Posted on 10/14/2005 7:23:47 AM PDT by new yorker 77
I was listening to the John Batchelor Program on WABC Radio in New York last night.
He commented on the process that went into nominating Miers and added that the likelyhood of her nomination withdrawn has grown.
It has grown from 5% last week, to 30% end of last week, to 50% beginning of this week, to 75% last night.
Fund was on the program to comment on his op-ed piece:
How She Slipped Through Harriet Miers's nomination resulted from a failed vetting process.
Thursday, October 13, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT Link: http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/
any chance it could be a conservative pundit cospiracy of "protesting too much?' to defuse criticism/ activism of the left. Afterall, Ann Coulter was a harbinger with her opposition to Roberts.
The next nominee is Gonzalez. Paper trail, judge and ethnic minority most of what the RATS and Uber-Cons find lacking in Miers.
Like he did on the war? Oh wait, didn't.
Like he did on tax cuts? Oh wait, didn't.
Like he did on Bolton? Oh wait, didn't.
Like he did on Roberts? Oh wait, didn't.
Dan
"Bring it on". Okay, that's all we are asking for. Let her defend herself before the Judicial committee. She deserves that opportunity and the President deserves the respect of having his appointee heard.
If you shoot a liberal weenie it will most likely result in a surrender. Shoot a conservative and fail to kill him and it will result in a grin of defiance.
If she withdraws after all this bashing, we will know that she is really a liberal.
Just my silly thought for the day.:)~
Here is what I found on the Heritage Foundation site concerning appointing SCJ's. I do not see in any of this, any Constitutional clause stating that YOU (or any pundit or self-declared "Base") has any right to, or any obligation from the President, to seek approval from ANYONE other than the Senate! Now wouldn't a "true" CONSTRUCTIONALIST wish to adhere to the "original" intent of the Framers?
http://www.heritage.org/Research/AmericanFoundingandHistory/wm800.cfm
"Appointments Clause
The President . . . shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law. . . .
(Article II, Section 2, Clause 2)
This clause contemplates three sequential acts for the appointment of principal officers—the nomination of the President, the advice and consent of the Senate, and the Appointment of the Official by the President. This clause applies to principal officers in contradistinction to inferior officers, whose appointment is addressed in the next portion of the clause. Although the Senate must confirm principal officers, including Ambassadors and Supreme Court Justices, Congress may choose to require that any officers whose office “is established by law” be confirmed by the Senate, whether they be inferior or not.
The important questions for principal officers and their confirmation are, first, whether the President has plenary power of nomination or whether the Constitution limits this power by requiring the President to seek prenomination advice; second, whether the President must nominate only those who meet qualifications set by Congress; and, third, whether the Senate has plenary power to reject nominees or whether that power is circumscribed by some standard.
Both the debates among the Framers and subsequent practice confirm that the President has plenary power to nominate. HE IS NOT OBLIGED TO TAKE ADVICE FROM THE SENATE ON THE IDENTITY OF THOSE HE WILL NOMINATE, NOR DOES THE CONGRESS HAVE AUTHORITY TO SET QUALIFICATIONS FOR PRINCIPAL OFFICERS. The Senate possesses the plenary authority to reject or confirm the nominee, although its weaker structural position means that it is likely to confirm most nominees, absent compelling reasons to reject them.
The very grammar of the clause is telling: the act of nomination is separated from the act of appointment by a comma and a conjunction. Only the latter act is qualified by the phrase “advice and consent.” Furthermore, it is not at all anomalous to use the word advice with respect to the action of the Senate in confirming an appointment. The Senate’s consent is advisory because confirmation does not bind the President to commission and empower the confirmed nominee. Instead, after receiving the Senate’s advice and consent, the President may deliberate again before appointing the nominee.
The purpose of dividing the act of nomination from that of appointment also refutes the permissibility of any statutory restriction on the individuals the President may nominate. The principal concern of the Framers regarding the Appointments Clause, as in many of the other separation of powers provisions of the Constitution, was to ensure accountability while avoiding tyranny. Hence, following the suggestion of Nathaniel Gorham of New Hampshire and the example of the Massachusetts Constitution drafted by John Adams, the Framers gave the power of nomination to the President so that the initiative of choice would be a single individual’s responsibility but provided the check of advice and consent to forestall the possibility of abuse of this power. Gouverneur Morris described the advantages of this multistage process: “As the President was to nominate, there would be responsibility, and as the Senate was to concur, there would be security.”
The Federalist similarly understands the power of nomination to be an exclusively presidential prerogative. In fact, Alexander Hamilton answered critics who would have preferred the whole power of appointment to be lodged in the President by asserting that the assignment of the power of nomination to the President alone assures sufficient accountability:
[I]t is easy to show that every advantage to be expected from such an arrangement would, in substance, be derived from the power of nomination which is proposed to be conferred upon him; while several disadvantages which might attend the absolute power of appointment in the hands of that officer would be avoided. In the act of nomination, his judgment alone would be exercised; and as it would be his sole duty to point out the man who, with the approbation of the Senate, should fill an office, his responsibility would be as complete as if he were to make the final appointment. The Federalist No. 76."
Yes, after Bork and Ginsburg.
Agree. May not like this nomination, but the President won't back down, and I doubt Miers will either.
Small disagreement. Since you say that there is a chorus of "conservative politicians" who call this choice "idiotic", please post the names of, say, 5 conservative politicians that have said so.
THe opposition to myers are pundits, columnists, former administration people, and people who listen to those pundits and columnists.
The major conservative groups virtually all are either "pro-miers", or are saying they look forward to the hearings. Virtually all senators are saying they either support Miers, or we should wait for the hearings.
Even amongst the activists conservatives (FR) the vast majority are either "pro-miers" or saying we should wait for the hearings.
There is no great grassroot or other support for the idea of withdrawing this nomination.
THose who want her withdrawn are in a minority.
Our republican committee is working our butts off to get republicans elected in Virginia, and to a man we are shaking our heads at how our "allies" in the conservative movement are making our job so much harder by giving our enemies talking points that, if said by liberals, would earn universal condemnation by the conservative class.
So predictable. "AAAAAH, Bush isn't a perfect tyrant! AAAAH!"
Anyway, the odds are about zero he'll withdraw this, and I hope neither he nor she does.
Dan
I hope this guy is right. If this Miers nomination goes though, there's going to be hell to pay. GWB will be a lame duck two years early.
Like he did on education.
Like he did on prescription drugs.
Like he did on increased spending.
Like he did on affirmative action.
See 92.
This isn't just a boxing match or a football game. This is a matter of qualifications, of keeping faith with the base. There's a limit to this "Follow the Leader" stuff for Americans who love their freedom, and a lot of us have reached that limit.
Then Bell went on to say that he didn't want to be making political statements.....LOL.....it's hard to find more anti american hosts than on Coast to Coast.
I'm beginning to think that when he wins this battle, and stands up to this "fringe" nut wing of the republican party, it will strengthen him for the real battles ahead.
So when he says he is doing something because it is right, his opponents won't be able to say "he's just trying to play to his base", because his base had a meltdown.
Well, it weakened Reagan in the sense that we ended up with Anthony Kennedy on the SC vs the two prior nominees who would have been more conservative (was it Carswell and Bork?). So given that outcome, the SC has definitely been weakened by Anthony Kennedy professing his admiration for using foreign law and his votes in passing liberal activist rulings.
I believe that either of his two prior nominees would have been constitutional advocates vs swing vote moderate-liberal Anthony Kennedy! Another win for the left-wing and loss for the conservatives.
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.