Redstate

Ah, yes: that's the sound of me being wrong on this one.

Ach, well, not the first time.

"Ok everyone - back to the barracks, let's get ready to get behind a nominee we can support."

I don't know about this one....

Too bad...she didn't deserve this and if this is the result of being a loyal, team player, good luck to the next.

Well, now, one of two things can happen - Bush could come through with a solid nominee from among the dozens of conservative legal thinkers out there.  Or he could look to get revenge on those who dared challenge him by nominating another loyal friend and lackluster individual and start this over.

Now that we've all been wrong - anybody want to get an early jump on what/who happens next?

I have no doubt that this was to a great extent driven by the base - not as much by the pundits as the intense and relentless efforts of grass roots people contacting their elected representatives.   I wrote a personal e-mail to all Judiciary Committee Republicans just yesterday - and this has been going on.  

This is only one of THREE things which must happen.  the other two are:  the nomination of a proven originalist - and his/her confirmation.  Let's hope President Bush realizes the historic nature of this decision and Does the Right Thing.

It was becoming more and more clear that Harreist Miers, skilled attorney and good person though she may be, was the wrong fit for this Supreme Court nomination.

I am glad that she has withdrawn.

I hope the President has learned form this experience:  we need a nominee with directly relevant qualifications, who is outside the inner circle of the White House, who has a clear record, who has a definite and restrained judicial philosophy, and who can withstand Senate scrutiny in the manner

set to nominate Tom Selleck, cites vast knowledge of Hawaii, nice moustache.

Good spin. Blame it on Senators wanting White House documentation.

Now, pick someone conservative and don't send us AGAG, please :-)

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.

Thank you, Alberto, now help us find someone who's never been to the White House, or even to Texas.

Conservatives have come out of the closet.  Time for our own pride parade in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Change the rules of conduct for the next 50 years.  Right the wrongs and return to originalist principles.

Yee hah indeed.

I just spit a mouthful of caffeinated beverage on this one.

I still think that the nominee should and will be a woman.  So it's time for Edith Jones to be the bride and not the bridesmaid at last!  Let's hear it for Lady Edith.

Because I'm sitting out the whole jduicial business from now on.

I have never seen such a dishonest effort against a judicial nominee in the time I've followed them. I thought Clarence Thomas was as bad as it would ever get, but this took the cake.

We have probably lost parental notification laws.  We'll probably lose the federal partial-birth abortion law.  All because the ideological purists of the Beltway conservative establishment chose to use the same dispicable tactics that were used elsewhere.  All because perfect was allowed to be the enemy of good enough.

I'm done supporting the Beltway conservative establishment.  I'm done with the "holier than thou" right that labeled me a shil, pimp, and Kool-Aid drinker.  I can no longer trust them, nor do I respect them.

Peace?  No.  My sword shall be drawn.

that we get a candidate we conservatives won't fight with each other over; the Dems got way too much mileage over that.  

And I hope we give a little energy towards helping her keep, or get back, whatever dignity we haven't already taken away from her.  However unqualified she may have been, a post somewhere else raised the concern that our rejection of her has made her a punchline.  She deserves better than that from us...that's what the Dems do to us to get what they want.

AGAG presents the exact same problem that Miers does - the Senate will request/demand White House and DoJ documents that the President will not want to release.  The only think that AGAG has is a year-plus on the Texas Supreme Court (which, by the way, does not handle ANY criminal law questions as they are handled by a separate high court).

Everyone has the play, and are running it well. Documents, documents, documents.

let's get down to business.  Can the replacement nominee be a Man?  I think Gonzalez is out of the question because of the way this nomination was opposed on cronyism grounds.  But can the replacement be a man?  President Bush seemed to want to name a woman for the O'Conner seat.  Has all this consternation from the base about qualifications given him the cover to nominate the best qualified and not just the best qualified woman?

worked out.  amazing.

Now I guess we will find out who, in President Bush's opinion, is the "Second Best Qualified" person for SCOTUS.  

It's time for reconcilliation.  Both sides to admit to things they never thought possible in the conservative movement.  Unite behind Reagan's 11th commandment and the true conservative revolution!

Though I don't know how they're going to get around the stated excuse for Miers withdrawing, given that AG was white house counsel, though I suppose he has a more public record than Miers.

Our loyalty-driven President may have a very negative view of what he may perceive as an  attack on his "good friend", and reward it with an ultra-moderate follow-up nomination.

He could also be thinking "OK, you want to go to war? Go ahead and have at it ..." and send up a Pryor, Owens, or Brown.

I think the Miers nomination has irretrievably split the Right - too many hard feelings will be carried around on this.

And this was not a Borking - there were no accusations that Harriet Miers would turn the country into some draconian neo-Inquisition.  Brok was accused of terrible things that were wholly false.  Miers was simply accused of being an unknown and was leaving Senators and the public in a position of being unable to judge whether the opinions being circulated about her views were true or false.  That is not a Borking, that is a legitimate question.

This is correct. I hope that GWB will not be so petty with something as critical as this. JRB, Luttig, and Jones better be at the top of the list.

Looks like the Washington Times scooped everyone, by the way.

Probably means that some interesting indictments are coming today. Couple the pieces of bad news together.

. . . She did the right thing.

Hah!  I'm sure the next nominee will be described exactly as Miers was, and most people, including the MSM, won't bat an eye.

talking about Gonzo, I was talking about those (like Harold below) that feel the way Miers was treated reflects poorly on the conservative movement. Put up a stellar nominee, and you still might not have everyone on board. Any nominee deserves better than the shabby way Ms. Miers was treated.

True, and friends are the best peopel to point out the problems amongst each other.

The GOP is more than the next appointment to the USSC.  Quite honestly, I'm just glad the whiners now might cease, if only for a couple weeks.

Hopefully, if he goes looking for revenge, is line of thinking will go something like this, "All right, if they want a conservative, fine! I'll give them Janice Rodgers Brown and let them fight for her against the Democrats! When they have a stress level from political combat that keeps them awake at night, then they'll be sorry!"

Please, God. please let push be that sort of vindictive president. The blogosphere and the conservative base have stretched their muscles, and we know that we are strong.

I think he goes with the next loyalist, Gonzales.  Which could produce some real fireworks (e.g. detainee issues).

for that.

A lot of pretty unforgivable -- my view, anyway -- things were said on both sides. I'm going to find it very hard to work with some folks I respected before this nomination.

also rented some new office space in DC, which indicates that this is far from over.  New grand jury anyone?

I'm sorry - why should I help out anyone who called me a shill or a pimp?

They can clean this up without my help.  Not one dime of my money, not one minute of my effort.

And I hope Schumer wants to ask questions about how your favorites go - the borkers deserve no less.  This was a borking - Miers was attacked on idoelogical grounds with no regard for the facts or giving her a chance to explain at the hearings.

Ok, are we all happy now?

and pass the collection plate.  This is a HUGELY important time for conservatives to bond together and march forward.  Let's hope President Bush does his part.  I believe he will.

I still like Emilio Garza. Qualified & I candidate that Democrats will need to handle with some care (although I have no doubt that any nominee will be attacked)

"Ok everyone - back to the barracks, let's get ready to get behind a nominee we can support."

Nothing would rally (and help heal) conservatives more than a real fight on principle right now, especially considering Bush's death of a thousand cuts that's really beginning to show. Let's nominate a Luttig and drive it down the left's throat. Perhaps the White House can work with the blogosphere for once and discover its effectiveness (unlike the left blogs, most of us fight for our principles and will unite when we're clearly working together).

