Poor President Bush couldn't quite keep a straight face when he said Chief Justice Roberts had just been confirmed by "a large bipartisan majority." Hammering home the meme that it was, I suppose, puts the Dems on a subdued defensive. But frankly I'm spoiling for a serious fight in Congress with a big, loud, public win that crushes and humiliates the Dems, and it doesn't seem like this low-key nomination will let us pick that fight.

Miers speaking. She was a good Counsel but... c'mon. Very, very low-key indeed and understated to a fault. Too soft-spoken, just too damn female a speech. What's up with letting all these people speak for themselves all of a sudden? I remember back when we didn't let a nominee open his mouth from one moment to the next before vetting the state of his teeth.

What a slap this must be for Gonzales... by picking Miers, Bush shows he isn't afraid of the crony label being put on his nominee, he shows he's at least somewhat attuned to the diversity tag.... but doesn't pick Gonzales... who I understand has been with Bush longer.

I've been reading both Free Republic and Democratunderground.

This is the first time I have ever seen them in agreement on anything at all. The far right and far left are flipping out screaming about how unqualified she is and how this is a crony pick.

"Unqualified?" Now that's a ridiculous charge for anyone to make.

Sixty-ish, never been married, and very "athletic." Hmm. Looks like Souter will soon have someone to spot him while he does those 40-pound bench presses in the SCOTUS gym.

That's what I don't get. He just gave the weaker Republicans an excuse not to vote for his nominee. They can say she's never been a judge and the public will buy it. It's complete garbage of course, but I don't think most people understand that.

She may have a different kind of nanny problem.

It's gonna be interesting how the Bush haters, including Excitable Andy the PTown Panda, play this one.

Some idiot on Free Republic is claiming that she supported the DNC and Al Gore's campaign. Let's kill THAT nonsense right now: check opensecrets.com; in every available cycle I checked she has supported Republicans and Republicans only.

Geez, everybody is forgetting one thing:

Bush 41 didn't know Souter, never met the guy... Bush 43 knows Miers inside and out.

Hysteria != facts.

Oh, what the heck, let it be Miers. We might get a fight anyway if Teddy drinks a sour vat of tequila before a hearing...

JFH, yeah, that did occur to me. I'm not saying this is a bad choice for the Court - just that I'm antsy, and I wanted the Prez to poke the Dems with a sharper stick.

Disdain for this pick isn't limited to RINOs. I'd enthusiastically vote for Scalia and Thomas but would vote against this nominee on qualifications alone. Lots of people believe that O'Connor, a former state court judge, was completely over her head once she was appointed to the Supreme Court. There is simply no comparison between state practice and federal practice.

Harriet Miers makes O'Connor's resume look like John Roberts's in comparison. There is no reason to believe she would make a competent justice.

EDIT: And Megan, you need to check her campaign donations in 1988, the first time Gore ran. She contributed to his campaign.

She (or her law firm) did give Al Gore's campaign $1,000 in 1988. But, it must be pointed out, Gore was not yet insane in '88.

Ralphie: cite? I'm not seeing it.

Or Midge. I'm not picky.

http://www.newsmeat.com/washington_political_donations/Harriet_Miers.php

Megan, look toward the bottom of this list for Gore (and Bentsen) contribution.

Found it just as you posted the link. :) Thanks. Okay, my apologies to the above-mentioned Freeper; the DNC and Gore contributions are indeed listed here.

I wanted the Prez to poke the Dems with a sharper stick.

Ditto. This makes two rorschach blots (to borrow Ann C.'s term) that Bush has nominated. This means one of two things: 1) the apple doesn't fall far from the Bush; 2) Bush is not confident enough in the linguini-spined Republican Senate to try for a real bedrock conservative.

Basically, either the Republican president is a pussy, or the Republican Senate is full of pussies.

I supported Gore in '88. He was a different guy back then. Things change. That's better than a $1,000 contribution to Buchanan, anyway.

As is the Bentsen mentioned by Ralphie. Hmm. What to make of this? Indicative of a rightward trend over the next 17 years, or a HIDDEN SOUTERLIKE AGENDA?!

'k, I'm not trying to be dismissive, and as someone who always, always, always votes a straight GOP ticket no matter how great my dislike for an individual RINO, it actually does disturb me more than it might others.

... now, any support for Gore post 1998 is another matter.

Bill Kristol on FNC. Very unenthused, says everyone he's talking to is demoralized, that the Prez "flinched from a fight," that he "capitulated" to the Dems.

:/

I don't like criticizing the Prez, but honestly, I was SO rooting for Janice Brown.

Bush 43 knows Miers inside and out.

Lol... What a mental picture that paints...

The thing that scares me about Miers is Harry Reid LIKES her. WTF is that all about?

This is chum in the water. Bush has no expectation that she'll be confirmed. She's loyal enough to take the hit, let the Democrats exhaust themselves on her, then nominate Janice Rogers Brown or someone else actually qualified.

Or else this is another example of the Bush loyalty fetish biting them on the ass.

I definitely don't care for all the talk about "several" Dems having suggested her. Discouraging.

Can we have more partisan rancor please?! I'm begging here.

Eric - yeah, I've seen a few other people making that argument. Not sure how convincing I find it; I think it's a bit too clever, though of course I hope you're right.

"... let the Democrats exhaust themselves on her, then nominate Janice Rogers Brown or someone else actually qualified."

The problem with that scenario is that the Dems have an endless supply of enmity when it comes to anything Bush does.

I'm done with Bush now. If he wanted a woman, he had any number of highly esteemed federal judges to choose from. Who does he pick? One of his drinking buddies from Texas. Fuck 'im.

Bill Kristol on FNC. Very unenthused, says everyone he's talking to is demoralized, that the Prez "flinched from a fight," that he "capitulated" to the Dems.

Hm. I have a general rule of thumb about Kristol, Robert Novak and Tucker Carlson - if those three are unhappy about something, it usually means I can safely be happy about it. They are the Eeyores of the Republican party.

Still, though, I'm underwhelmed by this pick. Damn that Bush loyalty.

maybe she gives great ...

"They are the Eeyores of the Republican party."

Hey there Slubs, good morning! Been a while.

But I think NRO still has the GOP Eeyores title in a tight clinch...

Maybe it's a sincere pick, but I'm hoping Eric J is right. After Roberts, nominating someone with no experience gives the Dems a plausible principled stand that even some Republicans may get in on. Let the mantra about judicial experience get hammered into the national consciousness for a few weeks and then switch to the VERY experienced Brown in a bit of PR judo.

It could happen.

And Allah, c'mon, you've been "done with" the Prez like half a dozen times in the last month or so alone.

Frum lowers the boom. Like he says, "Why not the best?"

Perhaps unknown quantity Miers's elevation to the Supreme Court will hasten J P Stevens's retirement, leaving the door open for Bush to nominate a more decidedly conservative Justice before the end of his 2nd term .

Just throwing a wacky scenario out there.

No, Megan, I haven't. I'm the guy who defended his "let's not carpet-bomb mosques just for the hell of it" policy, remember?

Lots of good choices out there, and the base is spoiling for a fight - and Bush wimps out. Crimony.

:P

Good morning back to you.

I think you're right about the NROniks. Gloomy pack of writers, that.

Malkin's pissed, too. Be sure to follow the link to RedState.

Allah: I'm the guy who defended his "let's not carpet-bomb mosques just for the hell of it" policy

That's an official policy?! Man, now I'm done with the Prez. ;)

That last anon was me, obviously...

Interesting reactions from the commenters here. Nobody really knows anything about her but there is a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth. Because she worked for Bush for the last 10 years or so that makes her a 'crony'? Because she's not been a judge that makes her unqualified? She's a political sacrificial lamb? C'mon guys. Lets gather some facts and THEN make a judgement. FWIW, Reid is already denying any 'recommendation' already.

There is simply no comparison between state practice and federal practice.

Nonsense.

I don't like criticizing the Prez, but honestly, I was SO rooting for Janice Brown.

Me, too.

One thing about Miers, is the president must know her position on just about everything.

BrewFan:
The point is that we cannot afford to take the chance. TO ARGUE THAT HARRIET MIERS IS THE BEST QUALIFIED CONSERVATIVE IS AT MOST-----FACETIOUS!

Again, I'm not saying she's a "crony" or "incompetent" or even "unqualified." I'm just "underwhelmed" as Malkin put it in the article Allah linked. C'mon, Brew, you can't tell me that Brown, Owen, or even Jones wouldn't have been a thousand times better - especially politically.

I think this is a disaster, very depressing. Lame duck President indeed.

Let's start the bidding on how low Bush's approval rating will go over this fiasco. I'm guessing under 35.

Allah, Malkin was pissed when Roberts was nominated...

BTW, to those that think that judicial experience is a prereq, don't forget that White and Renquist weren't judges either, before they were nominated to SCOTUS.

JFH - of course, "pissed" is Malkin's default position.

JFH -- I'll take your word on that, but in any case, she was among the very few who were. Not so with Miers.

BrewFan, for most nominations you would be right. The problem is that stealth candidates (e.g., Souter) and even those that look conservative (Warren, Burger, Blackmon) have a very bad habit of trending left one they get confirmation to SCOTUS. There are exceptions (Rhenquist), but not enough to console. The most reliable conservativeson the Court were clearly conservative when they were nominated (Scalia, Thomas), and even that gives no guaranty.

Do I trust Bush's nominations just because he picked them? Two words: Norm Mineta.

I'm with Ann Coulter in having serious reservations about Roberts. Where Miers is concerned, the trends are terrible and I'll need to see some serious evidence of her bona fides before the anxiety goes away.

What a crappy, sycophantic nomination.

Well you know, this administration can go to Hell because that's where this question mark of a SCOTUS will possibly take us...and the fact that we don't KNOW where the Supreme Court will take us is the problem.

The Republicans are in the MAJORITY. Tell the Democrats to shove it already. Man alive, I've had it with conservatives acting like a pack of azz-sucking invertebrates.

Thanks a lot, Bush. If your lap-b**** gets confirmed and your 2 picks don't uphold the Constitution, you just lost us '06 and '08.

Later,
bbeck

Lutting or Janice R Brown would have been sweet. Rush played some of her speeches. A real federalist.

But this lady might have something that W saw. Heck, in her speech she took to the "no legislating from the bench" theme running. Bush, from day one, has picked people from out of nowhere. Its a credit to him that he never plays up to the conventional wisdom. Did anyone see Cheney (ok Powell and Rice were givens) coming? Us conservatives might have to buck up a little more. In his speech, W flat out said that he picked her based on his promise to get judges who won't be activists.

