Redstate

Getting Miers on the bench will prove nothing.  At least not in time to benefit President Bush's aggenda.  It will take a couple of years, minimum, for Miers to start to win her doubters over, if she does.

I am not convinced that Miers has the intellectual horsepower to convince the right and is going to be easily swayed by the left. Note that the right gets to its conclusion through intense analytical reasoning while the left seems to be conclusion driven. Miers is certainly no Scalia and Bush has betrayed the base conservatives here. Luttig or Wilkinson would have added so much more to the bench. If Americans wanted the Average American to be on SCOTUS then it would not be called the SUPREME Court. Bush back stabbed the conservatives--just like he has done for the last 5 years. Like father, like son.

Right now President Bush is in no position to fight with his base. I am sure Bush knows what he is doing but I firmly believe he did not expect a fight from his base over this issue. I am sure he expected a "free ride" since the Roberts nomination went well.

Can someone explain the difference between "Trust me" and "Wait and you will see"?

So you're getting spin from a White House insider.  Who isn't these days?

Until someone is willing to put a name with their spin, this is useless.

A 39% approval rating does not go very far in persuading Senators that you're arguing from a position of strength.

I have no doubt that Ms. Miers will find ways to vote 'correctly' for the Bush Administration.  She's obviously a big fan of the President and will do what's necessary to help him whenever or however she can.

My concern is what happens AFTER Bush leaves office and she's on her own.  Without an overriding philosophy, a fundamental understanding of the law, she's likely to turn out to be another O'Connor and decide each case on a results or outcome based model.  This leads to judicial tyranny where the Constitution deosn't matter as much as getting 5 Justices to agree with whatever solution you want.  Then there is no rule of law, where there can be predicatbility and security in making decisions, but rule of 9 where you have to guess how they'll feel about the case.  Blech.

The President just raised the ante...

If conservatives force this battle, it will have consequences.  Particularly if O'Connor strikes down parental notification and the federal partial-birth abortion ban.

I have no doubt that Ms. Miers will find ways to vote 'correctly' for the Bush Administration.  She's obviously a big fan of the President and will do what's necessary to help him whenever or however she can.

We, as conservatives, need to remember that there are times when we do not WANT a judiciary to slavishly side with the executive branch.  Clinton tried a bunch of ways to expand his power, and SCOTUS rightly slapped him down. Just because we have a Republican president doesn't mean we want to lose our system of checks and balances. If Bush or a future GOP (or a Dem, for that matter) president tried an abusive power grab, don't we want someone like Roberts or Scalia to say, "Sorry, Mr(s) President, you can't do that?"

I just stumbled upon a july 22 magazine, in it there was an article about the upcoming Sandy O'Connor's vacancy.  The names they mentioned: Luttig, John Roberts, Michael McConnell, Edith Jones, Owens, Edith Clement, Wilkerson, Garza and Gonzalez.  Swaping Roberts for Renhquist was the easy thing to do (it demanded no effort).  Now, how on earth do you jump from such all-start list to Harriet Miers? How do you overlook such a fine list of jurists to appoint an unqualified crony?  To use a baseball analogy....It'd be like having the opportunity to select among Bonds, Pujols, Arod, Andrew Jones, Mantle, Nettles....and you end up picking Rondell White....Rondell who? Exactly....

This Pick says a whole lot about George Bush...so much so that I am already in a Life After Bush mood.

If this source knows what he's talking about the White House has completely lost touch with reality?  Does W still think he's dealing with good ole boy Democrats in Texas?  Can he really fail to understand that he will have to confirm Miers without any Democrat votes?  The pro-abortion lobby will demand rigid party discipline and Senate Democrats will give it to them.  They will die in the last ditch in the effort to prevent a pro-life born-again Christian woman from joinig the Supreme Court.  At least three virulently pro-abortion Republicans will join them in that ditch (along with Jim Jeffords).  No sane person who knows anything about the Senate would bet on 50 of the remaining 52 Republicans not only supporting Miers but fighting fiercely for her confirmation.  

George W. Bush managed to find the least confirmable Supreme Court nominee imaginable -- a woman guaranteed to provoke fierce opposition on the left without generating any enthusiasm on the right.  If the White House hasn't figured this out yet then Republicans have a problem that goes far beyond Harriet Miers.