Oh, and for all the lefties out there tuning in, keep wasting your time chaining the loons in your party to fences and sitting in ditches cursing world oil/Jewish conspiracies and demanding protection for terrorists and totalitarian states. Please keep Cindy visible as the icon for the left - we very much need your continued assistance as we get things put back together. And please tell Michael Moore to hurry on his next movie...

scoove

I've been called, among other things, a shill, a pimp, and a Flavor-Aid drinker because I didn't join the anti-Miers lynch mob.

Screw `em.  They can fight this on their own.  They've made this mess - they can clean it up.

In politics, almost everything is forgivable, almost. But there should be no gloating (one should never gloat when you win, in politics and elsewhere it's just bad sportsmanship).

The republicans begin to eat their young. Here's to hoping W puts someone up who has at least read the Constitution at some point in their legal career.

ever heard of being a gracious winner?

If there's one thing I think is clear about this president, it's that he doesn't like to give in. That's why I can't see the situation where he says "Fine!" and nominates a tried-and-true conservative, because then it would look like Congress and the conservatives just played him like a puppet. Which they would have.

Then again, I didn't expect the nomination to be withdrawn for the same reason. So maybe he has given in.

(On the plus side for a conservative nominee, my guess is it would be harder in the public opinion realm for Democrats to launch a filibuster now--not because the "obstructionist" charge carries any weight anymore, but because people are just sick of hearing about this stuff.)

I don't think it can or should be a man.  The idea of 'most qualified' I think is a false one.  There are a number of qualified people who can sit on the court.  I don't think that there's any one person who will be the best and I do think it appropriate to go looking for diversity.  I would be opposed to nominating a woman who was NOT qualifed, but given that there are plenty who are I see no reason not to pick one.

Jones, Jones, Jones!

Step 1: Nominate Edith Jones (5th Circuit) for SCOTUS

Step 2: Nominate Harriet Miers for Jones' seat on the 5th Circuit

In the event that two years or less hence another SC opening appears, GWB will then have the opportunity to nominate Miers again if he so choses, this time as someone with the same judicial experiance as John Roberts who is also at least one big-step removed from the White House - and those of us who believe Miers is a big "?" on judicial philosophy will likely have something other than a "Trust me" from GWB upon which to base our support for her.

This is hardly original as Dan Henniger (WSJ) has already forwarded it - doesn't make it any less the right thing to do.  By all indications, Miers is a good woman put in an unwinnable and indefensible position by someone who is supposed to know better.  There is still time to do right by all involved.

Let's hope the President is not too busy with "other matters" today and/or tomorrow to see to that.

"The base" did just that to Miers...

It's the truth.

Now it is time for President Bush to come out and say something along the lines of the following: "okay, I promised you I would appoint judges like Scalia and Thomas.  I didn't want to precipitate a big senate confirmation fight because I wanted to get my domestic agenda through.   But it is obvious the Republican base, and certainly our conservative support, want a fight.  So today I nominate Janice Rogers Brown (or put your favorite here) to be the next Supreme Court Associate Justice.  I know this is going to cause some Democrats like Senators Byden, Kennedy, Shumer, (add your favorite usual suspects here) to immediately reject her, but the American people voted for this, and I am following through on that commitment. Today I ask all Americans to contact their Senators and Congressmen and women and let them know that you expect their support for this nominee."

We conservatives want to see the stubbornness that Bush is so famous for put to work on doing what he said he was going to do.  We want to see him go to the attack mode.

He should write off any and all support from Democrats.  Promise the nuclear solution. PUSH this through; take no prisoners; just get it done.

I think the stubbornness Bush is so famous for will manifest itself in Gonzales.  He wants to reward his friends, Harriet didn't work, so Alberto is next.

very well set a record for the shortest time between registration and banning. One more cheap shot like this will be your last.

For all the Miers-bashers and Miers-Borkers out there, congratulations on your Pyrrhic victory. Hopefully this won't result in the next SCOTUS nominee (after O'Connnor is replaced by Bush's next nominee) being nominated by Hillary Clinton and confirmed by a Democrate Senate.

At the time Miers was nominated, President Bush probably doubted that he could count on Senate RINOs to break a Dem filibuster of a known judicial conservative, so he tried to take the "easy" confirmation offered to him by Senate Democrats, only to face mutiny from his so-called friends.

Now that Miers has withdrawn, President Bush has an opportunity to set this straight, albeit from a weaker position than before. Is now a good time for a huge filibuster/nuclear option fight in the Senate, with all the work that needs to be done rebuilding after the hurricanes and cutting pork out of the budget? President Bush will need a lot of courage for this next pick, because if he nominates an experienced, well-known judge with a long paper trail, he will need to twist a few GOP arms in the Senate. He will need to tell them, "You refused to support Harriet Miers because you thought we could have a stronger nominee--now you need to be strong and defend a stronger nominee before the Democrats."

Are all the Miers-Borkers out there ready to give the President the support he will need?

Happy, happy day.

So basically you've decided to abandon conservative officials and causes because of perceived slights by a small portion of people.

I don't know where someone called you personally a shill.  I don't know your position Harold.  But unless you were holding out, in the face of all the speeches and writings that came out, that Miers was the right person for this job, was a known quantity, and would be the best Justice we could have, then you are not a "shill" or a "pimp."

And you must admit that most people were not levelling such terms but were trying to have a respectful disagreement about the qualifications of this nominee.

"There are a number of qualified people who can sit on the court.  I don't think that there's any one person who will be the best and I do think it appropriate to go looking for diversity.  I would be opposed to nominating a woman who was NOT qualifed, but given that there are plenty who are I see no reason not to pick one."

Affirmative action triumphs at redstate? :)

Bush's statement was perfect.  Sticks it to the dems while allowing Miers a graceful exit.  Nice work.

But my question is, has the base upset the boss enough to stick it to us now?

Is this an indication that technology has shifted the balance of power?

Bush shouldn't restrict himself by gender.  According to most of what I've read here at RS and elsewhere, that's what got us Miers in the first place.

I'm sorry for the abuse you have endured.

Even though I have taken a wait and see approach to Harriet Miers, I'm relieved at this news.  The toll it has exacted on the conservatives has been terrible. I don't remember our side being this divided over an issue.

That said, I think her withdrawal is the best for her, the best for conservatives and the best for our country.

I wasn't happy with the Meyers nomination, but can the GOP Senate confirm a conservative Judge?  Can they overcome a Democrat filibuster?  Can they get the job done when there's little evidence to suggest they can - even with 55 of them?

That's a great idea.  Particularly given what she had to endure the last few weeks (all Bush's fault).

don't do this,come back please.  We're a ship without a rudder, a car without wheels, Bill Clinton in a chasity belt, Ruth bader Ginsburg without make up, Hillary Clinton without a girdle.  Reconsider and forgive, don't desert us in our hour of need.

We need the best qualified nominee. Period.

We are ready to fight for a qualified conservative candidate.  Forget about Bush.  We don't need to support Bush.  We need to support the qualified nominee he puts forward.  And we need to support Republican Senators who are willing to stand up for that nominee as well.  And I think most of those on the Right are ready to do that.

Please ban just for putting those images in my head :)

heh

The anti-Miers caucas will have to accept personal responsibility and clean up the resulting judicial confirmnation mess themselves.  It's not worth a dime of my money or a minute of my time.

Did Senator Vitter make this call on his own, or did  he do so at the behest of the President, to give cover for the withdrawal?

Obviously, Vitter and the Pres had the chance to bond when Bush spent so much time down in Louisiana last month.  I wonder if Vitter took one for the team by appearing to challenge the President's pick when he was actually providing a pretext for Miers to withdraw.

I'll take the bait.  I call bunk on that.

It got pretty heated , on this blog alone.  And the people in the sights were fellow Repubs.

I'll go with Harold on this..I can maybe understand the joy some feel now, if they will understand how I see some as nothing more than flame throwers from the Right.

