The White House quickly got their CYA alternate story out there.

Rehnquist gamed opinion-assignments too, btw. And so will Roberts.

She was really talking about Warren Spahn, who, in addition to being one of the greatest Major League pitchers of all time, was also a force on the Supreme Court during the 1950's and 1960's.

Or that's what my evil, invisible twin keeps whispering in my ear between admonitions to kill people with an axe.

Of course, the sight of Schumer and Mikulski yucking it up as they attack Republicans for "sexist" attacks on Miers tells you all you need to know about how she's going to rule.

my favorite was Hamilton Berger.

Mmmmmmm...Burger.

For the love of Mike, Mr. President, pull this stupid woman's name already and get less of a tard nominated.

Later,
bbeck

I still think this is an elaborate game to get Luttig onto the bench. Or at least I hope to God.... And if it must be a woman, why not Janice Rogers Brown?

Burger is basically the villain of Bob Woodward's "The Brethren," which keeps gettin' funnier EVry SINgle TIME i READ it ...

"tard?" That's a bit strong, bbeck. But even my unshakeable RINO confidence wavers in the face of things like this ...

Wait for the hearings, I keep telling myself. Just wait for the hearings. Krusty's coming. Krusty's coming. Krusty's coming. Krusty's coming ...

Monty: If only. If only. Looks like Bush is going to say "screw you" to the *entire* conservative infrastructure (which, ironically, he was just praising at length yesterday at Buckley/NR's birthday) and push this unqualified crony of an O'Connor rehash through.

How bad is it that I'm actually *hoping* Rove gets indicted now?

Sorry, Knemon, but my opinion of her just keeps getting lower.

Krusty's coming.

I don't want to see ANYONE named Krusty coming.

Later,
bbeck

Sorry, Knemon, but my opinion of her just keeps getting lower.

If I recall, your opinion started at the bottom so going lower is no shock. I suspect you never had any intention to look to change that position.

bbeck,

I agree wholeheartedly about Meirs except for one little thing:

He can't pull her. If she is scuttled, the dems will be emboldened enough to filibuster a conservative and the RINO's will run scared. Then, the next nominee will be a moderate "consensus" candidate. It has happened every time. If memory serves, it's how we got Kennedy (Reagan), and God help us, Blackmun (Nixon's one mistake worse than Watergate).

Like it or not (and I don't) Harriet is our gal.
I'm hoping and praying that she shuts up, gets confirmed and votes right down the line with Scalia and Thomas.

Fighting Bush on this is like voting for the Constitution Party: It makes your conscience feel good, but it just helps the left to win. I'm not saying it's right, but I double-damn-guarantee it will happen and we will be screwed.

I suspect you never had any intention to look to change that position.

Gee, for someone who knows SO much about me, perhaps you should have noticed that my previous complaints were aimed at Bush and his appointing a buddy, not at her. I didn't know Squat about her and now, from her resume and what she's said, I don't see how anyone's opinion could be favorable.

So thanks, but I'm not quite impressed with your observations, much less your suspicions, which, incidentally, are unfounded.

Like it or not (and I don't) Harriet is our gal.
I'm hoping and praying that she shuts up, gets confirmed and votes right down the line with Scalia and Thomas.

You're probably right and she probably will, LC, but I don't have to like how castrated my (majority) party is.

Later,
bbeck

but I don't have to like how castrated my (majority) party is.

I hear ya. It is depressingl true. George basically fumbled the ball on the 2 yard line. Let's hope we can recover it and kick a field goal.

"voting for the Constitution Party: It makes your conscience feel good"

It does?

I watched the Constitution Party candidate's acceptance speech. Literally within the first thirty seconds of his speech we heard this (paraphrasing):

"What sort of country to we live in where our commander-in-chief sends SODOMITES [shouted] in uniform to fight our wars?"

Forget the actual merits or demerits of this issue, but - priorities?

So thanks, but I'm not quite impressed with your observations,

ditto

For those who don't just consider those reports that confirm their previously held position, here is another explanation reported on NR

"Miers was asked about Justices she admired. She
responded that she admired different Justices for different reasons, including Warren — interrupted by Senator Leahy — Burger for his administrative skills.

