Could be. But then again, Bush seems to positively enjoy watching his adversaries "misunderestimate" him. He knows his own convictions, he knows the mistakes his father made in the same office, and he knows how much power the Supreme Court has enjoyed (and often abused) for the past several decades. For now, I think I'm just going to wait and see what happens.

The Anchoress says that Bush is "playing chess." I'm sorry, but I'm beginning to think the man couldn't successfully master Connect Four

Not you too, Ace! :(

Its one thing to disagree but the number of 'chimpy'-style slurs I've seen here today is most disheartening, to say the least. You'd think he nominated Al Sharpton to the SC. The only comfort I can take is that when you are all proved wrong I'll be here to rub it in. Like a Viking!

"he would have replaces a very squishy semi-"conservative" with a more dependable conservative. "

That's a bit of a stretch as a description of O'Connor, Ace. Remember, until recently the left hated her almost as much as they hate the Demonic Three. And if the left hates you, you gotta be doing something right ...

First of all, a Chief Justice has not terribly much power on the court.

Roberts gets the gold braid on his sleeves. Seems damn powerful to me.

All these crazy theories are starting to wear on me. Bush knows Miers. He's not going to nominate someone who isn't a constitutionalist and isn't conservative. Slice and dice it anyway you want it, but give the man some credit for crissakes.

Pat Robertson? I think you may be confused on that...the ACLJ has nothing to do with Robertson. It is ran by Jay Sekulow.

I disagree with most of your premises. The Chief's opinion-assigning power is huge (make bad holdings tiny, good holdings huge). Roberts is very conservative. And Bush did have a free hand here, though if he'd kept Roberts->O'Connor, the same "pressure" for a woman as #2 would still have existed.

You're trying to semi-defend the decision as one Bush was forced into (by his previous acts or whatever). Quite the opposite. It's horrible and indefensible because it was totally unnecessary. Even if your premises are right, there are many stealth female candidates better than Miers, if Bush wanted one. He didn't. He wanted his buddy. Period.

The Chief's opinion-assigning power is huge (make bad holdings tiny, good holdings huge).

Not really true. The other Justices are not slaves to the opinion/dissent penned by the chosen justice. If the opinion/dissent is one they disagree with (even if they agree with the holding), they'll write separate concurrences or dissents.

You can't really force an opinion on other justices simply because they've joined in the basic voting on the holding. Go too far, or not far enough, and they'll simply break away. Sometimes the "Real opinion" of a case will be the one that actually has five or more justices supporting it, even if it is technically merely a concurrence, because the official opinion doesn't garner majority support.

There is some power and some games to be played here, as I acknoweldged. Berger did this sort of gaming a lot. But at the end of the day you need majority support for both your holding AND your opinion.

Furthermore...

Even if this is true... woudn't it have made sense to nominate a very strong conservative as CJ? Rather than a maybe-kinda-sorta conservative like Roberts?

Either way, Bush blew it.

The reason you see the conservatives losing their minds is that this might be the last chance Bush gets to nominate a person to the SC. They wanted a ROCK-RIB CONSERVATIVE, so as to get revenge for Bork. They see Miers as a Cipher, the only person who really knows anything about her is Bush, the conservatives are being expected to go along on faith in Bush and nothing more. The conservatives really wanted an armegedon showdown with the dems that a brown, alito, lutttig would have produced.

Don't feel bad about Gore, Ace. I used to like him too, and back in 1988 I was toying with supporting him as well, for precisely the same reasons (he was a "good" Democrat).

In fact, I would've probably supported Clinton in 1992 if he was exactly like he was on paper. Trouble was, anyone with half a brain could tell that slick hick was a cheeseburger away from an ethical catastrophe. Saw that one coming a mile away.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Lord a-mighty, Ace, this is a rather Sullivan-esque (Andrew, that is) display.
Should all of the right have a freak-out advisory going?
The die is cast...let us see where this leads.
Miers hasn't been confirmed, for starters, and once the digging into her past really kicks in, we may yet learn a few things that conservatives will like.
Between this kissing George Clooney in a dream and this Bush's Big Boner, you're starting to worry me.
Cripes, that's even MORE Andy-like...

