MIERS & LAST-MINUTE DROP-OUTS (Priscilla Owen did not withdraw her name)

National Review Online: The Corner ^ | 10-12-2005 | Kathryn Jean Lopez

[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

[Ol' Sparky]

Shocking! You mean Karl Rove and the Bush Administration lied to James Dobson?

How are we supposed to trust the President on the nominee when he and his advisors openly lie to try persuade conservatives into voting for her?

[hosepipe]

[ ..what about Kenneth Starr? ]

You mean the Ken Starr that fired anyone with any crediblity on his staff (to imprune Clinton) but kept John Roberts, .......that Ken Starr..

Good question.. Starr (the inveterate bureaucrat) would be a good match for Roberts.. with the balls of a flea and the mouth of a weasle.. Harriet Meirs has more balls than Ken Starr.. and a bigger and more potent....., well you know..

[Aldin]

I'm sorry, but what reasons would those be? I'm genuinely confused here, what valid objections are there(given the low Constitutional bar set for the position)?

[trubluolyguy]

And it's going to get worse if Miers does withdraw and the president ... and I'd be willing to bet the head of my firstborn that this will be the case ... again fails to nominate somebody on the order of Brown, Owen or Luttig.

---

I could pretty much guarantee you a Democrat Senate in '06 if that were to happen. But what the hell? The Republocrats were'nt using it anyway.

[F16Fighter]

"Funny, NRO and RedState.org were reporting on Owens removing her name the weekend before the Miers announcement.

Were they wrong then or are they wrong now? I don't know how reliable the friend of a friend comments are at any time."

1) Owens is a team player who slipped up.

2) The White House had a plan to implant a moderate SC nominee.

3) Dobson was used by the White House

4) The White House plan of dis-information was busted.

[flashbunny]

"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?"

Replace "Miers" with "Hillary" to see exactly why your statement is so wrong.

Countless Judges have promised the same things, only to end up going left after getting the job.

I want someone who has fought the hard battles for years. Someone who has put their principles out for the world to see - not someone who has made keeping those positions hidden one of their highest priorities in life.

[Stellar Dendrite]

"Rush was right. I'm glad to see that he is not this Administration's water boy."


Rush has surprised me this week. Laura Ingraham too.

[chris1]

This nomination, and the people that blindly support it, are no different than the RATS who condoned Cigar Boy's behavior.

Its party over principal.

[Cboldt]

I've said this until I'm blue in the face, but once more, we are reaping the fallout from not doing the constitutional option when we had a chance.

And I've said until I was blue in the face, DEMs control the timing of that event. Absent their objection, there cannot be a nuclear option. Instead we got a negotiated settlement to avoid a fight.

And it was predicted by nearly everyone, then, that the fight was not avoided - it wsa merely delayed.

And now, not only is the fight delayed, but the aversion to fight has caused a timid nomination.

Rah Rah GOP - fight the good fight for judicial consrvatism and constitutional principle. Way to go!

[Huck]

I agree with you that all the options look bad at this point. I was talking about before he picked Miers. If he picked Miers to avoid a fight, obviously that has been a disasterous miscalculation. Now there is no face-saving way to back out, and even if she gets whacked by the Senate, the president can't nominate one of the justices he overlooked without appearing to be capitulating to his base. My point is, he got a fight either way. Had he or his team been smart enough to see that coming, then he could have picked the fight with the bad guys instead of with us. But I think this pick just shows what the president is truly made of, and that's not a compliment.

[Ol' Sparky]

Isn't his main point that Miers wasn't the best choice, but rather, the only option available to President Bush?

First, we were supposed to believe she was the most qualified. Then, we were supposed to believe she was all that was left on a quota list of women Bush favored. But, now, we know that administration has openly lied one way or the other to try and this nomination through.

And, we're supposed to trust the President on this one? I don't think so.

[deport]

"My hearsay can beat your hearsay!"

---

Not yet.......

Conservatives and Ms Miers nomination:

FOR: 54%

AGAINST: 9%

[Aldin]

Not to be difficult, and my personal preference would be along the lines you state, but is there something beyond what we would like to see in a nominee as an objection?

[Cboldt]

Miers should resume her job helping select federal judges.

She was involved in the Roberts selction process (as WH counsel) only. The Circuit Court and District court nominations predate her Feb 2005 entry into WH counsel position by years in most cases, and months in some.

[TAdams8591]

WOW, it would seem that my comments yesterday, that I so ardently had to defend, were spot on.

Why lie about Ownes when it could be so easily checked?

[flashbunny]

Thing is rush, and I assume laura, have been doing the same thing they always do. Defending positions and principles and insisting on high standards and facts. They have not changed, merely their target has changed.

On the other hand, the defenders of miers, all the way from here up to the administration, seem to have changed from upholding those same standards to adopting the tactics and rationalization of the left.

If you find yourself doing that, you may want to take a long, hard look at yourself and what you're doing and why you're doing it.

[Ol' Sparky]

The facts are this administration has been caught LYING to get this nominee appointed. This from a President who wants us to trust him that Miers is an originalist and won't become liberal on the Supreme Court.

This nomination is a joke and Bush is losing credibility each day he continues on with this disaster.

[al_again]

McCain is pro-life - why would you include him in this group???

[flashbunny]

try taking a look at the poll of MEMBERS on this site.

Count up the pro miers total, and then compare it to the blanket 'no' votes or 'need more info' votes.

You'll find a great disparity.

[ken5050]

If Miers does decide to withdraw her nomination, here are some possible reasons she can give:

1. As pictures have shown, she once had BIG hair.

2. She had a brief affair with David Souter in the early 80's when then both were on a cruise to Bermuda for one of those phoney "continuing education" deals.

3. Teresa Heinz Kerry was a HUGE user of the now discredited tax-shelters that Miers' firm offered opinion letters on. That is the main reason that Kerry did NOT release his tax returns during the last campaign.