Posted on 10/13/2005 5:03:29 PM PDT by ejdrapes
Did the White House Smear Batchelder? [Jonathan Adler 10/13 03:20 PM] Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Alice Batchelder was reportedly on the Administrations short list for a Supreme Court vacancy at some point. According to FNCs Brit Hume, she was struck from the list because of a record of judicial activism. In response to Bill Kristols suggestion that Batchelder would have been a better nominee on Fox News Sunday, Hume said
Those familiar with Batchelders record were surprised at the charge. Over at No Left Turns, Robert Alt wonders where Hume got the idea that Batchelder is an activist. If the White House was the source of this charge (and other unflattering and even more spurious notions floated about Batchelder in recent weeks), it is very troubling. As Alt observes, smearing qualified candidates for the Court is no way for this administration to win back the trust and loyalty of the conservative base.I can tell you this about Alice Batchelder. She was very, very closely vetted. And you know what they found? They found all kinds of evidence of activism in her record. And they were quite surprised and not pleased to find that.
When Kristol questioned this new smear tactic, Brit incredulously suggested that this is something he found on his own. But, as Brits first statement makes clear, the only way he could have gotten this information about White House opinion is by hearing it from the White House (unless of course he is simply reporting second hand reportswhich would mean that he was engaging in rather loose reporting practices).
I'm defending her right to a hearing. If she tanks, I'll join you in calling for her defeat.
But this pre-emptive jihad some of you have declared on Bush and Miers ought to be embarrassing to you.
You scream when Democrats won't give our nominees an up-or-down vote, yet you want to deny Harriett Miers that very thing.
I said this here the day after Bush announced Miers and I've said it many times since.
I've now heard it many times when CNN, CNBC, MSNBC and Fox have these people on to slam the Miers nomination.
It's been said using code words but I've picked it up pretty well.
The nomination is an embarrassment to Bush and to anyone who wishes he would succeed.
From Another Thread: Freeper Burr5 reported on an article by David Brooks:
"You know I was one of Bush and Miers' staunchest defenders until this morning. Ann Coulter's column was a big blow. Peggy Noonan's was even bigger. But when I heard what David Brooks had written about this nomination, that was the last straw. I'd provide a link, but the NYTimes is registration-only, and people have to do that for themselves.
"Essentially, Brooks quoted excerpt after excerpt of Miers' own writings from her days with the Texas Bar Association.
They are the barely coherent ramblings of a singularly unimpressive mind- cliche-filled, garbled, ungrammatical, and devoid of any facts to buttress her assertions. It's like listening to your boss at a meeting prattling on about synergy, thinking outside-the-box, and win-win situations.
"I was wrong. Maybe she would vote to over-turn Roe. Maybe she would do what Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts suggest she do. I thought that would be good enough. It is not. I don't support this nomination anymore because the woman simply DOES NOT DESERVE this job. Not with legal geniuses like Janice Rogers Brown out there.
"Peggy Noonan. Ann Coulter. Glenn Beck. Laura Ingraham. Rush Limbaugh. David Frum. David Brooks. Robert Bork. Pat Buchanan. Mona Charen.
"I wanted all those people to be wrong. I thought it fair to get to know Harriet Miers before opposing her. I know enough now."
Says 17% of the GOP. 54% think she's just fine.
Me, I'll wait until the hearings.
And Burr 5, I don't know who the hell he is.
Give her a hearing. This trashing of Miers before her opportunity to answer the only people that matter, the Judiciary Committee of the US Senate, makes those who are engaged in it look like a bunch of unreasonable bastards.
All the people you quoted want the fight because it's their reason for being.
They have radio shows and books to sell and they are getting alot of air time right now and they all have their book cover (except Rush) right there on the screen when they talk.
Listen to the hearings on her and see what she says on the issues important to you then make up your own mind !
Good Grief! What is wrong with the President putting this lady up for the nomination? Is she a monster, or something? All this carrying on! It's as if she's committed a crime, the way some of you are talking about her! What's the problem? I don't know that much about her myself, but why not let the lady get her "day in court"?