Reasonable people could ask whether Burger was a great administrator, but the comment is taken out of context by the Washington Post. Miers didn't express admiration for his jurisprudence."

I bring the proof:

http://www.peroutka2004.com/schedule/index.php?action=eventview&event_id=226

"Just four months ago in Maryland, when I publicly announced that I would seek this nomination, we talked about the cultural and spiritual decline that we see all about us in America today.

We expressed our deep concern for our republic. We wondered what sort of Country we've become . . . (1 paragraph omitted for reasons of space)

We wondered what sort of country sends sodomites to fight its foreign – undeclared wars."

'ditto"

I care.

Wait. No I don't.

Later,
bbeck

"Krusty is coming! Krustry is coming!"

I like the analogy, Knemon. So NCLB was the Krusty brand vitamins, the prescription drug benefit was the calculator with the missing numbers, the Katrina pork tsunami was the self-serving biography...

If it weren't for the War on Terror, the Miers nomination would send me into Lord of the Flies mode. Bush is sacrificing a huge amount of political capital for a risky nomination that, at best, will gain him nothing he couldn't have gained from numerous other potential nominees. And this "Warren" comment makes her sound like a dolt.

Unfortunately, the war trumps a lot, but I am one exceedingly grumpy passenger on this ride.

Log Cabin: W won't withdraw her, I agree. But she can still withdraw herself.

It's not my analogy - probably Jonah Goldberg, maybe Jon Podhoretz, since they're the two pop-culture guys at NRO.

Neither of them, of course, can hold a candle to Ace and Dave.

Now excuse me - I have to go wipe the brown off my nose ...

Frankly, I don't care if she could write a brilliantly and grammatically correct piece of thought for the whole world to gush over, if the woman (or any other SC justice) doesn't respect the Constitution and its enumerations, anything she (or anyone else) writes is garbage, pure and simple.

The question isn't whether she is brilliant or not, or whether she has an education pedigree or not. The question is whether she will uphold the Constitution. Period.

A lot of us are afraid she'll whore her judicial soul like Kennedy or Souter. How much more of that can our country take? It's already to the point where property ownership doesn't exist.

Oh come on. Does anyone seriously believe that in her long friendship with Bush, including a presumably serious vetting process, she gave Bush the impression she was a conservative, but in a brief chat with a Democratic senator she reveals that her favorite Justice is Warren?

If she wears her liberalism on her sleeve like that, I highly doubt Bush would be unaware of it. Bush knows he'll still be in office for a couple of years after we read her first round of opinions. She may not be eminently qualified, but I have no doubt she's conservative.

Raven:

I do doubt.

Rena Pederson, the retired editorial page editor of the Dallas Morning News, said people have long tried to guess whether Miers is to the right or the left, but it is impossible to pigeonhole her.

"I think she will be in the mold of Sandra Day O'Connor in regards to how she makes her decisions," said Pederson, Miers' personal friend for more than 20 years. "She is not an ideologue. She is very pragmatic and will try to do what is right."

She added: "If anyone ever had a criticism of her, it was that she would study a case to minutia and take a long time to make a decision."That's almost twice as long as Miers has known Bush.

Ack. Messed up the formatting. Here's the article.

Rena Pederson, the retired editorial page editor of the Dallas Morning News, said people have long tried to guess whether Miers is to the right or the left, but it is impossible to pigeonhole her.

"I think she will be in the mold of Sandra Day O'Connor in regards to how she makes her decisions," said Pederson, Miers' personal friend for more than 20 years. "She is not an ideologue. She is very pragmatic and will try to do what is right."

She added: "If anyone ever had a criticism of her, it was that she would study a case to minutia and take a long time to make a decision."

here’s a story in WaPo that made Harriet Miers look rather silly:

In an initial chat with Miers, according to several people with knowledge of the exchange, Leahy asked her to name her favorite Supreme Court justices. Miers responded with “Warren” – which led Leahy to ask her whether she meant former Chief Justice Earl Warren, a liberal icon, or former Chief Justice Warren Burger, a conservative who voted for Roe v. Wade . Miers said she meant Warren Burger, the sources said.

