Miers Withdraws Nomination [Archive] - Two Plus Two Older Archives

vulturesrow

10-27-2005, 09:19 AM

<blockquote>En respuesta a:<hr />
Miers Withdraws (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051027/ap_on_go_su_co/miers_withdraws)

Where does President Bush go from here? Should be interesting. I'm thinking a very conservative will be the replacement nominee to re-energize the base. We'll see.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reasons for withdrawal are incredible weak sauce. Im glad she is withdrawing but man this administration is looking more and more like a trainwreck every day. They will salvage a bit of credibility with me if they pick a SCOTUS nominee that is more in the mold of what Bush actually promised.

whiskeytown

10-27-2005, 09:28 AM

I love the spin - it's cause Senators wanted access to executive privilege material - hilarious.

How about they wanted to know WHERE she STOOD - on ANYTHING - that's a terrible [censored] requirement for a SCOTUS - jesus - LOL.

RB

vulturesrow

10-27-2005, 09:33 AM

<blockquote>En respuesta a:<hr />
I love the spin - it's cause Senators wanted access to executive privilege material - hilarious.

How about they wanted to know WHERE she STOOD - on ANYTHING - that's a terrible [censored] requirement for a SCOTUS - jesus - LOL.

RB

[/ QUOTE ]

Although I agree that is weak and horrible spin, I will also say that the Senators have no right to ask for documents which would compromise client privilege. And Im sure if someone wanted to access your dealings with your personal lawyer, youd be squawking as as loudly as you could. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

renodoc

10-27-2005, 09:50 AM

called it.

whiskeytown

10-27-2005, 09:56 AM

but to submit a candidate with no documentation whatsoever in the hopes of getting her thru without scrutiny and then say it's the Senator's fault is bullshit - Bush should have thought of that beforehand.

in every respect that mattered, a poor candidate choice and I suspect if this administration had it's way it would have blindly shot itself in the foot as it did with Iraq and everything else, insisting it's not in trouble when it's foot is in the meat grinder -

as it stands, if Miers DID withdraw and wasn't asked to by GWB, she probably deserves some praise as the savior of the Republican Party, cause this administration can never admit when it's been stupid and would have let this divide the party had it continued.

That sort of one-minded ignorance is typical of those who come to work with a religious background. They believe their convictions are backed up by God and that sorta stifiles any dissent, esp. when the religious person is the CIC.

RB

natedogg

10-27-2005, 10:19 AM

Thank goodness. I have some hope again. It's very small and faint, but it's there.

natedogg

El Barto

10-27-2005, 10:20 AM

Harriet who?

btw, when is Bush ever going to fill that O'Connor vacancy?

andyfox

10-27-2005, 11:18 AM

He should nominate Bill Clinton.

slickpoppa

10-27-2005, 11:57 AM

As a law student, I am hoping he appoints David Sklansky so that the SC's opinions will be easy to read.

"This law is unconstitutional. Do you see why?"

Felix_Nietsche

10-27-2005, 12:01 PM

Thank goodness. I have some hope again.
******************************************
Me too.
I think Miers was another O'Conner/Souter clone with the exception that she would overturn Roe v Wade. Papers that came out the last few weeks indicated in the past she had leftward leanings on some issues. Many Supreme Court justices tend to drift leftward, I think she would have drifted leftward as well.

My dream is that O'Conner steps down without a replacement and Bush43 puts in a recess appointment. The Dems will scream bloody murder and it would be very entertaining to watch them go ballistic.

El Barto

10-27-2005, 12:06 PM

The Democrats blew this one. They could have gone to bat for Miers as a "good compromise" candidate and got her through confirmation. Now they will face a real conservative and a GOP that knows it will have to fight to save face.

Can you say: Nuclear Option /images/graemlins/grin.gif

JackWhite

10-27-2005, 12:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
My dream is that O'Conner steps down without a replacement and Bush43 puts in a recess appointment. The Dems will scream bloody murder and it would be very entertaining to watch them go ballistic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it possible to put in a Supreme Court recess appointment?