Yes, he is definitely angry at the way Harriet Miers was taken down. But he has nobody to blame but himself for making such a mistake in nominating her in the first place. Now our President is at a crossroads: Does he try to "punish" us and nominate Alberto Gonzalez or Consuelo Callahan? Big mistake, they are also unacceptable.

If President Bush wants to re-energize his base he should nominate Janice Rogers Brown, Karen Williams, Edith Jones or Alice Batchelder (if he wants to nominate a woman). If he is inclined to nominate qualified Hispanics he should look at Emilio Garza, Miguel Estrada or Cecilia Altonaga. Sandra Day O'Connor's seat is not a "woman's seat"; thus, he should also evaluate Judges Alito, Luttig or McConnell.

The President has to reunite his base that was badly splintered with the Miers fiasco; if he wants to salvage his second term he needs the support of his base which worked so hard for more than 30 years to bring the Conservative movement to fruition.

that was who Miers was, so I guess we'll have to settle for second best.

My guess is that we will get a strong Conservative pick, and Bush will be looking to us to do a lot of the fighting for him/her. Oh and the person will have impeccable judicial and intellectual credentials, and big enough rocks or ovaries to get through the confirmation slime-storm.

The President can't do any worse politically than he has done lately (which is not to say it's all his fault- the hurricane fallout is essentially all media spin). So he may as well go for broke. We did learn that he may not trust conservatives or even actually be a conservative deep in his heart. But I think he learned for his part that we have a big voice and are not afraid to use it. To repeat though, he will be betting that we will do a lot of the fighting.

And the fight will not be in America's living rooms. There, the MSM will portray the nominee as bad enough to make Hitler blush, and to cause riots in Toledo. Rather the fight will be in the Senate. And there, conservatives have a voice, and it will be up to us to use it.

And for what it's worth, I think the chortling over Conservative disarray in the press and on the Left is just so much lemonade in the wind. What Conservatives have demonstrated through this process is conviction and reasoned dissent, which is a marker of strength, not weakness. It's like the stock market: at the time when no one wants anything to do with owning stock, when no one has anything good at all to say about stock, that's exactly the time to be buying stock with both hands.

Here is a nice summary at Bloomberg:

``The reaction to her nomination has been so intense and sustained that the White House couldn't ignore it any longer,'' said Roger Pilon, director of the Center for Constitutional Studies at the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, in an interview before the withdrawal. ``Confirmation was doubtful.

---------

``The conservative movement since (former Arizona Republican Senator Barry) Goldwater and (former President Ronald) Reagan has been deeply concerned about the role of the court,'' Pilon said. ``This nomination undermined that long history. It's been seen as a slap in the face.''

It was perceived as a slap in the face, and Miers' 1993 speech was the handprint on the cheek.  This country has gone through not a night, but a generation of the long knives with the horrific Republican confirmations of Warren, Brennan, Stewart, Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter.  We've been forced to suffer long enough.  The Red States have had liberal judical dogma forced upon us against our legislative will for most of 70 years, since the remaking of the Supreme Court by the appointments of Black, Douglas and Frankfurter back in the late 1930's.

Enough is bleep-ing enough.

Obviously, my post yesterdat predicting that Ms. Miers would NOT witdraw at this time was the last straw.  Ms. Miers and the White House saw the post for what it was, an excellent chance to embarrass me and could not resist.

Realizing the tremendous power I have. I predict...

1. The Congress will deal effectiviely with immigration in the near future.
   
2. Congress will reign in spending.
   
3. Peace and goodwill will break out next Monday.

Go ahead and embarras me some more.

You've mentioned this twice. The one thing I've noticed about Bush's management/leadership history is that he doesn't tend to make the same mistake twice. (That he makes profound mistakes at times, however, is another issue.)

Realistically, there was substantial Senatorial pressure that had to have had a governing effect on this nomination process (and less the nominee who as we all know, was more of an unqualified passenger to this process-gone-wrong and objectively could be said to have simply been trying to please her patron once more). I doubt some of our Republican Senators (many of which are under tremendous pressure from their pork-ridden transportation bill, such as our Senator Grassley and his infamous rainforest pork) are willing to suffer further erosion. Nothing would benefit them more right now like a hard-core fight with a solid , credentialed Rehnquist-type nominee.

scoove

My guess is W will use this as a chance to mobilize the base, so he will not nominate a Michael McConnell (who, by the way, is supported by his colleage at Chicago Law, Cass Sunstein, and clerked for the same judge as Susan Estrich).  In any event, I would love to see either a Luttig or a Sam Alito ("Scalito").  However, since identity politics runs deep in this administration (Condi:  "Look at the cabinet for a model of diversity!"), I bet we see Garza, or better, the return of Estrada.

Any thoughts?

though I'm not convinced the President will see this as a mistake.  I think he is/will be (a) extremely angry that he didn't get his close friend on the court, and (b) even more angry that it was his own party that did it to him.  Opposition from Democrats is to be expected, oppostition from Republicans is an unnecessary and unwelcome slap in the face.  The best way to deal with his (in his mind) "so-called" allies is to show them that they can't treat him this way.

OTOH, Gonzales has been AG for less than a year, so he may not want it (I'm not sure Miers wanted it either but I don't think she could turn the President down).  

In any event, I'm still wondering how anyone could have thought this was a good idea in the first place (lots of whispers that only Card and Bush supported this nomination).

The RINOs and Democrats called the dance on Miers and, frankly, that was the slap in the face of conservatives.  We work, pound the streets, spend our hard-earned money....and Harry Ried has more clout on this nomination than we do?

2004 Election

Second term for an embattled President

Largest vote count in US history

Increase for GOP in the Senate

Yet we still crap our knickers when faced with the prospect of actually doing something about the SCOTUS.

I'll never understand why Republicans are so solicitous of Specter, Snowe, Chaffee and their ilk - yes, yes, whatever you want...just as long as the letter "R" can remain as the majority in the Senate...not that we are accomplishing anything important to the "R" party...but we can sure be proud (via the capitulation to at best three or four NE Rockefeller-ites) that we've kept the letter between Q and S (that is R) blazing proudly as the one in control of Congress.

If he wants to reward his friends, those of us responsible for putting him in the White House for example, then he can nominate a Scalia or Thomas.  If he does anything other than that, if he thinks the conservatives were on the warpath over Miers, he hasn't seen anything yet.  And if the National Republican party and every republican in an elective office does not contact Bush and tell him to do that, they are going to pay big time come the next election.  

We conservatives are TIRED of this and we ARE NOT going to tolerate it any longer without making it very painful for those that betrayed us.  Hide and watch.

Years ago, a professional bowler named Ernie Schlegel was competing in the televised final match for a tournament championship. He had finished his game, and his opponent, a right handed bowler named Randy Peterson, needed a strike to win. Peterson rolled an apparently perfect ball, only to leave the solid 8. ("The only true tap in bowling.") As Peterson lay face down on the approach, Schlegel began dancing around (on live TV) cheering, saying, "I am the best!"

Years have passed, and I still have absolutely no respect for the man.

Contrast that with Tiger Woods' reaction when John Daly missed that short putt a couple weeks ago during a sudden death playoff. The missed putt gave Woods the championship, but Woods did not celebrate. He looked at the ground and hid his face for a moment, then he walked out on the green to shake Daly's hand.

IIRC, I have posted little on this site on Miers other than "wait and see", because I felt that I did not know enough to form an opinion one way or the other. As the weeks went by, I had seemed to be coming to the conclusion that perhaps she was not the best nominee after all, although I did not say so here. This conclusion was confirmed in my mind this morning when I found that my instantaneous reaction to the news of the withdrawal was a sense of relief.