Regardless of whether you agree with her choice, it sounded like Miers didn’t know her SCOTUS Justices. That impression is apparently wrong, according to NRO’s Kathryn Jean Lopez:

This is what I’m told happened:

“Miers was asked about Justices she admired. She responded that she admired different Justices for different reasons, including Warren — interrupted by Senator Leahy — Burger for his administrative skills.

Reasonable people could ask whether Burger was a great administrator, but the comment is taken out of context by the Washington Post. Miers didn’t express admiration for his jurisprudence.”

-- PoliPundit

Obviously I can't know for certain, but I have read Rena Pederson for a long time - she's pretty left. I suspect she's projecting a bit.

Attention all you 'conservative' Mier bashers!

The evangelical Christian wing of the Republican party is down with Harriet. Now, I know most of you could care less about us evangelical Christians but I have a question for you. If we like and support her, why don't you? Because she didn't go to Harvard?

Sorry for the sarcasm, I like you guys but this treatment she's getting here from normally thoughtful people is toooo much like DU or Kos. You all admit you don't know anything about her but you don't let that stop you from raking her over the coals. Shame on you all.

Why Brew, I think I deserve a spankin'.

Later,
bbeck

Hamilton Berger is my bitch.

Why Brew, I think I deserve a spankin'.

No you don't, but if you want one . . .

Brew, all I've said is my problem with her is that she is an unknown, and we were spoiling for a fight. I don't want Bush to duck it, I want him in their face with a known quantity. I want Reid and Kennedy and Biden and Pelosi freaking out and I want America to see it.

Bush ducked that fight. Either he didn't have the stomach for it or another gang of 7 told him they would hang him out to dry.

bbeck said pretty much the same thing. Exceptt for the spanking part.

The evangelical Christian wing of the Republican party is down with Harriet. Now, I know most of you could care less about us evangelical Christians but I have a question for you. If we like and support her, why don't you? Because she didn't go to Harvard?

Nonsense. I didn't know where she'd gone to school when I was against her.

I'm against her because we don't know she's conservative. Furthermore, even if she is a conservative politically, if she's thought extensively about conservative judicial issues, which, you know, are different from conservative political calculations.

The liberals conflate the two. Conservatives don't.

We sure the hell know she hasn't written anything about jurisprudence.

And we know when asked to name her favorite Justice she seems to come up with the name Earl Warren, or Warren Burger. One's a liberal and a bit of a mediocrity, the other one's a conservative and a mediocrity. And both just seem like names that anyone could have come up with.

Cardozo? Brandeis? Jackson? Holmes? Scalia? Any of these names ring a bell for her? No? Just "Warren."

She's the President's buddy. Sorry, that's not enough for me. I'd rather have fidelity to principle and conservative judicial philosophy than to a man who, hate to break this to you, isn't really a strong philosphical conservative himself.

I have no idea why the Christian right is so "down" with her. You assume she's anti-abortion. I don't make that assumption.

Even if I did, I'd sure like to know her stands on a dozen other isssues, which I don't, and I won't, until she's confirmed.

Actually, a lot of evangelicals aren't down with this.

My question to her defenders is, when Bush promised to appoint "Scalia or Thomas", why are you so gung-ho about a complete blank with a mixed ideological record?

Okay, Dave, spankings for everyone.

But seriously, my main gripe has been the fact that Miers' chief qualification is being Bush's BUDDY, and that stinks. I expect my presidents to be less emotional and more defensible in their decisions, most especially with the SCOTUS.

Later,
bbeck

btw, I'm an evangelical Christian. I ain't down with her, see above.

And I don't give a rat's ass where she went to school.

To the extent it's identity politics, shame on Bush and those who buy into it. Miers is no Michael McConnell, not by a long shot. She's not even Karen Williams.

Dave in Texas:

I have read Rena Pederson for a long time - she's pretty left

Ace,

You know more about legal matters then I do but unless I'm very mistaken the ONE qualification we conservatives have wanted for a Supreme Court justice is that they interpret the Constitution as it was written. Everything follows that. This is what Bush promised; somebody like Scalia and/or Thomas. President Bush has done that unless you know something we don't OR you think he's a flat out liar. As for the 'Warren' thing that was pretty well debunked by the commenters in the other thread.