Quick question about her 1998 money to Gore, wasn't he pro-life back then?

JFH - White had at least clerked on SCOTUS once. (For some reason I'm thinking it may even have been twice which would have been very unusual.) And while he had some stellar moments (his dissent in Miranda is a classic), on balance he was way too happy to side with the activists. He was not exactly a reliable ally for judicial conservatism.

joeindc44 - "Quick question about her 1998 money to Gore, wasn't he pro-life back then?"

1988, and yes.

I'm not saying yea or nay guys, I'm just saying all the facts are not in yet. I'd also like to add that I'm not so concerned that a SC nominee be an Ann Coulter Conservative as I am with regards to how they interpret the Constitution. In fact I don't want any SC justice who makes decisions based on their political preferences, right or left.

Schumer on TV.

Regarding her lack of judicial experience, taken from the Presidents remarks this morning:

Justice Rehnquist himself came to the Supreme Court without prior experience on the bench, as did more than 35 other men, including Byron White.

Typically muddled, rambling Schumer.

"We know less about this nominee than we knew about John Roberts... in terms of judicial philosophy... the kinds of questions that Roberts answered some of are going to be very important. We just don't know very much"

Well, I could have told you that last, Chuck.

Lots of hemming and hawing, lots of stuff about Miers not being an "extremist right-wing conservative"

:(

C'mon, Brew, you can't tell me that Brown, Owen, or even Jones wouldn't have been a thousand times better - especially politically.

Maybe politically and I'd admit the confirmation process would have been a lot more fun to watch but I'm not prepared to say any of those would have been better SC justices.

Do I trust Bush's nominations just because he picked them? Two words: Norm Mineta.

This was done as a peace offering to the Dems when Bush was still new and naive :)

I think he learned his lesson right after Teddy stabbed him in the back despite Bush's support for his education package.

*sigh* So he didn't pick Ann Coulter.

:-)

So who flippin' cares any more? The courts aren't going to start functioning as the judicial arm of the government again until the Legislative and Executive branches grow some stones and tell 'em to ... uhm, "back" off.

Still, I'd have preferred a flaming Republican polemicist as a nominee, if for nothing else but the entertainment value as moonbats barked themselves hoarse screaming, whining and piddling on the floor in their rabid reactions.

It's flawed to assert that Miers's lack of judicial experience shouldn't matter because there were other nominees had no judicial experience before their appointments.

Those nominees from top law schools (SMU is a bottom-tier school), typically clerked for Supreme Court judges or federal judges (Miers didn't do this), and had extensive federal litigation experience (Miers was a state litigator, and Texas doesn't have an impressive reputation for quality in this regard).

Someone over at Red State posted a quote from Alexander Hamilton (in the Federalist Papers) that is particularly pertinent, IMHO:

"To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. In addition to this, it would be an efficacious source of stability in the administration."

She might be terrific, but just the fact that she's been at Bush's elbow for years and years gives me a bad taste. At home this morning I saw the mini-bio next to her head shot and was appalled.

It just looks like naked cronyism. Not as bad as selling pardons, but still kind of gross.

Its almost like the guy is saying, "Hey, I can't get a break anyway, so fuck it. How do you like me now?"

Thanks for the quick save and link Megan. Yeah, Gore was definately on the baby train in 98, not 88.

I think that this shows that politically, Miers is more of a social conservative than an economic conservative. Not really that big of a deal when it comes to an originalist versus a natural law viewpoint of jurisprudence. She seems to be an originalist, which is all we have asked for.

Is this a sign that she has no problems with Democrats who have morals. Can one take this as a sign of general political indifference? Or, even, an open mind?

I'd also like to add that I'm not so concerned that a SC nominee be an Ann Coulter Conservative as I am with regards to how they interpret the Constitution.

A good distinction and basically the difference between the late Chief and Scalia/Thomas, but I think when we talk about conservative judges we are usually talking about the latter. Judicial conservatives don't make policy.

She may be a stealth nominee to the public, but she isn't a stealth nominee to Bush. He has spend hundred if not thousands of hours talking with her on a variety of subjects. Without the restrictions of being a judicial nominee or already on the bench, she could tell him how she would rule. So, I think her conservative bona fides are there

"Interesting reactions from the commenters here. Nobody really knows anything about her but there is a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth. "

Brewfan, your totally correct and its understandable. Bush can thank his father for barely controlled suspicion among conservatives that, not matter how much he may do that we may like, its only a matter of time before he sells us out for a trendy position. I've hoped all along that he would come to the end of his terms without the feared betrayal but the fear and expectation is real..

Tob

It just looks like naked cronyism. Not as bad as selling pardons, but still kind of gross.

Ponnuru has a cute post about that up at the Corner.

Hewitt just posted, too. You can always count on Hugh to wave those pom-poms, however halfheartedly.

It's flawed to assert that Miers's lack of judicial experience shouldn't matter because there were other nominees had no judicial experience before their appointments.

Judicial experience doesn't matter. This isn't a lower court where it is important to move a large volume of cases. It's legal scholarship. I haven't read anything she has written, but either have you.

Those nominees from top law schools (SMU is a bottom-tier school), typically clerked for Supreme Court judges or federal judges (Miers didn't do this), and had extensive federal litigation experience (Miers was a state litigator, and Texas doesn't have an impressive reputation for quality in this regard).

I believe she has clerked in the federal courts. And as far as whether “ Texas doesn't have an impressive reputation for quality in this regard” – don't tell Beldar this! Texas gets knocked for everything because it's, well, Texas.

"It's flawed to assert that Miers's lack of judicial experience shouldn't matter because there were other nominees had no judicial experience before their appointments."

Sorry, but that's bullcrap. If you have 35 examples to draw from its not 'flawed to assert'. Your 'top tier' law school arguement is what's flawed because you offer no empirical data to support it.

"Those nominees from top law schools (SMU is a bottom-tier school), typically clerked for Supreme Court judges or federal judges (Miers didn't do this), and had extensive federal litigation experience (Miers was a state litigator, and Texas doesn't have an impressive reputation for quality in this regard)."

Whoa, whoa, whoa !

Someone is way too impressed with "federal experience."

typically clerked for Supreme Court judges or federal judges (Miers didn't do this),

Wrong, Miers clerked for Rehnquist.

Bush is a lot smarter than even we tend to think.

The woman has voted D in the past, but only, it seems, for those who are pro-life.

She is an easy sell because she is old. If she is a mistake, she is gone before you know it.

The Dems are foolish to fall into instant attack because she probably has a little Reagan-Democrat in her back in the day. She was blue before the Dem's completely embraced abortion.

I would have liked Luttig, but the sense I am getting is that she is the Anti-Connor. There will be no looking to self-destructing Eurotrash states for an informed view of our constitution. Law professors can wail that she is not one of them, the elite published attorneys. Nope, she is just a practitioner who has accomplished a lot.

And she came out swinging. She stated that she will not legislate from the bench.

I think its just adorable how some are thrilled with the Miers pick cos Bush "looked into her soul" and "saw something in her eyes" when she was vetting his tax return or some crap.

Jeebus, people, Bush don't walk on water.

Miers was NOT the best available pick out there.

Why not the best?

I liked Luttig, too. My only hesitation was that every time a dp case reached the court, there would be excessive whining that he shd recuse himself or it would give the anti-death penalty people ammo.

Wrong, Miers clerked for Rehnquist.

Where did you read that, Bill? I read somewhere that she clerked for a federal district court judge, nothing more.

Thanks be to Allah for pointing out that the left coast Hewitt is already awake and blogging.

If his view of Miers is correct, that she would be a GWOT cheerleader, then I think that everyone needs to take a deep breath and reflect that we have:

an originalist.

a pro-lifer

someone who will tell the ACLU to shove it when it comes to Tangos.

A lot of people who were on the short list (like the AG) could only claim, at most, two of those things.

If you have 35 examples to draw from its not 'flawed to assert'.

Depends on how those 35 turned out, doesn't it?

I'm not worried about her 1988 Dem contributions, though. That was before the parties realigned ideologically in the '90's. Wasn't TX largely a Democrat controlled state at the time? I'll stand correction on that, but in one party states, you work with the party you have.

I've clerked in a (southern, but not Texas) state court system as well as for a federal court (currently). The notion that the issues in fed court are immensely more "sophisticated" than those in state court is simply incorrect. The notion that practice in state court is a waste of time as far as preparation for fed issues is also wrong.

Depends on how those 35 turned out, doesn't it?

Exactly my point. And I'll be the first to tell you I have no clue how they all turned out (Rehnquist and White excepted) but I think to say its not relevant is silly.

Miers is more of a social conservative than an economic conservative. Not really that big of a deal when it comes to an originalist versus a natural law viewpoint of jurisprudence. She seems to be an originalist, which is all we have asked for.

I disagree. Being an economic conservative, to me at least, means believing in property rights, which are the lynchpin to a broad array of basic freedoms. The growth of the federal government, at the expense of local control, has been primarily in economic terms.

Plus, a philosophy of federal domination of economic matters has paved the way for all the other usurpations of power that are not strictly economic.

Agree with No Names. Also, SMU is not a "bottom-tiered" law school. Also, her former law firm is full of Republicans. Not that that means a lot, but I have a better feeling about this than most of what I'm reading this morning. Is this pick disapointing? Sure. But I'm going to give her the benefit of the doubt.

It will be fun watching the left try to dig up dirt, though.

One thing Megan said from the top:

Poor President Bush couldn't quite keep a straight face when he said Chief Justice Roberts had just been confirmed by "a large bipartisan majority." Hammering home the meme that it was, I suppose, puts the Dems on a subdued defensive.

Maybe this is one of those "eye of the beholder" things, but I thought it was inviting attack. The majority of Dems voted against Roberts out of partisan spite. Bush seems to be saying that was all A-OK. That's inviting them to ratchet up the heat, isn't it?

She's also apparantly a dedicated Christian. Some fodder for the base there. I think we need to take a deep breath here. This isn't the end of the world. This isn't Gonzales.

"Lots of people believe that O'Connor, a former state court judge, was completely over her head once she was appointed to the Supreme Court."

Who believes this? (A family member clerked for her during her first year on the court, so I've got more than a passing interest in this.)

