BUCK FUSH.

"Third rate."

Olasky's interviews in her favor say she's a Bible based Christian (and so therefore must be an originalist) and that she drafted contracts (so she appreciates the plain meaning of words). Swell. For my money, she's being damned by faint praise.

Sorry, George. You just lost me.
I have been pretty pissed that the GOP has taken a pass on stopping illegals from flooding into the country. I have been pretty pissed that the Repub congress is spending $$$ like mad.

This is the tipping point. All the qualified jurists out there and we get this vastly underqualified political crony all in hope of avoiding a filibuster fight that you should fight and WIN. Good luck with getting any money or volunteer time out of me again. I hope the GOP nominee in 2008 has a spine.

I love Log Cabin. Too bad I'm a chick. :)

Later,
bbeck

Bush has failed. Big.

The media and Dems will take credit, but it was his own doing. Today.

She's Gonzales in drag.
A close buddy of W, without the support of the base or any record worth defending.
No clear view of her judical philosophy, we just have to trust W to keep to his word to appoint conservatives.
And considering how Bush considers himself a conservative, and spends (and expands the Federal government!) worse than Clinton, I don't think Bush knows what conservatives stand for.
And after McCain-Feingold, Bush's word isn't with squat to begin with.

Remember how pissed Ann Coulter got at the Robert's nomination? This weeks column will probably curl hairs!

As a New Yorker, I'm virtually alone as I try to defend being a Republican. Our party spends like sailors, they back away from fights when they're in the majority, while I sit here in one of the most liberal cities in the country fighting, albeit only at a personal level. LIberals will laugh this one up, for they've won this fight, and I have nothing left to defend or argue for.

As a conservative Republican, I have been abandoned by this administration. With this last punk-out, with Bush more concerned with his legacy and/or cronyism than with Republican principles, being the last straw. He has turned his back on ideals in favor of inflating his own ego.

If the GOP is going to even pretend to care about Republican principles, I'm not going to defend them anymore, and I'm certainly not going to give them my money or time.

If the leadership isn't willing to fight for principles, than this footsoldier is leaving the army. I'm not joining the other side, but I'm just not going to fight anymore.

I should add: I actually agree with Allah's all-out pessimism for once.

This is the end of the Bush presidency. And it leaves a bad taste in the mouth as to everything else he ever did.

This choice leaves me awesomely unimpressed, or overwhelmingly underwhelmed. One of those oxymoronic feelings nobody should ever have to experience. Given the alternatives out there, I really can't justify this choice.

Remember back during the election, when the moonbats were flipping out about the lump under Bush's jacket? They said it was Rove's radio mind-control device, and the conservatives said it was Bush's spine. Has anybody seen that thing recently?

Allah's all-out pessimism

Groan.

Maybe she's a sacrificial lamb? Throw her out there, let 'em get winded, and then propose the real candidate?

I don't agree. I think this is an example of Bush playing chess while the Dems play checkers. I think, after the show of amity (sorta) for Roberts, the Dems will go after the next nominee with knives drawn no matter who/what. This woman is the sacrificial lamb to draw their fire while he lines up (pleasepleaseplease) Janice Brown. There is no way the Dems are going to slam two women in a row. And besides that, I like Hewitt's idea that it's good to have a GWOT savvy person on the court, to temper the exuberance of people who want to release all the Abu Ghraib pictures for no reason other than a "right to know."

Geoff, stop reading my brain waves.

Allah's all-out pessimism

It's only fair to note that there's an upside to Miers' nomination. She's pretty freakin' old for a SCOTUS nominee, so she probably won't be on the bench long enough to give Bush much of a court legacy one way or the other.

Hey, when Bush hands you lemons, make some really bitter lemonade...

There's no secret plan. Miers will be confirmed. If Bush wanted Brown or Jones -- or, for a non-judge, freakin' Estrada! -- he would have picked them from a position of strength (Roberts' humiliatingly simple confirmation) and not weakness.

Fact is, he cares more about personal loyalty than his campaign promise.

Reinquest got replaced with Reinquest II.

And it appears that O'Connor got her clone in now.

