Supreme Court.

A senior administration official said it was "just a couple" of candidates who had withdrawn from consideration.

As KLo put it, Miers was what the WH had to offer---take it or leave it! I'm leaving it.

110 posted on 10/12/2005 12:59:20 PM PDT by Map Kernow ("I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing" ---Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stellar Dendrite

Does anyone have any facts yet or are all us FReepers still chasing around rumor and innuendo like a couple of neighbors over the back fence?

If Miers is willing to solemnly swear that she will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that she will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon her as a justice under the Constitution and laws of the United States, what reason can be offered for opposing her?


111 posted on 10/12/2005 12:59:20 PM PDT by Aldin (George Miller's Rebellious Serf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ContemptofCourt

Well that would seem to put a major hitch into that getalong then wouldn't it?


112 posted on 10/12/2005 1:00:57 PM PDT by michigander (The Constitution only guarantees the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Aldin

The same reasons that would be proffered if I had been nominated?


113 posted on 10/12/2005 1:01:00 PM PDT by ContemptofCourt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: flashbunny
I'd look for a graceful withdrawl, from the nominee, of course, maybe early next week.

I've been saying for a while that if she is looking at the current situation, maybe she'll fall on her sword for the good of the party and the administration.

114 posted on 10/12/2005 1:01:21 PM PDT by McGruff (The speculation continuessssss.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Stellar Dendrite


I agree.


115 posted on 10/12/2005 1:01:21 PM PDT by exdem2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Aldin
what reason can be offered for opposing her?

Conservatives have been waiting decades for this opportunity. Frankly her"word" isn't good enough. We need someone with a brilliant constitutional record as a federal judge. No more no less, bye bye Ms. Miers

116 posted on 10/12/2005 1:02:32 PM PDT by piceapungens
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Map Kernow; chris1; flashbunny; Itzlzha; Do not dub me shapka broham
"GWB is starting to look like Tessio at the end of the Godfather 1 on this issue."

Speaking of the Godfather--

Bush:"We're gonna make them an offer they can't refuse."



Rove:"This is a message from George W Corleone!!!!"


117 posted on 10/12/2005 1:02:56 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite ( Mike Pence for President!!! http://acuf.org/issues/issue34/050415pol.asp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: ContemptofCourt
What still nags at the back of my mind - if Miers was the point person for vetting candidates for the SCOTUS and also in consideration for the position, isn't that a total conflict of interest? "We can't find anyone, Mr. President, aside from myself."

The story floating that someone backed out over the weekend and Andy Card pushing Miers to take the slot sounds most reasonable at this point. They self imposed a deadline of that Monday to announce and didn't feel that they had enough time to fully vet another candidate...

Of course, this begs the question to be asked - why not? Someone should have assumed that at some point in eight years that Bush would be making a nomination or two, and they should have had a thick file full of folks already vetted and ready to step forward. I don't like the reactionary implications here.
118 posted on 10/12/2005 1:03:16 PM PDT by kingu (Draft Fmr Senator Fred Thompson for '08.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: xzins
No one said, to my memory (to include Pukin Dog) that EVERY candidate withdrew. That would be unusual.

Your correct. Pukin dog sad 3 withdrew, and 1 was unqualified due to background. Sheesh. Where do people come up with the exxageration that ALL of the qualified candidates withdrew. Clearly, 3 of 4 is not ALL.

Hey buddy, I didn't care then what they said, and I don't care now. If someone wants to apologize, fine. I wont stay up nights waiting for it. And just to clear up the current dispute:

THE SHORT LIST WAS 5 WOMEN, 3 declined, 1 was disqualified on her history, and Miers was left holding the trophy.

Ya think anyone will believe me now? I wont hold my breath.

127 posted on 10/12/2005 12:39:53 AM EDT by Pukin Dog


119 posted on 10/12/2005 1:03:23 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: michigander

What history would disqualify them that wasn't already brought up during the confirmation hearings for the Appeals Court?? Here's my guess, some random woman under consideration - maybe even two of them - who haven't gone through recent confirmation, much less an acrimonious confirmation, were disqualified on the basis of some vague past allegation, and the White House is spinning these statements based on that.

Yeah, I don't trust the WH. I guess that's obvious..


120 posted on 10/12/2005 1:03:47 PM PDT by AntiGuv (™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 381-395 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson