Posted on 10/15/2005 1:44:18 PM PDT by Cautor
MR. McCLELLAN: No, no, let's talk about how -- the way you're approaching things. This should be based on a person's record and qualifications and their judicial philosophy, and she greatly exceeds all the standards that have been set for meeting what is needed to serve on our nation's highest court. She is exceptionally well-qualified. And I would encourage you -- I know you don't necessarily want to do this -- but to look at her qualifications and record.
MR. McCLELLAN: -- let's look at the qualifications.
MR. McCLELLAN: Bob, anyone that knows Harriet Miers knows that she's exceptionally well-qualified to serve on our nation's highest court, and no one that knows her would make such a suggestion. And no one that knows her record and her qualifications would make such a suggestion. We look forward to people getting to know her like the President knows her. She is someone who has not sought the limelight, but she is someone who has served with great distinction and has a distinguished career and record. And that's what this should be about when it comes to the Supreme Court. I welcome the opportunity to engage in this discussion, because this should be based on qualifications and experience and judicial philosophy. Some people want to create a different standard. And, Jim, you can sit there and shake your head, but she's exceptionally well-qualified.
MR. McCLELLAN: Anyone -- anyone that knows her record and experience wouldn't be making such a suggestion.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, some of you all wanted to focus more on religion. We focused on her qualifications and record.
Q Scott, isn't the idea we ask the questions and you provide the answers?
MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, and I was providing the answer. Can I not say what I want to say?
(Excerpt) Read more at whitehouse.gov ...
You go to war with the senate you have, not the senate you'd like.
Agreed. Not incidentally McClellen is the son of the Controller-general, who is running against Rick Perry. She's not winning, but she is running.
You said: Personally, I think if the President had nominated a solid conservative with a proven record and then told the Dems and RINOs "bring it on" he could have won that fight.
***
I hope you are right, but I fear that you are wrong. This Senate has not gotten through other conservative judges nominated by President Bush. The last time this was an issue we got the gang of 14, and no nuclear/constitutional option, as I had hoped we would.
There is too much going on of serious consequence for Bush to have to endure a prolonged and possibly losing supreme court nomination fight. While I have no greater evidence than anyone else, I suspect that very much of the president's time is spent on national security issues that we will never (or at least not for many years) hear about. You KNOW that there are terror attacks here in the US that are being thwarted, probably weekly or at least monthly. This congress did not deal with Social Security reform or as far as I know, make the tax cuts permanent.
If we could count on the Senate, I believe Bush would have nominated a hard line strict constructionist to SCOTUS. He doesn't have confidence that such a choice would be confirmed, and, sadly, I think he is right.
You said: The interesting question to me is whether or not the WH actually desires these press conferences to go this way and if so, why?
***
I am far from an expert on these things, but my suspicion is that the WH doesn't really care what the press thinks. McClellan doesn't give away too much, and you don't see his face on TV that much, except to complain that he is not sufficiently forthcoming. Ari Fleischer was great, but he did draw attention to himself, which I think is a characteristic that Bush may not have wanted in a press secretary.
I'd love to have McClellan's job, so long as I was allowed to have some fun with it.
It appears that he isn't.
Ari left because he hates the poisoned atmosphere in Washington. His family hated it, and this is the only reason that he left.
Ari went into great detail about his decision to leave Washington.
LLS
Unless Bush wins the judiciary fight, all else is ancillary, even the war on terrorism. He's afraid to fight the fight. I don't buy all the excuses, especially if he's the fearless guy some make him out to be...the fearless guy I once thought he was.
It is a hard case to make that Miers losing the nomination equates to the the loss of lives due to terrorism. However, I stand by my point that this Senate cannot assure Bush that his nominees will be confirmed, despite the fact that the GOP has the ability to provide this assurance, if they were willing to do so.
Let's take the worst case scenario, from your perspective.
President Bush nominates someone like Luttig, Sykes, Rodgers-Brown, Williams, or Batchelder.
They are either rejected by the Senate Judiciary Committee, voted down on the Senate floor-an unlikely scenario, but not wholly implausible-or filibustered into oblivion.
President Bush could still have withdrawn that name from consideration-after battling Democrats-and submitted the name of an extremely sub par nominee-such as Miers-and been none the worse for it.
The base would have stuck with him, and we would not be engaged in this acrimonious debate.
``We'd be talking about somebody's background,'' said Leonard Leo, now on leave as executive vice president of the Federalist Society, the conservative group whose headlined speakers have included Supreme Court justices and Bush administration official.Well, Scott, since you offered. I'd like to look at her qualifications, using exactly the same process she used to vet the qualifications of whatever nominees Leo is talking about. The last SCOTUS nomination (Roberts) for sure.``There would be a moment of silence when she was clearly thinking about what was being said and then she would challenge it, asking, 'But what specifically in those opinions strongly suggests that this is someone who ascribes to judicial restraint?''' Leo said.
What specifically are her opinions (transparent rationale, wherever and however expressed) that strongly suggests she ascribes to judicial restraint?
I admire the way you think. :-)
Michael McConnell, Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Go ahead and read the article. Get a sense of who won't be on the Supreme Court for the next 30 years because Bush wants to put his private secretary and chief suck-up on there instead.
McConnell would receive at least as many votes as Roberts received.
Your scenario is absolutely correct, if Bush has time to waste supporting a losing nominee. Bush cares less about politics than many of us do, because he faces no more elections. The "base" should direct its anger toward those responsible-- the weak-kneed Senate.
He's not "sexy" which is what the WH wants. I think they're right.
McClellan is a good soldier for putting up with the junk every day, both from the left and the right.
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.