2 Judicial appointments up for grabs and absolutely NO CHANGE IN THE COURT!

Another 10 years of Lawrence, New Kelo, and other wackiness

I have been pretty pissed that the GOP has taken a pass on stopping illegals from flooding into the country. I have been pretty pissed that the Repub congress is spending $$$ like mad.

Just a reminder that 1. Reagan actually granted amnesty to illegal aliens 2. When compared to GNP, the deficit was greater under Reagan 3. Reagan nominated O'Connor 4. Reagan gave the terrorists a big win to start the ball rolling when he withdrew us from Lebannon as a result of the bombing.

Conservatives complain that the constitution gives Congress only the ability of 'advise and consent' to counter the Democrats filibusters but when these same conservatives don't like the President's choice they threaten to abandon the President. Your choice but it makes no sense to me.

How much of this 'demoralization' is simply becasue she doesn't have a nice resume as opposed to not knowing her 'originalism' bona fides?

What more did we know about Roberts? Why is this pick cause for such gnashing of teeth? I'm pissed, cause like Roberts, we have to take the prez' word on it - her pedigree (and, frankly, IQ) just ain't that meaningful.

You know, I've never been one of those "if I don't get everything I want I'll take my ball and go home" conservatives.

But criminy, can't we get anything?

The more I read about Miers and her qualifications, the more discouraged I get. Given the choice between encouraging a base he's spent the last few months pissing off (spending too much money, refusing to do more than recite applause lines on progress in Iraq, not pushing for needed entitlement reform, etc...) and giving a job to a friend, he chose the friend over those of us who helped him get re-elected.

It would just be nice, for once, if that famous "Bush loyalty" extended to his freaking supporters.

Allah's all-out pessimism

Groan.

heh. indeed.

One comment about the fact that "she was a Democrat until the 1980's":

Until the 1980's, Texas was not only a Democrat-controlled state, it was a ONE-PARTY Democratic state. The only way a conservative could serve in state government was to run as a Democrat. So don't read too much into that reported negative.

By the way, someone needs to do research on those "12 Democrats out of 15 politicians indicted by Ronny Earle" -- I am pretty certain that many, if not most, were conservatives, and many of those became Republicans when the party gained control.

Most coverage (http://www.l!a!t!imes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-earle29sep29,1,3124159.story) (remove the exlamation points) only mentions Democrats Jim Mattox (a blatant crook), and Bob Bullock (not a exactly a leftist maniac). Why has there not been an effort anywhere to mention the names of the other 10 "Democrats when that was the only choice" names??? Hmmmmm?

Earle is a conservative basher, not a Democrat basher.

Shoot. I feel like we all just got flipped off.

She may or may not be a conservative, but she certainly strikes me as a mediocrity.

How much of this 'demoralization' is simply becasue she doesn't have a nice resume as opposed to not knowing her 'originalism' bona fides?

Miers... hasn't.

I thought about the sacrificial lamb angle, but it doesn't make any sense. First, there is the "risk" that a "decoy candidate" might actually get confirmed. Second, such a strategy would embolden the Democrats, not appease them. Third, if say, Judge Brown were the intended confirmee then the best shot would probably be to present her first.

With as many conservatives jazzed up ready for a bloody fight to the death, Bush could have appointed and seen confirmed ANYBODY. And he could have seen the Democrats torn apart in the process.

An opportunity wasted.

[missed this for my comment on the other thread]

Heh.

This has the same frat-boy feel as Clinton's "stroke of the pen, law of the land" remark. It's like, "woohoo! Lookit! I can appoint my friends to the tippy top of government! And it's good for life. Sayyyyy...you want something named after you?"

Jeebus, Allah and Mary. Is this the whining corner?

Let's not go crazy, and lets dispense with the tin-foil that is part of lefty land. Bush is not going to put up a supreme court nominee to fail.

Meirs is a successful attorney who is an originalist. Her religion is instructive because I would tend to think it shows that she is not going to be easily swayed by Harvard speaking engagements. It also makes her a fetus saver, which is a plus for some people.

