Is this the first time a SCOTUS nominee got bounced for being too liberal? After losing Bork, Ginsburg and so many others, it's interesting to see this. I wonder if it's an anomaly or a turning point?

funny, I started thinking this week the wind had shifted...couldn't see any measurable support out there for her.

Does anybody else think Bush is capable of making the next choice someone dreadful in an entirely different way, out of spite? You know, unassailably competent, but dreadful, so we'd have to eat it? I hope I'm misunderestimating him.

So far, from reading the tea leaves at NRO, hopeful signs point to a much better nominee, both in terms of resume quality and appeal to the base.

The best off-the-cuff suggestion (from Chris Matthews!) was to nominate Ted Olsen.

I like the sound of that.

The thought has crossed my mind, as well.

I heard about this on the way to work this morning on the syndicated "Bob and Tom" radio show. Which ever one of those gooobers announced it then said, "I guess she wasn't acceptable to the right wingers......who wanted Hitler."

Bob and Tom have permanently lost a listener. Not that' I'd imagine it makes them a shit.

If he's as mad and possibly as recalcitrant as John King claims he is I think he just might nominate Gonzales. I don't think this president likes to be pushed. However he may decide to cut his loses and appease the base. But it's hard to see Bush doing so, after being pushed.

I question the timing.

Well, crap -- now I've gotta drop my "clip ace a buck for every Miers post" shtick. Can I fine him a dollar for other infractions? Say, buying Popov vodka insetead of Valu-Rite because it was a dime cheaper when bought by the gallon? How would I enforce it?

BTW, I too am glad Miers withdrew. I just hope Luttig replaces her.

Man, I was in need of a good new fix. I'm going to be optimistic and say that Bush won't seek revenge on the base by nominating Gonzales or worse; at first sight that Ted Olson suggestion at NRO looks pretty appealing. But right now, I'm just thrilled that this particular trainwreck has finally skidded to a halt.

Glad to see the people over at NRO praising Miers, BTW. I don't want to see her on SCOTUS, but she's not a dunce or an evil person, and I'm sorry she went through this. I'm glad the farce is over, and she probably feels the same way.

Its about fucking time. Not let's get Laura Ingraham nominated. Hot babes for SCOTUS!

Umm "good news," not "good new." I'll stick to coffee, thanks.

My mom withdrew her nomination once.

ONCE!

My blog's polling always showed that her nomination was weak within Bush's base; 35% of the GOP base was DEEPLY OPPOSED; a president cannot govern effectively without a third of his base. IN OTHER WORDS: Her withdrawal proves that ELECTIONS COUNT! When an elected leader fails to satisfy the folks who elected him they will NOT be happy. And elected leaders need to keep their supporters happy; that's DEMOCRACY IN ACTION.

I hope Bush nominates a stellar JUDGE and constitutional SCHOLAR who will satisfy the base who ELECTED HIM TO DO JUST THAT! (Just as I would expect that Hillary would nominate liberals - just as her husbnad Bill did.)

Somewhere, Hugh Hewitt is weeping.

btw: i'm betting on luttig or mcconnell. leaning mcconnell. would most love rogers brown - but don't expect bush to pick a fight just now...

I was trying to reserve judgement on her until the hearings, but the anger on both sides, coupled with the inevitable knock-down drag-out fight coming, was probably going to make it not worth it. So this is probably for the best.

Now we can expect posts by Ace to dwindle to next to nothing.

So now that his Miers worries are gone, will he finally be able to get it up for his Asian 'help'?

Well, crap -- now I've gotta drop my "clip ace a buck for every Miers post" shtick.

Don't be so hasty. I'm listening to Laura Ingraham and she still can't stop foaming at the mouth about it.

BTW, I too am glad Miers withdrew. I just hope Luttig replaces her.

No, thanks. I's a strong supporter of the death penalty. Unfortunately, Luttig carries too much baggage in that area and it would give opponents much to bitch and moan about.

I've never been so relieved. To get Miers through the Senate was a shitty fight to pick, and a worthless hill to die on. Bush spent political capital on a mediocre candidate.

No gloating.

This whole experience has been like getting into a really, REALLY bad fight with your significant other, and that person finally admitting that they were wrong.

The relationship won't be the same, but now's the time for the aggrieved (the anti-Miers folks) to accept the olive branch with dignity and no "Thank God" comments.

Thank the President for doing the right thing, and say nothing more about it.

I don't think being relieved and saying "Thank God" counts as 'gloating,' but I agree with your overall point.

Someone should tell Hewitt it's time to stand down from DEFCON-1, though. In today's early morning post, that guy was getting nasty and declaring war. When is he going to realize how unnecessarily bitter his own words made this fight?

I don't know, Sean. As a (mostly) Miers defender, I'm right there with the "Thank God" crowd. Regardless of whether Bush had sized her up correctly, there was no way this was going to go well. And there is no shortage of bench strength where candidates are concerned.

