Redstate

Not that I was really worried, but at least now there is no chance that an uninformed base will derail a nominee to the right of Scalia.

... an uninformed base who supports a nominee based on the fact that she's the President's pick and little else?

See, we can all play that game (for another 3-minutes in my case as I'm sticking to my self-imposed 72-hour rule).  You can make this  point without jabbing a pointy stick into the eye of folks with whom you disagree, right?

Well, my time is up so I officially leave the field on this issue.  After all, it's not like there's nothing else (Iraqi elections, more hurricanes, etc.) going one that we could discus.

Cheers.

Who, understanding that she's no Souter, will support her. In fact, the Justice she most resembles is Thomas. An avowed originialist (cf: nomination speech) - a so-called stealth nominee, yet known by the WH to be conservative - derided for a perceived lack of brilliance - rock solid as a conservative.

She's Thomas.

Were you around when Souter was nominated? People left and right were assuring us of his deep religious conservative beliefs and how he would be fine and how we should trust Bush.

Deja vu?

I'm hoping that the left/right form a coalition to defeat Miss Miers.  They only need 41 votes to do this.

Unless you are Ms. Miers herself, you as well as the rest of us are uninformed.  So, please, spare us the insult.

almost certainly will get a group picture in the Times replete with toothy,pepsodent grins.  Whatever the angle of the photo John McCain will be prominently featured having again achieved the only thing that matters to him,MSM attention,though not this time around,adoration.  Ms Miers,although not yet confirmed nor fitted for her black robe,has prematurely commenced "growing".  To what gargantuan size she may finally grow is anybody's guess.  We may light a candle and hope she, unlike a tumor, doesn't grow at all but then the Gang of 14 doesn't usually get together to celebrate a Thomas opinion.

There is no way that a right wing senator would vote to filibuster a judge... they would be opening the door to hundreds of filibusters down the road if they did.

???

Dear Spectator Girl:

I don't know who you are, but you seem to be the most enlightened and informed person on this site, who seems to have realized that President Bush is using Harry Reid's approval (and now the Gang of 14) to slip another "Clarence Thomas" (a solid conservative who doesn't write much) past the Democrats. This would put a bloc of 4 solid conservatives on SCOTUS (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Miers) just in time for the abortion cases to be decided in December, without the need for a divisive "nuclear option" in the Senate. Let the "intellectual" Roberts and Scalia write the opinions, and Thomas and Miers can vote with them, what counts are the decisions!

I have checked on the Whitehouse.gov website, and found out that Harriet Miers was considered one of the top 50 female lawyers, and top 100 lawyers of either gender, long before she met then-Governor George W. Bush--she is a top-notch lawyer in her own right, regardless of her friendship with President Bush, who shrewdly recognized that her legal skill could be very useful to him.

I am absolutely stunned by the efforts of some over-zealous Ivy-League legal purists on this site trying to convince Republican Senators to vote against her on charges that Miers is a "political hack" without judicial experience. Don't they realize that they are shooting themselves in the foot, and becoming the worst enemies of their own cause?

Harriet Miers was never a judge, but she IS a brilliant, experienced LAWYER, as was Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was appointed and confirmed to the Supreme Court, with the approval of Senator Orrin Hatch. If Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid is willing to return the favor, President Bush was very wise to accept!  

As for the so-called "base", Rasmussenreports.com (the most accurate poll during the 2004 elections) showed President Bush's approval ROSE from 46 to 47% after the Miers nomination. It's within the margin of error, but Miers has NOT hurt President Bush, unless the "base" gets misled by an over-reaction from those who might have preferred a more stridently conservative nominee.

Do you have any way of contacting the Senators that the anti-Miers "conservatives" are targeting, to warn them about what's going on, and set the record straight? I also believe that the President himself needs to meet with Republican Senators and tell them the truth about Miers, and cut through the spin machine gone off the deep end. I have E-mailed the White House about this, and other well-informed Miers supporters need to do the same, so that Republican Senators don't defect.