As to the 'wanting a fight' I'm sorry but If I'm Bush and *I* know somebody who's going to be the kind of justice I want and that I promised to the people who elected me then nominating somebody just so you can have a political fight is childish and counter productive.

Bottom line for me though is the level of vitriol by my fellow conservatives. Can't we even wait until the hearings before we try to block this nomination?

btw, I'm an evangelical Christian. I ain't down with her, see above.

Ditto.

BTW, I worked on the Bush-Cheney campaign here in Wisconsin and I received an email today from somebody who participated in a conference call today. Here's what she had to say:

"I was on the Conference Call with Chuck Colson, Dr. Dobson, Jay Sekulow and others, and I assure you that their support of Harriet Miers is enthusiastic, knowledgeable and determined."

Well looks like Miers has a sense of humor.

someone, I think Rena is projecting her lefty feelings onto Harriet. I doubt Harriet is very liberal.

Brewfan, the selection appears to be one made from a position of weakness, and it's emboldened Dems. I think it's unnecessary, unless we really are weak and McCain told Bush "no rock-solid Scalia types".

I don't like encouraging our opposition, I like defeating them.

Can't we even wait until the hearings before we try to block this nomination?

Best thing now is for her to withdraw. She may be competent but she's not qualified, and the cronyism is going to hurt the party in the long run. Not to mention her tabula rasa jurisprudential record, which would get us who knows what sort of decisions.

btw, I'm an evangelical Christian. I ain't down with her, see above.

Outside of the folks here most evangelicals I know are with Harriet or have a wait-and-see attitude.

bbeck,

We'll have to discuss the spanking thing further. I'm going to need some assurances your husband doesn't have the longitude and latitude of my house :)

Dave, maybe, except it accords with the reports Frum and others relay, which is that she's never shown any sign of ideological (not personal) conservatism. And I don't know about you, but, e.g., my lefty friends certainly would never confuse me for a "moderate" Sandra Day O'Connor type. Maybe it's Bush who's projecting?

Bottom line, of course, is that we don't know. That's the problem.

I don't think I'm being vitriolic. I haven't called her dumb. I don't think she's dumb. I'm sure she's quite bright.

She's just not top shelf. My problem isn't that she wasn't a judge before; my problem is that she wasn't even a lawyer thinking about such issues frequently and thoroughly and arguing before the Supreme Court and stuff.

I would excuse the fact that she doesn't seem terribly well qualified IF I knew for a fact she was a conservative. But I don't.

I'm asked to "trust" Bush. I'm afraid I'm a little short on trust recently.

Further, Bush is a politician, and the dirty little secret is that the GOP actually fears overturning Roe v. Wade. They'd much rather keep it alive and keep the base always animated about overturning it. While never quite doing so.

I'm pro-choice, but I think Roe should be overturned or at least sharply limited. I think that will hurt the Republican party in the short term -- there is a soft pro-choice majority in this country -- but I'm tired of this issue being the end-all be-all of constitutional jurisprudence.

And it was a very bad decision, of course.

BrewFan, I don’t see why Christian conservatives are so jazzed about Miers. Okay, she’s an evangelical Christian, but how much does that tell you about her judicial philosophy, or even her politics? Jimmy Carter is an evangelical Christian, for crying out loud.

I object to Miers for three reasons: 1) She’s never given anyone a sense that she’s thought seriously about constitutional issues; 2) Her sole qualification is being friends with a president whose commitment to limited government is, shall we say, notional; 3) There’s a general sense that you could find four equally qualified candidates for SCOTUS by flipping open a random volume of Martindale-Hubble and sticking a fork in it. There are plenty of possibilities who would have brought more intellectual firepower to the Court; I could name them, so can you, and I haven’t the faintest idea which schools they attended. The “anti-elitist” argument in Miers’ favor borders on anti-intellectualism, and it smacks of Hruska’s comment about Harold Carswell, that mediocrities deserve representation on the Court too.

