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

[cyncooper]

You either are thinking of someone else or are lying.

It would behoove you to correct the record as you and I never had an exchange where I said I would not post to you.

Why on earth would I do that? What would I have said to elicit such an extreme response? The answer is it simply didn't happen.

[maryz]

If they did, we would not have Kennedy and Souter on the bench.

From what I've read on some threads, you'd have had to had Kennedy and Souter hooked up to a lie-detector!

[ncphinsfan]

"I trust President Bush and he trust us."

"So do you prefer the red Kool aid or the Purple?"


Neither. That's the eubonics Kool aid.

[Aldin]

So it comes back again not to why we would have rather had someone else, but to the question of why she should be considered unacceptable. In other words, what has she done that disqualifies her from serving on the supreme court?

We wouldn't have nominated her and we have lots of reasons for that which can be shared with our Senators. At the same time, I'm not sure any of the reasons we wouldn't have nominated her are valid reasons to deny her confirmation. We don't know how she'll vote. She may not agree with us in crucial areas. But I can't think of a reason she couldn't serve.

[Cboldt]

I thought they only got to pass four.

Summary of Circuit Court Nominations

F = 7 subjected to failed cloture motions in 108th Congress
4 = "1 of 4" that DEMs offered to let GOP choose which 3 to dump
S = Positive mention in Specter's May 9, 2005 speech

M = MOU of 14 will not vote against cloture
m = MOU of 14 makes no promise regarding cloture
R = Post-MOU, Reid indicates desire to filibuster

C = Out of committee & on the Senate's Executive Calendar
U = Unanimous consent to debate - date TBD
D = Democrats offer to debate - date TBD
v = Debate and vote scheduled
V = Vote -on the nomination- concluded

       --S  --  C--  Boyle, Terrence W.       (4th Cir)
       ---  -R  ---  Haynes, William James II (4th Cir)
       F4S  M-  CUV  Owen, Priscilla          (5th Cir)
       F-S  --  CUV  Griffin, Richard A.      (6th Cir)
       F-S  --  CUV  McKeague, David W.       (6th Cir)
       --S  --  -D-  Neilson, Susan Bieke     (6th Cir)
       F--  mR  ---  Saad, Henry W.           (6th Cir) 
       F4S  mR  C--  Myers, William Gerry III (9th Cir)
       F4S  M-  CUV  Pryor, William H.        (11th Cir)
       F4S  M-  CUV  Brown, Janice Rogers     (D.C. Cir)
       --S  --  CUV  Griffith, Thomas B.      (D.C. Cir)
       ---  -R  ---  Kavanaugh, Brett M.      (D.C. Cir)

Last updated, June 21, 2005

Owen: Cloture passed 81-18 on May 24. Confirmed 55-43 on May 25.
Brown: Cloture passed 65-32 on June 7. Confirmed 56-43 on June 8.
Pryor: Cloture passed 67-32 on June 8. Confirmed 53-45 on June 9.
Griffin: Confirmed 95-0 on June 9.
McKeague: Confirmed 96-0 on June 9.
Griffith: Confirmed 73-24 on June 14.
Myers: Out of Committee on March 17.
Boyle: Out of Committee on June 16.

Additional source material

• List of Nominations in the 109th Congress Judiciary Committee
• Senate Executive Calendar (changes each business day)
• Specter's Speech of May 9, 2005 (109th Congress - Pages S4632 - S4636)
• Senators' Memorandum of Understanding - May 23, 2005
• Reid's agreement of May 24, 2005 (S5857)
• AP Report Reid wants to filibuster Haynes & Kavanaugh - May 28, 2005
• Fox News Report Reid will filibuster Saad & Myers - May 29, 2005
• Boyle was nominated to 4th Cir. in 1991 too, by GHWB

[EllaMinnow]

Coulter's mewling on FOX.

[Stellar Dendrite]

great post!

as ive always said:
vote for dems-- pushing the fast forward button to socialism
vote for repubs-- a small yet ineffective brake on socialism


now when you see conservative congressmen like pence and tancredo, men who have 98-100 ratings with the american conservative union-- being taken to the woodshed by this WH-- you know something's not right with this picture.

[al_again]

And why do people think it would be any different with Miers???

[Ken H]

The amazing thing, is that this thread assumes who the finalists were, and NONE of you know that.

Was Dobson telling the truth when he said the list intentionally excluded men?

[cyncooper]

The entire paragraph cited in the article once again:

He spoke as one who has known and worked with her for well over a decade, who has played host to her when she has been a Federalist Society speaker, and -- perhaps most significant -- who joined her in a battle to get the American Bar Association to rescind its resolution endorsing Roe v. Wade , the decision establishing a right to abortion.

I highlighted her speaking before them, I obviously was aware the ABA has taken stances before and Miers evidently was not for endorsing such.

BTW, remember the brouhaha over Roberts being listed one year on the Federalist Society roster and saying he didn't remember ever being a member?

[frannie]

I don't know who is taking bait or who is the best or the worst. And in reality none of us does. We onkly have opinions.