El Barto

10-27-2005, 12:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Is it possible to put in a Supreme Court recess appointment?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes and it has been done before several times. But why do it when their term would expire when Congress adjourns (end of 2006)? The 40 year appointment is the way to go obviously.

10-27-2005, 12:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
He should nominate Bill Clinton.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clinton was disbarred, so I don't think he can ever be any type of judge. I might be incorrect on that though.

Jedster

10-27-2005, 12:26 PM

Jonathan Alter made a good point. The Miers nomination and withdrawal is a great moment for our country. Why? Because it shows that conservatives can think for theirselves. Instead of being toadies for Bush, they stood up as independent political actors. Although I might disagree with conservatives, I respect them. Bush, I have no respect for. The fact that the conservatives have shown distance from this evil man who is our President says really good things about them and the health of our republic.

El Barto

10-27-2005, 12:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He should nominate Bill Clinton.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clinton was disbarred, so I don't think he can ever be any type of judge. I might be incorrect on that though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, you don't even have to be a lawyer to be a federal judge. Thats just a tradition started by George Washington, not that anyone would think of breaking it.

Curiously enough all Supreme Court justices are admitted to the Supreme Court Bar, so you would automatically become a lawyer anyway (without ever having to study or pass an exam /images/graemlins/laugh.gif)

vulturesrow

10-27-2005, 01:18 PM

<blockquote>En respuesta a:<hr />
Jonathan Alter made a good point. The Miers nomination and withdrawal is a great moment for our country. Why? Because it shows that conservatives can think for theirselves. Instead of being toadies for Bush, they stood up as independent political actors. Although I might disagree with conservatives, I respect them. Bush, I have no respect for. The fact that the conservatives have shown distance from this evil man who is our President says really good things about them and the health of our republic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Awww, thanks Jedster /images/graemlins/blush.gif

cdxx

10-27-2005, 01:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Uh, you don't even have to be a lawyer to be a federal judge. Thats just a tradition started by George Washington, not that anyone would think of breaking it.

[/ QUOTE ]

is this really true? i thought only local court elected judges could be without law degrees.

[ QUOTE ]
A bachelor’s degree and work experience usually constitute the minimum requirement for a judgeship or magistrate position. A number of lawyers become judges, and most judges have first been lawyers. In fact, Federal and State judges usually are required to be lawyers. About 40 States allow non lawyers to hold limited-jurisdiction judgeships, but opportunities are better for those with law experience. Federal administrative law judges must be lawyers and pass a competitive examination administered by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Some State administrative law judges and other hearing officials are not required to be lawyers.

[/ QUOTE ]
source (http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos272.htm)

[ QUOTE ]

How about they wanted to know WHERE she STOOD - on ANYTHING - that's a terrible [censored] requirement for a SCOTUS - jesus - LOL.

[/ QUOTE ]
worked for roberts. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

El Barto

10-27-2005, 02:03 PM

Don't confuse Article I and Article III judges.

Administrative law judges are employees of federal agencies doing adjudication work. (These are the Article I judges) Congress and the agencies can set up any job requirements they want for these adjudicators, since they are really just agency employees.

Article III judges are the "real" independent federal judiciary including the supreme court and are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The only qualification for them is that they be appointed and confirmed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_I_and_Article_III_tribunals

AngryCola

10-27-2005, 02:34 PM

Unsurprising.

benfranklin

10-27-2005, 03:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]

How about they wanted to know WHERE she STOOD - on ANYTHING -

[/ QUOTE ]

In a perfect world (ha ha ha), where a judge stands on anything is not relevant. A judge should rule on the law, regardless of his or her beliefs, and regardless of the outcome. Many honest and intelligent people agree with the outcome of Roe v. Wade, but admit that it is bad law.