I would say now to those of us who worked against this nomination, let us emulate Woods' reaction, not Schlegel's. Please. A great rift has formed on the right over Miers, let us not now continue to widen that rift, rather let us begin to heal it.

anti-Miers caucas will have to accept personal responsibility

Harold, I think many of us accept full responsibility for facilitating a critical dialog with the goal of finding the truth. A good (but difficult) reading that explains this concept which is only found in the right is addressed in the historically very significant document by John Milton, Areopagitica. A quick summary of the point Milton makes is that once must permit truth and falsehood to grapple in order for the truth to be known.

From your comments, it sounds as if you blame those who seek the truth - especially when we criticize the unimpeachable judgment of the King/President. Perhaps you would be more comfortable having your "truth" delivered by CBS news every night so you wouldn't have to work hard to find it? I'm certain your money and time would be more appreciated if your value system rejects the honest efforts of those seeking the truth. Why are you here, in other words, when your truth-finding methodology is so inconsistent with rational debate?

Objectively evaluated, the conservatives approach and debate about this nomination was remarkable and much in the spirit of the nation's founders (who "occasionally" disagreed with each other too). Unlike the left's personal attack methodology as shown in the Bork nomination (and countless other instances), the conservatives stood for merit over cronyism. While I'm always shocked to find those who prefer to be a mindless house slave and reject those of us who criticize the master, I do realize that critical thinking unfortunately isn't easy and some would rather take a less difficult path. Yet for some reason, you're here and I'd have to believe something stirs in you. I wouldn't give up on it yet if I were you.

I doubt you'll find many who will struggle over your choice - we all have our own issues to face - but I thought I'd reach out with some objective perspective. If you really do seek the truth, you're going to have to accept the sometimes passionate debate process and let truth work its way out. Otherwise, turn off that darn Internet now.

scoove

I think Estrada is almost a stealth candidate that would be satisfactory to conservatives.  We don't know where he stands... but he is an excellent attorney.

...do you mean Karl Rove?  

The last three weeks have been terribly unpleasant, and I would not personally engaged in them at all, if it were not for the importance of the cause. Even a "win" in this situation is hollow.

Yes, in a certain extent, I'm glad that Miers has been withdrawn. But I can't imagine what in the world one could gloat about in the aftermath of all this.

As conservatives we can no longer accuse the DEMS of borking a nomination. At least Bork had a hearing. It may be the best thing for the Republican Party that Miers did withdraw, but what conservatives have done is made the confirmation process a disaster.

the following no longer applies:

1. All we want is an up or down vote.
   
   
2. "Confirm them" blog should shut down or change name to "Confirm who we like"
   
   
3. Judicial philosophy is the important matter, we should not consider the personal belief's of a nominee.
   
   
4. Fair treatment

The list could go on. I am relieved that Miers did withdraw and it shows she does have complete respect for President Bush.

the more the likes of you speak, the easy it gets to turn away.

good luck

Miers' treatment and withdrawal signifies some unpleasant circumstances, I think.  It shows that the radical right elements of the Republican Party leave no room for compromise, and that the denial of the "litmus test" was little more than an empty assertion.

We'll see how it goes with the next one, I suppose.  

The anti-Miers purists have gotten their wish--so far. But they should have been careful what they wish for BEFORE Miers withdrew.

The question is, how badly divided are GOP Senators--the strong conservatives, the RINOs, and the GOP 7 in the Gang of 14? Does Bush now have the clout to twist their arms for an Edith Jones or Karen Williams? Do the GOP 7 in the Gang of 14 have the diplomatic skill to convince the Dems in the Gang of 14 that the next nominee isn't "extraordinary circumstances"?

As someone here pointed out, regarding conservative judicial nominees, we have a tripartisan Senate: 48 sure yes votes (R), 38 sure no votes (D), and the Gang of 14. Some of the purists here may regret it, but that's reality. What is needed is a nominee that can get either 5 Dem votes for cloture (from the Gang of 14) or 3 GOP votes from the Gang of 14 for the nuke option. (Specter isn't in the Gang of 14, but he's unreliable--47 R + 3 GO14 + Cheney passes the nuke option).

Given the choice, it would be preferable to get 5 Dem votes from the GO14 than use the nuke option, so the Senate doesn't become paralyzed on other issues. Any suggestions on who could get 5 Dem votes for cloture?

These days, it seems like the key to confirming a judicial nominee is the Gang of 14. A nominee doesn't need Ted Kennedy's or (up)Chuck Schumer's vote--the Gang of 14 is enough. President Bush SHOULD be meeting with them as soon as he can...

Unless it's some sort of grand plot conceived by Rove to distract from indictments:  nominate someone sure to stir up a hornets nest on most sides (not obviously qualified like Roberts, even more of a mystery, "assure" people like Dobson of her credentials, but her background doesn't support it, etc., etc., etc.), then when indictments are imminent withdraw her and nominate someone that is sure to be supported by the base (will overturn Roe) and at the same time outrage the left (will overturn Roe).  

All of a sudden, the screaming is about the nominee and the indictments (if any) play second fiddle.  

Second best in Bush's mind may be far better than Miers in the minds of many others.

that I don't buy that.  I think this was Bush's decision through and through, and after Miers had been on the hot seat for a few weeks she wanted out.

but what does that say about Bush's mind?

The President citing release of documents as a reason for accepting the Meiers withdrawal may be a tacit acknowledgement of the cronyism charge.  It seems to set a precedent that future SCOTUS nominees can't be professionally connected to the president.  I don't think that's a bad thing...

I'm hoping for Janice Rogers Brown for the following reasons:

1.  She is qualified.
   
2.  Bush needs a solid, qualified conservative nominee to unite the base and start rebuilding some political capital for other purposes.
   
3.  Given #2, expect a filibuster.  Not sure how it comes out in the end, but conservatives need to position themselves optimally for the debate and subsequent political fall out.
   
4.  Watching the Dems filibuster a qualified, AA woman with all the associated spin can only help the conservatives.
   
5.  Bush can make the arguement that the more acceptable candidate (to the liberals) could have been confirmed if they would have spoken out to support her.
   
6.  Bush gets to nominate the first AA female to the SC (legacy).

That's drastic.

None of our arguments are invalid.  We do want an up or down vote - we simply sought a down vote on this.  The withdrawal request was about saving the President the embarassment, and saving GOP Senators from having to vote against this nomination.  

Number 3 is exactly our point - we kept hearing about Miers' personal beliefs and how they prove her fitness.  And the opposition kept saying that we have no clue what her philosophy is and how we could determine what would guide her in making decisions.

And I'm not sure what "fair treatment" means - does that mean that discussing the prior statements, speeches and writings of a nominee is inappropriate?  Does that mean that we need to treat every nominee the way you decide is "fair?"  That we have to pretend that the scripted and staged kabuki theater that is the confirmation hearing will do anything more than let the nominee disavow everything that someone questioned?  "Fair treatment" is not a real argument without more.

The "Sky is Falling" crowd seems to conflate a lot of things.  There are distinctions between the situations that seem to be joined if you look at the question for more than 5 minutes.

My post was more to question the relevancy of Andy Card in anything the White House does.  Rove is "Deputy" Chief of Staff.  

I can't tell if the indictments are coming or not.  I bet yes, but I'm not sure that its better to couple "bad news" stories on the same day rather than to use the Miers the day after the indictments to divert the headlines.

I dont think the WH is prescient enough to have put Miers up as a sham to divert from the Wilson/Plame business.  But, it sure is convenient.

Now where has Miguel been hiding?  Get him back out here...

I think Bush simply stole Krauthammer's text. Pure plagerism. But then, Krauthammer is a bright guy, so if you must sponge ideas off someone, then he is a good place to start.