This is bad for Conservatives. We need judges that will interpret the constitution without bias, not those who push an agenda (liberal or converative) on the entire population. Miers would have done the job of interpreting the Constitution very well and Bush nominated her so you know she would have been good. All the pressure Miers got from all those Conservatives saying she isn't conservative enough to sit on the supreme court gives all of us a bad name. Liberals are the ones who want thier judges to have their agendas pushed on the public, not Conservatives.

Just as we get past one disheartening episode, Bush and the Congresscritters throw another at us.

Bush Blinks on Davis-Bacon Suspension, Dems Still Angry

Some tasty quotes -
Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) - "just another example" of the president's "incompetence as a leader in a time of crisis and of his constant need to reward the private agendas of his special special-interest friends rather than attend to the needs of all the people affected by this storm."

Because the GOP doesn't have the votes to allow the suspension to stand, Miller said, Bush has "no option but to reverse his mistake."

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) -
"The president should also overturn his shameful suspension of affirmative action and small business requirements in the Katrina rebuilding," she added. "Now is not the time to be undoing years of progress by executive order."

Ugh - surely the Autumn of our discontent.

Um Stafford, the whole point was that what little evidence we had, Miers would not "interpt The Constitution" well and would legislate from the bench. Between her '93 speech, her support for Affirmative Action and failure on basic consitituional questions (apportioned representation??), she did not look at all to be a constrctionist as promised by W. And since her only qualifications were
1)She's a girl
2)Shes a lawyer
3)She bakes a mean cookie
4)W likes her and
5) we must trust W becuase he would never break his campaign promises and he's a hard core conservative. Really he is, just read the DU.

Now the real question is has W learned his mistake, or is he going to nominate his dentist. And did he do this to get back at Coulter for her opposition to Roberts. Now her column today is irrelevant!

P.S. Stafford, you dipshidiot, Constitution is capitalized (when referring to our document), conservative is not. ya smelly hippy

Supposedly wages in the area are substantially through the "Davis-Bacon level" on scarcity, so in dollar terms his capitulation cost us nothing. Politically, he was asking GOP congresscriters from union areas to take the hit without any savings to show for it.

I hate to see a priciple die, but this one probably made sense.

Pretty exhaustive list Howard, but you forgot all the action she gets on her pins for such a small bowler.

Ace,

I was thinking that it might be fun to throw a "Fitzmas" party on the site tomorrow. If indictments come down, we can riposte the inevitable flood of "toldya so!" posts from Bean-O and vonK; if it's a "no-file", we can smear their tear-stained faces into the dust while we roar out troll-like laughter.

Whaddya think?

I'm going to make a bold prediction about the next SCOTUS nominee. Whoever the nominee is, Hugh Hewitt is going to be an enthusiastic supporter!

Mark my words.

Sean-- great post, sums up my feeling pretty well.

Monty-- Popov?!? Yeesh, hangover flashbacks. . .

I too question the timing. Here Karl Rove planned this whole Miers thing just to distract us from Fitzmas. Wow, he's good.

As for the next nominee, I'm getting the gut feeling we're seeing the bait & switch theory in action. Not that it was intentional, of course, but at least Bush can now nominate somebody based purely on competence alone, rather than being a check in a demographic box.

Honestly, he can nominate another white male conservative with a paper trail a mile long, and his retort to that will be "Folks criticized me for nominating someone with minimal experience-- so I nominated Judge Bork."

Yeah, that's would be sweet.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Given the significant intersection of nerddom and neocons (and you know what that means, or at least what C*d*rf*rd wants it to mean) here, instead of "Fitzmas", if indictments do get handed down I recommend calling it "KHAANNukah!"

Monty, I'm in.

it's not like I have a life

We're getting a party together! I do like the KHAANukah thing, too -- we can have somebody do a mash-up of Shatner's hammy crie du coeur and make it the official carol for the season.

Fitzmas can have many meanings: if indictments are indeed handed down, we can consider it the Neocon Day of Atonement, a day for somber reflection; or if a no-file comes down, it can be a day for dancing, joyous laughing, and sending the lefties home crying hot snotty tears of shame. Either way, much Valu-Rite vodka may be consumed and many Vietnamese ladies (or gentlemen) ruthlessly violated (but well-paid, since I presume we are all market-capitalists here!).

1. Note that she used the executive-privilege excuse, just as Krauthammer had suggested last week.

2. I wouldn't be shocked if this had been planned.

- The Dems gained creds by not filibustering Roberts, and even voting 50-50 on him; were poised to defeat next nominee

- Therefore: pick a sacrificial lamb; let it be known she's a fundie (via, say, a "top secret" conference call that was bound to leak out), making Dems go ballistic and spend their creds on her; then withdraw her, and nominate whomever you really want.

What went wrong was that right-wingers were principled enough to go ballistic instead...

I hope those who would welcome a Ted Olsen nomination were not the same ones being critical of the Miers nomination for one of their many reasons, her age. Ted Olsen was born in 1940.