If the Gang of 14 agrees to confirm (or at least not to filibuster), and the Republicans hold together, 55 + 7 = 62 for cloture, and Harriet Miers sails onto the Supreme Court, and conservatives everywhere should REJOICE!

"A house divided cannot stand". Let's unite OUR house around President Bush and Harriet Miers.

Almost since the president was elected in 2000, conservatives have been arguing that the president should be properly able to nominate whoever he chooses, and the Senate should only fail to confirm them if they are not suitably qualified.

We are not the party who filibusters nominees based on ideological grounds.  That is an abuse of the process and it is an abuse that the Democrats have had the monopoly on.  We should allow them to keep it.  

Let us, the Republicans, bring back some decorum to the process.  If senators have concerns over Miers' qualifications, they should express them.  But to oppose (and even filibuster) a nominee on ideological grounds makes us no better than the Daschle Democrats.  

Do you realize that had Miers not been a personal friend of Bush, nobody would have even remotely considered her for this spot.

You just keep on trusting Bush though, pal, it's not like he hasn't disappointed us yet, right?

is entirely yours.

But another headline like this one will be you last here.

Let's not get out of hand with counting votes or discussing filibusters.  That's not going to happen.

If there is significant Republican dissention in the Senate, the White House will withdraw Miers.  They were pretty stupid to nominate her in the first place, but they are not going to go through a situation where she would have to be confirmed over significant Republican 'no' votes in the Senate.

For my own purposes - and with no real knowledge at all - I'm targetting 20 'no' Republican Senators.  I think if we hit that, the White House would withdraw her.

The only question is, will Republican Senators have the guts to cross the White House?

I'd guess the hesitation would be less crossing the White House and more making the party look incredibly fractured and hurting their chances in 2006. Bush is weakened and I doubt they'd hesitate to stand up to him. The question is--do their convictions here override their desire for Republicans to win next year?

Which would have made the all-time, "Famous Last Words" list.

Erick's post summed it up below. This is the play of the year against the Dems.

It's the precise equivalent of Hatch recommending Ginsburg, except that our base is more forgiving than the Dems. Reid's political career is finished when she starts being the 5th vote in the 5-4 conservative block that now replaces a 5-4 liberal block.

She was against the nominee before she was for her.

The fact that her complete 180-degree change of position took a grand-total of 24-hours demonstrates a level of logical jujitsu of which you and I are merely not capable.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Shutting-up now, promise.

depends, as they often do, entirely on the future. We'll see how she votes. I wouldn't be as optimistic if I were you. Harry Reid is not stupid--she smacks of a compromise.

According to The Hill, this "provisional endorsement" could be huge. Absent the revelation of some damning evidence during confirmation hearings Miers is unlikely to be filibustered, and a party-line vote would mean confirmation.

With all of the talk about how unqualified she is, when it comes time for the hearings if she doesn't drool on the microphone it will be considered an outstanding performance.

I still stand by the prediction she will get more than Robert's 78 confirmation votes.

Well, what do you think hurts them more: a party that had fractured but then reunited to support an Edith Jones or Janice Rogers Borwn, or a completely disspirited base?

If I were a Senator, I think the later.

Take, for example, Senator Santorum.  He's going to need every conservative in PA to get out to the polls in 2006.  What is the likelihood that happens if he votes for Miers and she gets confirmed?

He's in a pickle. But he's an exception. I'm thinking of the greater number of the 55 who are not up for re-election or are safer than he is. I think they'll mostly vote to confirm.

The Democratic base cares a lot more about the war than about judges.  Is the political career of every Democrat who voted for the war finished?

Who was the 2004 nominee?  Who is the leading 2008 nominee?

I hate to take issue with your vision but I really don't think you understand the dynamics on the Democratic side at all.

Dear Spectator Girl:

You say that Erick's post "below" sums it up nicely. I couldn't find Erick's post "below"--I'd be interested in reading it.