The more we learn today, the more solid she seems. I don't know why we did not get an Atlas Shrugged, Pro-life, Originalist like Brown, but maybe thats because we will never be able to get one of those unless we have 65 Senators.

Today, we cement two conservative seats on the Court. O'connor's insane swing vote will most likely disappear into a solid originalist vote. O'Connor essentially had no real judicial philosophy, but I think we get that here. And she won't "grow" as some people like to put it.

And finally, the Bush is not a conservative bashing. Please, the day before Katrina, we had 4.9% unemployment. We tax cutted and spent our way out of the Clinton recession. We have very strong economic growth. And our Federal Courts of Appeals are getting the good, solid Atlas Shrugged, Pro-life, Originalist judges like Brown and friends (this is big news too). We got our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have also been waging a very strong, covert shadow war (read that book) and he has not blinked in the face of casualties. Reagan may have left Lebanon and Clinton definately left Somlia, but Bush has swallowed nearly 2000 dead without even giving the left a "maybe I made a mistake moment." Calm down.

Meirs is a successful attorney who is an originalist.Like every succeeding assertion in this piece, there is absolutely zero evidence for this.

Indeed, there's more evidence that she's pro-ICC and socially liberal.

Whoops. Messed up the tags. Try again.

Meirs [sic] is a successful attorney who is an originalist.

Indeed, there's more evidence that she's pro-ICC and socially liberal.

WHAT A BUNCH OF CRY BABIES all of you are!!!!

Do any of you honestly believe that Bush would not know of his candidates views on the "hot button" issues???? Of course he does.

There are some things to be upset with (like spending) with this administration, but he has had QUITE A BIT to deal with, don't cha think????

All of this threatening to leave the GOP is just stupid. Do you want Democrats in charge?????? Do you want Hillary??? Because that is JUST what will happen if we don't stick together! WE must put aside our differences and defeat the She monster!

We divide at at our own peril.

Ace,

Did you get my e-mail?

RWS: I don't know about you, but I believe in a government of laws, not men.

Getting today's "hot button issues" correct not only says nothing about the issues of tomorrow, but is just as lawless if there's no underlying commitment to the words of Congress and the Constitution.

As for Hillary, that's exactly what Bush should have considered before pulling this crap.

I am going off of current drudge and Rush.

But I tell you what, if that report was solely written by her, supporting the ICC, I would take as a bad sign. She is one of 12 authors.

But, with all the swirl of reporting out there, she tends to sound originalist and more socially conservative than economically so. But she is nowhere near Kelo level of economics hater.

Double criminy.

I'm not talking about leaving the GOP, but I still question the wisdom of picking a loyalist over more obviously qualified candidates. Given Bush's inability to successfully communicate the progress in Iraq, his lack of spending discipline and his almost complete abandonment of entitlement reform, some of us are just tired of hearing "trust me" from the White House and getting nothing.

joe: My guess is she hasn't even thought about these issues of judicial philosophy, not in any detail. She's never been in a job where she's had to -- except *perhaps* the current one, which she's had less than a year.

The Supreme Court isn't the place to be figuring out what it all means. She is unqualified.

Someone,

Very bleak link indeed. And some are taking it that way.

But I have to say that every lawyer pretty much knows where they stand when it comes to jurisprudence preferences. How many of us had to listen to other students go on and on in ConLaw?

...some of us are just tired of hearing "trust me" from the White House and getting nothing.

What you said, Slublog.

Especially on SCOTUS nominees, where conservatives have heard the "trust me" line about people like Souter and O'Connor. Bush had an opportunity to shore up his base and discredit the Democrats by picking an intellectually serious conservative, and instead he picked Sandra O'Connor II. "Trust me," my dimply pink derriere.

I don't understand the conservative concern. Bush is a polarizing figure, and Miers has been intensely loyal to him. Do you know any moderates or liberals who are intensely loyal to Bush? She's watched her close friend vilified by the liberal media for 5 years. Do you think she'll be inclined to kowtow to this same media's pressure for her to move leftward once confirmed? If Clinton had nominated a long-time close friend, would you have any doubt that she was liberal?

