WithdrawMiers.org - The Concerns

WithdrawMiers.org ^

[Conservative Coulter Fan]

"When you get up on the Supreme Court, not only do you have to be a good person with good legal credentials, you have to be someone who has a very firm and solid judicial philosophy to take with you to that Court to withstand the pressures to be able to move on this or that issue…. [President Bush,] why did you decide to cater to Harry Reid and not cater to your base?!?" --Laura Ingraham

[BigEdLB]

Frum vs. Hewitt was just on the radio...

Hewitt was going into lawyer mode, and arguing for Miers, ignoring some of the concerns Frum was trying to present. Hugh looks as though he is whistling in the dark...

I am not sure how I feel about Miers, but something happened and this thing is snowballing.

[mrsmith]

The information will come. The stage management of info about her is frustrating but that's a valid political part of the nomination process these days.

I'm looking forward to learning of her work on the ABA " American Bar Association National Conference on Access to Justice in the 1990s " (more than seeing any of her White House work product). That will be very informative ad was performed before many witnesses.

[MarcusTulliusCicero]

The President is free to appoint whomever he likes. President Bush campaigned on a promise to appoint justices in the mold of Thomas and Scalia. Miers does not fit that mold (neither, by the way does Roberts, but that's something we can't change at this point.) Serious substantive concerns have been raised by the President's supported, as is their right in a free society. The President may decide to listen to their input, although since he didn't during the so-called selection process, there's not much chance he will at this point. However, should he decide to demonstrate loyalty to the people who put him into office twice, based in no small part on that very promise of the type of judicial nominee to the Supreme Court, withdrawal of the nomination is definitely an option. To urge the President to do so for an unqualified nominee in no way thwarts his Constitutional prerogative. Of the 148 nominees to the Supreme Court, 7 have been withdrawn (the first by Pres. Washington, the most recent by Pres. Reagan), 12 have been rejected (first and last instances for the same Presidents as withdrawals), 7 have been declined by the nominee, and 10 have not been acted upon by the Senate.

The President has named his nominee. He now has input, in the form of substantive criticisms of his original choice. He and the White House have not offered effective rebuttals of those criticisms, probably because they can't. It is not up to the President to decide whether he wastes political capital trying to get his second- or third-rate nominee confirmed by an, at best, skeptical Senate controlled by his own party or whether it would make sense to withdraw the nominee and instead use that political capital in defense of an actual originalist nominee, thus fulfilling his oft-repeated campaign promise and actually turning the Court back from the super-legislature that molds policy at the whim of 9 unelected tyrants that it has become into something closer to what it was intended to be.

[RegulatorCountry]

"I am not sure how I feel about Miers, but something happened and this thing is snowballing."

There are a few transcripts starting to float around now, pertinent to Miers' judicial philosophy. Incoherent, ponderously long strings of progressobabble buzzwords.

[sinkspur]

I am not sure how I feel about Miers, but something happened and this thing is snowballing.

Hardly. If you think David Frum's argument--that a nominee must be "heroic"-- is going to sway anybody, I have a bridge to sell you.

The hearings are ten days away. There is no way she is going to pull out now.

[Conservative Coulter Fan]

[RegulatorCountry]

Sinkspur, I challenge you to tease the meaning out of this "sentence":

“The necessary continued requirements by the Courts for progress frequently has the effect of hardening feelings and slowing the process and in my view the ultimate beneift of a society whose wealth is diversity and who pulls together against common enemies.”

[NJ_gent]

"If you don't like Miers, vote for a different president next time. You gave GW the ability to select a judge."

All I can say is... wow... First of all, vote for a different President next time? Barring a Constitutional Amendment passed and ratified in record time, you don't have a choice in that matter. The President is not legally able to serve another term. Secondly, would a different President elected in the next election be able to replace Miers? No. Thirdly, the President does not "select" a judge; he appoints a nominee who must be confirmed by the Senate.

If we don't like the nominee, all we have to do is let our Senators know that if they like their jobs, they'll vote the nominee down. I'll go out on a limb here and say that if this ever comes to a vote, which I don't think it will, she won't get 40 in her favor. This nominee has no liberal support and no mainstream conservative support. Her positions, as disclosed thus far in publicly available documents, show her to be the antithesis of a Supreme Court justice in the Scalia/Thomas mold. That's not what we were promised, and we're not tolerating another Souter.

[BigEdLB]

Is anyone listening to Hugh Hewitt?

Hugh is babbling! Is he in panic mode?

Miers defeated and the GOP loses the senate?

C'mon Hugh - get real. If the GOP loses the senate it will be because of the dragdown of W's lack of popularity bleeding into the congressional races... If Miers is withdrawn and someone else is put up more to what the prez says he would do?...

Kyl loses out because pro-lifers in AZ stay home? Hugh you are babbling! A 2nd appointment is likely to be pro-life...

Blackwell in Ohio and Steele losing out in Maryland because Miers is defeated on the Affirmitive Action issue. Hugh the panic in your voice to defend Miers is obvious...

Frum calmly got to you didn't he?

[BigEdLB]

McIntyre from Real Clear Politics up against Hewitt...

Hewitt is babbling again...
Denies that senators are saying negatives...
Talking about Kyl again...

Denies Miers might withdraw herself...

Hugh is really panicing...

Now invoking Leaky Leahy?

McIntyre has him spooked too!

[Blowtorch]

If you don't like Miers, vote for a different president next time. You gave GW the ability to select a judge. He took your word.

LOL. He took our word? When we voted for him, we took HIS word. I didn't know Miers was a Scalia like he promised, but you must-and if she's not, well that's fine for you too, because you don't need to think for yourself, just trust Bush.

[Blowtorch]

I always thought Hugh was mediocre. Now I know it.

[Conservative Coulter Fan]

"...the stinging disappointment we feel is the lost opportunity. For 20 years, conservatives have been waiting to see Justice O'Connor's seat taken by an articulate, persuasive, thoughtful and energetic conservative jurist [with] a philosophical grounding in political theory, thorough familiarity with the Supreme Court's jurisprudence over the past two centuries and particularly over the past several decades, a skilled pen, and a commanding personality. Ideally, the president would have chosen someone with an established reputation for legal brilliance. Why? Because the task of a Supreme Court justice is to persuade." --Mona Charen

[Conservative Coulter Fan]

"For a presidency marked by a courageous willingness to think and do big things, this nomination is a sorry retreat into smallness." --Charles Krauthammer

[Blowtorch]

Frightening.

[RegulatorCountry]

"Frightening."

I'm still completely baffled as to what Harriet Miers intended to communicate. But, she hit a bunch of code words that don't bode well. I'm frankly surprised that "embrace change" isn't shoehorned into that atrocity somewhere, lol.

[BigEdLB]

Seperated at birth? Hugh and Chicken Little?
"The sky will fall if Miers doesn't get on the court."
Today's show has made me more against her because of Hugh's demeanor. I have been rather neutral, but the breathless defense of her is very odd...

[BigEdLB]

Yes, a Female Scalia would be either Edith Jones or Janice Rogers Brown...

[RegulatorCountry]

"Yes, a Female Scalia would be either Edith Jones or Janice Rogers Brown..."

I'd be honored to support either one myself, but I've been especially impressed with what I've read from JRB.