I hope you're right about our base being more forgiving than the Dems. If some of the wild polemic flying around here these past few days is an indication, I wonder. But maybe (hopefully) this site doesn't represent all the base.

I think we all need to "cool our jets" and let Harriet Miers defend herself before the Senate. She'll do just fine, thank you!

the 2004 election was considered the battle royal for control of the Supreme Court. When Dems lost that one, it was all but assumed that the Court would shift right, if not go nuts and overturn Roe. The idea that Miers voting conservative on the Court will demoralize Democrats is wrong, I think, for that reason. They were already demoralized.

When the appointment is for any bench below SCOTUS

the "law of the land" theory is valid. Any appointments for SCOTUS that say in confirmation hearings that a potential case should not be heard should be quickly escorted out the door.

Senator Santorum is a man of principle and conviction, even though that gets him in trouble in a liberal state. Let him have a heart-to-heart talk with Harriet, and let him vote his conscience.

If Santorum voted against Miers, and she was confirmed despite him, and turned out to be a reliable conservative, PA conservatives WOULD desert Santorum, and he'd lose his seat. Since his opponent (Casey) says he's pro-life, if Santorum believes Miers to be pro-life, he would have no choice but to vote to confirm, otherwise the pro-life vote goes to Casey.  

The only reason SpectatorGirl is supporting Miers now is because she's convinced herself she'll vote to overturn Roe.   That's the only issue that seems to be important to her.

"and turned out to be a reliable conservative"

We won't know this for years.  Certainly not by election day 2006.

I think that Republican Senators voting against her aren't going to say "she a liberal", and then look foolish later if she turns out to be a conservative.

Instead, they are going to say "I have no idea whether she's a liberal or a conservative, and refuse to take the chance she's another Souter."  If she does turn out to be a conservative, they can still say, "well, she turned out fine, but why should we have taken the chance?"

Republican Senators have nothing to lose in crossing the Whitehouse.  This President has a mid-40's approval rating.  Many Republicans now campaigning for 06 are saying it was a mistake to go into Iraq if there ends up being no WMDs.

Plus, how much will they try to undercut a GOP Senator when the Whitehouse knows this base is passed at them.  It's not like some GOP Senator voting against them on an issue nobody cares about.

Good point about the 20 Republican Senators.  Do people believe this president would push here through if he had almost half the GOP voting against her?  What if the number is 15 or 10 instead of 20???

. . .who cited a nonexistent legal opinion to explain why he didn't respect Clarence Thomas' legal abilities?  "Stupid" seems to fit rather well, really.

No, actually, he hasn't.  The Senate's  been rather spineless on the matter, but GWB has been rock solid consistent on his judicial appointments.  It's rather odd that anyone is assuming that this appointment represents a change from that.

How can one say we have 4 solid conservatives?  At best we will have 2 solid conservatives and 2 complete unknowns.

I find it odd that everyone is now putting Roberts in the solid conservative camp and calling him a home run for Bush.  Don't forget that we really know zero about how he'll rule and what his real views are.  Don't forget Anne Coulter's great article on this.

When he was replacing Sandy, I think we could all live w/ it. But when (a) he instead replaced Renquist, and (b) now than we have another unknown replacing Sandy, there is at least a 50/50 chance that W has moved the court to the left.

http://www.redstate.org/story/2005/10/4/183140/853

I hope that works. Short-term is bad because the base is overreacting. Long-term, this is one in the eye for the Dems.

Simple - as soon as I realized she's conservative on everything, I jumped ship enthusisastically.

Roe is my #1 issue. But Miers is also good on

traditional marriage

guns (if you like 'em - I don't, but there you are)

states' rights

etc.

Could be decided by her vote. That'll be one early indicator.

Yeah, and according to the sports punditocracy trading Randy Moss was supposed to improve the Vikings.  

Point me to the documents that state these are her positions.