I don't know what is going to happen but there is more than one SC Justice that was nominated and confirmed by a Republican President who believed, maybe even thought he knew, he was putting a conservative on the court.
You know what happened.

I do know this, the democrats couldn't be doing as good a job as we are to ourselves, dividing the conservatives. Divide and conquer, it still works.

I don't know the answer, I have many problems with Bush, but there is no way I will not vote for the Republican nominee, also support the Republican that runs in our district.

I have never fully agreed with any President. But I have tried to reserve the remarks to being Civil. I have never heard so much attacks against fellow Republicans and they are getting personal.

Perhaps some of you on this FR know each other, but name calling and snide remarks to each other are exactly what the Dim Wits are cheering every time they get on and see what we are all talking about.

I am 82,have never missed a fed. election. Have lived and voted in nine cities or towns in six states. It frightens me to see so much wrangling among ourselves.

Please don't give the libs this much satisfaction. Do speak out, debate and discuss your views. I'm sure there are other elders on here who wonder where the civility has gone.

Love you all but lets try to be polite to each other. I like a good discussion, even a little argument. Please read my tag line.

[maryz]

Thanks. I was probably remembering four confirmed in a cluster.

[Jrabbit]

She'll be on Hannity and Homely tonight. Is she still demanding that Bush be impeached?

[maryz]

Moot point; I was responding to a poster who said if genuine questions could be asked and answered, we wouldn't have Kennedy and Souter. As it is, we have the Ginsburg-Roberts method.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

Enter Harriet Miers, who has never been either a Federalist or a movement woman. Before joining Team Bush in the mid-'90s, she worked her way up the legal ladder, mixing lucrative corporate law with traditional pro bono undertakings. Along the way, we now learn, she gave campaign contributions to various Democratic campaigns. That's standard practice inside law firms, giving money to the powerful without regard to party. But that sort of get-along, go-along approach is exactly what the movement reviles.

http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-oppin044453943oct04,0,2335099.column?coll=ny-viewpoints-headlines

And:

She also said during her sworn testimony that she would not join an organization like the Federalist Society, a group of conservative intellectuals that is a leading proponent of a strict - and some say narrow - interpretation of the Constitution.

"I just feel like it's better not to be involved in organizations that seem to color your view one way or the other for people who are examining you," she said.

Chief Justice John Roberts caused a flap earlier this year by insisting he was not a Federalist Society member, even though records listed him in the group's leadership directory in the late 1990s.

Gene Meyer, president of the Federalist Society, said he wouldn't confirm whether Miers was a member, because it's "up to members themselves to say." But he said Miers has spoken to the group's Washington chapter since she became White House counsel.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/12836996.htm

[rbmillerjr]

bump...I smelled a rat with the whole Dobson story...we need to see who the liar was and make sure we give them lots of publicity.

What a lack of respect they have for Dobson to think he would be gullible enough to believe that line.

[Cboldt]

who joined her in a battle to get the American Bar Association to rescind its resolution endorsing Roe v. Wade , the decision establishing a right to abortion.

I highlighted her speaking before them, I obviously was aware the ABA has taken stances before and Miers evidently was not for endorsing such.

For the bold stuff, which isn't your words, an accurate presentation expresses the grounds for her objection to the resolution. Those grounds were that she though such a hot-button issue required the vote of the entire membership of the ABA in order to be valid - it may have passed, maybe not - but it certainly was going to be passed by ABA leadership. I applaud her sense of wanting to put a divisive issue before the entire membership. But I don't attribute any personal position to her, beyond the desire to have all members vote. She's never expressed a personal position on the matter, instead we have to rely on testimonials from others. I find those testimonials weak, personally.

As for Miers speaking before the FedSoc, you must know thatteh FedSoc welcomes and invites people from the full spectrum of political thought. I arranged Josh Sugarman to participate in a FedSoc sponsored debate.

BTW, remember the brouhaha over Roberts being listed one year on the Federalist Society roster and saying he didn't remember ever being a member?

The brouhaha can be addressed with facts. The mission of the FedSoc is not sinister. The FedSoc is apolitical.

The ABA is NOT apolitical. The ABA advocates advancing certain social change, typically via legislation or legislative interpretation.

[RHINO369]

>>I do know this, the democrats couldn't be doing as good a job as we are to ourselves, dividing the conservatives. Divide and conquer, it still works.<<


Except we are dividing the true conservatives from GOP who don't care about us. W is not a Conservative, hes not liberal either. If he is a Conservative then hes the weakest Ive ever heard of. Bush grew up so wealthy and had such power, hes in it just to be in power. If Bush thought he could have had more power as a democrat he would have taken it. Every thing about this administration has been about taking the easy road. cept the war in iraq, its the only thing that doesn't fit.

[Stellar Dendrite]

dobson isnt a liar-- he's being used.

[EllaMinnow]

Is she still demanding that Bush be impeached?

Nah. She was more subdued today, but still insistent that she was too flattering to Harriet Miers last week. She said we should be getting the "big onchilada."

(her pronunciation, not my spelling. :))