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 After all, if Miers is defeated or withdrawn, her replacement will almost certainly be at least as reliably conservative as Miers, who, as I noted last week, appears to believe that public universities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.
President Bush could not possibly be that foolish.
I think he would be stubborn enough to.
Myself..I will cherry pick and drop those pundits who adopted the trash and burn punditry style. The scorched earth policy hasn't helped a thing.
No, Bush won't give in to them anymore than he has the screaming left pundits.
Just a side note; I don't understand why so many people like to pick on feisty little old church ladies.
Was there this level of protests when Clinton was nominating SCOTUS positions?
I was not on FR during the Clinton years.
What is the problem? Gonzalez has everything that the Uber-Cons say Miers did not.
Yes, and they were predicting this weeks ago. And there are many predicting she will not.
As I said...back and forth and back and forth. Many people need to get a life.
Perhaps you know her personally. But I dearly wish I had something she had written or said publicly at other times to allow me to be as sure.
No conservative is going to get
Demo support...not even the most qialified legally....and a filibuster is virtually certain.
Apparently, the SCOTUS is a distraction for the prez.
He'll get back to us about it . . .
Later.
"Do you REALLY think that Bush would be stupid enough to nominate Gonzales if he sees Miers get voted down by his own party?"
That's what sinkspur has been saying for the past two weeks.
Along with personal insults to those who disagree with him.
He said if he was GWB, he's nominate Gonzales just to spite conservatives who didn't like miers.
Shows you the kind of person you're dealing with, eh?
She must be very confident and not at all worried about her pending Judiciary Committee inquistion OR she is not astute enough to know what she is in for!!!
He's confirmable, too. It wouldn't surprise me. Just yesterday, Gonzales was speaking out against consulting international legal sources for input into American legal judgments.
Sounded like a campaign, to me.
No conservative is going to get
Demo support...not even the most qialified legally....and a filibuster is virtually certain.
I joined in 2000, so can't say. But conservatives had very low expectations when it came to Clinton. Many of us hoped for much better when it came to W. He didn't disappoint with Roberts, but certainly has with Miers, IMHO.
Surely you jest. No way would Bush try to poke conservatives in the other eye. No way....
Ouch. That hurts coming from Sessions, whom could rightly be nominated for the Court himself. IF Sesssions jumps ship, this is over. He's a legit conservative, should have been on the Court if not for being rejected by Democrats which is why he ran for office, and a loyal Bush Rupublican. I'm following him far more closely than I am Brownback.
That stated the President is stubborn and Senate Republicans can be rolled easily except when it comes to Liberal issues where they capitulate. This is why I have never said she won't be confirmed.
My main issue is that I resent strongly being told I'm an elitist and a sexist because I do not support this nomination from the administration. My issue is that I saw red when Lindsey told me to "Shut Up". My issue is that I will not be bullied into submission by some people on this board to be silent so they can claim this nomination has the support of all but a few narrowminded malcontents that hate this President. The more they push these actions upon me, the more I dig in to continue vocalizing my discontent.
I do not hate this President. I'm previous been a very strong supporter of him for five years. I am not a malcontent, Traitor or Evil as I've been defamed by some. I reject this nomination because it deserves rejection on merit. That some on the board to the administration itself cannot accept principled disagreement and valid points against is their issue, not mine, but these tactics have not worked to persuade people to their side. Quite opposite, it's widened a rift.
She does not have a documented Judicial philosophy. Her understanding of the Constitution she would be charged to guard is suspect. She is not among the most qualified pool of excellence that should be mined when choosing a nominee. To suggest this is not elitist, but what conservatives have always advocated. Excellence is deserving of promotion. Diversity is nothing but a colorful element to celebrate if excellence is met.
Reportedly one Senator has already approached the W.H. about withdrawing the nomination. No word on the name. My opinion is that the W.H. is unlikely to withdraw even if 55 Republicans came to him. He'll demand the hearing. The question is whether the Senate will bend to confirmation with possible promises made in back room deals, or if they will take their unhappiness with this selection public and reject.
My assumption is that the W.H. has calculated the Senators will fold rather than face the ire of a retalitory W.H. in the aftermath and is why they will not withdraw. That's actually my assessment of the Senate as well, but the irony is that if the calculation is correct they could have pushed a far better nominee and she/he would have been confirmed. I'll be pleasantly surprised if conservative Republican Senators have the courage to take a stand on the merits and reject the nomination.
How can we ever know?
How how how???
**sigh***
Holmes: Evil is afoot, Watson!
Watson: Eh? Indeed? Just let me get my bag . . .
. . . . . . . . . and revolver.
Having low expectations of someone is no excuse to turn a blind eye.
I sure hope there were loud protests on every move Clinton made.
And just for the record, I'm not disappointed in Miers.
I support her for the position on SCOTUS.
For many conservatives, Supreme Court nominations are, short of war and peace, about the most important responsibility a president has.
It is natural and desirable for conservatives to be avidly interested in the nominations, and entirely predictable that many conservatives will be outraged when a Republican president appoints someone of such questionable qualifications as Miers.
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.