I have heard several screwball Senators recently bemoaning Supreme Court decisions "in favor" of large corporations and "against" the poor, the downtrodden, the working class, etc. That's not the Court's problem, or business. The problem is the inept lawmaking of our esteem legislators who cannot write a law that's constitutional. The Court doesn't (or at least shouldn't) strike down laws because of who "wins" or "loses", but because they are not constitutional. Partisans on both sides of the aisle seem to have a great deal of dificulty with this concept.

The reason to see work product from Harriet Miers is to see if she is at least a competent lawyer, and that she can think and correctly interpret the law. Her position on issues does not matter unless she lets those positions prejudice her decisions. There was no such documentation available on Miers, one way or the other. There was no indication that she was anything but an efficient manager, and a FOW (Friend of W). If W chooses not to present evidence of her legal abilities, that is his choice. And his attorney (whoever that might be /images/graemlins/blush.gif ) should have advised him of that potential problem before the nomination. W stuck her out there unsupported, and said trust me. Didn't work.

Roberts got confirmed without presenting his stands on various issues because he made a convincing case that his positions on issues would not affect his interpretation of the law, and because there was an overabundance of evidence and documentation that he was highly qualified.

elwoodblues

10-27-2005, 04:00 PM

If memory serves, the only rule is that they be "learned in the law." Tradition has established that this means that they are attorneys.

BottlesOf

10-27-2005, 04:02 PM

Than Harriet Miers right now?

[ QUOTE ]
"Let's move on," said Republican Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi. "In a month, who will remember the name Harriet Miers?"

[/ QUOTE ]

El Barto

10-27-2005, 04:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Than Harriet Miers right now?

[ QUOTE ]
"Let's move on," said Republican Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi. "In a month, who will remember the name Harriet Miers?"

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

She had her 15 minutes of fame. Thats more than most of us get.

I still remember Haynesworth and Carswell and Bork and D. Ginsburg, do you?

elwoodblues

10-27-2005, 04:06 PM

Now let's see if my prediction when the nomination first came out will come true...Bush will nominate a VERY conservative justice who the liberals will disdain. When they become vocal in opposition he will cry foul saying that they won't let him pick anyone --- from Miers to the new one, liberals are just a bunch of obstructionists (ignoring, of course, the very vocal criticism from those on the same side of the aisle.)

AngryCola

10-27-2005, 04:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
When they become vocal in opposition he will cry foul saying that they won't let him pick anyone --- from Miers to the new one, liberals are just a bunch of obstructionists

[/ QUOTE ]

Conservative groups were the ones strongly against Miers, so I don't see how that would make much sense.

Jedster

10-27-2005, 04:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When they become vocal in opposition he will cry foul saying that they won't let him pick anyone --- from Miers to the new one, liberals are just a bunch of obstructionists

[/ QUOTE ]

Conservative groups were the ones strongly against Miers, so I don't see how that would make much sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

There were never any WMD in Iraq, but Cheney said there were. There was no attempt to purchase nuclear materials from Africa, but Bush said there was. The mission was not accomplished in May, 2003, but the Administration said it had been.

I hope that what you say is true, and I hope that people remember what actually happened here. I'm not saying it won't happen, but I will be very pleasantly surprised if it does.

Truth has been a major casualty of the Bush Presidency, even moreso than the Clinton Presidency, and that is saying something.

elwoodblues

10-27-2005, 04:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Conservative groups were the ones strongly against Miers, so I don't see how that would make much sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that affects the strategy at all.

BottlesOf

10-27-2005, 04:54 PM

I think 0 minutes of fame > 15 minutes of fame. That's why Vanilla Ice is such a prag.

Of course being famous for the long haul would be a mixed blessing.

bobman0330

10-27-2005, 05:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There were never any WMD in Iraq, but Cheney said there were.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that's certainly not the case...

Jedster

10-27-2005, 05:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There were never any WMD in Iraq, but Cheney said there were.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that's certainly not the case...

[/ QUOTE ]

In August, 2002 Dick Cheney said: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." My source? The White House. Here's a link: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/08/20020826.html

If you want to hear it yourself, here's a link: http://www.apfn.org/audio/Cheney_WMD_claim.mp3

twowords

10-27-2005, 05:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There were never any WMD in Iraq, but Cheney said there were.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that's certainly not the case...