There just isn’t a good argument for this nomination. Bush is picking an unnecessary fight with his supporters and provoking a lot of rancor between the social conservatives and the limited-government types, all to put a woman on the Court who seems about as well qualified as Janet Reno. Rove’s brilliant, mind-controlling fingerprints are so not all over this one.

Re: the hearings

the only way a conservative gets past the Democratic gauntlet is by essentially saying nothing.

How is Harriet Miers going to reassure the many doubting conservatives by saying nothing?

If she gives proof of her conservative bona fides, the Dems filibuster. If she doesn't, the right is left wondering just who the hell she is.

Maybe she'll turn out to be a smart, principled, sound conservative jurist.

Maybe she's David Souter in drag (which David Souter calls "Friday night." Just kidding).

We don't know.

And if Bush is to be believed, he doesn't know either. He claims he's never spoken to her about abortion before.

I think he's lying, of course, but I don't know what her position is. Quite frankly, even if Miers told Bush she was pro-life, that doesn't mean she'd vote to overturn R v. W, either. Hell, it could just mean she told her friend what he wanted to hear.

Personally, R v. W is a secondary issue to me, but it's important as a proxy issue, because anyone with the balls to say that r v. w was wrongly decided will also have the balls to say that enemy combatants are not protected by the bill of rights or geneva convention.

Does Miers have such balls?

No clue.

I don't know that Roberts has those balls either, which makes this all the worst. I went along with the cipher Roberts on trust. Okay, enough with the trust. When do we get someone we know is a strong conservative jurist?

utron, perhaps Rove switched places too soon with the clone who's going to jail in his place...

Dave,

I don't like encouraging our opposition, I like defeating them

If Bush has appointed the types of justices he promised he would then they are defeated! There is not one shred of evidence that he didn't do that. Not one. Not only are they defeated now they are defeated for the next 20 or more years! I guess I feel thats enough for me.

someone,

She may be competent but she's not qualified

Either tell me what the qualifications are or let this meme rest

and the cronyism is going to hurt the party in the long run.

You say crony, I say somebody he knows and trusts. Presidents appoint them to positions of equal and greater responsibility all of the time.

Not to mention her tabula rasa jurisprudential record, which would get us who knows what sort of decisions.

Thanks for debunking that one yourself.

I really like watching Ace take a strong stand. I like it even more when I agree with him.

Later,
bbeck

Incidentally, you can listen to yesterday's conference call here. It's remarkably content-free: a giant serving of B+ "Trust Bush" with a small side of identity politics. About her ideas and jurisprudence, very little.

The one interesting part is this really disturbing suggestion one speaker makes that Bush/Miers have this unspoken agreement that for her not to vote his way would be a "deep personal betrayal". That's not judging.

And if Bush is to be believed, he doesn't know either. He claims he's never spoken to her about abortion before.

I never once mentioned abortion. I think you're 'profiling' me because I'm an evangelical Christian :)

But, now that you brought it up I got some news for you. I want a justice who interprets the Constitution as its written. If I get 5 of those then Roe v. Wade gets taken care of because, as you point out, it may have been the single worst decision (outside of Dred Scott and some others) the SCOTUS has ever made. Abortion is a states right issue. Thats my stance and the stance of MANY [not 'all' Dave and Michael :) ] evangelicals. That is what we have in common with the people in the Republican Party who are pro-choice. And I don't agree with you about the GOP not really wanting Roe v. Wade overturned but that's a whole other discussion.

Either tell me what the qualifications are or let this meme rest

John Roberts is an extreme case (Supreme Court clerk + OLC + SG's office + big private Supreme Court practice + DC Circuit judge), but Miers has zip. It's a crony pick.

someone,

You indicate your lefty friends wouldn't characterize you as moderate but you exhibit a great amount of animosity towards Bush. Please confess. Are you John McCain?

Hey Brew, I'm no McCain but I AM seriously pi$$ed off at Bush for this nomination.

Later,
bbeck

BrewFan,

You may recall I was Bush's biggest defender around here and elsewhere, always needling Ace about his pessimism about W.

Through Sunday.

This decision is wrong, a political blunder of epic proportions, and a betrayal. I'm done with him.