Means on the floor of the Senate. Not by the public.

Nominating a moderate or stealth candidate puts Bush right back where he was a week ago.  

The nominee will have to be a known, qualified conservative to unite the base.  

The filibuster showdown is coming.  If Bush picks the right candidate, Bush wins politically whether or not the filibuster is broken.  He either gets the conservative through the Senate, or has increased latitude to make a new (aaahhh, third) nomination, having already tried to please Harry Reid and the conservative base.  The general public will be completely sick of hearing about judges at that point.

other rumors have been going around that Card has been trying to assert himself with Rove's potential troubles bubbling about.

wanted documents from the WH. Specter, Brownback, Allen, Leahy, Schumer etc..i don't know how this "sticks it to the dems". The right wing did not like this nominee, because they were not convinced she'd rule like they'd hope (prejugding cases??)..so they truly wanted her out. Who knows who Bush will come up with next, but I'd call this a Dem victory of sorts. If it's a Luttig type guy, they'll turn Miers into a saint and force feed the extremism charge because its O'Connor's replacement. Maybe the lady from Arizona should withdraw her retirement and stay on to save the GWB from another bruising political situation.

Ideology is now an acceptable reason to oppose a judicial nominee.  Just ask George Will or National Review.  You can bet that Charles Schumer will happily cite them when he demands answers - and launches a filibuster when he doesn't get them.

between those of us who were anti-Miers and those of you who were pro-Miers.  A major factor behind the pro-Miers crowds' leanings was that you think that we can't get a good nominee confirmed.

I think you're wrong, and largely because you're counting wrong.  R's do have squishy Senators, but when push comes to shove, a Luttig type would only lose at most 3-4 GOP votes (Chafee, Snowe, Collins & maybe Specter).  Yes, DeWine, Voinovich, McCain, Martinez, etc. have all bucked the party at times on issues.  But they've also voted to confirm every one of Bush's nominees to the courts.  And as for Democrats, we would gain Ben Nelson, plus probably Mark Pryor and a number of possibles: Landrieu, Nelson (FL), Lincoln, Conrad, Dorgan...

On a floor vote, we really start with a floor of 52-53 votes.  To go nuclear, we only lose Ben Nelson's solid vote, and have a floor of 51-52 votes.  DeWine, Graham, Warner & McCain (from the Gang) would all be with us on a normal SCOTUS nominee.  The only nominees conservative enough to possibly make them wobble would be JRB, and maybe Priscilla Owen.  Luttig, Alito, McConnell, Sykes, Williams, Batchelder, Garza, Corrigan, all would not be filibustered and the nuclear option would be successfully implemented if a filibuster was attempted.

We can only hope.  I think Bush is going to play it safe by appointing a mainstream conservative judge.  JRB would result in the fight of the century.  Conservatives would go to the mat for her.  It would be the Clarence Thomas hearings without the Coke can.  JRB has definitely made some statements that are very conservative/libertarian...

If "compromise" means that those of us on the Right should just shut up and accept another Souter, then you are correct.  

But I don't think that constitutes "compromise".  I think it constitutes surrender.  And that's not going to happen.

She has the temprament to be on the Supreme Court - some of her speeches went real far, if you ask me.

but the floor of the Senate IS the public...or so I thought it was supposed to be.

They are watching us here, and hopefully hearing from us in their offices.  They BETTER be extensions of us when they DO get to the debate.

And all of us, regardles of the Miers position, had better be ahead of the curve on this.  George is leaving relatively soon, this pick will be around a LONG time.  Let's put aside the "yabbuts" about the media fodder today, and get down to business.

Allegedly, Frist called Bush last night and told him the votes for Miers just weren't there. Withdrawal just saves everyone the time spent in going through the motions of an embarrassing confirmation hearing and vote.

Set the record.  There is no reason to leave a nasty cull loose in the house.  It's just one more mess to have to clean up.

they have to break the filibuster and they don't have the votes to do that.  

Chuck is not needed for confirmation.  The Repulicans in the gang of 14 are.

The comments I saw throughout the anti-Myers movement were almost never "we don't like how we think she will rule".  The big problem was with a perception that she 1) lacked intellectual heft and 2) lacked a judicial viewpoint that would reject a "living constitiution" interpretation.  I saw plenty of "we want the best" and almost no "we don't think she will rule the way we want".

McCain, Graham, DeWine and Warner are all on board to change the filibuster if the Dems abuse their rights to filibuster.  Filibustering a normal SCOTUS nominee like those I mentioned above is an abuse, as they have clearly stated.  That gives us 52 votes to change the filibuster (or 51 if you don't count Specter).

for the wounded feelings to subside. I suggest you get out of the blog and cool down. If you dont want to help in the new nomination, that is your prerogative, no one can force you to do what you don't feel doing.If you want them to go at it alone then fine.It is not constructive whining like a cry baby.If they called you names, if they derided you without basis then it shows more those persons lack of breeding and inability to argue and to accept that they are not the only ones with the capacity for wisdom. You dont have to give those people the pleasure of seeing you whine about. you deserve a little more dignity than what you are giving your self my fellow conservativew friend.

No, actually.  I respect your right to say whatever you want.  However, I think you've already gotten what you want in Justice Roberts.  It's ironic that we didn't hear the complaints about lack of experience when during his confirmation process, being that he only had three years of experiences on the federal judiciary, and no Supreme Court experience.  

Now, about Souter, he's a Republican who was confirmed 90-9 in a split Senate with a slight Democratic majority during a Republican presidency.  That's a success pretty much however you view it.  What more do you want?

The Supreme Court is composed of seven Republicans and two Democrats.  What more do you want?

It's a fact that the majority of both parties are moderate on the issues for which you villified Harriet Miers.  Your president nominated someone who appeared to be a moderate, which was the right thing to do.

The problem is, if Pat Robertson cannot be happy, the nominee isn't qualified to serve.  For once, I'd like to hear a little straight talk about this.  The religious right will not accept a nominee unless they support the imprisonment of women who seek abortions and homosexuals who want to have sex privately.  And, frankly, I think we have more important issues to worry about.

Goodbye, idiot.

I don't think that it should be mandated in law that a certain number of people on the court should be women or men or anything else.  But picking someone is a political decision - Bush 41 found it was smart politics to replace a black guy with another black guy.

Bush picking Miers was wrong because she was not qualified - if she was the best woman out there I'd say by all means pick a man.  But there are plenty of women who would be great choices - you don't need me to list them.

And are you not talking about 'affirmative action' when you say that the nominee should be conservative?  What if the 'most qualified' nominee was a flaming liberal?

I'm of the opinion that the Supreme Court ought to revisit Roe, but even if they do, and remove the Federal Government from the equation, abortion would be kept legal in at least 20 States right not.  Less convenient for some, perhaps, but hardly criminalized.  I do not approve of it personally, but I can't see how to prevent that outcome, short of a Constitutional Amendment.  And that's not happening in my lifetime.

And homosexuality?  I don't particularly approve of that, either.  But once more, I'm perfectly willing to see consenting adults allowed to head to the nether regions in their own handbasket, if they so choose.  As long as they go home and close the curtains, it's none of my concern.

But things like Federalism, and originalism are.

So save your panic attacks about jailing women and persons of nontraditional orientation for someone who is receptive to scare tactics.  

We've got a lot bigger concerns that that, as you said.  And most of us who are worried about the real concerns could have cared less what Pat Robertson though, either.

Not when the editorials run in the Washington Post and New York Times.  We need three of them.  I count maybe one (Graham) that would otherwise be considered reliably conservative.

The rest are either moderates or people who want media praise for being right as opposed to really being right.

Can someone please explain to me what 'most qualified' means in this case?  And isn't it clear that how the person will go over is part of the equation?

