Posted on 10/21/2005 10:13:21 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
Harriet Miers will not join the Supreme Court.
It may seem a little early to say that; Miers's Judiciary Committee hearings, after all, don't even start for two weeks. But given the news this week, I think it's a pretty sturdy limb I'm out on.
John Fund reported on Monday that Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht and Dallas-based federal Judge Ed Kinkeade, both friends of Miers's, apparently assured social conservative leaders on a conference call that Miers would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. Hecht and Kinkeade deny it, but two of Robert Novak's sources, who were on the call, confirm Fund's story. And in a document issued to the Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, it was revealed that Miers pledged, in a questionnaire she filled out for the Texans United for Life Political Action Committee (TUL-PAC) during her 1989 campaign for Dallas City Council, to support various pro-life policies, including a Human Life Amendment. That may do a little to reassure some conservatives on Miers, but it won't be enough to earn her monolithic support from the Right. After all, if Miers is defeated or withdrawn, her replacement will almost certainly be at least as reliably conservative as Miers, who, as I noted last week, appears to believe that public universities can constitutionally employ race-based admission policies.
Democrats might have concluded that it would be better to back Miers than risk facing a stronger conservative. But after the latest revelations about her pro-life views, Miers can expect almost no support from the party of Roe v. Wade.
Consider just the Judiciary Committee. Unless she explicitly declares fealty to upholding Roe, the five Democrats who voted against John Roberts won't vote for her. The three who did vote for Roberts -- Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, and Patrick Leahy of Vermont -- did so on the grounds that the overwhelming qualifications of the nominee trumped their ideological concerns. With Miers, the qualifications are significantly less and the ideological concerns are now arguably greater. Miers will probably not get even a single vote from the Committee's eight Democrats.
She can't count on Committee Republicans, either. Another conservative Committee member, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, commented after the TUL-PAC questionnaire came out that Miers still needs to "show she has the capacity to be a Supreme Court justice." The New York Times reported two weeks ago that after meeting with Miers, conservative Committee member Sam Brownback of Kansas "said he would consider voting against the nomination, even if President Bush made a personal plea for his support." And squishy Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, along with ranking Democrat Leahy, it was reported yesterday, was very displeased with Miers's "incomplete" answers to a Judiciary Committee questionnaire.
Under a bipartisan agreement, Supreme Court nominations can't be killed in committee. But if all the Committee Democrats and even one Republican vote against her, the vote will be 9-9 and Miers will go to the Senate floor without a recommendation that she be approved. This will make it much harder to get Miers confirmed on the Senate floor. It will be harder still -- probably impossible -- if ten or more Senators vote against her in committee.
"This is going to be an unusual hearing," says Specter, "where I think all 18 senators are going to have probing questions." There's not much reason to think that Miers can skillfully navigate that buzzsaw.
Her nomination is doomed.
We might make the Dumbycrats mad....
___No...we will motivate them to block the confirmation...
Just in time for the movie:
http://www.doommovie.com/
It's dead Jim.
So...
We look stupid and need to grow up?
Clearly you have remained above the fray, huh?
"How dare you insult our President"
Bite me.
This nomination is dead, dead, dead. It's only a question of how long the White Horse is going to drag the corpse around and try to prop it up for the cameras.
I suspect this all started with a meeting between Bush and Miers where the President said "Harrie, I need you to take some arrows for me," and the ever loyal subordinate said "Yes, Mr. President, it would be my honor."
Something similar has crossed my mind. I've been hardpressed to come up with another reason why Bush nominated her.
If he's actually thinking about nominating Gonzales...
*groan*
Why in the heck WOULDN'T he have nominated Gonzales? Conservatives would have hated it but they would not have been able to rip him apart like they have savaged Miers. Because he is male? I think being the first hisspanic would have easily made up for that. The Miers nomination simply makes no sense otherwise.
| Posted by sinkspur to Pessimist; flashbunny; aceintx; Stellar Dendrite On News/Activism 10/21/2005 3:46:10 PM PDT · 36 of 37 Unsatisfied with shrinking the party by tossing out the "RINOs," some anti-Miers conservatives have been savage in their criticism of those of us who've been willing to give the lady a chance. The next time an anti-Miers conservative refers to us as "those who've drunk the Kool Aid," as Manuel Miranda and a number of commentators on this blog have done, I want to bang their heads on a concrete wall until all the **** they've been using for brains oozes out. Here, boys. This is how all of us who want to give Miers a hearing feel about you. I think one or two whacks against the wall ought to do it. |
You use the term "right wing" the way Bill and Hillary do. Try winning without us. Your hero, Gerald Ford, found that out. He used to call us names too.
All he had to do was say ""JRB" and a lot of us would
have stood on a Bridge for a week naked to support the nomination.....almost naked....just wearing a JRB for SCOTUS sign....alas.
"You use the term "right wing" the way Bill and Hillary do. Try winning without us. Your hero, Gerald Ford, found that out. He used to call us names too."
As did Boob Dole Luke21
"You use the term "right wing" the way Bill and Hillary do. Try winning without us. Your hero, Gerald Ford, found that out. He used to call us names too."
As did Boob Dole Luke21
Look what an unqualified success he was as preside.....wait....he's lost didn't he....HMMMMMM
I don't George W is vindictive but some FReepers sure are.
I agree.
Some of us are quite ready.
Senate Confirmation Hearing - January 6
Gonzales: There is no requirement, of course, upon state and locals to enforce federal immigration laws. It is purely voluntary. In fact, of course, some states have prohibitions [against?]. They couldn't, even if they wanted to. [They couldn't what?] In some cases, the department, as I understand it, has entered into with state and local departments in terms of memorandums of understandings in order to enforce this [?]. I certainly am sensitive to the notion that some local law enforcement people don't want to exercise this authority. Well, we're not saying that they have to. If they want to they can assist in fighting the war on terror, that's what this opinion allows us to do. Personally I would worry about a policy that permits someone, a local law enforcement official, to use this authority somehow as a club to harass uhh they might be unlawful aliens but otherwise lawful citizens. That would be troubling. That would be troubling to the President.
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.