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 After all, if Miers is defeated or withdrawn, her replacement will almost certainly be at least as reliably conservative as Miers, who, as I noted last week, appears to believe that public universities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.
Very well put, IMO. Thanks for posting.
Is it foolish, even now, after being insulted by this W.H. that I don't think he'd be vindictive and nominate Gonzales to spite us? I don't know. I do think it raises an interesting question of the character of the man some supporters of this nomination perceive, if they believe he'd be so childish.
It doesn't mean he wouldn't nominate Gonzales, just that I do not believe he'd do so in retaliation.
However, I have the strong feeling Gonzales has the sense to calmly decline recognizing the base isn't inclined to him and loyalty to the President. It was his office, after all, that joined Cheney in objection to Meirs.
He's gotta wait his turn.
Dubya has someone else in mind for "Plan B".
Bush invites Bono to lunch at White House
Shows you the kind of person you're dealing with, eh?
That is a bold-faced lie. And you know it.
You know, bunny, you've shown yourself, over the past three weeks, to be a primary instigator of the divide that has taken place on this forum. You ping your little lists of sycophants, then twitter behind the backs of other posters without pinging them so they can defend themselves.
You are an exemplar of every negative stereotype of the conservative movement.
You are determined to win at all costs, and you will step on and step over everybody you think stands in your way. You'll even lie if you think it helps your "cause."
I'm out for the rest of the day, but I'm sure that won't stop you from making stuff up behind my back and not giving me a chance to dispute your fantasies.
Get ready for the Constituion Party to rip the conservative piece of the GOP off then.
Oh gawd no!!!
We will just see a repeat of it - Cronyism, not conservative enough, lots and lots and lots of questions about inner White House documents.
If they do Gonzalez, it will be proof they learned NOTHING from the Miers mistake.
Here is what Bush MUST do:
Nominate a PROVEN Conservative -
Luttig, Edith Jones, Janice Rogers Brown.
Now, dont give me any grief about how they are not confirmable ... that's NOT the point. If BUSH WANTS CONSERVATIVES BACK IN HIS CORNER, HE HAS TO NOMINATE A CONSERVATIVE. A PROVEN CONSERVATIVE.
No wishy-washy moderate Judge like that 9th circuit hispanic judge. A real conservative.
The Dems will have their fight, we will have ours.
But Bush will be back in the saddle, with an army by his side.
That's his only chance.
THEN, we get to see the dems go crazy(ier)and find out who the real conservatives are.
-----
What makes me sick about this whole political mess, is that you would think that abortion is the only issue facing this country, and all that is important.
It really stinks. The concerns should be about whether she will FOLLOW THE LAW, SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION AND NOT LEGISLATE FROM THE BENCH. What they should be doing is figuring out how to overturn the liberal-activist decision that DELIBERATELY BROKE the fifth amendment -- the sole discussion should be about the Constitution and protecting every aspect of it, not just abortion.
IMO, if Meirs is defeated either from withdrawal (which I see unlikely) or Senate voting down (possible though I'm not yet convinced they will do so), Williams is the likely replacement if he chooses a woman. Lindsey has already put her name out there as a possibility. She's conservative and comes from his home state. Though she isn't the star or a "Brown", most would consider her acceptable.
McConnell, Garza or Alito if a man. This is under assumption he picks a more known quantity. I wouldn't suggest it out of realm he would choose a quieter nominee, less Rah Rah from base but accepetable as Williams would be acceptable. I doubt Luttig, I have the sense he's not a favorite of the President's for whatever reasoning. He is from Warner's state, so it's a possibility if to pressure Warner's support even in event of a filibuster.
Though, take this for what it is worth. I didn't predict Meirs so conventional wisdom is out.
Agreed with a stronger nominee the past three weeks would be put aside in unity around a candidate that is supported by the base.
What kind of drugs are you using to come up with this weird scenerio? Bush would look like incompetent fool and his approval ratings would drop below 30% if he did that.
Rumor has it that any day now Bush will hustle AF1 down to the Southwest for a visual inspection of the border. Any day now. Soon. Perhaps. Maybe?
I'll cover your back (and YOUR fantasies), my dear sinky.
Love,
Your pal,
alcuin.*
*Esq.**
**(Honourary)
Oh, the farmer and the cowboy should be friends . . .
Now is the chance for Bush to nominate a true conservative who believes in Constitutional rule of law and has shown a solid career of fighting socialism.
Let the nominee be: pro life; against affirmative action; in favor of revising immigration laws designed to limit and keep out foreigners; pro business; against Bush's New World Order; for school vouchers; of strong religious faith; an advocate of traditional American values; opposed to the welfare state; states rights; dedicated to overturn Roe; minimum taxes; and of original intent; and be in favor of means-testing all proposed legislation against the Constitution.
And then let the Dems bring it on.
Now is the chance for Bush to nominate a true conservative who believes in Constitutional rule of law and has shown a solid career of fighting socialism.
Let the nominee be: pro life; against affirmative action; in favor of revising immigration laws designed to limit and keep out foreigners; pro business; against Bush's New World Order; for school vouchers; of strong religious faith; an advocate of traditional American values; opposed to the welfare state; states rights; dedicated to overturn Roe; minimum taxes; and of original intent; and be in favor of means-testing all proposed legislation against the Constitution.
And then let the Dems bring it on.
Now is the chance for Bush to nominate a true conservative who believes in Constitutional rule of law and has shown a solid career of fighting socialism.
Let the nominee be: pro life; against affirmative action; in favor of revising immigration laws designed to limit and keep out foreigners; pro business; against Bush's New World Order; for school vouchers; of strong religious faith; an advocate of traditional American values; opposed to the welfare state; states rights; dedicated to overturn Roe; minimum taxes; and of original intent; and be in favor of means-testing all proposed legislation against the Constitution.
And then let the Dems bring it on.
Now is the chance for Bush to nominate a true conservative who believes in Constitutional rule of law and has shown a solid career of fighting socialism.
Let the nominee be: pro life; against affirmative action; in favor of revising immigration laws designed to limit and keep out foreigners; pro business; against Bush's New World Order; for school vouchers; of strong religious faith; an advocate of traditional American values; opposed to the welfare state; states rights; dedicated to overturn Roe; minimum taxes; and of original intent; and be in favor of means-testing all proposed legislation against the Constitution.
And then let the Dems bring it on.
Assuming the Miers nomination fails, I wonder if Bush could focus on pi$$ing of the liberals this time?
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.