1. Sorry Bill, Miers did NOT clerk for Justice Rehnquist. You're confusing this crony with the supremely-qualified John Roberts.

2. I did err when I said that Miers had no federal clerkship experience. She actually clerked for a federal district court judge of little repute 35 years ago. Wow.

3. Brewfan says it's flawed for me to claim that SMU is not a top-tier law school without empirical data to back it up. According to the 2006 U.S. News and World Report rankings, SMU is now ranked 52 among the top law schools, placing it in the second-tier. While I'm sure SMU provides state litigators with a fine legal education, this isn't a top law school by any stretch. Almost all of the Supreme Court Justices have gone to top law schools. Everyone in the Rehnquist Court went to a top-ten school. There's a reason for this.

4. Ralphie jokes that I'm "way too impressed with federal experience." Nonsense. The Supreme Court deals exclusively with federal issues--issues typically of far greater complexity than those state courts hear. Miers has little experience in these matters. Most importantly, she almost certainly has little experience writing or thinking about the U.S. Constitution. Federal experience matters a great deal.

"Basically, either the Republican president is a pussy, or the Republican Senate is full of pussies."

Or both ...

BF: I think the original argument was that the lack of judicial experience matters. Your counter was that with 35 precedents, it was reasonable to say it doesn't matter. I'm just saying the issue turns on how those 35 turned out.

Phinn, good points.

I was thinking along the lines of an objectivist, "lets stop all welfare" economic conservative. Remember, she would probably be an older school, less insane type of democrat.

Pure speculation right now, but it seems to take a very special kind hatred of economic rights to write a Kelo decision. I was not surrendering her to that type of perspective.

This is not a troll but a serious question. Do you all think its not possible for a SC justice to separate their politics from their interpretation of the Constitution? I happen to think it is but I'm naive about other things too :)

"Miers was NOT the best available pick out there.

Why not the best?"

Well, Bork was the best of his time.

How'd that work out?

"Do you all think its not possible for a SC justice to separate their politics from their interpretation of the Constitution?"

I thinks its possible to separate personal feelings from interpretation (the if I was King type thing) but not politics since how to interpret the Constitution is a part of politics.

Perhaps I misunderstand your question.

Tob

"... she almost certainly has little experience writing or thinking about the U.S. Constitution [etc.]"

Umm, even in little old state courts, you do deal with Federal Constitutional issues.

Do you all think its not possible for a SC justice to separate their politics from their interpretation of the Constitution? I happen to think it is but I'm naive about other things too :)

I don't think it's possible for a true conservative to separate the two, Brew; conservatism IS the upholding of the Constitution.

OTOH, Democrats think the Constitution exists to be quoted when it benefits them and to wipe their tails with when it doesn't.

That's exactly why conservatives think the Supreme Court is there to enforce the Constitution...and why "originalists" scare the living crap out of liberals.

Later,
bbeck

On the federal experience versus state experience discussion, I think that the one valid worry is that she would not appreciate the limits of federalism, having dealt with jurisdictions that have general powers, not the enumerated powers of the federal government. But, thats pretty easy to pick up on if you respect the grants of power within the constitution.

State law work is rewarding and engaging. Most business and criminal cases arise from the courts. It is not the desert, being in state court.

Your counter was that with 35 precedents, it was reasonable to say it doesn't matter. I'm just saying the issue turns on how those 35 turned out.

We agree then :)

Now that I have read the WaPo profile, I have a much better picture of her.

According to published reports, she was the first woman hired by Locke Purnell Boren Laney & Neely, a Dallas firm whose history extends to the 1890s. She went on to become a top commercial litigator whose clients included Microsoft and the Walt Disney Co.

Math major. Unmarried. Steely, sharp commercial litigator.

I hate to admit it, but I'm a commercial litigator. I have had dealings with lawyers from the Dallas office of Locke Liddell & Sapp. They were all pretty much like they way they've described Meirs: calm, cool, direct, sharp, steel-spined sharks. Professional through and through.

I know this kind of lawyer. Never miss a deadline, polished shoes, return all calls by the end of the day. In by 7:00 a.m., dictating letters on the drive to work, put in 13 hours, and go to a corporate/bar/political mixer with a smile by night. These people are freaking robots.

They are grinders, corporate to the core. They are all about pushing the documents (in commercial litigation, it's an avalance of paper!). They are about communicating, succinctly and directly, with the army of suits that big, commercial cases seem to come with.

That takes a certain kind of person -- immense degree of self-control and a total lack of imagination.

I bet she's hell in the boardroom, as they say.

Roberts is a thinker, at least. The man was an appellate lawyer at the highest level of the profession. Appeals are about ideas.

Commercial litigation is about pleasing your corporate masters, who want reassurance and predictability.

If I wanted someone to defend my mega-corporation from a class-action lawsuit over the language in some 900-page insurance policy, I'd hire her and her old firm in an instant.

I'm not convinced that the Supreme Court is the best place for someone like that.

The problem here, as I see it, is that all of us have been spoiling for a fight and GW didn't give it to us, and we're worried because of his father's wishy-washiness. I too would have loved if he had chosen JRB because that would have been a Cage Match Battle Royal - but that also could have lead to a social Civil War with many casualties on both sides. I agree with Knemon, that kind of fight, like Bork before, may just have been counterproductive at this point and time.

What if GW is trying to change the minds and attitudes of those wayward yet common sense and thoughtful citizens that still vote Democrat and who are tacitly allowing the Moveoners/Sheehanites/Deaniacs to steer their party? Perhaps he is attempting to capture Bush Democrats (ala Reagan Democrats) to further solidify the conservative hold on the country's conscience. And what if this nomination is a step - smaller that we wanted, but still a step - in furtherance of that objective? We all want the iron fist, but from what we can see GW is only welding the velvet glove, and that's not enough for most of us. The real question here is what does that glove conceal? Is Miers made of conservative mettle, or moderate puddy? Do you know who will tell us? Senators Schumer and Kennedy. The harder they fight her, the better I will feel!

Do you all think its not possible for a SC justice to separate their politics from their interpretation of the Constitution?

I think I'm understanding the question a little differently than some other posters. True, it is a conservative position that judges should not substitute their preferences for the policies the political branches have made into law. But it seems to stretch the point in a cutsie grad-student sort of way to say that this absence of politicas is itself political.

If a judge faithfully interprets the Constitution as intended by those who framed and ratified it, even if he does not like the result, I'd say that judge has successfully separated politics and jurisprudence. It's possible, it happens and IMHO it's a duty.

A moment of Sullivan-hysteria inspired levity.

From today's "Daily Dish:"

EXODUS??? Here's an excerpt from the president's announcement on Harriet Miers. Among the charities that Harriet Miers has worked for are the following: [T]he Young Women's Christian Association, Childcare Dallas, Goodwill Industries, Exodus Ministries, Meals on Wheels and the Legal Aid Society. Stop right there. Exodus Ministries? Does he mean this or this? We need to know.

He's since revised the post and corrected, since this is the ministry referenced. From wikipedia:

Miers is a former board member of Exodus Ministries. This is not the ex-gay ministry Exodus International, but a “a non-denominational Christian organization established to assist ex-offenders and their families become productive members of society by meeting both their spiritual and physical needs.”

You'd think Excitable Andy would actually know his way around INTERNET since he's such a big-shot on it.

Plus, this doesn't do much to quell criticism that he's become rather gay-issues-centric on his blog.

Knemon asks "well, Bork was the best at the time. How did that work out?"

One can smell the smirky sanctimony from here, no?

The answer, of course, is that 1987 is a long ways away from 2005 in many, many ways. The political environment and the rise of the New Media makes it almost impossible for the Left to successfuly engage in the sort of vicious character assasination and bald-faced lying that they got away with in 1987.

I'm glad that someone raised Bork, however, because this nomination would have been the perfect moment to avenge that travesty with a known originalist and the attendant debate.

Ralphie,

Miers was a corporate lawyer. The nature of her practice meant that she wasn't going to have a lot of experience thinking about any number of issues related to the Constitution, with the (possible) exception of the commerce clause. Nothing on church/state separation, substantive due process rights, the First Amendment (except maybe a commercial speech case), the Fourth Amendment, or any of the other big constitutional issues the Supreme Court regularly has to deal with.

A person with federal judicial experience or experience arguing/preparing briefs for federal cases on behalf of the DOJ/Solicitor General's Office will likely have much more experience in this regard. There were tons of potential nominees with this pedigree and strong conservative credentials, but apparently they never had the chance to clear brush with Bush down in Crawford.

EDIT: And to answer you question Knemon, I just heard/read O'Connor herself say in a recent interview that she thought it would be useful for a nominee to have federal experience, as the transition was difficult for her. I'll try to track down the quote.

Wasn't TX largely a Democrat controlled state at the time?

Yes, pretty much since we joined the Union. You'll appreciate just how pissed off Dems here have become since losing control.

I happen to think it is but I'm naive about other things too :)

Well I for one find your naivete refreshing.

I'm with Megan, I just wanted a knock-down drag out fight.

In defense of Bill: He misread the same article I misread. It was a case of lousy editing.

Most importantly, she almost certainly has little experience writing or thinking about the U.S. Constitution.

And you know this how? How do you know what Miers thinks about? Are you a mind reader now? Have you read everything she has written? You have really been reaching.

Miers was a corporate lawyer.

She has been WhiteHouse counsel for what? Six years? I think she has tackled more than corporate law.

This is chum in the water. Bush has no expectation that she'll be confirmed. She's loyal enough to take the hit, let the Democrats exhaust themselves on her, then nominate Janice Rogers Brown or someone else actually qualified.

That was my first thought too, that she's being set up to be Borked. Just let Kennedy and Co. make total asses out of themselves then give them what they want, someone with a paper trail and experience --- Janice Rogers Brown.

"One can smell the smirky sanctimony from here, no?

Yeah, it was a wiseaass comment. Haven't had my morning coffee yet. Sorry.

"The answer, of course, is that 1987 is a long ways away from 2005 in many, many ways. The political environment and the rise of the New Media makes it almost impossible for the Left to successfuly engage in the sort of vicious character assasination and bald-faced lying that they got away with in 1987."

ALMOST impossible, maybe. Janice Rogers Brown (although she's probably not who we're talking about when we talk about "the best") might make it easier for them. I know that most of the people on this board (including me, on my red-meat days) agree with the description of the New Deal as a "socialist revolution," but try running that one up the national pole and see who salutes it ... as for a Luttig or Posner (or Volokh!!), various available flavors of "the best," maybe they've got skeletons we don't know about? (Smell the crackling stench of rationalization!!)