The Miers nomination is toast and a minimally competent White House staff would know that.  The longer this thing twists in the breeze the more damage it will do.  You have to know when to fold them.  In this case folding time is already at least a week overdue.  

Funny, I'm in the same mode.  I was ready to put him on Mt. Rushmore with Reagan - giving him a pass on a bunch of stuff.  But, the spending on Katrina is absurd and the Miers pick infuriates me.

I'm not so close minded, however, not to give him a second chance.  He can fix all of this.  Actually, Ms. Miers can fix all of this if she "takes one for the team," to use another baseball analogy.

Admitedly, my hope for Bush dwindles each day that passes.  I'm on the verge of lumping him, politically speaking, with his daddy and Snowe (New England, moderate, Republicans).

"He hasn't sold out and all the rhetoric that he is not a conservative is bull[ ],"

Actions. Words. Do the math - which approximately translates to, "Saying it is so don't make it so."

Or are we to infer from this quote that which some of us have suspected for some time, namely:

SoCon = "conservative"

FisCon = "Get to the back of the bus, junior"

Just asking.

Miers, says he, if she can get on the Court, would side with the right on the parental consent issue. That's the only major abortion case on the horizon right now except possibly partial birth abortion and, again, she'd more likely than not side with the right.

On what basis would he say that?  Is he okay with being subpoenaed?

a SC pick to satisfy the "business conservatives", my question would be, how many CEO's walked door to door, manned the phone banks, helped register voters, etc. For 40 years the Republican party worshipped at the altar of the business community, and during that time was a minority party. The socons gave the Republicans the majority and the WH and this is the thanks we get. I wonder if the Christie Todd Whitman crowd can keep the Republicans in power after the social conservatives realize there is no difference between the parties on social issues and bolt?

I'm told that the White House has the votes. "There'll be some in the party who oppose her, but they'll never vote against her on the floor," says he. "It's a long time till 2008, for them to oppose Bush now." He says that the senators most likely to oppose her (and he thinks Brownback, Kyl, and Coburn are three of them) will make a lot of noise, but will in the end let her through.

And that's been the (I think correct) calculation all along. It takes a lot to oppose the president on something big. It's not something to do on a lark. That's why in the end I think all Republicans will fall in line. There may be some wailing and gnashing of teeth, but in the end they'll go along.

Right now the conservative critics of Miers are getting the attention, but conservatives by 2 to 1 describe the pick as excellent or good instead of fair or poor. It's hard for a senator to step out against the White House knowing that only 1 in 3 of conservatives are behind him.

The Social Conservative community is not opposed to Miers, at least not most of the group. Evangelicals make up a huge chunk of social conservatives, but are by and large behind her.

I'd be interested in any polling numbers that address that, but I just don't see it. I'm sure there are some, but far from a majority of SoCons think it's a bad idea.

I read Erick's post and I thought it was very positive, and in fact sort of what I thought/had been saying last week.

Yes, I'd still give Miers a "C", maybe a "B-" now, but is it worth throwing the baby with the bathwater? Especially now. Am I really alone in being a bit of a pragmatist here?

There are a few blue/purple state Republicans that may see this as an untenable position.  Guys like Chafee or Dewine could view this as a lose-lose vote for them.  What happens if they abstain?

Also consider someone like Santorum.  A strong Conservative in a blue state who is facing a very uphill battle next year.  His best strategy may be to pull the "I cannot in good faith vote to confirm Miers".  It would appeal to his Conservative base and to the pro-choice crowd in PA who aren't too keen on Miers.

If the Democrats toe the line this is going to be a very close vote and one in which the President might lose, effectively ending his Presidency.

The hearings will be telling.  

the President is asking for the trust of the party's base; in the other, he is saying that he doesn't need it.  And that is part of what Erick's source is saying, whether intentionally or not.

The nominee will pass without the support of the activists, he is saying, but the activists will be fine with it in the end because she'll prove to be a justice with whom they will be happy.

According to Robert Bork, it would not have occurred to anyone other than George Bush to nominate Miers to the court.  This is close to a definition of cronyism. After the Mike Brown debacle, why would he nominate another crony into one of the most powerful positions in the world?

Perhaps he realizes that he has made enemies.  Perhaps he realizes that some day these enemies coulud be in power.  He may need a crony on the Supreme Court one day.  This is not about ideology.  It's about covering your backside.

