They are ALL missing the point. The President had the Constitutional right to nominate her, and she had the right to be heard.
And now that is gone..........and they're slapping each other on the back as though they're good Americans.
Miers has been successfully Borked by the right.
Maybe instead of slapping each other on the back, they should slap each other in the face to snap themselves out of the delusion they are in. She was denied her hearing.
Of course he did. But the presidents supporters also reserved the right to say "we're made as hell and we're not going to take it anymore." It appears he heard us.
If he wants to further fracture his party, he'll nominate Gonzales. Screwing conservatives at the behest of rino's and liberals is why the court is such a mess to begin with. No more "TRUST ME" non-sense. This is the single issue so many of his foot soldiers truly care about above all other issues. Meirs selection was an abject betrayal of us and all the hard work we put in to elect president Bush.
"They are ALL missing the point. The President had the Constitutional right to nominate her, and she had the right to be heard."
We're talking about politics here, not law.
The President did indeed have the constitutional authority to nominate her.
There is no "right to be heard" for a nominee. It's not in the Constitution, and it's not in the law. The Constitution says "advice and consent of the Senate". If the Senators decided to do everything by letters with each other and never talk to the nominee at all, they have that right. A nominee has no legal "right" to do anything, under our Constitution.
Yes, Miers has been successfully Borked by the Right.
That's what happens.
That's politics.
Politics is about power. It's a game played for keeps, to get power in order to impose your will on others through the law.
There are not very many true "rights" in politics, certainly not very many constitutional ones.
There is no "right to get an up or down vote".
There is no "right to be heard".
The President has the authority to appoint people to vacancies on the Supreme Court, but he has no "right to get his people on there".
Nobody's rights were violated here.
An enormously powerful position was in the hazard, and the stronger side imposed its will on the weaker side. That's the way politics works on all issues, every time.
The President has a weak hand. If he wants to strengthen it, he will give the conservative right exactly what it wants on this issue. And they will be happy to be back on board and cooperate with him on something else. For example: you give the right a red meat conservative on the Supreme Court, and many of them disengage from the fight over the Mexican border.
But you screw them on judges, and then the border becomes ANOTHER issue by which they find allies and roll you.
The President has the power to name whoever he chooses.
If he uses that power foolishly, and angers political factions more powerful than he is, he will be thrown to the ground by political jujitsu and embarrassed.
If he doesn't want to go through that again, then the prudent thing to do is to appoint someone the right wants.
That's politics.
Rights have nothing to do with any of it.