I'm underwhelmed by this choice too, don't get me wrong; I just don't think it heralds the apocalypse. The hearings should give us some kind of better reading on her ...I hope ...

**

Midge, I wasn't doubting you, just wanted to know more. O'Connor said she was completely over her head? Since that's about 6 feet high already (ba-dum-dum), that's really saying something ...

This nomination is putting a huge demoralizing wedge in the REPUBLICAN party. I would love to give the Bush's judgement the benefit of the doubt, I am a huge Bush fan, but today I am dispirited and lacking in faith.

Maybe tomorrow I will decide that I was a weak kneed pussy for feeling that way, but that's how I feel right now.
He could have picked so many other super qualified solid conservatives. This makes no sense to me.

I agree Fred that this may have been, as you put it, "perfect moment to avenge that travesty" but as much as I want that fight as well, we must remember that we are facing an opponent that is staring at their utter annihilation and who would be worse than vicious. While I have the courage and stomach for that fight and am more than ready to "hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats" (as do most who read Ace), I'm not so sure the country is prepared for the social (and perhaps actual) bloodbath that would ensue. As a former soldier, I know there is a time and place where fixing bayonets and charging is the best course - but there are also times when lying in ambush is best. I have not seen this battlefield clearly enough yet to know which choice is the most prudent, but the President, our Commander-in-Chief, has made a choice. We, as soldiers must fight when, where, and how we are commanded - and fight to win, even if it turns out the commander has chosen the wrong direction. This choice is just one battle, not the war!

To the anonymous poster who keeps asking "how do I know" what Miers thinks about the Constitution, this is exactly my point. She's an unproven, unqualified commodity. There is no reason for us to believe she's a sound legal mind except that Bush likes her. Call me skeptical, but that shouldn't be enough to be nominated for a position on the highest court of the land. I should also note that not everyone Bush has liked has made a good/appropriate appointment (e.g., Gonzales, Kerick, Brown).

Being a counsel for the White House doesn't necessarily mean anything except that she advises the President on what the DOJ thinks about an issue. There's a big difference between parroting information and thinking dynamically about novel, oftentimes complex issues, which is what a Supreme Court Justice must often do.

I also want to add that Phinn's post on the difference between a good corporate lawyer and a good appellate-level judge is very insightful.

That was my first thought too, that she's being set up to be Borked. Just let Kennedy and Co. make total asses out of themselves then give them what they want, someone with a paper trail and experience --- Janice Rogers Brown.

I don't follow. If the Democrats can convince a few Republicans to vote with them and bork Miers on grounds that she's "too extreme," it's not going to play well with the public for Bush to then turn around and nominate someone even more "extreme." Seems to me if you wanted to set someone up to be borked, you'd name the most "extreme" person you can find first, then wait for them to be rejected and nominate someone who's solidly conservative but can be sold as more "moderate" than the first nominee.

I'm glad that someone raised Bork, however, because this nomination would have been the perfect moment to avenge that travesty with a known originalist and the attendant debate.

Yeah, I remember Bork, standing behind that chain-link fence covered with barbed wire, while a propaganda movie was playing on a large drive-in screen in the background...

"Avenge me boys!", he yelled, "Avenge me!!"

If a judge faithfully interprets the Constitution as intended by those who framed and ratified it, even if he does not like the result, I'd say that judge has successfully separated politics and jurisprudence. It's possible, it happens and IMHO it's a duty.

That makes two things we agree on! Wanna start a mutual admiration society :)

Excellent "Red Dawn" reference!!

But still. I want my revenge for that shiv in the back from those dem hacks on the Judiciary Committee. Plus, I want a known quantity, not another pig in the poke from a GOP president too worried about political calculations in terms of immediate poll results and winning the votes of democrat senators. Dance with the one what brought ya, Mr. Bush.

That said...

WOLVERINES!

We all want the iron fist, but from what we can see GW is only welding the velvet glove, and that's not enough for most of us.

Velvet glove, my well-rounded tail. I don't mind the glove as long as it's not jerking me off.

Sorry for sounding harsh, Steve, and the criticism isn't directed at you, but at Bush. Just how often are Bush's supporters supposed to take it in the keester for him while he woos the fickle middle?

I can't think of ANY way to defend this pick...except by putting yet MORE faith in Bush. I extended that faith for Roberts because he's sharp as a carpet nail, but in choosing his personal lawyer, Bush has made himself look exactly like the man the Crats have accused him of being, especially recently: the sort who places personal loyalty over actual qualifications. I'm not saying Miers isn't qualified, I'm saying she's not AS qualified as Bush's pick should have been, and NO ONE ANYWHERE is saying that's she the best choice he could have made. She's not the best choice, and not even the most ardent supporter could make the argument that she is.

It was a stupid, gutless pick from a stupid, gutless President.

Later,
bbeck

Just a correction to something someone said earlier. Miers has not been White House counsel for six years. She's only been counsel since February 2005.

Harry Reid thinks she's a good pick and NRO, Red State, Powerline, and virtually every legal blog thinks she's a bad one. What is there left to discuss?

We, as soldiers must fight when, where, and how we are commanded - and fight to win, even if it turns out the commander has chosen the wrong direction.

Shirley you didn't intend that to come out the way it did, right?

Found this article via NRO's "Bench Memos." Pluses and minuses found in the article:

Minuses:
Her critics say the problem goes beyond what Miers does or doesn't know about policy -- and right back to a near-obsession with detail and process.

"There's a stalemate there," says one person familiar with the chief of staff's office. "The process can't move forward because you have to get every conceivable piece of background before you can move onto the next level. People are talking about a focus on process that is so intense it gets in the way of substance."

One former White House official familiar with both the counsel's office and Miers is more blunt.

"She failed in Card's office for two reasons," the official says. "First, because she can't make a decision, and second, because she can't delegate, she can't let anything go. And having failed for those two reasons, they move her to be the counsel for the president, which requires exactly those two talents."

Responds White House Deputy Counsel David Leitch: "She certainly delegates. She couldn't possibly dream of doing any of these jobs, this job or the job she has now, without delegating."

On the other hand, she does seem like a hard worker with a pretty good resume. I'm still not sold on this nomination, though.

Bottom line: unless this Harriet Miers (who?) turns out to be Scalia in a skirt, the Republicans can kiss control of Congress goodbye. The Democrats have their hatred and resentment at losing the last couple of elections (to a President they despise!) to motivate them; Bush's base just lost any reason to support him at the polls. The President has done nothing to control the borders or curb spending; I fear that this will be the last straw for the Republican base.

Phinn, any experience with Liddell Sapp's Houston office? You remind me of someone I knew in Tennessee. :-)

Velvet glove, my well-rounded tail. I don't mind the glove as long as it's not jerking me off.

so, no glove then? check.

I would expect the Schumers of the world to raise holy hell, even if they consider Miers the best deal they can get. In this way, they solidify Republican votes FOR her by forcing people to choose sides. Note that the harder they bash Bush, the more solid his support among conservatives gets, even when he doesn't always deserve it.
I'm hoping she is defeated by Republicans, not Democrats.
We are the majority. If we hold together, what Schumer thinks doesn't mean shit.

Its not a gutless pick. Its Bush showing that he doesn't have to read John Hakins to know what a conservative really thinks.

I find Hewitt to be more helpful than the Christmas morning whining of other conservatives. Yes, we were good all year long, and we brushed our teeth and walked the dog, but we did not get the GI Joe Aircraft Carrier. We got socks, but we may actually need some socks.

Is there any dispute to the idea that she is:

pro-life
orginalist
a supporter of the GWOT?
and....

I dunno, just because its not a JRB or a Luttig pick does not mean we got screwed.

so, no glove then? check.

Perv. :)

Later,
bbeck

Is there any dispute to the idea that she is:

pro-life
orginalist
a supporter of the GWOT?

I'd settle for just having an originalist. Then the rest doesn't matter so much. I think the point is that we don't have any basis for saying whether she is or is not any of those things. So we worry. (But not in a helpless girly kind of way; we worry like Vikings.)

"Bottom line: unless this Harriet Miers (who?) turns out to be Scalia in a skirt, the Republicans can kiss control of Congress goodbye. "

Care to make it interesting?

Allah -

"Where did you read that, Bill? I read somewhere that she clerked for a federal district court judge, nothing more."

Midge -

"Sorry Bill, Miers did NOT clerk for Justice Rehnquist. You're confusing this crony with the supremely-qualified John Roberts."

CNN reported that this morning after the announcement, said she shared this quality with Roberts. I suppose it's wrong.

Care to make it interesting?

Hey, the thought of Scalia in a skirt already makes it pretty interesting.

But seriously, I would personally LOVE my politics to be dull, predicatble, and stoic, particularly when it comes to the lifetime nomination of someone who can change the frickin' LAW.

Later,
bbeck

So we worry. (But not in a helpless girly kind of way; we worry like Vikings.)

Ok, we do disagree on something :) Most of the worry expressed here is of the hysterical unsubstantiated the sky is falling we're never gonna win another election ever again because of that stupid chimpler who didn't pick the one I wanted kind.

I don't follow. If the Democrats can convince a few Republicans to vote with them and bork Miers on grounds that she's "too extreme,"

She probably isn't extreme. I suspect that Bush fealt that the Democrats had their minds made up, that he wouldn't get two in a row. They can Bork her for her lack of experience, lack of a paper trail, for being a crony or whatever else they can dig up on her or fabricate.
Let the democrats demand a paper trail and experience, and then bring out the share croppers daughter.

I find it quite humorous that some conservative blogs are going ballistic to the point of saying their not going to vote for Repulicans in NOVEMBER OF 2006!! Had Bush made this pick on Oct 03, 2006, you might have a point... but, you've got almost an entire SCOTUS session to judge Bush's judgement on this judge, before the next election.

BTW, what's all this bulls**t about nominating the "most qualified person to the Supreme Court... when has that EVER been the standard.

To the anonymous poster who keeps asking "how do I know" what Miers thinks about the Constitution, this is exactly my point. She's an unproven, unqualified commodity.

I keep asking because you make all these assertions without anything to back them up. As to what she is thinking, Bush knows. Because you don't know, does not make her unproven or unqualified.

Being a counsel for the White House doesn't necessarily mean anything except . . .

It means her experience is broader than corporate law -- another one of your many unfounded assertions.

