White House Hopes Hearings Help Miers

Associated Press ^ | October 22, 2005 | david espo

[SteveH]

White House Hopes Hearings Help Miers Staff and agencies 22 October, 2005

By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent 13 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Behind closed doors, the former senator trying to smooth the way for confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers appealed for patience. She is qualified, said Dan Coats, asking that those in the audience wait for hearings before making up their mind.

Not that Democrats are lining up to praise the woman President Bush named to succeed Justice Sandra Day O‘Connor Sandra Day O‘Connor.

[NeoCaveman]

The latest tradesports.com market begs to differ

[Torie]

That headline strikes me as true.

[Cicero]

A little too much alliteration for my ear, however.

[cgbg]

Dan:

This is one time in your life you really really really don't want to carry water for the White House.

Trust me on this.

[Torie]

Good point. LOL.

[trek]

"This is one time in your life you really really really don't want to carry water for the White House."

cgbg speaks the truth. Bush needs to take a Mulligan on Meirs and nominate any one of the dozens of truly qualifed available candidates.

[flashbunny]

"hoping for a miracle" ping

[msnimje]

cgbg speaks the truth. Bush needs to take a Mulligan on Meirs and nominate any one of the dozens of truly qualifed available candidates.

Watch out, you are in danger of being called an ALBINO (American who Likes Bush in Name Only) :-}

.

[ez]

Don't need a miracle. An R Senate that voted for Ginsberg 97-3 will affirm Miers also.

[Paladin2]

IWWT.

[Paladin2]

Yabut, who's the likely third appointee?

[trubluolyguy]

An R Senate that voted for Ginsberg 97-3 will affirm Miers also.

---

Because two wrongs make a right.

[wmfights]

"Yabut, who's the likely third appointee"
________________________________

At the rate things seem to be going George Mitchell the former RAT majority leader, so the PUBS can reach out in a bipartisan way.

[counterpunch]

Specter, R-Pa., told reporters that Miers had backed two Supreme Court rulings that affirmed a constitutional right to privacy and are forerunners to the 1973 case that established abortion rights. In an interview, Coats disputed that, saying she had declined to discuss specific cases, and officials said Miers called Specter to say he had misunderstood.

Later, at a news conference, Specter said he would review the conversation with Miers in public. "The sooner we get into a hearing room where there‘s a stenographer and a public record, the better off the process is," the senator said.

Coats said he did not know the answer. It took a phone call to the White House to confirm that she had, in fact, signed her name. The officials who described the events spoke on condition of anonymity, noting the private nature of the meeting.

This article is poorly written and lacks clarity. < Insert Harriet Miers joke here >

What exactly are those 3 consecutive paragraphs saying?
Is it just me having trouble following it?

[ez]

If Bush gets a third nominee, I think we might get our war. Perhaps they know a third nomination will occur in the next three years, and they're holding keeping their powder dry.

[flashbunny]

not just you.

it looks like an editing error where there is another subject missing in between paragraphs 2 and 3.

[nwrep]

It was a D Senate, not an R Senate.

[ez]

Because the President gets to choose the nominee.Their argument and case for voting for her (Ginsburg), was deference to the President to appoint whom he desires, less any unforeseen and serious ethical or legal problem that would disqualify the President's pick.

The Senate understands their role in this process better than the anti-Miers zealots, apparently. The President's base does not get a veto.

[thoughtomator]

Because two wrongs make a right.

Close. It's because two wrongs screw the right.