[/ QUOTE ]

In August, 2002 Dick Cheney said: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." My source? The White House. Here's a link: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/08/20020826.html

If you want to hear it yourself, here's a link: http://www.apfn.org/audio/Cheney_WMD_claim.mp3

[/ QUOTE ]

True but you can't say he never had them. We gave him some in the 80s and he used them, lol. Sanctions and inspections seem to have been effective though, and he did not have them by 2000. Sure Democrats said he had them in 2002 as well as the Bushies, but it was the administration that presented dubious evidence as fact and led us to war unfaithfully. Sadly, dems, moderates, and even myself paroted these same claims and even believed he probably had weapons. The Bush crew gave us distorted information. To this day, with the core administation as secret as it is, we still can't be sure of their actual reason for pushing this war thorugh under the cloak of an imminient threat.

TomCollins

10-27-2005, 05:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There were never any WMD in Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? At any time? I'm gonna give you a quick chance to retract that before I slap you with reality.

Jedster

10-27-2005, 06:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There were never any WMD in Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? At any time? I'm gonna give you a quick chance to retract that before I slap you with reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine. To satisfy the nits:

There were never any WMD in Iraq when Cheney said there were.

FMP

But, to repeat, the important point is:

[ QUOTE ]
In August, 2002 Dick Cheney said: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." My source? The White House. Here's a link: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/08/20020826.html

If you want to hear it yourself, here's a link: http://www.apfn.org/audio/Cheney_WMD_claim.mp3 
[/ QUOTE ]

Go ahead and slap me all you want. Cheney lied. And that's the truth.

[censored]

10-27-2005, 06:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Janice Rogers Brown!

[/ QUOTE ]

This would swing me right back around into the Bush camp. But what do you think the chances are she gets nominated? 20% at best?

TomCollins

10-27-2005, 06:21 PM

I'm going to give you another chance to correct yourself.

First I'm going to give you the definition of lie:

A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

So for Cheney to lie, he would have to know there were no WMDs in Iraq. OR he would have to, based on the evidence presented to him have a very strong argument.

Similarly, other administrations have come up with the same argument that there were WMDs in Iraq.

So either everyone is lying or our intelligence was simply wrong. It could have been through incompetence, it could have been through completely making things up, or it could have been through using sources that made up things for their own purposes.

That's why perjury is so hard to prove. There is quite a difference between being dead wrong and lying.

$DEADSEXE$

10-27-2005, 06:22 PM

Luttig would be filibustered...several Dems have already stated that a nominee in the mold of Luttig/Scalia would end the filibuster truce.

Jedster

10-27-2005, 06:29 PM

Cheney lied and it isn't even close.

He said these magic words: "there is no doubt." He said those words twice. But we now know that there was significant debate among intelligence analysts. In short, there was plenty of doubt. And he knew it. Even if he thought there was probably WMD, or he was almost sure, he knew, he absolutely knew there was doubt. He had to.

Why else would he and his chief of staff cover up evidence that others in the administration rebuffed some of their more outlandish allegations? (See http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2005/1027nj1.htm for more info on that.)

His lies about not knowing who picked Joe Wilson to go to Niger (which he said on NBC's Meet the Press) are just further proof of his lying ways.

Jedster

10-27-2005, 06:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So for Cheney to lie, he would have to know there was doubt about whether there were WMDs in Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

TomCollins

10-27-2005, 06:30 PM

So you are changing your story to "he lied about how certain he was about the WMDs"?

What chance do you think he thought there was WMDs in Iraq in 2002?

Also definition of the term "no doubt":
Certainly.
Probably.

[censored]

10-27-2005, 06:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Luttig would be filibustered...several Dems have already stated that a nominee in the mold of Luttig/Scalia would end the filibuster truce.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't give a crap about a filibuster I welcome it. If the simple threat of a flibuster is enough to stop a president from nominating who he wants than what's the purpose of having the President pick nominees for the court.