You may have noticed many of us around the blogosphere this week. We're neither Mobys nor Sullivans.

she neither ever had a job where she had to think about jurisprudential and constitutional issues in a serious and sustained way...

That is so weak. I know Ace kinda said the same thing but how do you guys know what she thinks? Seriously. If you find out during the hearings that she thinks about these things all the time are you ok with her then? And isn't this notion you have to be some kind of f'n brainiac to be a Supreme Court justice at odds with the conservative position that we want somebody who interprets it as its written and doesn't need to divine the tea leaves and capture the penumbras?

On the "qualifications" issue, someone at NRO yesterday put up a piece suggesting Laura Ingraham for SCOTUS. It turns out that her background makes Ingraham a far more credible candidate than Miers (clerked for a federal judge, clerked for Clarence Thomas, just as much government experience as Miers, works for a more high-powered law firm, and, yes, graduated from a more reputable school.)

Miers is probably a swell person, but she has no qualifications beyond being Bush's friend. Also, she's not a convicted felon. But watching Bush stand up there and try to make a case that Miers is uniquely well qualified to serve on the Court is just painful. Someone's right: it's a crony pick.

You may recall I was Bush's biggest defender around here and elsewhere

If you were commenting as 'someone' I'm afraid I don't remember that but I will certainly take your word for it. And believe me when I say that if Harriet is Souter in a dress nobody will be more upset about it then me. But if you think that possibility exists for Harriet you have to be intellectually honest and admit any nominee could turn out that way because there's plenty of evidence that it happens more then we like. I happen to like the fact that W *KNOWS* her unlike just about anybody else he would nominate.

I know Ace kinda said the same thing but how do you guys know what she thinks?

We don't. Neither do you. Neither, supposedly, does Bush.

I don't believe that nonsense that you don't need legal training to interpret the constitution. You need a very strong analytical mind. The constitution is NOT just somethin' that anyone can figure out. There are short sentences about Very Big Things and there are 200+ years of interpretation, ranging from narrow to expansive to just off-the-wall, explicating what those brief clauses might mean.

I know she's a lawyer and she has the basic competence for this. But basic competence is not high competence.

Again, I'd excuse that if I knew she'd at least be a reliable vote, a good follower if not a strong leader. But I don't know that.

Someone's right: it's a crony pick.

That's fun to say, but what does that mean? Think about what cronyism *really* is for a second. What does Bush get for appointing Harriet? Because that's what cronyism is all about. Its not just about paying for political favors, its about putting somebody in a position to protect you or pay you.

Nope. Lets kill the Crony meme too. Whats sad is we're going to hear this in '06 from the Dems but its not going to be because it *is* cronyism, its going to be because we allow this idea to be perpetuated without challenging it.

No one on the Court entirely rejects stare decisis -- even the most revolutionary guy, Justice Thomas, goes much more cautiously than most laymen imagine the process. Thus they're always bound up in a series of overlapping doctrines, "analyses", "tests", precedents, holdings and dicta that require a fine touch to invoke and alter without disrupting the whole of public law. A back-to-first-principles constitutional decision is an event, not a commonplace.

If you find out during the hearings that she thinks about these things all the time are you ok with her then?

And frankly, the kind of lawyer who becomes managing partner of a large firm isn't the kind who goes home and speculates about sovereign immunity issues over cocoa. Quite the opposite, as Frum's -- and others' -- reports corroborate.

I have to say I'm a little put off by the "trust her, she's a Christian" line.

I don't want to vote against someone based on their religion and I don't want to support someone based on their religion, either.

I've spent almost two years defending Bush from claims that he was a Christian theocrat and now I get "trust her, she's accepted Jesus into her life"?

Neither, supposedly, does Bush.

Because Bush didn't ask her about abortion he doesn't know what she thinks? He's known the woman for many years; he knows what she thinks.

I don't believe that nonsense that you don't need legal training to interpret the constitution.

I don't either. That's why I didn't say it. But this idea that you have to go to an 'elite' law school isn't flying with me either. All an 'elite' law school means to me (especially when we're talking about somebody who graduated more then 30 years ago) is that if all things are equal *maybe* that means something. Maybe.