There's a big difference between parroting information and thinking dynamically about novel, oftentimes complex issues, which is what a Supreme Court Justice must often do.

Well, you do seem to be an expert on parroting.

I also want to add that Phinn's post on the difference between a good corporate lawyer and a good appellate-level judge is very insightful.

Interesting since he never made the comparison. He made some disparaging remarks against the women's law firm and commercial litagators. He went on to say that Roberts "was an appellate lawyer at the highest level of the profession. Appeals are about ideas." Which indicates to me that Phinn has never practiced appellate law.

"Hey, the thought of Scalia in a skirt already makes it pretty interesting."

Interesting, terrifying ... let's not split hairs here ...

Assuming she's confirmed, we'll have a while to see her "judicial philosophy" in action, right? Proof of the pudding ...

When Stevens croaks, Gonzales will get the nod.

BTW, what's all this bulls**t about nominating the "most qualified person to the Supreme Court... when has that EVER been the standard.

If you've got a deep bench -- Luttig, McConnell, Brown, Owen, Williams, etc. etc. etc. -- why would you nominate a scrub? Whether or not she's the most qualified person available, she should at least be among them, no?

I feel like my team just drafted Sam Bowie instead of Michael Jordan.

But, damn! I agree with everyone on this: Why are we even arguing over what she believes in! We know what other judges believe and think. Is he stealthing one in, or is he so convinced that he can see into her soul, that she will be the best justice for the country? Bush has the power to shove anyone he wants down the Senate and he throws a softie who gives money to Dems.

Bush's whole turn the other cheek attitude is so annoying to us, his base. It would be so great for him to go out there and swing back. Tell the media that they are full of it on TV. We know he can do it and thinks it, but this whole dignity of the office thing keeps him "above the fray" while his office barely has the energy or directive to defend the white house.

Sigh, maybe he is saving up his political capital for his Stevens replacement, Janice Roger Brown.

Most of the worry expressed here is of the hysterical unsubstantiated the sky is falling ...

What can I tell ya? One man's "hysteria" is another man's "berserker rage." ;-)

I feel like my team just drafted Sam Bowie instead of Michael Jordan.

lol! I don't agree but made me think of recent history: Robert Ferguson instead of Chris Chambers!

Assuming she's confirmed, we'll have a while to see her "judicial philosophy" in action, right? Proof of the pudding ...

And then, of course, it will be TOO D@NM LATE.

And JFH, who is saying they won't vote for whomever in '06? I didn't see anyone say that but I might have missed it. But, I do think that Bush 43 made a promise to appoint "Scalia" judges. If that proves to be false, then, similar to Bush 41's "Read my lips" Lie, Bush 43 is going to deliver a major hit to the Republicans.

Joeindc's last post is dead on.

Later,
bbeck

Here's my second thought, heavily influenced by my recent reading of "The Godfather" and viewings of "Rome" (and with my moonbat hat on.)

Bush has something planned- something that is at the edge of (or even patently) illegal or unconstitutional and will wind up in the Supreme Court. And he's gambling, or has the headcount to know, that having someone absolutely loyal to him on the court will push the balance in his favor. She's there for one vote, one decision that will mean the difference between Bush's presidency being a success or a failure. (Or, that will keep him in office beyond 2008.)

Like I said, pretty moonbatty, so look for this line of reasoning to show up among the usual suspects soon.

They can Bork her for her lack of experience, lack of a paper trail, for being a crony or whatever else they can dig up on her or fabricate.
Let the democrats demand a paper trail and experience, and then bring out the share croppers daughter.

Exactly where I was a couple hours ago. But the Dems can probably see through that one; they're insane but not necessarily stupid.

Borking takes a lot of money and political capital and all the Pres has to do is withdraw a nomination and present someone else to start things over at square one. By round 3 there might not be enough Dem power (or national patience) left to keep Atilla the Hun off the bench. I believe Reid's already saying she's a good pick.

Not a moonbat: Hewitt's ideas dovetail with yours, she is a full on GWOT fighter and will be able to tell the ACLU to go to hell when it comes to shutting down Gitmo or forcing Navy SEALs to mirandize terrorists before shooting them. The GWOT is the real deal.

Meiers clerked for the oh-so-mighty Northern District of Texas.

Check out that resume. I could gag.

I keep asking because you make all these assertions without anything to back them up. As to what she is thinking, Bush knows. Because you don't know, does not make her unproven or unqualified.

Forgive me if I don't trust without additional evidence the judgment of a guy who wanted Bernard Kerik to be head of DHS. It's not an assertion to say that she has nothing in her published record to indicate that she'd make a good (let alone competent) Supreme Court Justice. Read her frickin' bio yourself: http://www.legalreforminthenews.com/leaders/Miers/Miers_bio.html

If you think that she's qualified, it's up to you to provide counterevidence. All you're saying is "I trust Bush." That ain't much of a defense, pal. Especially when almost every legal commenter on Republican-leaning blogs is saying she's a poor choice.

"Being a counsel for the White House doesn't necessarily mean anything except . . . "

It means her experience is broader than corporate law -- another one of your many unfounded assertions.

I'm sorry, I can't take you seriously with comments like that.Do you have any idea what a White House counsel does?! She wasn't formulating legal arguments or delving into constitutional matters; she was (for a grand total of five months, during which her prime task was vetting potential nominees) explaining in layman's terms to the President what DOJ and General Counsel's legal opinions were. This isn't a particularly difficult job, and one where trusted, long-term advisors are typically placed rather than brilliant legal minds. There's a reason why Ted Olson was Solicitor General and Alberto Gonzales was a counsel to the President.

Before that, she was a corporate attorney dealing primarily in state litigation matters; not exactly an area where you're going to be dealing with a lot of constitutional claims (beyond perhaps commerce clause claims, as I mentioned earlier).

"I also want to add that Phinn's post on the difference between a good corporate lawyer and a good appellate-level judge is very insightful."

Interesting since he never made the comparison. He made some disparaging remarks against the women's law firm and commercial litagators. He went on to say that Roberts "was an appellate lawyer at the highest level of the profession. Appeals are about ideas." Which indicates to me that Phinn has never practiced appellate law.

Actually, he did, as the rest of your post makes clear that you recognize. Corporate attorneys are typically good nuts-and-bolts people, but appellate judges deal with ideas, which is another matter entirely. Tell us, anonymous, have you practiced law at the appellate level? Because judging by the quality of argumentation in your posts, and your apparent ignorance as to what Miers's position as White House counsel entailed, it doesn't seem like you have the faintest idea what you're talking about.

Two words for all of you conservatives that want to stay home for the 2006 election (potentially allowing the Dems to take over):

Stevens Replacement - this is the big one, people, the one that can overturn Kelo and other 5-4 winners for liberals.

Have you seen this guy in the past week? "Dead man walking"

JFH: let's be serious. This pick shows that Bush will nominate AGAG next.

Fool me once...

I'm a layman with little formal education so I will defer to the experts as to her education and lawyer-skills. I trust Mr. Bush, so I will defer to his knowledge of her heart. But why someone so old (and before feathers get ruffled, I'm 65)? I wanted a rock-solid conservative of any race or gender who would likely have 25+ years of energetic life on the court. I didn't get such a person and I'm deeply disappointed.

(NB: This posted in a few other places)

JFH is right about the significance of Stevens, if he should vacate his seat for one reason or another. The most conservatives could hope for out of a Rehnquist replacement was to maintain the status quo (which remains to be seen), but the O'Connor and Stevens chairs are where the real action is.

The Supreme Court has three conservatives, three liberals, and three coin-flippers. Turn two coin-flipper seats into conservative seats, and that's all anyone needs to know about the future of American jurisprudence. Even if every decision goes 5-4, they will all go 5-4 in the same direction.

Unfortunately, nothing I've read today about Meirs makes me the least bit confident that Bush will do that. Why on earth would he nominate someone that makes his base throw a nation-wide hissy fit?

The Redstate threads on this have a funny-because-true reference to the Five Stages.

The 'secret plan' folks are on Stage 1.

Hmmm.

Senator Reid suggested her name to Bush.

That does not make me happy.

Afternoon lefty radio guy, who is always wrong about everything, says she's a '...crony hack.'

This puts me in a difficult position.

"They can't argue over her principles, because she's never demonstrated that she has any."

Now he's calling Roberts a 'straight down the middle kinda guy.' But when Roberts was nominated, this same dude said he must be STOPPED!

Feh. Liberals.

Perv. :)

oh yeah, like you never called me that before.

I don't know about the rest of you, but positive statements from Harry Reid and Charles Schumer about a Bush SCOTUS nominee make me feel like I woke up in some strange alternate universe this morning.

"Is there any dispute to the idea that she is:

pro-life
orginalist
a supporter of the GWOT?
and...."

Yes. Yes there are disputes. We don't know jack about here except the President really, really likes her.

So, is the President any of those things you said? Well, he's the third. Maybe, just maybe he's the first but you can't point to much in his administration that proves it. he's definitely not the second.

Look, impetus for originalists on the Court is not coming from the Administration. It's coming largely fron conservatives outside the White House who have in their hands an unambiguous promise that Bush would nominate people like Scalia and Thomas.

This cost him big-time.

"And JFH, who is saying they won't vote for whomever in '06? I didn't see anyone say that but I might have missed it"

Wes S.:
"Bottom line: unless this Harriet Miers (who?) turns out to be Scalia in a skirt, the Republicans can kiss control of Congress goodbye."

Not saying that he won't, but assuming others won't.

And that could be correct - but I somehow doubt this is going to appear near the top of the list of reasons why the GOP loses congress, if they do.

Which I'm going to go out on a limb and say, they won't, not next year at least.

We, as soldiers must fight when, where, and how we are commanded - and fight to win, even if it turns out the commander has chosen the wrong direction.

Shirley you didn't intend that to come out the way it did, right?

Posted by VRWC Agent at October 3, 2005 12:04 PM

Look, wrong or right, this is the President's choice to make. Not mine, your's or anyone else. I don't like the choice much, and it is certainly not who I would have advised him to pick, but what does that matter now? We can either choose to side with the Democrats to fight this pick (although for different reasons) and hope that GW is forced to put up someone more to our liking, or accept the pick and fight for her. One problem with the first way is that in doing so we may only succeed in weakening but not defeating the choice, and consequently embolden the Dems for the next fight. Not that I advise absolutely not to make that choice, but if we do choose to oppose, it better be an absolute and unambiguous decision.