A Fitzmas/KHAANukkah celebration sounds like it could be fun. The Airing of Grievances, the Feats of Strength...

Monty, that's a great idea! If I have to eat a super-sized helping of crow, I'd just as soon there was no question at all that I showed up and tucked in with a good will.

Though I'm still holding out hope. If he doesn't extend the grand jury or issue indictments by tomorrow afternoon, is that absolutely it? Are we done? The worst scenario is an inconclusive fizzle.

Don't forget the Flame War as part of the festivities!

Or the Proving of Nerd Bona Fides.

Now that I think about it, the latter will probably lead to the former.

KHAANukah! Oh I love it! Too beautiful.

"I hope those who would welcome a Ted Olsen nomination were not the same ones being critical of the Miers nomination for one of their many reasons, her age. Ted Olsen was born in 1940."

Dman, most references to Meirs' age that I saw were in the context of "well, we should put her on the Court 'cause she'll die soon anyway." In other words, it came from her supporters. Maybe you saw otherwise?

Confirm Them » ABA Fight
If Harriet Miers’ life is informed by her faith in Christ and sound biblical
theology, ... i am also upset about her AGE. there are many others like her ...
www.confirmthem.com/?p=1401 - 30k - Cached - Similar pages

The Washington Monthly
Seems if Miers is defeated, we get Luttig, Brown, Owen.... yuck. ... I think they
should express concern over her lack of qualifications, which is perfectly ...
www.washingtonmonthly.com/ archives/individual/2005_10/007306.php - 101k - Oct 25, 2005 - Cached - Similar pages

|| RedState.org
One thing still bugs me - her age. Given that she's 60, an average guess for ...
quick support for Miers concerns me and supports what is said in this post. ...
www.redstate.org/story/2005/10/3/234625/627 - 97k - Cached - Similar pages

Blogs for Bush: The White House Of The Blogosphere: Miers and the ...
She should have been disqualified based upon her age. ... There is no reason to
assume that Miers will retire at an earlier age than that, and that gives ...
www.blogsforbush.com/mt/archives/005683.html - 70k -

Well, that sort of puts the lie to the notion that bloggers don't carry any weight.

I'm a little torqued that Miers has to carry the load and withdraw her own name. Bush should be taking the responsibility for nominating her in the first place instead of sloughing the decision off onto her.

He'd better listen to the base on his next nomination (Estrada!!!) or the howling from this time around is going to look like a love fest in comparison.

One way or the other, Scooter Libby gets the "They got Gannon! Oh Christ, they got Gannon!" treatment.

Agreed?

Dman, I stand corrected.

Not that anyone gives a rusty rip, but if ANYONE had known for sure (by record) that Miers would interpret the Constitution as written, she would have had all the backing of the conservative base she or GW could have handled. Problem was, nobody knew.

It should not be lost on anyone, most of all our President, that it was the conservatives that forced her withdrawal, not the Dems. If GW is as intelligent as he wishes to appear, he will nominate someone now who will send the Dem senabats into orbit, have his knock-down, drag-out fight, come out a winner, and have the Dems tame for the rest of his term (as long as he doesn't pull another Miers blunder).

He also needs to learn that "Trust me" just doesn't cut the mustard when his trustworthiness is questionable to begin with (via illegals, overspending, etc.)

We all wish Miers the best, but I'm personally glad we don't have to watch her on the SCOTUS.

On C-Span now: Sen. Byrd talking crazy loose shit.

Byrd is calling on the prez to call him for advice.

Not that anyone gives a rusty rip, but if ANYONE had known for sure (by record) that Miers would interpret the Constitution as written, she would have had all the backing of the conservative base she or GW could have handled. Problem was, nobody knew.

Sorry, that's not why I opposed her. I opposed her because she was nothing special and was picked solely because she's was Bush's FRIEND. Presidents can get away with this sort of cronyism for some positions but the Supreme Court calls for more.

The Republicans have gotten onto the Democrats for refusing QUALIFIED applicants because they don't agree with their judicial philosophy...and now are we going to turn around a reject a candidate because of her (potential) judicial philosophy? Uh, NO, we shouldn't be doing that. Let's leave the hypocrisy to the other side.

bbeck,

Judicial philosophy is important in that a person not willing to honor the oath that person takes ("to uphold the Constitution...") should not be put on any court, let alone the SCOTUS.

Miers was a crony pick, but had she been a highly qualified pick, there would have been nothing wrong with it. We have a good idea she was not highly qualified (by experience, education, etc.), but most importantly we have no idea if she respects the Constitution or would rewrite it.

I see no hypocracy in my statement. What I'd like is for the Senate to examine people like Ginzberg, then explain how she is qualified by philosophy, since she is so intent on removing at least the first ten amendments and some of the main body of the original Constitution. If she was the most qualified person to sit on the court when she was nominated, God help us!