How in the world would the Supreme Court cover a President's "backside"?  

I have heard the theory that the President wanted someone who would reliably vote to support his torture policy but if that were really true he would have select Gonzales.  

While this nomination will need to fight off the cronyism accusations it seems more likely that he simply trusted her and thinks that is enough.  Whether this is true remains to be seen.

If she casts a vote for parental notification in a 5-4 majority, that will go a long way towards mollifying the rank and file.  

The fact that the number of conservatives ranking it as basically 58-29 should be a clear indication of the lack of support that Harriet Miers and President Bush has for this nomination.  She needs to have the level of support that conservatives had for Roberts (77-13) to have a hope of getting through and I don't see the level of support among conservatives actually rising at this point.

How is GW any more fiscally conservative than Bill Clinton? Or even Jimmy Carter? I guess that is just who he is. Just like he firmly in the elitist camp when it comes to illegal immigration. He is starting to look more like his father every day.

In yesterday's news:

"In their meeting this afternoon Sen. Specter thought Ms. Harriet Miers said she agreed with Griswold v. Connecticut and there was a right to privacy in the Constitution," Mr. Reynolds said in the statement. "After Sen. Specter commented on that to the news media, Ms. Miers called him to say that he misunderstood her and that she had not taken a position on Griswold or the privacy issue. Sen. Specter accepts Ms. Miers' statement that he misunderstood what she said."

I am now beginning to think that the Miers nomination has created a real risk of causing a mega, polarizing fight over abortion, as opposed to a debate over conservative judicial philosophy.  Roberts demonstrated that conservative judicial philosophy is a winner.  With an issue like abortion-- that presents complex and conflicting privacy, reproductive rights and sanctity and protection of unborn life issues-- the public will tend to default away from what is perceived as an absolutist/extremist position.  For many, the Dems are currently perceived as extremists on abortion as a result of the role and tactics of NARAL (et.al) within the party, and their opposition to any form of reasonable regulation.  

Miers support of a constitutional amendment to ban abortion and her apparent non-committal on Griswold v. Conn (upholding a married couple's right to use birth control), could be seized by the Dems to paint Miers and conservatives as extremists.  In that fight, I think the Dems could succeed in shifting the perception to where it is the Republicans that are viewed as the extremists on abortion.

I also think that this Griswold flap demonstrates that neither Miers nor the White House are at all prepared for this.

There is real risk here for a disaster for the Republicans, which goes well beyond whether Miers is eventually confirmed.

Could they subpeona Erick to tell them who the source is?

One of the things that I have concluded is that, in many ways, we on the right are no better than our opponents on the left - both have results oriented jurisprudence.

Your theory, that a few votes the "right way" will win over conservatives is, n doubt, correct.  I for one, ask more of a justice than the right votes.  I demand the right reasons because the right results arrived at through the wrong reasoning will lead to problems in the future.

Consider Griswald v Conn.  The Court found that a right to privacy protected a married couple's use of contraceptives.  There are other liberty based ways that the Court could have arrived at this same outcome.  By making up a privacy right the Court opened the door for the Constitutional travesty of Roe.

Pragmatism isn't necessary... yet. The baby is not in the bath yet... it's not too late to turn off the water and pull the plug on this nomination.

This is an interesting question. How many people would be upset if the nomination was withdrawn and a new nominee was announced. I would think very few.

This comment about the ABA rating Miers unqualified seems to be hitting on something.

What do you suppose the chances are that they would put forth such a rating?

is not THE issue to appoint a justice.  I am pro-life in the extreme, but I also recognize that overturning Roe will not stop abortion.  It will simply return the question to the states where it will be allowed with some cavaets as to later term abortions and parental notification.  The only way abortion will cease to be legal in the US is to pass a constitutional amendment outlawing the procedure.  Won't happen.

The issue that we must consider with respect to chosing a justice, is his/her judicial philosophy.  For example, Roe should be overturned not because abortion is wrong, rather because Roe is bad law.  The justices made up stuff to come to a result they wanted.  I would be opposed to a justice voting to overturn Roe because of their position on abortion, even though I consider the procedure to be murder in the absense of a direct threat to the life of the mother.  Roe should only be overturned because it is bad law.

Supreme courts have, for the last 60 years, read into the constitution "stuff" that wasn't there and was never intended to be there so that power could be moved from the people and the states to the federal government.  Roe is just one example.  Kelo is the latest decision to centralize power in the government (this time municipal).