Do I think Brown or Owens or Luttig (et al) would have been better - Yes. Will that sentiment change the reality of the situation right now - not in the slightest. Do I want more information about this woman so that I can make an educated decision as to whether or not to accept or oppose her - absolutely! And will my voicing displeasure over this pick influence the President regarding his next pick (should he get one) - or even to withdraw and replace this one - I certainly hope so. But wishing things were otherwise right now is fruitless. Hell, I wish Bush would fight harder and speak up more for Conservative principles. I wish he would work harder to keep the Congressional Republicans in line and curb federal spending. I wish he would be even tougher in Iraq and on the GWOT. But as my good ol' dad is fond of saying "Wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up first!"

We can grouse about this pick all we want, but in my opinion, on the verge of the total fracturing of the Liberal Democratic party, the last thing we as Conservatives want to do is divide ourselves and hand the next election to the liberals.

And that could be correct - but I somehow doubt this is going to appear near the top of the list of reasons why the GOP loses congress, if they do.

We can grouse about this pick all we want, but in my opinion, on the verge of the total fracturing of the Liberal Democratic party, the last thing we as Conservatives want to do is divide ourselves and hand the next election to the liberals.

All well and good, but I was questioning the whole deal where we take marching orders from the C in C, fighting "where, when and how we are commanded." I'm with you on the unity thing, but as a private citizen I'm not going to start taking political orders from politicians. To my mind, the deal works the other way around.

That was me, Steve.

One other general observation: We will be coming up on an off-year lame duck election. The party in power is supposed to lose seats. Let's not set ourselves up for some kind of mass trauma, freighted with all sorts of hysteria, if the usual pattern happens to repeat itself.

Side note: SMU is a damn fine law school, and the law school rankings are vastly overrated. I understand the point, but I for one like the idea of the Ivy League club getting ruffled up a bit.

I would pretty much agree with Phinn on the attorneys at Locke Liddell. Good firm, but not sure how much that type of practice sets you up for USSC type issues. But then again, there have been some darn good justices with less experience.

I don't know what's put the bug up Midge's erse, but judging from the cocksureness of her/his/it/their remarks, she/he/it/they is/are the country's foremost expert(s) on the differences between state and federal courts (with an emphasis on the shortcomings of Texas courts), appellate practice, jurisprudence, statutory interpretation, law school rankings, judicial temperament, the history of the Supreme Court, the role of White House counsel, etc., et ferkin cetera. I can only guess that "Midge" is a pseud for Robert Bork or some other underappreciated legal light(s).

"on the verge of the total fracturing of the Liberal Democratic party, the last thing we as Conservatives want to do is divide ourselves and hand the next election to the liberals."

So true, we did this before after Read-My-Lips and we paid the price with 8 years of Clinton.

Tob

Toby: 'We' didn't do it. Bush did it. And another Bush did it again.

"A lot of 2002 turned on the judge issue. Bush can't use it again after this."

Well that's a bit hasty, don't you think? Let her make a few Souteresque fumbles before we write off the issue entirely ...

All y'all Chicken Littles may well be right on this, but UNLAAAAAX for a while. First the confirmations, then you get the power, then you get the women. Which is to say, only time will tell on her.

brak: Oh, come now. The favorite 'heavyweight' conservative candidates went to Texas (Jones), UVa (Luttig), and UCLA (Brown).

SMU isn't the same.

Knemon: Well, that's the problem. In fact, the next yr or so won't tell. Kennedy voted pretty consistently with Scalia his first few years. He's still a disaster now.

"Time will tell..."

"We don't know..."

"She could be..."

"Let's wait and see..."

These are the platitudes of LOSERS.

"Toby: 'We' didn't do it. Bush did it. And another Bush did it again."

Of course, that's one way to look at it but the result was the same.

The real victim if this goes bad could be Jeb. If GW can get all the way through two terms without the stigma that attached to his fafher, I would consider Jeb as President even though I'm repulsed by the idea of dynasties, John Adams notwithstanding.

Tob

"These are the platitudes of LOSERS."

NO, no no non non o NO.

"Chimpy! Stabbed in the back! I'm stayin' home next year! All or nothing! My way or the highway! Souter!! SOOOOOOUTER!"

Sounds more like loser-talk to me.

"Toby: 'We' didn't do it. Bush did it. And another Bush did it again."

No. "You" did indeed do it. "You" soured on Bush 41, sulked and stayed home or voted for Perot. And if "you" do it again three years from now, we'll all be saying "Madame President."

To the people taking offense, I have no problem with SMU (which is a fine school for persons who intend to practice in the Texas area) nor with people who have state litigation experience. But neither of these things in themselves suggest that a person is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court.

The problem is, those things are about all Miers has in terms of qualifications, excluding her brief tenure as counsel for the White House (which, as I wrote earlier, doesn't mean much). She has no federal litigation experience, no published works, no appellate-level federal courtships...nothing. And as a result, the known aspects of her record receive more scrutiny. And those aspects don't compare with the known academic and legal records of dozens of other potential nominees, nor that of any current Supreme Court Justices.

Well those are all state schools, which is interesting. SMU isn't St. Mary's which is an actual bottom tier school and the alma mater of John Cornyn, whom some people suggested for a nod. It's just kind of interesting to see law school elitism on this scale. I think when you are that point in your career, it just shouldn't matter as much.

Toby: 'We' didn't do it. Bush did it. And another Bush did it again.

Thank you!

It's certainly not the conservatives' fault for holding a liar responsible for his actions. That's one major difference between Republicans and Democrats; we don't expect our politicians to be scumbags and we get pretty cheesed off at them when they are.

Miers may be great. And she may not. Once again, it's the fact that we don't know which is the problem. This was a lame choice by Bush and, speaking for myself, when the Dems say "Crony" I have to say "You're a thousand percent right..." and I don't care to tell the Democrats they're right about ANYTHING. It's like breaking one of the Seven Seals or something.

Later,
bbeck

They are the platitudes of LOSERS because WINNERS don't scrabble around for maybes and could-bes and let's-wait-and-sees, poking and peering into emenations and penumbras of half-baked second-guessery to find some nugget of comfort. WINNERS strike boldly and decisively. WINNERS don't poll the LOSERS for their input.

This is the horseshit appointment of the DECADE.

"It's certainly not the conservatives' fault for holding a liar responsible for his actions."

No, it will be "the" conservatives' (cuz of course y'all have a lock on that label) fault if they sit out an election, thereby throwing it to Hillary.

It's "the" conservatives' fault if they start slinging around KOS-speak ("holding a liar responsible").

Wait at least until the hearings, for pete's sake! Yer actin' like Ralph Neas.

" WINNERS strike boldly and decisively. WINNERS don't poll the LOSERS for their input."

WINNERS vote for Perot ... ? I'm confused.

Yes, your confusion is obvious.

So's your hysterical rage.

/makin' enemies

This was a lame choice by Bush and, speaking for myself, when the Dems say "Crony" I have to say "You're a thousand percent right..." and I don't care to tell the Democrats they're right about ANYTHING. It's like breaking one of the Seven Seals or something.

When I'm elected President, I intend to nominate Ace for Supreme Court Justice. So, you just better damn well get use to it, missy.

it's the fact that we don't know which is the problem

Why? If she becomes the female version of A. Scalia what exactly is your (in the generic sense, not picking on you bbeck)
beef? Do you think its possible George Bush knows something you don't? I think its possible.

I've got a basis for being angry. GWB promised SCOTUS nominees in the "mold of Scalia and Thomas". He gave us, instead, two legal Magic 8 Balls.

What have you got? "We don't know how it will turn out, why flip out now?" Gosh, what a Pollyanna fortune-cookie attitude. Now is precisely the time to flip out, before we end up with 20 years worth of decisions from one who's bona-fides are questionable.

In my estimation, if you're going to look for somebody in the "mold of Scalia and Thomas", that means "Michael Luttig" and nobody else. I don't give one damn about the chromosomal makeup of any nominee.

If Bush is worried about not having enough Senate suport--well, golly gee, maybe if he'd backed the better Republican candidates instead of limp-wristed RINOs like Spectre.

No, it will be "the" conservatives' (cuz of course y'all have a lock on that label) fault if they sit out an election, thereby throwing it to Hillary

Gee whiz, if that happens, do you think we could get our conservative leaders to grow a collective spine? If so, then it would be well WELL worth it.

It's "the" conservatives' fault if they start slinging around KOS-speak ("holding a liar responsible").

Sorry, Knemon, liberals don't have a lock on accusing liars, they just have a lock on accusing the wrong people for being liars.

Wait at least until the hearings, for pete's sake! Yer actin' like Ralph Neas.

The point of my objection is hovering about 3 feet over your head. The fact that we NEED TO WAIT to know what kind of justice Miers will be is...the...problem. So you can kindly sharpen that Ralph Neas comment, place it on your chair, and have a seat.

Later,
bbeck

"In my estimation, if you're going to look for somebody in the "mold of Scalia and Thomas", that means "Michael Luttig" and nobody else."

Oh. Okay. No, that's not unreasonable at all. "If it's not my one guy (granted, I'd probably agree with you on him as a first choice), I'll throw a tantrum." I'm convinced.

All this sniping back and forth is counterproductive. I'm sorry for trivializing your angry reaction - it was my first reaction too.

I'm going for a "wait and see" because what else can I do? (I mean, besides being an engaged citizen, contacting my senators - whose names, fyi, are Boxer and Feinstein, so good luck for me there).

"The point of my objection is hovering about 3 feet over your head. The fact that we NEED TO WAIT to know what kind of justice Miers will be is...the...problem. So you can kindly sharpen that Ralph Neas comment, place it on your chair, and have a seat. "

See, this is what I like. The back and forth, the give and take, always with the reference to the penetrating of the anus. Sort of the whole Ace of Spades vibe in a nutshell.

I know that having to wait is a problem. I'm less than whelmed, too. But I'm seeing alarming levels of "take my ball and go home"ism and that's not okay.

If your fears come true, that's an arguable reason for a "tmb+gh" position. Maybe. (I still think it's dumb). But if having to wait and see (which I agree IS ... THE ... PROBLEM) is by itself a dealbreaker for you ... and if the rest of the base feels the same ... them we're all screwed. Rudy not least.

Nothing stops you from writing other Senators, BTW.

It's more than not getting my one guy. I'd be satisfied with 2nd or 3rd down the line. Miers is way down at the bottom. Hell, before today I knew nothing about her. She's so off the reservation she's sending smoke signals back. It's not like we've got an close-but-not-quite. We've got nothing.