I want to Bush to start with Brown and force the dems to try and stop her and if they do, I send up luttig and if he gets beat I send up Owens, etc.

Right now the Republicans have a 55-45 majority , in a year that could be erased or reversed. Strike while the Iron is hot I say. Bush should reward those who put him into office precisely for the purposes of defeating liberalism.

TomCollins

10-27-2005, 06:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So for Cheney to lie, he would have to know there was doubt about whether there were WMDs in Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[/ QUOTE ]

Doubt by whom though? Certainly he knew there was doubt from people who had no knowledge of the issue. Someone who has zero access to any CIA info would certainly have doubt. So I don't think he meant that EVERYONE had no doubt.

So did it mean that those who had intelligence had no doubt? Or did it mean that he himself had no doubt?

[censored]

10-27-2005, 06:39 PM

El Barto

10-27-2005, 06:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Luttig would be filibustered...several Dems have already stated that a nominee in the mold of Luttig/Scalia would end the filibuster truce.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Democrats have defeated themselves. They have put so many of the top candidates on the filibuster list that Bush has no choice but to submit one of them. And if opposition is guaranteed then why not put up the best?

This will end with a great new justice, and the nuclear option will be exploded, and Bush will look like a leader again. Thats a triple play win/win/win. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

vulturesrow

10-27-2005, 06:56 PM

ahem, our prediction...remember the whole genius thing? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Nepa

10-27-2005, 07:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Janice Rogers Brown!

[/ QUOTE ]

Im pulling for Luttig myself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bring it on!!! I would love to see him put Luttig up. I will also love when they lose this fight. Luttig doesn't have the votes and Luttig will not get the votes. I'll say it again. BRING IT ON!!!!!

[censored]

10-27-2005, 07:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Janice Rogers Brown!

[/ QUOTE ]

Im pulling for Luttig myself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bring it on!!! I would love to see him put Luttig up. I will also love when they lose this fight. Luttig doesn't have the votes and Luttig will not get the votes. I'll say it again. BRING IT ON!!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with your conclusions but I like this approach to politics. I'm 100% pro bring it on politics. Especially when my party is in power.

Nepa

10-27-2005, 07:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Janice Rogers Brown!

[/ QUOTE ]

Im pulling for Luttig myself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bring it on!!! I would love to see him put Luttig up. I will also love when they lose this fight. Luttig doesn't have the votes and Luttig will not get the votes. I'll say it again. BRING IT ON!!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

anyone know who said this?

"There are not enough Republican votes in the Senate to win an ideological fight over a nominee like Michael Luttig, Edith Jones, or Janice Rogers Brown."

Nepa

10-27-2005, 07:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree with your conclusions but I like this approach to politics. I'm 100% pro bring it on politics. Especially when my party is in power.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your party might be in power but they don't have the votes to vote for a Bork like canidate.

One the subject of Judge Bork. He was asked today weather a person could forget about a conversation that happened over two years ago? His answer, "Not likely"

Jedster

10-27-2005, 07:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So for Cheney to lie, he would have to know there was doubt about whether there were WMDs in Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[/ QUOTE ]

Doubt by whom though? Certainly he knew there was doubt from people who had no knowledge of the issue. Someone who has zero access to any CIA info would certainly have doubt. So I don't think he meant that EVERYONE had no doubt.

So did it mean that those who had intelligence had no doubt? Or did it mean that he himself had no doubt?

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly when he says "no doubt" he means "no doubt." There are no shades of gray in his statement, which was the summation of a litany of points referencing intelligence from our own country as well as from others. So clearly he was not refering to his own doubts, though we can have a separate argument over whether or not he should have had those doubts in the unlikely case that he didn't have them.

But a review of the run-up to the war shows there were doubts throughout the American government. Clearly Cheney knew this, as evidenced by the coverup reported today in the National Journal that I referenced earlier in the thread.