"One of the things that I have concluded is that, in many ways, we on the right are no better than our opponents on the left - both have results oriented jurisprudence."

The right is not a uniform mass of people.

Perhaps some on the Right would support any ruling that gives support to their beliefs, but without solid reasoning behind them, just any ruling won't satisfy conservatives.

Not all right-wing Christians are conservatives.   I keep saying this because I think it's the #1 lesson we all must learn from the Bush administration, that Christianity is not equivalent to conservatism.  Plenty of right-wing Christians would support a Supreme Court ruling that upheld a federal law criminalizing all abortions, but conservatives could not support such a usurpation of state power.

What I think would be interesting, though, is to find out where the majority of our coalition is.  Would most Republicans, or at least most of the so-called social conservatives, be content to allow judicial activism and a trampling of federalism in order to further the cause of enforcing Christianity on the States and the People?  I don't know.

What's going in is that some people are equating Christianity with conservatism.

Since President Bush is such a devout Christian, the people who confuse Christianity with conservatism call him a strong conservative.

I see no slight at all against those in favor of spending restraint.

I don't want to use that phrase 'fiscal conservative,' because I think it furthers that confusion of what conservative means.  Conservative cannot merely mean right-wing, or it'll become as meaningless as liberal.

The results of the 2004 election, and the Constitution of the United States, are all the strength he needs.

If the Senate turns on him, he can start vetoing the bills Senators want to use to curry favor back home.  He could make like Andrew Johnson and frustrate them to no end.

Of course, Republican President Johnson did get impeached by a Republican Congress after that...

Well I'm sorry but isn't a foundation of true conservatism that the government leaves you alone as much as possible? That the people give the government limited powers, the rest reserved? That's the basis of our Constitutional form of government.

Thus, privacy can be deduced as a "right." It's really quite logical, unspoken, but central to the contract. Whatever we don't give over, written in the Constitution, remains the people's. Well, privacy is about as central a right as any you can think of.

Do you want the government to come snooping into your home uninvited, Republican or Democratic?

Yikes!  

If the ABA did rate her "unqualified", it would look awfully political.  They'd be overtly throwing in with NARAL, etc., and that could cause problems for them down the line.

They might win by knocking Miers off, but they'd lose in the long term.  No Republican would view them as anything but a shill for the left.

You might want to read the Tenth Amendment.  We have state governments for a reason.

The ABA never said that anyone qualified to head a state bar association was qualified to serve on the Supreme Court.

but then again, I consider myself part of the (now out of favor) libertarian branch of the party, not the SCs.

yesterday I hear the white house is spinning like mad to convert the conservative base on the miers issue. and, Ken Mehlman on a con-call with 20 influential conservative bloggers. today I see this topic on redstate. welcome to the machine.

We have a process to amend the constitution. If you introduce an amendment that guarantees a right to privacy, feel free to do so. Depending on how it is worded I might even support it.

I have a problem with judges inventing anything out of whole cloth, even if it is a new so-called right. We might as well do away with the legislative or make them completely subsurvient to the judicial if we continue to allow that.

I don't think there is the willpower to go nuclear over Miers if the Dems fillibuster.

I fully expect one at this point with all the pro-life, good Christian talk coming from the administration in defense of Miers. So much for stealth.

Neil - Maybe it's because I'm under the influence of allergy meds at the moment, but I'm not getting you here.  It seems to me that the following two statements:

... all the rhetoric that he (Bush, GW) is not a conservative is bull[ ]... (courtesy, Erick's source)

and

Since President Bush is such a devout Christian, the people who confuse Christianity with conservatism call him a strong conservative. (courtsey, you - above)

are mutually exclusive.

Or am I perhaps missing your point entirely?

I have never equated GWB with "conservative" in any form save perhaps "social conservative" and I acknowledge even that distinction is debatable.  However, Erick's source seems to be doing the "saying it, so it's true" thing vis-a-vis the politicial orientation of the Pres.

The bottom line for me is that GWB may indeed be a conservative (in whatever sense of the word you care to employ), but I would argue that he has done little, painfully little since January 2001 in fact, which demonstrates said philosophical predisposition.

I think the White House is under the false impression that Christianity as believed and practiced by the President is Conservatism.

