Posted on 10/27/2005 6:09:25 AM PDT by procomone
WASHINGTON - Harriet Miers withdrew her nomination to be a Supreme Court justice Thursday in the face of stiff opposition and mounting criticism about her qualifications.
Bush said he reluctantly accepted her decision to withdraw, after weeks of insisting that he did not want her to step down. He blamed her withdrawal on calls in the Senate for the release of internal White House documents that the administration has insisted were protected by executive privilege.
"It is clear that senators would not be satisfied until they gained access to internal documents concerning advice provided during her tenure at the White House — disclosures that would undermine a president's ability to receive candid counsel," Bush said. "Harriet Miers' decision demonstrates her deep respect for this essential aspect of the constitutional separation of powers — and confirms my deep respect and admiration for her."
So don't turn it over, he knew they'd ask before he nominated her and evidently he felt it wasn't an issue then. So why use it as an convenient excuse now? If she was good enough to nominate he should have shown loyalty and stood with her at least through the hearings.
See Post #156.
"I for one excepted her..."
We "excepted" her too; but we did not accept her.
"OR (2) she's "borked" and we fire up the base for '06"
You seem to be forgetting that a lot of the base supported the president during this, and they are not going to be eager to go into battle with people they don't really trust any more.
Since when is The Weekly Standard, National Review, Charles Krauthammer, the Federalist Society, etc. the "nutjob" wing of the GOP?
I was in the "wait and see" camp right off. But as time wore on, it became evident to me that she was not qualified, not a conservative, and definitely not the "best available." She was the Presidents personal lawyer. This pick was a classic definition of cronyism.
I support principles, not people. Bush's short-term
political considerations (which seems to be the top concern of the pro-Miers crowd) is meaningless when put up against the next 20 years of the Supreme Court.
I agree. There is no sense, none at all, in nominating persons that will not pass the hearing process, and thus, what the faux-conservatives among the GOP have accomplished is that the GOP is now being forced to "reach for the middle" just like every stupid Democrat is now insisting on this morning on every television channel available.
The Democrats have what they wanted all along and that is they've forced Republicans into a probable loss of majority in the Senate next year (really, because the GOP now looks scrambled and malcontent and the Democrats are using the Miers scramble among the GOP to appear 'strong' and theatrically proud)...and most especially, the Democrats have ensured that they'll get a MODERATE nominee instead of an actual conservative one.
No conservative, particularly anyone with any written history of an opinion as to pro-life, will now ever pass the Senate. Bork, Brown, people of this type could never get through today, and the only possibility is more Republicans in the Senate, in the confirmation process. Not now going to happen, thanks to the ever-trusty "conservatives" in media serving up to liberals exactly what they wanted.
Someone explain to me why these media personalities make such an impact with voters.
My congratulations and gratitude to Harriet Miers for 'falling on her sword' here. I believe it was the right thing to do.
I'm so glad you run our party.
Its NO excuse! Its a fact! LOL Turning over internal WH papers places this President and future presidents ability to get private advice from subordinates in jeopardy. Who'd want to walk into the Oval Office and give advice to the POTUS if they knew that private advice would someday become public knowledge.
You make good points.
I had no problem, per se, with her being a non-judge. What was problematic was the apparent fact that she never had strong convictions about anything dear to us, strong enough to motivate her to take stands or risks, or make strong statements. Well, that, and just the absence of anything particularly excellent about her apart from the President's estimation of her. That weighs with me... but it would have been (to say the least) nice to be able to see at least *some* unambiguous signs of it in her decades of life.
Dan
"What makes you think Bush withdrew her?"
I don't know that he did. As you say, she may have done it on her own. But he had clearly stated a couple of days ago that releasing internal Administration documents was a red line he would not cross. If he nominates Gonzales, there will still be pressure to release documents. If he stands firm (which I think he would), he undercuts Meiers' stated reason for withdrawing. Even if it was her move, I don't think he'd embarrass her further by re-raising the issue she cited as her reason.
"So, getting Borked by extremely bad people for bogus reasons is the moral equivalent of getting Borked by good people for valid reasons?"
Borking is attacking someone based on little to no facts and scewing those facts to attack that person.
Convincing people of the merits or failings of a nominee should be done using facts that are clearly presented and not by trying to paint someone to be a certain way by grabbing inferring things from details often taken out of context and that aren't consistent with other things known about the candidate.
If your justifying Borking based on "moral equivalency" you're a liberal, not a conservative.
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.