I'm supposed to trust Bush on this? Why? He sucked at Medicare drug benefits, the education bill, vetoing profligate spending and immigration. This is a top-priority issue.

Why? If she becomes the female version of A. Scalia what exactly is your (in the generic sense, not picking on you bbeck)
beef?

The BEEF is the IF, Brew. What IF she DOESN'T? Why, by THEN it will be TOO LATE to do anything about it.

Do you think its possible George Bush knows something you don't? I think its possible.

Yeah, the whole "having faith" thing is all well and good, but I tend to balk at it when it's not necessary, as we have a Republican majority (one we'll lose if we keep acting like pu$$ies). Bush shouldn't have picked a SECOND unknown quantity. It was just plain dumb and showed some real back scratching. When my President picks a SCOTUS nominee, I want to be able to say, "That took guts, good for him," not "That took friendship, why how SWEET."

Later,
bbeck

No, I see what you guys are saying. And just the process of trying to defend or minimize it is actually rapidly drawing me, in my heart of hearts, towards your position.

I'm just saying - if this is what keeps you guys home next year, or three years from now, thereby delivering Democratic Congress a/o WH, all your purity and righteous ire won't unscrew the country. And LOSER RINOs like me will be all "Wha happa?" And Rudy won't get to Save The World.

See, this is what I like. The back and forth, the give and take, always with the reference to the penetrating of the anus. Sort of the whole Ace of Spades vibe in a nutshell.

Hey, you started the anal references by bringing up Neas, who is a sphincter personified, so stop complaining.

I know that having to wait is a problem. I'm less than whelmed, too. But I'm seeing alarming levels of "take my ball and go home"ism and that's not okay.

That's because you're not getting it! No one is saying that it's NOW time to QUIT. Some ARE saying that they're not supporting Bush anymore...but so what? What's Bush going to run for next time? Not a dang thing...but I'm sure not going to defend this pick because it can't be defended, and it sure weakens my arguments about how bush doesn't bow to cronyism in appointment matters.

If your fears come true, that's an arguable reason for a "tmb+gh" position. Maybe. (I still think it's dumb). But if having to wait and see (which I agree IS ... THE ... PROBLEM) is by itself a dealbreaker for you ... and if the rest of the base feels the same ... them we're all screwed. Rudy not least.

If if and if. As I said, IF these unknowns turn out NOT to be the justices we were promised, THEN expect Rudy and the Republican Congress to be screwed. IF Bush is proven to be right, then we can relax...

...and THERE is the problem. This Miers appointment has a lot riding on it...like putting Hillary in the White House. None of us wants to see that, but I daresay it WILL happen IF Miers isn't what was promised. Are you willing to place that much faith in Bush, that he picked the right person despite the fact that we just don't know? I am not. I am not willing to gamble on anything that would put Hillary in the White House.

Later,
bbeck

Bush definitely is heinous with the cronyism. Just like his predecessors. Politicians, especially the sociopaths able to gain and hold the White House, are by nature and training untrustworthy jerks.

"Are you willing to place that much faith in Bush, that he picked the right person despite the fact that we just don't know?"

No, I'm uncertain, worried, trying to sift the tea leaves of her resume, alarmed by things like the law review note Ace is currently posting on ...

... but I don't see where all of this gets us. If we want to flood the Rep. committeemembers with e-mail and phone calls, fine. If we want to yell at each other and have a whip-it-out ideological purity contest, not fine.

The end, by me.

P.S. O'Connor has been, on balance, a good Justice. (ducks)

I'm just saying - if this is what keeps you guys home next year, or three years from now, thereby delivering Democratic Congress a/o WH, all your purity and righteous ire won't unscrew the country. And LOSER RINOs like me will be all "Wha happa?" And Rudy won't get to Save The World.

Well shoot, Knemon, there does come a time when some people ARE going to get tired of being taken for granted. The lesser of two evils often isn't enough to get people out the door to vote.

Righteous ire, yuk yuk. Life IS easier when you don't have principles.

Later,
bbeck

"Life IS easier when you don't have principles."

Hey now. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no crime. Isn't that how the quote goes? (Yes, yes, I know.)

... but I don't see where all of this gets us. If we want to flood the Rep. committeemembers with e-mail and phone calls, fine. If we want to yell at each other and have a whip-it-out ideological purity contest, not fine.

Well, you're just NO fun.

But it's all good, Knemon. :)

Later,
bbeck

Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no crime. Isn't that how the quote goes? (Yes, yes, I know.)

HEH, I prefer this quote...

"If you can't do something smart, do something right." -- Jayne Cobb, from the movie Serenity

Later,
bbeck

Yes. As long as we can come together when it's necessary (elections, and the run-ups thereto), all this intramural sniping is probably a good thing. Keeps us in shape for the Main Event ...

... not literally, obviously, as my spending more and more time "here" with you people has correlated directly with the disappearance of my toes from view. But what's a little morbid obesity between friends?

I just had a thought. And that doesn't happen often, so bear with me:

Wouldn't a nonentity, who knows herself to be a nonentity, be less likely to get grandiose ideas about being society's "moral antennae" or whatever the hell Douglas and Brennan thought they were doing?

And another thought: has anyone seen Bork interviewed lately? Maybe they've used that South Korean head transplant technology to somehow replace Miers' brain with Bork's ... it could happen.

My own twist on that one:

if you don't think too good, don't think too much

But what's a little morbid obesity between friends?

When it's literally between them, it tends to get a little sweaty.

Later,
bbeck

I set em up, you knock em down.

The 6:30 show is completely new material.

Life IS easier when you don't have principles.

Once people give on that quaint notion of integrity ALL THING BECOME POSSIBLE.

Wouldn't a nonentity, who knows herself to be a nonentity, be less likely to get grandiose ideas about being society's "moral antennae" or whatever the hell Douglas and Brennan thought they were doing?

Eh, it would depend on the person. A nonentity with sudden power may not know how to deal with it. I feel that way every time I get in my husband's Jeep.

And another thought: has anyone seen Bork interviewed lately? Maybe they've used that South Korean head transplant technology to somehow replace Miers' brain with Bork's ... it could happen.

I WISH.

Ya know, if he wanted me laughing my azz off, the REAL nomination Bush coulda made is Ken Starr. Talk about stickin' it to the Crats!

Later,
bbeck

I set em up, you knock em down.

The 6:30 show is completely new material.

This thread is more fun than the other SCOTUS thread.

Later,
bbeck

Starr ... can you imagine the confirmation hearings? They'd have to install a spit shield.

PS Sandra Day O'Connor ROOOOOOOLZ

(scampering off, giggling like eight schoolgirls)

"This thread is more fun than the other SCOTUS thread."

Well, sure - cause we're on it. It's our world, Ace and the rest are just living in it.

PS KNEMON + SOUTER IN LUUUUUUV 4 EVER

PS KNEMON + SOUTER IN LUUUUUUV 4 EVER

I don't blame you. Souter's got that sort of hawt smoldering geekiness about him, it makes you want to throw him on the dungeon map and scratch his back with a 4-sided die.

Not that I've ever done that.

Later,
bbeck

About that Rx drug boondoggle, etc.: I seem to remember Bush campaigning that he would do that stuff. And he did it. (If ever I had backed writing off election year promises ...) I remember everyone was surprised, too, that he actually did what he said he would do. We may have felt betrayed by the big spending, but Bush was pretty clear he leaned that way even in '99.

Bush promised something out of the Scalia/Thomas mold. The whole "trust me" approach doesn't appeal to me any more than bbeck, but I've had the day to cool off a bit and I think I'll resist punching back until I know I've been hit. It's even possible that we are looking at 2 real winners.

Right now I'm guessing there are all kinds of research going on to figure out who this woman is. Let's at least see what they turn up.

"Bush shouldn't have picked a SECOND unknown quantity"

bbeck,

She's unknown to *you*, not to him. Get it? As far as I know he doesn't *know* Janice Brown or any of these other folks. So which represents the greatest risk of getting the wrong person appointed. Picking the one he knows or the one he doesn't know? You think Souter is the only appointee who has 'gone south'?

"it makes you want to throw him on the dungeon map and scratch his back with a 4-sided die."

Heh.

Just last week I took a trip down nostalgia lane. I went to the local (Berkeley - so picture the typical geekiness and hormone stench and then add patchouli) Gaming Emporium to purchase the manual for "Call of Cthulhu" (always my favorite).

Coincidentally, my wife was walking down the street, saw me inside and came in the store. Heads turned, eyes swiveled, and I quickly realized she may well have been the first (non-employee) woman to cross that threshold in many a month.

As we left, I thought what living in Berkeley makes me think, oh, every four seconds or so: "There but for the grace ..."

Anyway. Where were we? Oh yeah. BUSH IS A TRAITOR!!!!! SHUT UP BUSH ROOLZ OK

She's unknown to *you*, not to him. Get it?

No, shut up, really? HE knows her? Why cut off my legs and call me short, THANK YOU so much for telling me that, I never woulda knowed.

Seriously: uh, yeah, I Get It.

As far as I know he doesn't *know* Janice Brown or any of these other folks. So which represents the greatest risk of getting the wrong person appointed. Picking the one he knows or the one he doesn't know?

That question rests upon the assumption that you are going to place faith in Bush's judgment here. I'm not going to do that.

You think Souter is the only appointee who has 'gone south'?

No, but that's irrelevant to what I've been saying this whole time.

Later,
bbeck

James Dobson (wingnut extraordinaire that he is) was just on Brit Hume's show and he says Miers is a good pick.

If that isn't conservative endorsement, I don't know what is. Same for Jay Sekulow. So WTF are conservatives all up in arms about? Has anyone actually determined that she is a Souter? (Answer: no.)

What makes me sick is the people who are talking about "I give up on Bush/RNC/GOP." I seriously DOUBT a Dummocrat would give them the appointments they'd want. It's one thing to be ambivalent, but quite another to abandon the President and the GOP (eating your own).

And just because know-nothings on the left blogosphere are saying "that's Kool" doesn't mean she's a Souter or O'Connor--it just means 1) they hear a bunch of armchair experts on the right going apoplectic, and read that as good news, and 2) they don't know what they're talking about, either.

Days like this make me totally fuckin' hate the blogosphere.

Word.