I don't think you're the one making that confusion at all.

I just don't think you should read into that confusion any slight against "real" conservatives, as perhaps some of us here might call them.

Unless the evaluation process has gotten more politicized since Bork, I don't see it happening.

On the other hand, if the ABA called her unqualified, I'd be MORE likely to support her, not less, given their liberal activist leanings.

That clears it up quite nicely.

I think the White House is under the false impression that Christianity as believed and practiced by the President is Conservatism.

I believe, and am afraid, you may be spot-on there.

Cheers.

I don't see Santorum as having much to say on this. He's in political trouble because he's seen as too far to the right for his state. Coming out against a nominee because she is too liberal would be bad. He's losing badly with women and moderates. Trashing Miers will not help him with either. If his problems were in the primary I would agree. Since it's in the general he won't be in the lead on killing the nomination.

I don't understand why DeWine and Chaffee would see this as a bad thing. She's probably the most moderate voice likely to come from Bush. Neither will face a challenge on their right, so they can stay in the center.

Whether you are cognizant of the this fact or not, most anti-Miers people are against Bush on this, in no small part, because of David Souter;  Souter is precisely, exactly why Bush chose Miers.  

Granted she's below Roberts in Conservative support, but still a 2-1 edge is hard to buck. The question isn't whether she will be loved as much as Roberts, the question is whether any Republican senator will go against the president AND a the bulk of conservatives to lead a fight against her. If not she gets 85 confirmation votes.

... and "slim" just left town.

Miers will get a "Qualified" rating with perhaps a small band of "purists" (read: left-wingers) voicing "Not Qualified".

Not good, but by no means a show-stopper.

I think such a rating will add another log onto the "I cannot believe that this person was number-two on the depth-chart after John walks-on-water-while-juggling-bowling-balls Roberts" fire - but nothing much more than that.

Roe perverted the country's political, democratic process.  The compelling reason to overturn Roe is to undue that perverion.  David Brooks  wrote a great piece several weeks back arguing that until Roe is overturned, the politial process will continue to to distorted.  

And the notion that a constitution would be designed by thinking people to give nine lawyers the power to decide fundamental issues of the nature of life, and when it is permissible for the termination of unborn life, is absurd in the extreme.

Well, of course privacy is right. It doesn't even nee to be "deduced".  It is explicit in the 4th amendment.

When I was speaking of "privacy" I was using a term of art, a term defined by its use in the legal world.  

Consider the idea of privacy you speak about in contrast with the right of privacy developed from Griswald and articulated in Roe; a right emanating from Blackmun's fingertips or eyebrows or shoe laces - something like that.

The point is that a "right" discovered by judges in secret writing on the back of the Constitution is no right at all because the next judge can fail to see the secret writing.  The only rights that are secure are those in the plain text.  And here's the rub: judicial creation of ersatz rights weakens those rights in the Constitution.

that you are right.  And that is the problem.  Bush did not expect a fight with us over this nomination.  That is proof, to me, that he does not get it.  He does not understadn what all the hub-bub about judges has been over the past two decades.  he thinks it is about judges who will cast the right vote and misses the point: it is about judges who will not be activist on the right or the left.

How is SOuter the reason Bush choose Miers?

What, he wanted to prove that a Bush could pick an underqualified and poorly vetted nominee and not have that person turn out to be a ...what?

He wanted to pick someone who would not vote like Souter?  Then why not pick one of the scores of highly qualified judges that conservatives have been breaking the fingers to advance?  We know their jurisprudence.  We don't even know if Miers has a jurisprudence.

1.  The ABA folks presumably know Miers personally, which makes it harder to take out the long knives for her.
   
2.  I suspect the ABA doesn't want to trash the nominee most identified with their organization since Lewis Powell.

. . . like the Court's recent 11th Amendment jurisprudence, which is barely tethered to the text?

The reasoning goes that Souter was an unknown to GHW, he relied on bad advice from others on the pick. He has known Miers for a really long time so he doesn't face that risk.

Of course in order to take any solace in this, you would have to trust Bush's judgement implicitly. I, like many people, do not. That is why the WH is having so much trouble with the "trust me, I know her" argument.

I don't think she will be a Souter but I do expect her to be an O'Conner... which we don't need either.

the desire was wrt judges, and I think he probably thought he was choosing well.

