Posted on 10/20/2005 1:27:08 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite
The Miers Support Team: Gloomy and Demoralized Now theyre discussing stopping her visits to the Senate.
Strategists working with the White House in support of the Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers are becoming increasingly demoralized and pessimistic about the nomination's prospects on Capitol Hill in the wake of Miers's meetings with several Republican and Democratic senators. On a conference call held this morning, they even discussed whether Miers should simply stop visiting with lawmakers, lest any further damage be done and so that time spent in such get-acquainted sessions will not cut into Miers's intensive preparation for her confirmation hearing.
The strategists discuss issues on a twice-weekly conference call led by Leonard Leo, the executive vice president of the Federalist Society who has taken leave to help the White House shepherd the nomination through the Senate. A number of people who have taken part in the calls described the conversations to National Review Online. None wanted to be identified, because they do not want to openly oppose the White House or defy loyalists like Leo who are trying hard to defend Miers. Nevertheless, they paint a grim portrait of morale among those close to the nomination.
"The number of participants is declining," says one knowledgeable source. "With Roberts, these calls occurred five or six or seven times a week. Pretty early on, the calls on Miers were scaled back to twice a week. That says something in and of itself."
"It's been a gradual descent into almost silence," says a second source of the calls. "The meetings with the senators are going terribly. On a scale of one to 100, they are in negative territory. The thought now is that they have to end....Obviously the smart thing to do would be to withdraw the nomination and have a do-over as soon as possible. But the White House is so irrational that who knows? As of this morning, there is a sort of pig-headed resolve to press forward, cancel the meetings with senators if necessary, and bone up for the hearings."
"They are going to be keeping the meetings that they've already scheduled," says a third source. "But they have scheduled murder boards today from 12 to 5. She has to focus on her hearing. And the questionnaire that wasn't filled out, to me that's an indication [the White House] hasn't done the vetting. She has to spend a lot of time discussing stuff that should have been done before. So between those two things finishing the questionnaire and preparing for the hearing, which is going to be make or break they prefer to put her time into that."
"In the early days, there were people on the call who tried to give facile defenses of Miers, and they were immediately shot down," says a fourth source. "And by the way, those defenses weren't as insulting as the White House line no way would they have done the 'sexist, elitist' line."
In summary, says the first source, "People have been looking for ways to support this. There are a lot of us who would like to find a reason to be encouraged. Every time I try to accommodate myself to this nomination, folks at the White House say idiotic things that piss me off, like that spin on Rove's part about her supposed deep involvement in judicial selection for three years, which is just not accurate."
"Demoralization and pessimism?" the source continues. "That's been a constant. We're in the various stages of grief."
Yes. Obviously you place a lot of trust in unnamed sources. I don't.
Welcome to Free Republic. 10/8/05
What are the Constitutional requirements for a SC nominee to be qualified?
What makes you think Miers is a liberal, like other Republican appointees who gave credence to the argument that transparency is best? Comparatively speaking, on her philosophy of law itself, there is much less for people to discern regarding Miers than Souter, Stevens, O'Connor, or Kennedy provided.
I don't necessarily believe that is a bad thing. I want to determine for myself how my own judgement stands the test of time AFTER hearing her testify. I enjoy a unique perspective on reading the judicial tea leaves for nominees. I trust myself.
Roe is an interesting case, not only because of it's use of Griswold's penumbras and emanations, but because of the pure raw emotion of a mother killing her baby.
Griswold is actually a more significant legal opinion because there is little emotion involved in a married couple having the right to use contraception. The reports I've seen had Miers agreeing with that holding, and rejecting Specter's inference that she agrees with penumbras and emanations.
There are many conservatives who cannot see what is right before their own eyes these days.
"What are the Constitutional requirements for a SC nominee to be qualified?
"
Bozo the Clown fits the constitutional requirements for a Supreme Court Justice. Doesn't mean he is a good nomination.
What makes you think it is more likely that Republicans in the Senate would be more likely to vote Luttig, Jones, or Brown up than Miers?
I see Republican Senators wanting to learn more these days to prepare themselves for the hearings than coming out against Miers.
On the other hand, if Luttig, Jones or Brown were nominated, I can easily see each of the Republicans listed in my tagline coming out against the nominee before asking more questions.
I like being a conservative. Conservatives like winning and aren't afraid of losing. We like football, baseball, NASCAR and other sports where there are winners and losers.
Conservatives win if Bozo votes as a conservative. Conservatives might only win 5-4 or 6-3, but they win just like the Astros over the Cards, if Bozo votes with a conservative majority.
"Demanding jurists be qualified isn't hate!"
---->
What is required by The Constitution for a person to be a justice of the USSC?
Remove the penumbras and the Opinion has no justification and thus the Holding does not hold.
You're confusing even yourself. You're telling me that I cannot separate the holding from the opinion. Miers can easily agree that married people have a right to use contraception by adopting the same position as that established by concurrence. I want to respect your opinion but cannot.
I agree that she was a politician. The same Federalist Society people that she was dissing in her testimony under oath are now working with the White House to confirm her.
Conservatives win if Bozo votes as a conservative. Conservatives might only win 5-4 or 6-3, but they win just like the Astros over the Cards, if Bozo votes with a conservative majority.
Yes, but you don't have a clue how Harriet Miers will vote if appointed to the Supreme Court, any more than the rest of us do, as she has such a scant record, and there are contradictions galore on other aspects of her career. So you may or may not have a Bozo. Bozo may vote Lefto, and then, once again, the conservatives will be Lefto out of it, stuck with another lemon.
You may be right, but you very well may be wrong too. If Bush would have nominated a clear conservative, there wouldn't be all of these devisive threads on FR, because we would all have known where the candidate was coming from. Instead, we get a crony of Bush for a candidate, right after Bush was knocked for cronyism for appointing Brown to FEMA. Nice timing, eh? Real clear thinking on the Admin's part. And someone with no record, w/bad writing abilities, Senators who don't think much of her knowledge to the point that the White House has cancelled any more meetings w/them. And how is she going to cram a ton of constitutional law into her noggin in a 3-week period before the hearings? Good luck to her, if she doesn't withdraw, because the wolves are waiting for her behind the meeting room door.
The rule of 2s is simply that Republicans have only voted against a nominee twice, with only 2 Republicans voting against each time.
The Gang of 7, on the other hand, would be much more likely to shoot a Luttig first and ask questions later, than they have shown over Miers.
So you'd vote her down if you were a Republican Senator, having made your mind up before hearings were commenced, all because the White House isn't letting them have at her in private.
Let the Senate question her under oath before the public instead of complaining about losing power by depriving them of private meetings.
I like it. Puts me on a more level playing field with the Senate. I can't meet with Miers either. Makes me more likely to reach the right conclusion about her than if a power-grabbing Senate shaped the hearings after having more private meetings with her than they are getting.
That's really defeatist, IMO.
It presupposes that Miers isn't really a conservative. You can go ahead believing that all you want. I'll wait for the hearings to judge for myself.
"I like it. Puts me on a more level playing field with the Senate. I can't meet with Miers either. Makes me more likely to reach the right conclusion about her than if a power-grabbing Senate shaped the hearings after having more private meetings with her than they are getting."
You can like it, but you aren't the one voting or having to come to the right conclusion. The Senate decides. She may not even make it out of the judicial committee to get to a floor vote. You aren't one of the players here.
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.