This argument--"where else are you going to go?"--needs to be smothered in the crib. Conservatives are not going to go elsewhere--they'll go nowhere: not to the voting booth, not to the Post Office with a check for political causes, not anywhere other than Little League games and home-school.

They can even get over (or around) ruinous economic policies. They, for the most part they got theirs. Conservatives can and will go insular and vanish. Until they get another Reagen to show up for, and in the meantime we get how many years of dipshit politics?

What Beth said.

That question rests upon the assumption that you are going to place faith in Bush's judgment here. I'm not going to do that.

Ok. Fair enough. I do trust him, so I'm cautiously optimistic.

Hey, I've got a question. How come our side never errs to the right of me? Except maybe on trivial social issues like porn? It's not because I'm way over here on the extreme right all by myself.

Seriously, how come the entire Republican party is to the left of its own base, whereas the Democratic party is moving ever leftwarder to kiss up to its base? If the country is divided 50/50, how come nobody is dashing to the right?

I'm just asking.

" how come the entire Republican party is to the left of its own base"

Santorum? Kyl? Brownback?

But I see what you're saying.

**

"This argument--"where else are you going to go?"--needs to be smothered in the crib."

No, these childish threats need to be smothered.

bbeck: Starr was known as a bit of a squishy moderate on the DC Circuit.

If that isn't conservative endorsement, I don't know what is.

I find religious moonbat endorsments strangely uncompelling.

Rather than endorsments, I look to apoplectic adverse reactions from the democrats as the true barometer of acceptability.

I'm going to stick by my "twitching decapitated possum" metric.

A twitching foaming at the mouth Schumer being dragged off the floor of the senate in a straight jacket is the surest sign of acceptability. Anything less is cause for suspicion.

What Beth said.

Heh, what RHO said. I don't think it's fine and dandy to f*** conservatives over because their choices are limited. I'm not in the habit of eating $hit just because the other plates offered have double helpings. But that's me.

Ok. Fair enough. I do trust him, so I'm cautiously optimistic.

The sticking point is that we shouldn't have had to trust him...again. We're on top and acting apologetic for being there.

Later,
bbeck

The "Shock Corridor" theory of politcs, huh? I can dig it.

Someone, I was just joking about Starr. You gotta admit, the Democrats would have gone bananas.

Later,
bbeck

Hey, the dems are in the minority - we should poke sticks like Starr at them. The entertainment value would be enormous.

I like politics as entertainment.

Santorum? Kyl? Brownback?

I don't know enough detail on any of those guys to know if they're to the right of me (or the Republican base), Knemon. But the only one I can think of that I know ever out-extremes me from time to time (libertarianish) is Bob Barr. And that mostly because he's anti WoT.

Santorum actually wavers a little bit now and then.

Kyl and Brownback are kinda out there, though.

You know what we should do? Scrap the Presidency, pick a far-right nutty Senator and an equally far-left nutty Senator, and have them as Consuls.

Except, and here's the tricky part, we don't implement the policies they can agree on, although we tell them that's what we're going to do. No, we hear what they tell us - then do the opposite. Cuz generally the left and the right can only agree on harmful a/o idiotic things.

But sadly, the world will not heed my brilliance.

Actually, I believe I've heard that Starr was the one passed over for Souter.

But people seem to say now that it was Jones.

Jones! Even mentioning her name makes me sick about this travesty.

All y'all sounding JUST like Sullivan. This has been pointed out before. Not makin no claims to perspicacity. But ... heart-ache. From conservatives. Does not compute.

Seriously, how come the entire Republican party is to the left of its own base, whereas the Democratic party is moving ever leftwarder to kiss up to its base?

Because the GOP is raiding the middle while the Dems have to court moonbats for money. That's sort of what we're talking about with the chatter about destroying the Dem party. Not great news for conservatives in the short run; worse for the moonbats. In the long run, we'll see if conservatives can recapture the party after destroying the other team's political organization.

Go ahead pinheads, infight to the point of squandered opportunity. Meanwhile, Hilary the seahag seizes the center and carries the '08 election as we're outside looking in, snotty noseprints and all. Demanding 100% of your own personal agenda be realized or else you throw a tantrum then tune out is where the dims are and until recently I thought we were smart enough to capitalize. Seems we'd rather resuscitate them and blow ourselves up. SHEESH. (now look, you made me use strong language)

Interesting since he never made the comparison [between corporate and appellate lawyers].

Wrong. I did. Read it again if you have to.

He made some disparaging remarks against the women's [sic] law firm and commercial litagators.

Wrong. They are experts at what they do. They deserve their top-tier salaries. But it takes a certain kind of person to do it, particularly when we consider someone who, by all accounts, did it well for many years.

If you had read carefully, you would see that I was saying that the skills, talents and intellectual strengths that benefit corporate litigators are not the same as those that benefit appellate lawyers.

He went on to say that Roberts "was an appellate lawyer at the highest level of the profession. Appeals are about ideas."

The only correct thing you said. Since you were quoting me, though, you get no credit.

Which indicates to me that Phinn has never practiced appellate law.

Wrong. It's been about one-third of my practice.

doc,

where were you when I was getting my rhetorical hiney kicked about a hundred posts back?

oh, right. probably at work or something. never mind.

Doc, nevermind 100%, how about 50% of my agenda?
The Reeps control the government. The Reeps control the government. It's time we start acting like the party in control and not the party on the defensive.
Chimpy Von Smirky could have nominated Michael fecking Savage if he wanted to!

Go ahead pinheads, infight to the point of squandered opportunity. Meanwhile, Hilary the seahag seizes the center and carries the '08 election as we're outside looking in, snotty noseprints and all. Demanding 100% of your own personal agenda be realized or else you throw a tantrum then tune out is where the dims are and until recently I thought we were smart enough to capitalize. Seems we'd rather resuscitate them and blow ourselves up. SHEESH. (now look, you made me use strong language)

Oh barf. Do you think that yelling out the Bogeywoman's name is going to whip us back into place? HEY, if you're so worried about Hillary, here's a thought; don't support actions from our elected officials that pi$$ off the base. It's not the BASE'S fault that the Republicans are screwing up, and the answer is NOT to keep voting for them just because the alternative is worse.

If you keep voting these Republican jellyfish in office, they won't learn nothin'. Well, they'll learn that their supporters are jellyfish, too, and I'm not that malleable.

Later,
bbeck

"...the answer is NOT to keep voting for them just because the alternative is worse."

Great idea, bbeck. That's exactly how to bring us another 8 years of Clinton.

Great idea, bbeck. That's exactly how to bring us another 8 years of Clinton.

Why thank you, but I'M not the problem. If you want to take a gander at the real problem, look in the mirror...provided you can see it when on your knees.

Later,
bbeck

"Why thank you, but I'M not the problem."

Yes, you are.

Look at it this way: who's a bigger obstacle to the Democrats getting elected - the DLC, or Kos?

You guys sound like infants. And not in a cute way.

(I don't mean that you personally are the problem, of course - just the collective you that thinks this is a game).

"HEY, if you're so worried about Hillary, here's a thought; don't support actions from our elected officials that pi$$ off the base. "

HEY, here's some oddness - isn't "the base" the group of people who went batshit crazy over the first Clinton administration? Why are RINOs like me suddenly more concerned about preventing a second?

Knemon, you're missing the point. The Republican base has become increasingly dissatisfied with the President for a variety of reasons, not least of which are out-of-control federal spending and a complete unwillingness to secure our borders and enforce immigration laws. The Administration even seems to be "going wobbly" on the War on Terror; they've been silent on Iran's selection of a former hostage-taking terrorist as its new President, done little to address Iran's pursuit of WMD other than "view with alarm," and pressured Israel into offering all sorts of concessions to the lunatic Palestinians in return for "peace" accords that aren't worth the paper they're written on. The President won't even stand up for himself and directly confront the hatemongering, seditious Democrats that have done nothing for the past four years but launch vicious personal attacks against him.

The one reason that the base has left to support the President - and which played a major part in his re-election - was the issue of judicial nominations. Bush told us that he would appoint judges to the federal bench and Supreme Court who were committed to federalism and who would refrain from legislating from the bench. And we took him at his word, given the quality of his appointees to the appellate courts (e.g. Janice Rogers Brown.) And what has the base gotten for Supreme Court nominations? We were promised judges in the mold of a Scalia or a Thomas; what we got, as Rho put it above, were a couple of "Magic 8-Balls." By all appearances, Ms. Miers (and perhaps Roberts, too) look to be more mushy moderates, like Souter or Kennedy, who will perpetuate the Supreme Court's leftward slide, and give us even more abominable, liberty-killing decisions like Kelo.

This is what I was alluding to in my prior post (and sorry, I didn't have time to expand on my remarks; I was trying to get around for work). The Administration has broken virtually every other promise it made to conservatives, and launched the biggest expansion of the welfare state since Lyndon Baines Johnson in the bargain. The one issue the base had left was the judge issue, and for whatever reason that the President has gone the "stealth nominee" route, his assurances about appointing conservatives to the Supreme Court now look about as believable as "The check is in the mail." Yes, if conservatives stay home in the elections next year, the Democrats may regain control of at least one chamber of Congress. And it will be harder for the President to enact his agenda for the country. The point remains: if the President isn't going to live up to the promises he's made to the base of his party, or even uphold the principles of his party (less federal spending, secure borders, judicial restraint), then why should the base continue to support him? You might as well have a Democrat running things; they certainly seem to have the President on the run right now...

OK, the Fred Barnes piece makes me feel a bit better about this nomination. It rings true and I note, yet again, that Bush hasn't shown himself to be the type to break his pledges.

An obvious but neglected point about the stakes, too: We are not looking at a conservative SCOTUS regardless of whom Bush picks. At the moment, the Court is only as conservative as Kennedy and O'Connor are feeling on a given day. When O'Connor goes, the Court still can't possibly be more conservative than Kennedy. That doesn't move the ball very far at all.

We'll be stuck with Kennedy, Souter and Bryer for a long time. If Stevens expires or the Devil shows up to take Ginsburg back to hell, THEN we'll be talking about some decent changes. But not until.

Of course it's important that Bush put conservative jurists on the bench. But if the best case still has us waiting for the next nomination, we're going to need a conservative Republican administration when the vacancy opens and we'll be completely screwed if a Dem is in the White House.

Just something to think over while some of you are collecting your footballs and walking off the field.

Another good analysis of the nomination, imho.

"You might as well have a Democrat running things;"

Depends. Beredsen? Maybe. Hillary? I still don't see it.