I think Bush just didn't get the desire of the base, and I think the attacks came as  surprise to him/

is about the fact that for some reason, when it comes to issues such as the Supreme Court, Republicans Presidents tend to screw up.  Are they doing it on purpose? Can the Republican party say with a straight face, that they are trying to demolish the Imperial judiciary? Word has it that the GOP doesnt want to see Roe V. Wade overturned....maybe there's some truth to that.  Now, why is Bush counting on my support to overhaul social security, the tax code, cut taxes and other business/money related issues but I cant count on George Bush to appoint a Janice Rogers Brown or Michael McConnell to the Supreme Court.

Harriet Miers is just another example of the GOP making promises but delivering only butter....and I am glad, because it was about time that I smelled the scent of the rotten coffee.

Harriet Miers is just another example of the GOP making promises but delivering only butter....and I am glad, because it was about time that I smelled the scent of the rotten coffee.

The attacks have only increased his resolve.  He's loyal - maybe to a fault - and that loyalty is going to be shown to Ms. Miers.

A lot of the attacks, particularly some of those without foundation (comparing her to Souter, etc.), are going to have him ticked off.  And he settles the scores.  In case you don't believe me, ask Tom Daschle.  He ain't a U.S. Senator any more.

Gosh, I'm sure sorry Bush is ticked off.  I sure wouldn't want to upset an elected official by expressing a view.

I guess being ticked off explains why the White House has responded to its critics by calling them names.  I guess their heads are so full of anger that they can't come up with a confirmation strategy that rises above stumbling.

Yeah, he sure has been loyal - like he was to George Tenant who rec'd the Presidential Freedom medal for getting almost everything wrong.

Yeah, he sure was loyal to the Constitution when he signed the campaign finance law even though he said it was unconstitutional.

Yeah, old Tom isn't senator anymore and that is all because of Bush and has nothing to do with Dakota being as red a state as they come.

Yeah, Bush sure was loyal (and showed great judgment) in selecting Michael Brown to head FEMA.

  The screw up factor is huge:  

Johnson was 2/2.  

Clinton was 2/2.

4/4, The Liberals couldn't ask for more than that.  

Nixon was 2/4

Ford was 0/1

Reagan was 1/3

GHWB was 1/2

4/10.  The Liberals couldn't ask for more than that.

  Bush screwed up, either because he is grossly incompetent or because he isn't really one of us or maybe a combination of both.  I don't really care.  If, in the course of the next 5 years it turns out Miers is in fact a great justice, well fine.  But I don't see how that helps Bush in any political sense and it doesn't erase the fact that the pick was just plain dumb.  

at a time when the Dems controlled the Senate. We had just been through bruising battles, and lost. GHWB was out of fight, if he ever had any. There was no one in the Senate, certainly not Specter, who would go to the wall for a "conservative" nominee. At the time, there was not a readily available "bench" of conservative judges from which to choose. GHWB might just as well have chosen me as Souter (although I would not have "grown" in office).

The playing field is totally different now. Republicans control, or at least should control, the Senate. We have just been through the John Roberts nomination, a process that gave the left the opportunity - which they took full advantage of - to make complete fools of themselves. The opposition was in complete and total disarray. There is a powerful "bench" of extraordinary candidates from whom to choose. There are several Senators who would go to the wall for Lutting, etal, including Specter.

Personally, as a friend of Bill W, I hope the President fell off the wagon. I'm more comfortable with that thought than I am with the idea he might think this lightweight is "supremely" qualified.

Nettles.....come on, and here I thought you were making a serious point. HAHAHAHA yankees fans, only they could put Nettles into a group with Bonds and Mantle. Gee whiz you forgot Roy White hahahhaha

(guffaw)

His game of pretending to be someone else at election time finally caught up with him. The stuff he was saying in DC was getting back to the folks at home. The only way Democrats can get elected in small midwestern states like South Dakota is to have two totally separate personalities. These are not liberal states. It is a hard game to play in the day and age of the internet.

With all due respect to Erick, I would expect the White House to continue the "spin", whether its accurate or not. At this point I'm not to concerned about "sources" inside the White House. I'm far more interested in what I'm hearing from "senate" sources. So today I had the opportunity to correspond with one such source. I will post the full discussion on confirmthem.com, but what I'll say here is that the upcoming senate vote could go either way. Its far too early for anyone to suggest that Miers will be confirmed.

aka progressives are arguing do drop Roe as a point of contention. I heard some commentator say as an asided that the GOP business elites want to also.