Read Randy Barnett on cronyism and "advise and consent".

I have to say I'm a little put off by the "trust her, she's a Christian" line.

I don't blame you. Jimmy Carter is a good example (as utron pointed out above) for why you shouldn't do that automatically. But I brought it up in response to her conservative credentials being questioned and the fact many very conservative leaders have vetted those and seem to be satisfied with them.

BrewFan: The leaders have vetted her character and so on. They admit they don't know much, if anything, about her jurisprudential opinions.

Look at Brownback's unhappy reaction after yesterday's meeting. He knows no one really knows anything (except perhaps Bush), and doesn't like it.

I'm not saying I care that she didn't go to an elite school. I brought that up as an example of something that would amelioriate me as far as her toughness in not caving to the NYT editorial page. Not about her intellect.

It's not where she went to school. It's what she did after. And why she's had a fine career after school, running the Texas State Lottery isn't exactly constitutional law experience.

someone,

No. 76 is about the Senate's responsibility to "prevent the appointment of unfit characters". Yourself and Mr. Barnett appear to believe Harriet is unfit. I don't.

Surely you can't "trust Bush" after this insane revelation:

President Bush had advised senators that his probable choice for the Supreme Court was federal Circuit Judge Consuelo Callahan of California. Bush touted Callahan's diversity as a Hispanic woman, but she is liberal enough to be recommended for the high court by Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer.

And you know what? Hewitt would still call her a "B+"; Sekulow, Dobson, Leo et al. would still have been strongarmed into supporting her; and part of the blogosphere would be calling Bush a genius. Ain't so. Schumer wanted Callahan, Reid Miers.

Good discussion. One things for sure, the next several weeks are going to be interesting. Will the party fall into line? I think they will. Especially when the Dems go after her with both barrels. There are those here who wanted a fight and my prediction is there's going to be one. Big time, as Dick would say.

someone,

You are in the first stages of BDS; you believe everything you read about him no matter what the source. Get some help dude.

Help? I'll recover when Bush comes to his senses and withdraws Miers. (Or, more likely, she falls on her own sword.)

Incidentally, Callahan's name WAS leaked as a possibility last weekend. And Novak has been pretty good on this round, correctly naming Owen last week when she was going to be the nominee (but was pulled due to Senate resistance).

So at least 50/50 chance this is correct.

Well, no need for us to chase the rabbits anymore, I understand your point Brew, and I think you understand mine. I would rather have had the knock down drag out over Luttig or similar. I'm afraid Bush got his legs knocked out from under him by the McCain wing. I hope that ain't true.

I can't knock Miers cause I really don't know what to like or not like.

But I want the fight.

Nobody on the right is going to lift one damn finger to help Miers if she gets roughed up by Dems because we don't knoe what the Hell she's about.
Who the hell wants to go to the mattresses for Souter in Drag (sorry for the visual).
You couldn't devise a worst pick and scenario for getting it approved if you tried.

The more you guys bash her, the more I like her.

There is no recording of this exchange. There is no transcript. However, the right wing whackos have taken it upon themselves to spin this in the most negative light. Call me unimpressed.

I do not have any idea if Meirs is the right person for SCOTUS or not-none of us do really. I do think it is a good discussion, though, and I am glad BREWFAN is on our side. His loyalty is impressive.

(but was pulled due to Senate resistance).

The problem in a nutshell. The same Senate that couldn't confirm the obvious with Clinton's impeachment and that locked up over lower court appointments is the bottleneck.

I'm getting more sympathetic to Bush's dilemma all the time.

Agent: No, the fatal hurdle was that conservatives wouldn't fight for Owen either, since she's also a jurisprudential cipher.

Conservatives won't fight for Miers either, but Bush figured he could get her in without any fight at all.

No, the fatal hurdle was that conservatives wouldn't fight for Owen either

If the Dems go into obstructionist mode over a blatantly conservative pick, which they would almost have to do after the Roberts hearing just to assure their base they are still relevant, you'd need 60 votes to confirm or 51 willing to rewrite the Senate rules. We have neither and Bush knows it.