"We're doomed!"
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 After all, if Miers is defeated or withdrawn, her replacement will almost certainly be at least as reliably conservative as Miers, who, as I noted last week, appears to believe that public universities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.
Agree ... I'm sure as as long as GWB is President, Miers would remain firmly on the right side of the SC ledger. A year or two after he's out of office all bets are off ...
What matters to Bush is loyalty above all else. Even when he veers into welfare-statism and crony politics you're supposed to be right behind him in lock-step. It is disgusting.
Get ready for Alberto Gonzales.
A year or two after he's out of office all bets are off ...
If I were Bush, I wouldn't appoint anybody. Just let the Supreme Court function with 8 justices.
Wouldn't that put the Court at 4-4 on most cases?
That means Appeals Courts would make most decisions. Good way to neuter the Supreme Court for three years or so.
What's sad is the damage that the Miers fiasco has caused to W's support among conservatives. I considered myself a 'broken glass Republican,' who would have done anything to make sure I voted for and supported W in 2000 and 2004.
But many conservatives and Republicans, myself included, are embittered by the Miers nomination.
Y'all are just being silly.
This president is a brick wall. That's that. Forget it. She goes to hearings, she does a mediocre job and the Senators then look to their own futures.
Here's what they see. There are some blue state Dem Senators who will say . . . if I don't support this moderate, I risk a right wing followup nominee. So 1 or 2 of those vote YES.
There are a handful of red state Dems who have to get re-elected. This is a zero risk way to build their pro-Bush credentials. Those few blue state Dems who vote Yes provide cover, and indeed these red state Dem senators provide cover for those above. A few of these vote Yes.
The hardcore right wing GOP red state senators look at this as a zero risk way to get Administration support for some pork spending in their states. They vote YES, especially if they are from the Gulf region.
The RINOs have the Dem votes above as cover for a YES vote, and with a YES vote they get Administration campaign support. It's not even a close call for them.
If she is even mediocre in the hearings, she's in. Expectations by the right wing have been set so very low they they have cut their own throats in this. She need be only basically competent to look for a genius.
But . . . if you're looking for a genius, look at Bush/Rove. Those guys are mindboggling in their genius.
LOL. I can't remember - is that a FedEx commercial? It was a great one in any case [though maybe not that great if a consumer like me can't remember the sponsor!]
Uh yeah, how about just nominating a qualified strict constructionist and forget about politics for once?
That's a big if.
Judging from excerpts from her written work and the indications that her Senate visits have been disastrous, I think she has a long ways to go to achieve mediocrity.
The pro-Miers fanatics would want Bush to nominate a Lefty judge just for spite.
SO they could say "See I told you so."
I'm losing track of who I have to lose respect for (for daring to speak their opinion), be cheesed off at (for daring to speak their opinion), call names like "traitor, lemming, evil, sexist", etc. (for daring to speak their opinion). Can someone please post an exhaustive list of who the "good Republican" pundits are, and who the "principled conservative" pundits are? Thanks so much!
Note to the sarcasm impaired: Yes, the above was indeed sarcasm.
The back and forth and back and forth and back and forth is obsession IMO. The lady will speak but until then obsessives will obsess I suppose. There are other things going on in the world to pay attention to until the hearings. Iraq is huge.
(And she will be confirmed IMO.)
Might as well just cancel everything. I haven't noted one outstanding, independent, conservative commentator who is enthusiastic about Miers.
Nice try.
With respect, I don't think that's necessarily so. Things have degenerated to the point many are predicting the nomination will be withdrawn before the hearings begin.
Know who DID help vet those judges? A. Gonzales. I honestly think I'd be more comfortable with Gonzales simply because then we'll KNOW what we're getting! I'd prefer someone else over either of them, but at this point I'd take Gonzales over Miers.
*shrug*
Agreed, if it came to that, but I sure hope it doesn't. And if Miers is withdrawn, I'm optimistic W would replace her with a highly-qualified, full-fledged originalist.
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.