1. Stated she was prolife on a questionnaire she gave to a gay group
   
   
2. Donated to only prolife candidates
   
   
3. Donated to Sternberg of Sternberg vs Casey who argued that Roe should be overturned
   
   
4. Described by a prodeath subordinate as an 'anti-choice extremist' who believes life begins at conception

gay issues - opposed gay marriage. opposed repeal of the TX sodomy statute. hop over to Confirm them and click on the link at the right hand side of the page

3. owned a gun. Spoke out on the right to bear arms as a 'precious liberty'

The assisted suicide case is similar to the recent medical marijuana case, in which Scalia and Thomas were on opposite sides, so I'm not sure which way you want a principled conservative to rule.

The case isn't really about assisted suicide.  It is about whether the federal government can use the federal drug laws to trump state laws, like Oregon's assisted suicide law, which tangentially involve drugs.

I agree with you. You will find that this is one indicator that a judge's private beliefs do affect their jurisprudence. Which is why Roberts seems to be on life's side rather than states' rights.

his role as a states rights conservative, in the vein of Reihnquist, seems seriously in doubt.  

While Reihnquist was all in support of letting the states regulate end-of-life issues (like physician-assisted suicide), nearly every SCOTUS commentary that I've read has said that Roberts' questioning of Oregon counsel was strongly in favor of the Bush Administration and Paul Clement.  

While it was only oral argument, it was the first day of argument on a huge issue coming out of recess (where, as most commentators say, the Justices have had plenty of time to consider and digest the case before argument).

Many Republicans now campaigning for 06 are saying it was a mistake to go into Iraq if there ends up being no WMDs.

No, actually, almost no campaigning Republicans are saying this.

Nice try though. Definite 'A' for effort.

Now you can go back to Kos & co. and report your good grade to them...

I think, although am not sure, that the protocol is that, since she wasn't on the Court when the case was orally argued, she won't take part in the decision.

the Court can, and probably will, direct that the case be re-argued so she can participate.

how interfering in a person's decision to end their life under the caveat that they are the sole decision maker, mentally competent and uncoerced is any of the government's business.  Certainly in the case of painful terminal illnesses.  

This is busybodyism at its worst and is frankly seems to me to be a cruel imposition of a particular faith upon the body politic.  Even from the perspective of religion, I can find no direct scriptural justification that isn't highly interpretive.

I fully understand opposition to abortion but this in not equivalent from my perspective.

Frankly, I'd uphold the Oregon law on Federalism grounds.  The constitution is silent, it's up to the state.

Please ignore this post as I had no itention of hijacking the thread.

...the decision hinges on her vote.

If it's 6-2 or 5-3, the decision would probably be issued without Miers' vote.

First post on RedState...so here goes:

I have been sometimes perplexed by all the anxiety that has been shed due to Dubya's appointment of Ms. Miers.  Not only on this site but others as well.  Although I do believe there is less teeth gnashing here than some of the other sites.

My point is I believe that Dubya done did it again.  Used the Dems against themselves.  How is Harry going to explain this one if our new poster babe for conservatives goes our way?  

I can understand how peevish a good conservative can feel after Bush, the Elder, gave us Souter (a man we did not know and he didn't either).  But at this point I am not going to cut and run on Dubya just yet.  He probably will get one more appointment before 08. So I believe he is picking softly and then letting the chips fall.

After a few votes by Justice Miers, I pray, the Kossacks will be up in arms and the Dems will be worrying about their base and we conservatives will be chuckling and saying "You da Man!" to Dubya.

the "conservative" side? Oregon has voted twice for this, so striking it down would be a spit in the face of states' rights and the will of the people. Upholding it would be seen as a clash with "life" voters. So either way she votes on this could hurt her, no?

We never know for sure how a Justice will rule on a case. I'm sure Reagan had no idea he would be nominating such a hardline Liberal. If the information was in public view where a Jusice stood on every issue: 1) They would be compromised

      2) The Dems would not stand for it with

         the Bush nominees.

Conservatives' concern for life trumps their concern for states' rights.