Miers is a fine pick if she's an originalist. A terrible pick if she's not. We don't know. Perhaps Bush, working with her so much, does. It sucks that the nomination process and picks are all 'hide the ball,' but that's the way it is.

I don't care if she's stupid. Much smarter people presently on the court have studied our Constitution and seems to believe it incoprates The Hague's latest ruling and their own sense of morality.

Would I like a Scalia, someone able to go out in the world and articulately defend originalism, skewering the 'feelies?' Yep. But I like Thomas too and he seems unable to open his mouth outside the Courthouse. I've also made my peace with Bush, who hasn't been Winston Churchill, orotorically, defensing his policies.

It all depends on what she believes.

The opinion-writing business is as powerful as the Chief's personality can make it. He has the agenda-setting power, which is huge. The need to get others to sign on to his account of the decision actually makes Roberts a better choice -- you need someone conservative and personally persuasive/influential. Not a Luttig type.

But I'm quite sure Roberts is a "very strong conservative". We'll see. Maybe Alito would've been a better Chief? But he's noticably older. And the others... eh. Great Associate Justice types.

Ace, with all due respect, I think you're wrong here.

If Bush had kept Roberts as O'Connor replacement, he would be confirmed, and O'Connor would leave the court. This would leave eight justices on the court, and the acting chief justice would be the senior associate justice: John Paul Stevens.

This is not the guy Bush wants casting the tie-breaker with some important WOT-related cases coming down the pipeline.

Give the guy some credit: he may not be able to play connect four, but he can count to eight and divide by two.

You know what REALLY bugs me about all this discussion about Supreme Court nominees? It's that people on the web are starting to abbreviate the Supreme Court (of the United States) as SC instead of SCOTUS!!!

SC is South Carolina, people, not the Supreme Court! I tell we get NO respect, down here. It's just like the University of South Carolina... when most people think of 'Carolina they think of University of North Carolina not Unversity of South Carolina; okay I can give 'em that 'cus they are 12 years older, but they could also use the moniker "UNC", since that is also pretty unique...

But where does that leave the University of South Carolina? They can't use the abreviation USC because some unversity on the West Coast that was founded over 100 years later gets to use that abbreviation AND even uses the shortened version, SC, in its logo to rub further salt in the wound. This, despite the fact that Southern Cal is a perfectly good shortening of its name!

Oh, and to further add insult to injury, this West Coast university's nickname is the Trojans which implies that they can "cover" South Carolina's nickname , the 'Cocks... coincidence? I think not.

It will be interesting to see if the Left goes for the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" theory of politics and turns around to support Miers. If the right is solidly against her, the left will have to decide who they hate more, Bush or conservatives.

Also, I think libertarians may have the most to lose. It is entirely possible that she might lean right on such social issues are abortion, but still support pro-government decisions like Kelo and campaign free speech restrictions.

I see this as a Sister Soljah moment for conservatives in Congress. They can re-establish credibility with their base and do the right thing at the same time by rejecting this nominee.

Besides, Miers is HOT, in kind of a Helen Thomas sort of way...
By the way, your thing with Clooney, was there any tongue?
AP story via Breitbart...
Clooney Proudly Wears 'Liberal' Label
Oct 03 2:22 PM US/Eastern
Keep kissin'...

Well, I supported Gore in '88 for reasons similar to Ace and Dave. I thought he was one of the few redeeming features of the Clinton White House for most of Bubba's two terms, but there's something about getting mixed up with that outfit that seems to devour the souls of decent people.

Ayes of Death has one of the most disturbing takes on this whole mess that I've yet seen. So far I've been thinking that she's New Coke to O'Connor's Coke Classic, which is plenty lame enough, but the possibility that she's Gonzalez in a dress does even less for me.

What Miers thought in law school.

It's not pretty.

Whenever Bush has the opportunity to endorse a conservative, he tends to side with the liberal Republican. It makes me more than a little nervous on these two nominees. If we end up with two more Souters, this nation is in a real mess. I'm not talking about Roe here. That should be a state issue. I'm talking about ever intrusive big government and its expansion via the courts. That could be the cost of these stealth nominees.

