[Owen]

>
Answer: the nominee is rejected.

Either way, it's a win. If we get the votes in the Senate, we get a good Associate Justice on the court; if we don't get the votes, the base is fired up for '06.
>

No, that's a LOSS. An enormous LOSS. Who celebrates and gets fired up because "your own party betrayed you" -- meaning the RINOs? How would having the party fracture fire up anyone?

You want to know who that fires up? I'll tell you.

What happens is the DNC throws a victory celebration and raises more money from its victorious base that just destroyed a Bush nominee than they have EVER raised before. And that wins control of Congress in 2006.

This rejection of incremental victory on the part of FR is just bizarre.

[hispanichoosier]

This rejection of incremental victory on the part of FR is just bizarre.

We don't shy away from incremental victory in the legislative arena; conservatives didn't demand that the Bush tax cuts be permanent from the get-go or else they would scuttle the tax cut plan. With regard to the judiciary, though, one cannot accept incremental victory because federal judicial officers have lifetime tenure. We've been screwed too often by Presidents who nominate so-called "conservative" candidates who turn out to be leftists. Reagan's big judicial mistake was Sandra Day O'Connor, who helped craft the ignoble Casey decision in the early 90s. George H. Bush's choice of David Souter--who was supposed to be a conservative--was a travesty. When it comes to the judiciary, we need true, proven conservatives nominee.

[Cboldt]

This rejection of incremental victory on the part of FR is just bizarre.

Are you advocating that the President nominate an O'Connor clone?

[zendari]

Worth the gamble. Hurts the GOP for the next elections? Sorry, this WAS the point of the previous election.

[BlackElk]

If we win an "incremental victory" but Roe vs. Wade is still standing, will the subsequent baby victims be "incrementally" killed and will that be less painful or more just? Will fags "marrying" in Massachusetts be any less recognized? Since O'Connor dissented from Kelo vs. New London (government theft of modest homes to facilitate greater tax revenue by fostering development schemes) will our homes be any more safe with an "incrementalist" quisling?

I ask these questions as one who was not opposed to Miers until I heard of her libertoonian musings to some feminist group in Dallas in 1993 (which came out the night before she withdrew) to the effect that "social issues" (presumably abortion and homoperversity) might be better determined by the individual. Like most here, I think NOT!

Can you spell LITMUS TESTS. How was Miers on guns, taxes, and other critical issues? Presumably the nominee will be better than she is.

All: Feel free to add policy questions of analogous implications.

[Interesting Times]

That's the core of the argument, isn't it?

Did Harriet Miers represent an incremental victory?

Did Souter, or O'Connor?