One aspect of my "best qualified nominee" would be a person who understands and respect the fact that lawmakers work in the legislature, not the judiciary.

Here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/20/AR200510200
1635.html

Harriett, Harriett, Harriett...my Pretty Woman,

I am saddened to hear the news of your decision to withdraw your nomination, but politics can be a bitch.

Tonight - me, you, the Penthouse (because it is the best) 103 degree jacuzzi, caviar and toastpoints, grapes, and chilled Veuve...I am all ears, with broad shoulders to cry on and 70 inches of leg therapy to wrap all around you.

You gave it your best shot! Hold your head high and don't forget my philosophy, may the best man win, me!

Fondly,

PJ

http://patrickjfitzgerald.blogspot.com

The end holds the key:

Hence the perfectly honorable way to solve the conundrum: Miers withdraws out of respect for both the Senate and the executive's prerogatives, the Senate expresses appreciation for this gracious acknowledgment of its needs and responsibilities, and the White House accepts her decision with the deepest regret and with gratitude for Miers's putting preservation of executive prerogative above personal ambition.

Faces saved. And we start again.

So are u saying that the inability to pin her record down on crucial conservative issues like abortion, gay rights, affirmative action etc, did not play a part in the resistance she encountered? Had she been a judge with quality academic acumen like Roberts but was pro-choice and pro-affirmative action (very intelligent people can reasonably disagree about issues like these), she would not have been derailed? The right wing wants a known quantity, one they are assured will rule in accordance with their preferences and they did not see that in Miers, but I doubt if Bush would give into that. There is just as much risk that nominating such a person would please some at the expense of the majority who are not anti-choice and sufficiently anti-affirmative action.

I think that its a bit of a stretch to assume that this was her decision.

If any credit is due, its in her not publicly acknowledging the charade that this is her voluntary action.

But I wouldn't give much on that score.

Assuming the deed is not already done, could someone with the appropriate authority and permissions please make this Pile™ of garbage go-away?

Thanks in advance.

I have no problem with that statement and there are any number of women that fit that bill.

the floor of the Senate IS the public...or so I thought it was supposed to be.




I think you have this confused with the House.

They have been called sexist and elitist.

Both sides really drew out some daggers.  The question is if they can be put away now.

I think you have this confused with the House.

Try reading the 17th Amendment.

"The Senate of the United States shall be ...  elected by the people ..." just as the House is.

So right-wing views are disqualifying for the Court?

...Harold's true agenda has been unmasked by that little bon mot.

That's exactly why I would like to see her nominated.

He looks 40 despite being, like, 80!!   :D

She has the temperament.  I certainly don't like the notion of judges giving major speeches that liken certain court decisions to the 1917 Russian Revolution and as the "triumph of our socialist revoltuion."

The speeches in 2000 are very big negatives in my mind.  I wonder if she would become an activist on the court.

I want judges who don't make law from the bench - from the left or the right.  I don't want a court that carries out acts of political will.  And I do not think that SCOTUS should go back to the days of Lochner.

I'm going to find it very hard to work with some folks I respected before this nomination.

Frankly, I'm not in the "can't we all be friends camp now?!"

I have found this debate very instructive and useful. Because what it has shown is that some of the people I've had suspicions about all along I was right to be suspicious of, some of the people whose opinions I respected perhaps didn't merit that respect, and some of the people I formerly respected have earned even more of my respect.

I want debates like this from time to time - I want to know who my true allies in the arena of ideas are, and who are simply fellow travellers of conveniece.

I'm happy "our side" (the "right side", I'll always be convinced) "won" this battle. But, ultimately, I'm also happy that it took place - best to know who your friends are when it really counts.

Now, with our Brothers in Arms refreshed and renewed, once more into the breach!!

refers not to what views you hold, but how you express them.

there are any number of women that fit that bill.

Most certainly true. And any number of men as well. I was arguing against affirmative action, not against women.

a "judge with quality academic acumen like Roberts but was pro-choice and pro-affirmative action" she would never had been nominated, so you are not making any sense here.

Her nomination was NOT derailed by her views.  It was derailed by her preformance with the Senators, and by her views on the consitution not being in the mold of Scalia and Thomas.                      

I should say, her personal views or her views on potential cases did not derail her nomination.

So it's alright if they have views that run so strongly against the New Deal, as long as they don't express them so strongly?

Or would you say someone who feels that way about the New Deal would be unfit, regardless of how that view was expressed?

Technically, niether "Floor" is open to the public while Congress is in session.  Even out of session, yo'd need a staffer to give you a guided tour.

We can debate this all day long, but it is the President who will choose the next SCOTUS nominee. Maybe some of you might want to send him some suggestions. This is the E-mail I sent to www.whitehouse.gov:

"I was saddened to hear of the withdrawal of Harriet Miers' nomination to the Supreme Court, but the lack of documents attesting to her judicial philosophy led Senators of both parties to demand documents that Ms. Miers herself realized the White House could not provide.

I understand your concern that judicial nominees with extensive experience could have their past writings criticized by Democrat Senators to justify filibustering them, but Republican Senators also need some written proof of a nominee's qualifications to justify their support.

During your campaigns, you promised to nominate "strict constructionist" judges "who would not legislate from the bench", "in the mold of Scalia and Thomas". You now have another opportunity to nominate such a judge to the Supreme Court. In order to avoid filibusters, there is also a group of seven Republican and seven Democrat Senators who pledged not to filibuster except under "extraordinary circumstances". After Ms. Miers' withdrawal, it would be prudent to meet with these 14 Senators in order to find a documented "strict constructionist" judicial nominee whom they would support, and thereby avoid a filibuster.

Respectfully yours,"

What do you think?

If you have some better ideas, send them to the White House!

The demand for an up-or-down vote on nominees was simply a call for basic procedural fairness: if nothing other than their ideology provokes opposition, then allow the full Senate to vote on them.

The criticisms of Meirs were substantive; the criticisms were about whether she was even qualified for the job. We didn't ever reach the point where basic procedural fairness was an issue.

are you referring to?

I wasn't aware we knew of any of Miers idealogies to reject.

Yes.

And I want to thank Ms. Harriet Miers for doing the right thing for the President. Once again she shows why he chose her (albiet a suspect choice). Her loyalty was probably a big factor in her standing up and taking herself out of the nomination.

Total nonsense.

I laughed at being called sexist and elitist... still am.

I think the debate caused serious credibility for the repubs. The fact that conservatives are willing to question the leadership if they feel a mistake is being made impresses me.

I'm not a repub, nor a dem. Have become Independent due to disatisfaction with both. Well, actually never was a dem so was already disatisfied there.

The process I have seen here at redstate.org has renewed my faith in the republican party. I am not yet saying I am becoming a repub, but I respect those who can think freely and independently to reach a conclusion instead of towing the party line no matter what.

So, my continued participation here at redstate.org may yet sway me as long as this is an example of how today's repubs handle conflict.

Please don't get me started talking about bush's mind!

One of the annoyances of this whole situation is that we got a woman after hearing that a few Dem's wanted a woman and Bush echoed the sentiment! Yuck.

But I have it on good authority (anonymous sources of course) that what you said is exactly how it occurred.

One must question then, who leaked the information to you?

Janice-Rodgers-Brown

If some individual called you a shill and a pimp you should laugh at them as well (as long as you aren't of course).

Now if you don't want to work with a certain individual without a satisfactory apology, you are certainly within reason to do so.

I thought Brownback and co felt she was not forthcoming enough with her views on some of "their" issues. They wanted her to state as clear as possible that she was "one of them" since she had no record. Nobody doubted her legal qualifications, it was her judicial philosophy they doubted, and that was because they wanted assurances that they could predict how she'd vote on their issues. Its as simple as that..conservatives are playing the same game they accuse liberals of.