They are friends, and Bush obviously asked her in detail what her judicial philosophy was during the vetting stage, if not previously in less formal settings. Do you think she'd lie to her lifetime friend? This isn't like Bush the Elder asking Justice Souter some general questions that Souter could dodge or claim ignorance on. I think the interviewing process betwen them was probably the most open and honest a president is ever going to have with a potential nominee, and Bush was satisfied.

I think she is a guaranteed strict constructionist and conservative, who will be confirmed without a serious confirmation fight. In a perfect world, once she's confirmed, Justice Stevens will announce his retirement. Bush will then nominate McConnell, plausibly claiming that he's already shown that he's not beholden to his base.

someone,

I believe in a govt of "just" laws. Ones that reflect the original meaning of our constitution. The decisions on the "hot button" issues VERY much affects the issues (not to mention the people) of tomorrow.

joeindc44 pointed out what there is to be grateful for. I am a glass half full kind of a girl. So I have to agree with joe.

Sorry RWS, but "Trust in Bush" doesn't cut it with me anymore. McCain-Feingold was my hot button issue, and Bush gave a solid promise veto it.

And he LIED OUT OF HIS ASS!

I'm judging Bush strictly on his actions. He's so-so on the WoT (hes at least willing to prosecute it, but at the same time he kisses up to the Jordanian refugees and the Saudis). He horribly overspends and expands the federal government reach. His lower court nominees have been pretty good, but for the SCOTUS he wusses out.

On the balance of action, Bush is a solid ,untrustworthy, disapointment.
And if I just wanted someone who talked like a conservative, I might as well vote for a Clinton.

joe: She graduated law school before Roe and its controversy, before Scalia and the exposition of textualism, before even Rehnquist; when majority opinions ranged from left to extreme left. This is a good time to form a philosophy?

Of course, that points to yet another problem: she's too old. (If Bush wanted a 60-yr-old woman, why not Batchelder!?) Though as utron notes, this could be a blessing...

"too old"
I was going to post that too, earlier in the day when I was more pessimistic.

I am still waiting for more information on her ICC stance. It was a committee report, so it may not be her brainchild. You would kinda hope that this was one of those issues that W asked her about. But then again, another vexing Bush Admin issue where they gave up.

As for her age, good points, I wonder what law school was like back when lawyers thought they were merely going to be making a lot of money, not changing the world.

ICC follow up: I found this:
the US "signed the ICC Statute at the last minute, primarily so that it could continue to take part in negotiations on the rules of procedure for the new court, in an attempt to obtain an exemption for U.S. nationals taking part in UN-sponsored peacekeeping missions—as several other countries were able to do."
from wikipedia, so maybe its not all bad.

If Clinton had nominated a long-time close friend, would you have any doubt that she was liberal?

The problem is that once confirmed, justices have a very bad habit of drifting leftward. I'm sure there are fine explanations for why this is, but the bottom line is that it happens. A lot. So if you want a reliable judicial conservative, stealth has proven to be an extremely risky option. I'll take no comfort in Bush feeling personally betrayed if this woman turns into O'Connor II or Kennedy II or even, God help us, Souter II. Bush is going with stealth and I am not pleased.

In a perfect world, once she's confirmed, Justice Stevens will announce his retirement.

He'll die in office. Guaranteed.

I agree with the other posters who are criticizing this "taking my football and going home" mentality, though. Things got this bad because the left moved incrementally. When they lost ground, they just made it up another day and kept pressing for whatever ground they could get at the time.

Surely we aren't too lazy, weak or petulant to do what even lefties have pulled off. Are we?

The problem is that we've become the left of 20+ years ago. And that bothers many of us. And saying "Yeah but the Democrats are worse" doesn't cut it anymore with me.
Give me a choice between being kicked in the head or kicked in the nuts, and Ill choose to punch you in the throat first instead.

My loyalty to the Republicans is not based on how bad the Democrats are, or over the fact that R is just a D with sexy legs, but on how much of their agenda I agree with and they put into practice. And recently they haven't done much I can agree with at all. So why should I give them any loyalty/cash/votes?

joe, check out my link in the "Big Boner" thread about Miers in law school.