I would've probably supported Clinton in 1992 if he was exactly like he was on paper. Trouble was, anyone with half a brain could tell that slick hick was a cheeseburger away from an ethical catastrophe.

*ahem*

Speaking as a 'convert' (who intends to ignore Dave's theory on the brain mass of early Clinton supporters), I think Miers' political donations (even voting record) from 1988 should be completely ignored within the context of any debate on her qulaification to serve on the SC, or her (current) political philosophy.

Does anyone think Bush would have a liberal Dem as a close advisor and/or counsel?

And regarding his "playing chess", I can't imagine Bush, Rove and others not looking 10 moves ahead, canvassing or researching to find out what kind of support a particular nominee would get, and then making an informed decision. The man isn't stupid.

"In 1988, Al Gore seemed like one of the few truly-centrist Democrats running for office."

No, in 1988 Gore *was* one of the few etc. etc. Blood brothers with Marty Peretz, the whole deal.

What happened there? Guess we'll never know.

John: Remember the Karen Hughes flap?

What Miers thought in law school.

It's not pretty

1968???? You've got to be kidding me.

1968???? You've got to be kidding me.

Until, what, 11 months ago? Yeah, you've got to be kidding me. Unfortunately, Bush isn't.

(I do realize the note was on a common law case...)

I think Bush realizes that there's a huge difference between a WH counselor and a SCOTUS nominee.

I could be wrong, and I'm certainly not cheering this nomination, mainly because I don't know enough yet.

I do realize the note was on a common law case...

someone,

As I said, I'm not supporting the nomination, I'm just saying we need to take a breath here. Not only was that a common law case, it was an observation on what courts have done, buried in a footnote of a paper done by a legal student over 35 years ago.

Uh, law student. Me not write good.

So, yeah-- in 1988, Ace of Spades was an enthusiastic Gore supporter, at least until he got squished by a bug midway through the primaries.

If it make you feel any better, I've done worse. Plus, in 1988 weren't you still in short pants, ace? :)

someone,

You work for the DNC? If not, you should. They need researchers like you. That 1968 piece is just the kind of thing they're looking for. It sounds bad, even though it means jack sh*t.

Between this kissing George Clooney in a dream and this Bush's Big Boner, you're starting to worry me.

Starting? Where have you been??

BrewFan: dude, that was from ANOTHER BLOG. A fairly lefty one, at that.

Besides, it'll make the DNC like her. *We* should be threatening filibuster.

Great, the famous Texas case of battery by snatching plates. I am not a fan of IIED cases, but I do not think that the quote cites the footnote fairly. It gives an example that apparently Texas Supreme Court had dictum that they would remove the doctrine of charitable immunity when next presented with such a case. Apparently, it was necessary for Texas to prospectively do such a thing.

Its footnote 42. The case note, in general, does have a somewhat approving tone towards IIED, wondering what would have been if there were no intentional touching (answer: it would be an assault) to give reward to the offended patron.

Nonetheless, case notes are not pieces of critical writing.

I am a student at Regent University, the school Pat Robertson started, and he is in some way affiliated with the ACLJ. I know this b/c I am in the school of government there, and all the good parking spots are reserved for ACLJ members. Grrrr.....

I knew someone would catch me for that 'starting to worry about you' bit.
It's just that up until now Ace's fantasies were, well, fantasies. I'm worried that he's prepared to start acting out...or should I say 'act up'.

"BrewFan: dude, that was from ANOTHER BLOG. A fairly lefty one, at that."

umm, ok. And you posted it here like it was important...why?

As I said, I'm not supporting the nomination, I'm just saying we need to take a breath here. Not only was that a common law case, it was an observation on what courts have done, buried in a footnote of a paper done by a legal student over 35 years ago.\

Exactly. If I read the footnotes in the Law Review note I wrote 25 years ago, it's apparent that I was just trying to demonstrate that I had read every friggin' thing under the sun that had been written on my topic (which was, the allowability of advertising expenses in public utility rate cases, a subject about which I was passionate at the time).