When i said referred to affirmative action and abortion, I did not presume that she'd be nominated by a Republican, what I meant to imply was that opposition to Miers from the right was because they had no assurance that she'd rule their way on issues, not because she wasn't gonna be a good judge and certainly not because she wasn't a quality lawyer. Therefore, they wanted someone who in effect could prejudge, which last I checked, is not what judges are supposed to be

for it to work?

1. The Congress will NOT deal effectiviely with immigration in the near future.
   
   
2. Congress will NOT reign in spending.
   
   
3. Peace and goodwill will NOT break out next Monday.

my sources.  The code of the bloger, like the code of the Repo Man, is rich and storied.  We must defend it to the last ditch.

Unless, of course, I am threatened with something like spending a week long cruise with the Congressional delegation from my home town, San Francisco.

Now all conservatives need to join together with GWB for the fight ahead. The Dem's do not care about truth, and it is time for conservatives to realize this is war.

GWB needs to nominate a true conservative and fight the Dem's in the Senate. He also needs to control our borders, and cut spending. Then we can see if the true base will rally and show the Dem's they have no chance with their silly "culture of corruption" whining!

About as far from conservative ideology as you can get, but came with strong credentials.  Confirmed 96-3.

Harold and I have disagreed over the Miers episode, but on JRB he's right.

She's not confirmable.

On a cloture vote, she loses Chafee, Collins, Snowe, and Specter for sure.

She probably also loses Voinovich and Warner.  Voinovich because he values temperament and Warner because he knows how much she would piss off the Left and he values Senate comity above all else.

Estrada faces the same document question as Miers did, so the WH can't realistically push him forward after pulling Miers because of demands for WH documents.

Ideology is now a factor.  She can be asked now, thanks to the precedent set by the defeat of Miers.  Schumer can draw on comments from both George Will and Laurence Tribe, editorials from both National Review and the New York Times, and soundbites from Laura Ingraham and Ralph Neas.  As of now, the Senate Democrats are bulletproof on judicial nominations through 2008 at the very least.  Probably longer.

Conservatives lost the war in winning this battle in an act that was not only unfair, but a classic example of grossly stupid short-sightedness.  As a result, I no longer consider myself one.  I think the business/corporate wing of the GOP is probably my "home" now - they seem to value such concepts as thinking and planning ahead.  Obviously, conserdatives don't.

Ideology has always been part of the process, and Chuckles has always said that he was going to ask those questions and demand whatever he wanted.  But he doesn't have the mystical power that you seem to be ascribing to him.

A nominee with credentials, even conservative credentials, can be confirmed.  Take notice of Chief Justice Roberts' confirmation.  You can not plausibly argue that he is not considered to be a conservative (and an 'extreme' one at that to merit 22 no votes from the loony left).

The problem with Miers was not about the fact that she had an ideology but that no one knew what it was, except maybe Bush.  Conservatives weren't comfortable with her because they didn't know what she believed and the extisting evidence was either not favorable (affirmative action), potentially devastating (her speech on abortion), or confusing (her first set of answers to the Judiciary Committee).  The Souter precedent, the Kennedy precedent, even the O'Connor precedent should be ample explanation for conservative fear of another stealth nominee that few knew anything about.

The moderate Republicans in the senate, I agree, are not going to go along with a fire breathing, insult spewing radical conservative activist for the Court.  Nor should they, in my opinion.

But if Chuckles tries to filibuster a solid nominee with impeccable credentials (McConnell, Luttig, Garza, etc and etc) he'll find that the votes to go along with him aren't there.  Chafee, Snowe, Collins, Specter will not abandon the party for a qualified nominee with obvious credentials.  Enough of the Dems in the Gang of 14 will not want to go nuclear over a qualified nominee that is not an extreme case.  Folks that have been confirmed before, with stellar reputations, can be confirmed and can avoid a filibuster fight.  

As much as you want to condemn George Will and others they don't give the Dems any ammunition that they haven't already been using, and used unsuccessfully against Roberts.  Chuckles and Kennedy voted against Roberts because of his ideology and lack of answers.  The next nominee, presuming that it is someone with similar qualifications, will get the same no votes, I'm sure.

But so long as it is not a crazy conservative (JRB, though I love her, she ain't confirmable) or another stealth nominee who would have to release WH papers(Estrada), the dynamic in the Senate still argues for confirmation, though probably with a tighter vote than Roberts.  (If you can't vote for Roberts, you can't vote for any nominee put forth by a Republican President).  The sensible Dems are still sensible.  They avoided the fight in the first place because they respected the institution of the Senate, the office of the President (they hope to have it back some day), and their reputations back home of being sensible.  None of that has changed.  A Luttig, McConnell, Wilkerson, Clement, Callahan, or others nomination meets the test of being qualified, being sensible, and not being extreme.  But they are also conservative and strict constructionists.

As for whether or not conservatives can plan ahead, your pique is showing through and it is not impressive.  Conservatives have been working for decades to get a Republican President and a Republican senate so that conservative, strict constructionist justices could be appointed and confirmed.  That we did not support the 'trust the President' meme and asked for demonstrable evidence of her qualifications and judicial philosophy does not set back the conservative agenda, it strengthens it.

For, you see, being conservative, being a strict constructionist, is not something that should be hidden.  We should not have to search high and low for people with no judicial experience (or baggage).  We should not have to search for nominees that have never issued a controversial opinion questioning the collective wisdom of the media, the Left, or Ralph Neas.

We should be able to put forth people who have a solid understanding that 9 unelected people do not have the undisputed wisdom of Solomon on all things, that the Constitution is more than just a list of suggestions, that the laws Congress passes should bear some deference (unless they contradict the Constitution, of course) even if the sacred 9 don't like it, and that it doesn't really matter what the jurisprudence of the Netherlands suggests we should do, we'll use our own laws and traditions thank you very much.

We know that the Democrats can nominate and confirm the former counsel of the ACLU, an obvious liberal with an obvious liberal ideology.  The conservatives, the strict constructionists just want equal treatment.

...is to be dragged through the mud by being NOMINATED in the first place.

"Can't release documents" = the crony argument is the ( a ) valid one

...or not, my original objection to Miers is the one with "traction," the one the President fell back on in his letter:

She's too close to the Executive to be suitable for the Judicial.  I don't think America needs or deserves to have political dynasties: Kennedy's, Bush's or Clinton's.  We have a lot of decent, honest people in America--we just need a few of them to run for office.

sounds like using torture. hmm that may work.

...something called judical temperament.

I don't like judges giving provocative speeches.  It speaks to a bit of arrogance that I feel would eventually lead to activism or misconduct of the Thomas Penfield Jackson variety.

Because idiots like yourself, David Frum, and those who borked Harriet Miers just deprived consevratives of the moral high ground that led to picking up six (6) Senate seats in 2002 and 2004.

I'll explain again, what will happen:

# The next nominee will go before the Judiciary committee.  Senator Schumer will ask him questions about his views on cases and his ideology.

# The nominee will refuse to answer, since he would be in volation of the judicial canon of ethics - he would appear to be pre-judging a case.

# At that point, Charles Schumer will oppose the nominee and take it to a filibuster.

# Many on the right, including those who borked Harriet Miers, will complain.

# Schumer (and others) will cite George Will, folks here, Rush Limbaugh, David Frum (and the rest of the Cornerites), and others who opposed Miers on grounds that were little more than ideological.

# The Gang of 14 will not go with the nuclear option.  The moderates there will properly view the conservatives who borked Miers as being hypocritical (with good reason) with regards to Schumer's complaints.

# The nominee will languish in a filibuster, or eventually ask for his nomination to be withdrawn.

You made one hell of a mess.  You get to clean it up.  I personally hope that President Bush is willing to be as spiteful as I feel right now.