The discussions is how much abortion is OK and the LTAs seem to be the first to go.

Never the less, not only will ROE drop kick it to the States but there is no warrenty that it will be any less a problem at the state level. However that is my preference.

Finally, a successor to Roe could be decided on issues other than privacy. There are other ways to decided in favor of abortion on constitutional gounds that basis in text. Those will be harder to kill than Roe.

"The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak" comes to mind.

I also agree with your "I agree" post above.  "Show me the (conservatism)!"

To get 85 confirmation votes, she would need to have all of Roberts' "yes" votes, and turn something like 7 of the "no" votes that Roberts got into "yes" votes.  There is as much chance of that as me winning tonight's powerball.  There isn't any possible scenario where that could happen.  I think that it is a safe bet that every democrat that voted "no" on Roberts will vote "no" on Miers.  The question is how many Roberts "yes" votes will change to "no" votes.  IF she does well enough to not lose any Republican votes, she may get a handful of Red state democrats to vote "yes".  The BEST she can hope for is a 60-40 "yes" vote if she is stunningly good in the hearings.  If she falters, the dems will smell red meat and all vote "no", hoping for enough Republican "no" votes to defeat her (although I think if it looked like she would be voted down, she would withdraw or be withdrawn before the vote).

because she is too Liberal.  He would oppose her because of cronyism and/or lack of information/credentials.

I think that Liberals are just as distrustful of Miers as many Conservatives, if not more.  And things like today's Times article about her advocating that abortion be outlawed(if an amendment were proposed) isn't going to make Liberals any mroe comfortable with her.

This is getting annoying.

Bush is a liar and stabbed the conservative base in the back. He never was in any way a conservative.

Now Grover Norquist is not a true conservative.

Theory is for some and practice is for others. President Wilson's legacy was implemented by FDR, and FDR's direction came from Wilson. I.e. Wilson moved the country leftward, but FDR built the center-left infrastructure. (Another way to put it is that FDR moved the center to the left.)

Reagan moved the country rightward, but others (like Bush and the House leadership since 1995) have been working to move the center to the right.

The purpose of the Roberts and Meirs nominations is to make what has been considered "the right" accepted as centrist jurisprudence.

That is something that is hard for a purist to accept.

spending bills ? your joking right ?  What is more possible is that he moves more left in hopes of getting the libs to praise his "growth" durring his second term.

I'm a new poster, so I apologize if this is the wrong forum or has been addressed.  I am undecided on the Miers nomination.

Hypothetically, if you are Bush, and believe that it is time to put a non jurist on the court in order to bring some "real world perspective" into arguements, what qualifications would you look for?  If I make a list, Miers meets almost all of those qualifications.  

On the other hand, if you believe the SC should be comprised of the proven, experienced, and brightest judicial minds in the country (judges), Miers meets essentially none of the qualifications.

I find myself repeating wrestling with these two questions in deciding where I stand on the nomination.  Philosphically, what kind of people should make up the SC?

have to please both ends of he spectrum.

Remember Souter had several dem "no" votes against him, and I am sure many GOPers wished they had voted "no" along with them.

And there will be Dems who will vote for her for other reasons.  The 'we should support her because Dems hate her' argument is just so weak.

She's not going to follow Kristol's advice and fall on her sword.  And I can't imagine trusting Mr. 'never met a pork project I didn't like', ever-expanding government, 'Brownie you're doing a heckuva job' again.

Years of door-to-door, envelope licking, for this?  This is the face of the Republican party?  This is the best and brightest, with two branches controlled by Republicans?  

If Republicans in Congress can't stand up straight and argue for what they want now, then when?  I don't give a whit about pissing off the president.  That's not what this is about.

First I think she'll get every Republican vote. Lott and others may growl, but in the end they'll support the President and the wish of the majority of Republicans.

Of the Democrats, she'll pick up a few that Roberts was unable to convince.  A few from the Democratic women who opposed Roberts (Clinton, Boxer, Feinstein, and a few others). Then pick up a few moderates that were out of place with a Roberts vote (Bayh of IN, for example) and she's there.