"And if I just wanted someone who talked like a conservative, I might as well vote for a Clinton."

Go ahead. I'm sure you'll just *love* the results.

Again, I agree, this is a "meh"-to-"arrgh!" choice. But if this is the straw breaking some conservatives' backs - well, those backs may have other, structural issues. Just saying.

My loyalty to the Republicans is not based on how bad the Democrats are, or over the fact that R is just a D with sexy legs, but on how much of their agenda I agree with and they put into practice

That's great, but politics is messier than policy. In politics you get compromise and disappointment as part of the package. We aren't going to win everything we want every day and some days we aren't going to win anything at all. The way I look at it, win when you can; advance when you can't win; dig in if you can't advance and if you lose ground make it as little as possible.

I voted for Perot as a protest the first time around. After that debacle, I was soundly behind Dole even though he was, well, Dole. If I don't have a good choice, then I'm damn well backing the lesser evil because I REALLY hate the bigger evil.

I can accept losing a few rounds due to politics.
I don't accept or support a party that decides to become more like the democrats and give up on every issue I do support them on.

You point to Perot/'92/the Clinton years as an example of what happens when conservatives bail on their candiates for being too wishy-washy, I point to Bush as the exact opposite- what happens when we elect wishy-washy, bigspending, liberal err progessive err "compasionate conservatives". Bush gave us tax cuts and actual military policy. He gave Dems big money in the Hurricane reconstruciton, No Child Left Behind & Medicare. And he doesn't even fight for the courts, the one thing that actually motivated a good portion of his base to "suck it up".

I suspect '06 will be a blood bath more than ever, with the evangelicals sitting it out over the courts, the fiscal conservatives disgusted at spending, and the left still on the BUSHITLERBURTON warpath.

And the Republicans have brought it on themselves.

And he doesn't even fight for the courts, the one thing that actually motivated a good portion of his base to "suck it up".

Which of his past appointments has disappointed you?

He promised the big spending and did it. His tax policy was promised too. His military policy shifted, with the rest of the country, after 9/11 and he was reelected on it.

Bush is not a pure conservative and he has given lots of us fits because of that, but he tends to be faithful to his promises. This area is one of the conservative promises he made. I'm just sayin'.

If I don't have a good choice, then I'm damn well backing the lesser evil because I REALLY hate the bigger evil.

The lesser of two evils is... evil.

One more thing that makes me glad I can say I went 0-4 when given a chance to vote for a President named Bush.

makes me glad I can say I went 0-4 when given a chance to vote for a President named Bush.

With such a good track record of backing the losing side is there any chance we could get you to sign on with OBL's team?

The lesser of two evils is... evil.

And ... lesser. Quick: If you have to choose between the options, would you rather the razor catch you on the chin or across your carotid artery?

I must lack nuance or something.

"I point to Bush as the exact opposite- what happens when we elect wishy-washy, bigspending, liberal err progessive err "compasionate conservatives". "

And I point to what DOESN'T happen: we don't have a President Gore, or a President Kerry.

And if Beredsen or some equally implausible Democrat gets nominated, you'll be able to claim that there's not a dime's worth of difference next time around.

But if it's someone to the right of Arlen Specter (which it will be), against someone to the left of Bill Richardson (and it will be), you'll be talking 100% dog droppings.

Groan all you want, just pull the lever - or face the consequences. Madame President. Just practice saying it in the mirror a few times.

And what would Gore or Kerry have given us differently, particualrly with an opposing congress?
Higher Taxes & a longer recession
We'd still probably be in afghanistan, if not Iraq or someplace else.
Leftwing court? We've already got one and Bush doesn't seem to want to change that!
Most likely we wouldn't have Medicare or No Child.

Not neccesarily a bad trade off altogether, and maybe the Republicans would start developing a spine if they had real opposition

And what would Gore or Kerry have given us differently, particualrly with an opposing congress?

Do you think the Clinton years were indistinguishable from the Bush I Administration? Do you think Bush II is to the left of Bush I? Hard to see where you are coming from.