After reading some of the comments here and elsewhere, I am thinking it would be helpful to have a primer on federalism that people can be pointed to. Does anyone know if something along these lines already exists on the web?  If not, is there anyone here who would have the knowledge and energy to write such a primer?

Harold, cool yourself down.

...I don't think that 99% of the Miers supporters are bad people (have to leave that 1% wiggle room for the genuinely bad people, lol)...

(This is going to sound harsh, but) Miers supporters were supporting The President and weren't willing to admit that The President's Lawyer wasn't the "best available candidate."  If Miers had still been the Texas State Bar President, then the cronyism charge would have died, and maybe, just maybe she could have received the honest airing of her record and qualifications that anyone deserves.

We are capable of discovering excellence in our fellow Americans.  Let us do so.....errr, "So mote it be!"

Thanks.

"I'm sitting out the whole judicial business from now on."

Faster, please.

have just been called part of a lynch mob.

But so what? Wounded Pride and Vanity aren't conservative principles, or shouldnt' be.

It wasn't a win, it was a partially contained defeat.

is right, but I don't see why a Pyrrhic defeat would have been better.  

that's crap, and you know it.  it's S.O.P to not release documents, and/or answer certain questions during the process after nomination..

leave it as it is, she didn't get the benefit of continuation of the process.  take your victory, be happy.  

this "cronyism" is such a freaking MSM battlecry. let me ask you, if the nominee was a canidate that you and your ilk approved of, and a someone known to the POTUS, would my rant of "cronyism" be justified?...chew on it for a bit.

... that you ascribe such great mystical powers to Chuck Schumer. What is it about him that unmans you so? Why does he frighten you so much? Why the hell should the rest of us give a damn what Chuck Schumer thinks?

PS: The pure unadulterated lack of reason you have displayed over the last few days is almost Moby-like. You're deliberately trying to forment division.

... usually, anyone who comes onboard touting his own independence turns out to be an obvious undercover moonbat pretty soon.

But anyway, welcome aboard. We'll be watching ...

You apparently have an equally myopic view that you accuse me and others of having.  

I understand that you feel imposed upon, but I'd like to think that our discourse has been adult and respectful even though we vehemently disagree over the qualifications of Ms. Miers.  I don't recall our discussion ever devolving into name calling, but if it has I apologize.  I do, categorically, reject any insinuation that I've ever called you a pimp, shill, or kool-aid drinker.  I have never accused you of dealing in bad faith, that you feel the need to do so in kind is misfortunate.

I've not argued that the President owes me, or anyone, a particular person. I'm not holding my breath for JRB or Estrada (I oppose both because of the reality of politics).  I just want a good judge, with a fundamental understanding of the law and the need to interpret the Constitution, not make law up as you go.

But I don't understand why you think that Sen. Schumer has some mystical power to unilaterally block any and every candidate for the Court.

Should Bush appoint a right wing nut, yes, I agree that the filibuster would hold.  But I suspect that the WH, despite it's missteps of late, still knows how to count votes, knows how to reach out to the Republican moderates, and knows the challenges they face.

If Bush were to pick any number of judges that have already been confirmed by the Senate, the political reality is such that Schumer and Kennedy will find it hard to persuade the entire Gang of 14 to go along with a filibuster threat.  And if they do try to filibuster, so long as the nominee is a mainstream conservative a la Roberts (e.g., McConnell, Luttig, Clement, Batchelder, etc. and etc.) and McCain, DeWine, and Graham support the nominee, party politics will dictate and persuade the moderate GOPers to go along and vote to kill the filibuster.

Is the nightmare scenario possible?  Yes indeed.  But is it also equally likely that it will play out as I've described.

Moe told Harold to lay off, ditto for you. Let's let this unproductive line of conversation drop for a day or so.

I agree with the spirit of your post and not to throw any sand on your gears but merely as an historical note it's worth remembering that Milton excluded Catholics and Dissenters from from his free speech position.  I do this only because so many on an unfortunate part of the political spectrum so often misuse Milton.  However there are much more important issues at hand.  Harold,how could you!!  Come back and lead us from the wilderness.

Have my posts seemed like someone who cannot think independently?

We'll be watching sounds like you're a fan of orson welles.

Not really concerned that you watch, that you believe, that you care.

I state my opinions like others here. To tell everyone that you'll be watching is hardly welcome and I'm not at all sure you're qualified to be my "watcher" in general.

Just saying, that is a very unwelcome comment. On a website that claims in it's mission statement all are welcome and we hope you'll come around to the republican way of thinking, I would expect better.

Just trying to point out that not everyone who disagrees with him is evil.

I very likely will vote republican AGAIN, in the next Presidential election, unless it's another Bush.

I believe in conservative principles. I am a Christian and would like to see Roe overturned and many other things.

But no one will ever convince me that GW Bush and Family have my best interests at heart or the best interests of anyone else besides those in or close to the Bush family.

So there you have it. It isn't the republican party that has me pissed off. It's Bush, and he is not the whole party.

Because of some of the thoughtful posts I read on this blog, I have not abandoned the Republican Party. I have not abandoned the conservative movement or ideals.

But, please don't think that means I have nice things to say about Bush. Since I don't have nice things to say about him, I do my best not to comment on him at all and anxiously await a better republican to run, when he's gone.

I'll let it go at that.

We'll see.

The thing is; you may or you may not be a moonbat. And I agree that it is entirely possible that you can despise Bush and at the same time work to see to it that the GOP remains the majority party in these United States.

But that is quite rare. Most conservatives I around these parts are often disappointed/frustrated (and sometimes enraged) with Bush, especially the administration's timidity when it comes to domestic issues. But none doubt that even though he makes mistakes, he has the best interests of the nation at heart.

But you are probably the first to spout the moonbat "the Bush FAMILY is irredeemably evil" ... and still claim to be a Republican ... After all, why are you still in a party that would elect such an evil creature as Bush to be its leader?

So, once again, we'll see. Moonbats (i.e. Tim Saler) cannot help themselves. Their moonbattery shows usuallly within a few days of their initial posts. Here's hoping you ain't one of 'em.

Welcome to RedState.

Would you rather I blame the whole republican party?</sarcasm&gt

I voted for Bush. I think I was wrong about him now. That's all.

I still wouldn't vote Kerry for dogcather, therefore no other choice than to vote bush again, so a repub is in office.

I simply hope that we have others outside the bush dynasty to vote for, because I won't vote for Jeb, (I live in Florida) Marvin, Neil, or little George Prescott even if it means the first time I don't vote at all.

I'll probably get flamed by the bushbackers, but I will probably try to help McCain get elected.

Anyone but another bush and it shouldn't be that hard for anyone to beat hilary anyway.

Try reading the 17th Amendment.

<sarcasm>

Oh yes, I forgot I voted for Senators, thanks for pointing out the 17th Amendment for me.  It just didn't acure to me, since I only vote on odd years.  Maybe I should get in my time machine and go back to 1912.

</sarcasm&gt

The word I was keying off of was 'supposed', indicating original intent.  Now as you correctly noted the 17th amendment changed how the senate was to be elected.  Where as the House, all along, was intended to represent the people.

I agree that was the initial idea, that the House would represent the people and the Senate would represent the states.  That changed.  An elected official represents the people who voted for him regardless of what the Constitution might happen to say he is 'supposed' to represent.  If the House, whose members are directly elected by the people, is 'supposed' to represent the people, it seems reasonable to conclude that anyone elected in like manner would also be expected to represent the people, although of a different constituency.  Of course, the idea of 'representation' is a little different among people.  From just being conduits for public opinion at one end to being completely ambivalent to it at the other.