The Miers Blunder

Wall Street Journal ^ | October 21, 2005 | Editorial

[gpapa]

Although skeptical from the start, we've restrained our criticism of the Harriet Miers nomination because we've long believed that Presidents of either party deserve substantial deference on their Supreme Court picks. Yet it now seems clear--even well before her Senate hearings--that this selection has become a political blunder of the first order.

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

This nomination is such a shame. It should never have happened. Bush could still come out of this okay, but the window of opportunity is closing.

[no dems]

"Perhaps Ms. Miers will prove to be such a sterling Senate witness that she can still win confirmation."

Well, it is definitely possible that she will surprise a lot of people during the hearings but I'm not so sure that will happen; if she even makes it to the hearings without her nomination being withdrawn.

[Graymatter]

President Bush had a rare opportunity to fulfill his campaign pledge to change the Court by nominating someone in the mold of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Al Gore's most quotable quote since "Willie Horton."

[counterpunch]

I assume this is the official editorial stance of the Wall Street Journal?

It is a very excellent summary of the blunder.
But even they do not fully explore just how long lasting the negative consequences will be on both Bush and the GOP, particularly when it comes to the next time Democrats oppose a GOP nominee. In a word, they will actually be taken seriously. Something they could not have done without Miers.

[The Man]

You stated:

In answer to one question on the Senate questionnaire, she referred to the proportional representation requirement of the equal protection clause. I'll have to learn about that one, which I haven't heard about in 14 years of teaching con law.:)

Get on Westlaw and look up the equal protection clause jurisprudence on one man one vote. Does the case name Baker v. Carr ring a bell?

[phelanw]

In Baker v. Carr the court answered one main question: is malapportionment justiciable? It had nothing to do with proportional representation. I think Frankfurter's dissent was on target.

The majority opinion was written by Brennan, the icon of liberal activism. Next.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

That answer your question?

[no dems]

"That answer your question?"

Yessir.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

This is a debacle.

I still have a sneaking suspicion that the White House will be able to squeeze her through the Senate, but if they are forced to pull her nomination I don't know what the result would be.

Two weeks ago I would have told you that Karen Williams or Diane Sykes may have been salvageable.

A week ago I would have said that-at the very worst-Bush would still be able to nominate Edith Clement.

Now I'm convinced that there isn't any way to avoid a complete rout on this issue.

:(

[thoughtomator]

Would he really be dumb enough to insist on being slapped down twice in a row?

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

Unless cooler heads prevail, yes.

[EGPWS]

although I think it puts too much of the blame on President Bush and not enough on his counsel, whose job was to protect him from debacles like this one.

Blame?

Nice wording to create a perception of turmoil from a steadfast and accepted constitutionally driven directive for a sitting POTUS to appoint one to a vacancy in the Supreme Court during his tenure in office.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

Come again?

[EGPWS]

Come again?

My apologies if I stuttered.

[BushMeister]

A qualified conservative will be approved by the Senate.

[thoughtomator]

From your keyboard to God's monitor, please let it be so.

[gpapa]

Wait until the next congressional recess (Turkey day), pull the plug on Miers, and make a recess appointment. The MSM and demos would go ballistic over that. Too bad. They deserve to have some missiles going the other way.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

Not after this monumental blunder.

I hope I'm wrong, but it just seems like the longer Bush prolongs this agony the more remote the chances of someone like Edith Jones, Karen Williams, or Mary Ann Glendon ever being confirmed by the U.S. Senate appear.

[BushMeister]

"Red State" Democrat Senators up in '06:

Bingaman NM
Byrd WV
Conrad ND
Nelson FL
Nelson NE

"Red State" Democrat Senators up in '08:

Baucus MT
Johnson SD
Landrieu LA
Pryor AR
Rockefeller WV

There may be more. I just did a quick glance. I'm sure some of the above would have to strongly consider not filibustering and indeed voting for Luttig, Garza, Jones, Wilkinson, Alito, Estrada etc. etc., unless they want to start car pooling with Tommy Daschle.

Remember that the following votes took place in the U.S. Senate:

8-3-93 Ruth Bader Ginsburg approved 96-3-1. Voting affirmative:

Chaffee RI(Sr.)
McCain (RINO, NM)
Hatch UT
Jeffords VT (then a Republican)
Lott TN(male cheerleader)
Lugar IN
McConnell KY
Specter PA (Haunting America, Scottish Law, Magic Bullet, etc...)
Warner VA

7-29-94 Stephen Breyer approved 87-9-4. Again, most Republicans supported the Clinton Nominee.

I don't think the dems can keep a good, qualified conservative judge off the bench. This was a fight we wanted to have out in front of the whole nation. We might still get the chance, whether or not Miers goes forward.

[MNJohnnie]

Well now the Wall Street Journal is lying. Sorry but the journal has been out their since day one screaming their heads off. This "we have held our fire" is just a propaganda lie designed to make it look like they suddenly discovered a reason to be against her. Nonsense. I think the Anti-Miers would be well advised to read the Miers Senate Questionnaire. Read the part about her Judicial Philosophy. You all CLAIM you want a "Strict Constructionist", well what do you think SHE is?

It's time to come out of the closet and admit your error. This has nothing to do with Miers and the Court. It has everything to do with the Anti-Miers being mad at Bush.