Come on, lets let the senators decide whether she is qualified or not! If they don't like her answers, they won't vote to confirm her, ok? I've never seen such a firing squad aimed at any of his other nominees! What's the Pres. supposed to do? Hang his head in shame, and say: "Oh, I was only joking, I'll remove her nomination right away, don't shoot me!"? Ok, I'm being overly dramatic. However, I'm still mystified by this continued bad attitude against this woman.
What are people afraid of? She apparently helped to vet the other nominees, and the others were quite conservative, weren't they? Look what they were subjected to! Don't you all (those that are against her)see what happened to all of the others? It took them at least 4-5 years for them to get confirmed. All kinds of trash was thrown out on them! Don't you see that if it was known she is a dyed-in-the-wool, strict 'originalist', strong conservative as you wish, what would happen to her? Just consider!
Ah yes. Who is being overly dramatic now sink?
It is sordid. She was not the most qualified, and Bush nominated a friend, not a jurist. Moreover, we are being asked to allow the future of our nation's moral base into the hands of a former Democrat who has demonstrably showed ten times the loyalty to a single man (Bush) than to Conservative ideology.
You may be right with your shouting: "NOT GOING TO WITHDRAW MIERS"
That is his and our misfortune. His "my way to the highway" approach has already caused horrific damage to the party. Is that too overly dramatic for you to accept?
Moreover, I blame the White House for this entire fiasco (and it is a fiasco). It didn't have to be this way.
Maybe Brit fired up his computer and did some digging on his own.
They may come around, but they have dug their heels in even further because they are embarrassed.
At this point at very LEAST apologies are in order for calling their own people that re-elected them with sweat, tears and drains on financial budgets sexist and elitist.
Agreed, but I see no clue of that on the horizon.
We've had verbal spats with the W.H. before, immigration was a beauty, but this is the first real spanking they've ever had. They are shocked, red faced, humiliated, defensive, angry, etc...
After watching the hapless Scott McClellan yesterday, I must say your observations are dead on. This is painful to watch.
What happened to Karl Rove's management and leadership of these people? Why is Bush reacting with such venom towards his own?
It is this kind of rhetoric that is inappropriate and uncalled for. So now, Miers opponents are akin to Islamic Fascists launching a jihad?
I have fought against that ideology sir, and have endured hardships and family separations to do so.
I will add now being a "Jihadist" to being a "Sexist", "Elitist" (from the White House attacks).
Glad to know you all want Miers so much you are willing to sew these seeds of such hostility. Perhaps it is all of you supporters of this nasty episode who should take a breath and look in the mirror.
Look, I want to give Miers a hearing, and then make a decision. It is jihadi-like (and, yes, I use that term intentionally) to want to drive her out of the process before she gets an opportunity to answer the queries of the Senators.
You say that Bush has a "my-way-or-the-highway" attitude, while you take the very same stance yourself.
Bush has NEVER disappointed in his judicial picks, yet now you think he is betraying you for one of the most important decisions of his presidency.
I just don't get it.
This should have ended last weekend, with her withdrawal. I am finally seeing the end that you have been advocating: she won't withdraw. Andy Card, Scott McClellan, Ed Gillespie, and the rest of the goons sent out to sell us this pig in a Polk will only continue their scorched earth policy against their own supporters. I finally realize that the bridges over the Rhine are already blown to toothpicks and are set ablaze.
If you don't see that this nomination has ripped the GOP apart, then I cannot paint the picture for you. Bush should have realized his error early on, and corrected it. I can now see that he won't. So be it.
For all who have argued so vociferously for Miers, I surrender. It looks like you are going to get what you wanted.
Enjoy the Pyrrhic victory. It was well earned.
Well, only if those who want to rip it apart keep it ripped apart.
According to Rasmussen, 54% of Republicans support Miers' nomination. Only 17% say, at this point, that she should be voted down. That's not a very large "anti" number.
Most Americans are very fair people, and they are willing to give Miers a chance to make her case. It is un-American to put somebody in the arena, then have her chased over the wall by a pack of howling dogs before she even gets a chance to open her mouth.
The more the pundits rant, the more unfair this treatment of her appears to be, and the more certain it becomes that she WILL get her hearing.
The poster who quoted the 2% figure admitted to being facetious, of course, but don't get your hopes up. Miers will be on the court and she will be a strict constructionist.
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.