Granted 85 is higher then she will probably get. But to believe she's going to get less than Roberts benchmark of 78 you have to believe that there will be some Republican defections. I don't see that happening. The most likely -- Lott, Kyl, Coburn, Brownback -- are either too loyal or want to run for another office (either president or senate majority leader). Ticking off the president isn't the way to do that.

Of the 4, Coburn is the one who may make the break. However unless Oklahomans rise up against her it's not going to happen.

I think your analysis is off.

No dem who voted against Roberts is going to vote for Miers.  If they couldn't vote for arguably the brightest nominee in the past several decades (excluding Bork) because of his conservatism, there is no down side to voting against someone with much less stellar qualifications who is being touted as a fundamentalist Christian who is going to overturn Roe.  In fcat, because of the horrid way this nominee has been rolled out, she's likely to get more Dem opposition over that issue.

As for the R's, I don't disagree that there will be a natural 'rallying around the flag' effect and Bush will plead with Senators to vote for her to secure a victory for him.  More's the pity.

But Trent Lott, for one, has a free pass.  What's Bush going to do?  Suggest that he should step down as Majority Leader?  Oh wait, that already happened.  Lott can exact some revenge now if he wants with low risk.  His friend, Sen. Cochran is chair of the Appropriations Committee, so Mississippi won't get hurt.  BRAC has already completed the move to close down Pascagoula.

Tom Coburn can easily vote against her.  He's a maverick already, isn't worried about reelection for 5 more years and won't need to raise all that much money anyway, and he won't be able to be bribed with earmarks or pork spending.

Chafee will probably be compelled to vote for her because the RNSC and WH will condition their continued aid in his primary campaign on that vote.

But Snowe and Collins could easily vote against her because of her position on Roe.  Remember they are both pro-choice Republicans, so if they feel like some promise has been made that she will vote against Roe, they can justifiably vote against her if they have the cover of Lott and Coburn voting no first.

Mitch McConnell already has the Majority Leader position sewn up, so the real question is who runs for Whip if Santorum loses in Pennsylvania.  It's likely to be a race between Kyl and Lott, and that race won't be decided by Bush or because of votes on this nomination.  So that factor is probably moot.

Overall, each day that passes, Republican Senators are getting angrier and angrier at being put in this position.  The WH keeps making mistakes on this nomination and it is becoming more and more embarrassing.

maybe there's some truth to that.  Now, why is Bush counting on my support to overhaul social security, the tax code, cut taxes and other business/money related issues but I cant count on George Bush to appoint a Janice Rogers Brown or Michael McConnell to the Supreme Court.

Well said. If the Republican leadership cannot get a simple nomination right when they control the US senate what is my motivation for supporting their other platforms? The missing WMD's in Iraq or the wholesale export American jobs to Communist China or maybe the unstainable trade deficits that has us importing 500 billion more than we export?

I have spent the past 5 years rooting for this president but he just dealt me a hard one below the belt. I am finally out of wind and out of excuses.

The problem is, all too often, the choices have been the jurists - and the Supreme Court has become a bit of an ivory tower.

Miers brings a lot of real-world perspective to the Supreme Court - and that is something important.  Bringing that perspective is a good thing, if you ask me.  Even if she is not an intellectual.

on the close cases we've been losing where the Supreme Court is recognized as out of step with the US public

to recognize the trust, much less tell it when he can't even recognize unborn babies old enough to survive outside the womb.  

He rained on the conservative victory parade the day after the election and is still working to demoralize us.  Even it he succeeds in splitting conservative unity, Harriet will still get 50 votes minimum.  

We'll all be forgetting Specter's "help" in stopping this nomination the day she posts her 1st 5-4 conservative opinion.

on the Supreme Court.  And, we elected him to do so.  He assesses that objective as "done."  His record to date underscores the probability.  

It is they who suspect he failed who are bucking the odds he did not again provide another excellent vote for his brand of conservatism.

Almost all of the also-rans many of us prefer were picked by Bush.  That's called irony.

last week over a final straw?

Henry IV says to his son Hal, who will later be Henry V:

"Thou seek'st the greatness that will overwhelm thee."

More and more I see ambition behind Miers' decision to accept the nomination. I practiced law briefly and I hope I wouldn't have traded on a relationship with a client in this way.

I think that applies here. This ambition lies outside what she has prepared herself for, unlike, for example, whatever ambition Roberts may have had.