One of the voices expressing doubts was Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell's Chief of Staff. In an article on CNN.com about him, there is the following passage:

[ QUOTE ]
Wilkerson and Powell spent four days and nights in a CIA conference room with then-Director George Tenet and other top officials trying to ensure the accuracy of the presentation, Wilkerson says.

"There was no way the Secretary of State was going to read off a script about serious matters of intelligence that could lead to war when the script was basically un-sourced," Wilkerson says.

In one dramatic accusation in his speech, Powell showed slides alleging that Saddam had bioweapons labs mounted on trucks that would be almost impossible to find.

"In fact, Secretary Powell was not told that one of the sources he was given as a source of this information had indeed been flagged by the Defense Intelligence Agency as a liar, a fabricator," says David Kay, who served as the CIA's chief weapons inspector in Iraq after the fall of Saddam. That source, an Iraqi defector who had never been debriefed by the CIA, was known within the intelligence community as "Curveball."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/19/powell.un/ 
[/ QUOTE ]

That, my friend, is the definition of doubt.

AngryCola

10-27-2005, 07:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Conservative groups were the ones strongly against Miers, so I don't see how that would make much sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that affects the strategy at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're wrong.

It wouldn't hold water. They won't attempt to blame liberals at all for the Miers withdrawl. Doing so would be laughable even by DC standards.

If you listen to some of the reactions today, you'll notice nobody that anyone actually listens to is attempting to spin it in such a way.

It doesn't fly now, and it won't fly tomorrow. Period.

Now, the republicans will pounce on liberals for being resistant to whomever Bush appoints. That's to be expected.

One could speculate that the entire Miers nomination was just a clever way of making the 'real' nominee's conformation process a bit easier. You know, one of those, "Thank god that's over with so we can finally get someone qualified in there," moments. Then when liberals resist the new nominee, the republicans can point to how long all of this has taken and the country might just start to say, "Enough already, Dems! We're tired of all this jerking around and 'wasted' time. Stop being so partisan and just accept this clearly qualified person to be our next justice!"

Essentially, it could be that Miers nomination was designed to get exactly the reaction it got. Get the public thinking about how bad the Miers nomination is, and then spring a much more qualified person on them. I'm not suggesting that was actually the true intention, but it certainly isn't much of a stretch, IMO.

Still, there is no way the republicans will make any real attempt at trying to suggest Miers' nomination was unsuccessful because of liberals.

wmspringer

10-27-2005, 08:00 PM

Shame...I preferred unqualified over actively corrupt

Myrtle

10-27-2005, 08:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Now let's see if my prediction when the nomination first came out will come true...Bush will nominate a VERY conservative justice who the liberals will disdain. When they become vocal in opposition he will cry foul saying that they won't let him pick anyone --- from Miers to the new one, liberals are just a bunch of obstructionists (ignoring, of course, the very vocal criticism from those on the same side of the aisle.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Whether you love or hate them, the Republican strategists behind the throne are very clever.

Was the Miers nomination by Bush simply a "Straw Dog" nomination advanced by those who knew that it would not fly in order that the above quoted 'line of argument' could be advanced by Republican spinmiesters, so that they could attempt to regain the bully pulpit and force someone like a Luttig through?

Is the above scenario beyond possibility?

Have the Democrats allowed themselves to be backed into a no-win political corner on this issue?

Let's see what happens............

ACPlayer

10-27-2005, 10:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Now, the republicans will pounce on liberals for being resistant to whomever Bush appoints. That's to be expected.

One could speculate that the entire Miers nomination was just a clever way of making the 'real' nominee's conformation process a bit easier. You know, one of those, "Thank god that's over with so we can finally get someone qualified in there," moments. Then when liberals resist the new nominee, the republicans can point to how long all of this has taken and the country might just start to say, "Enough already, Dems! We're tired of all this jerking around and 'wasted' time. Stop being so partisan and just accept this clearly qualified person to be our next justice!"

Essentially, it could be that Miers nomination was designed to get exactly the reaction it got. Get the public thinking about how bad the Miers nomination is, and then spring a much more qualified person on them. I'm not suggesting that was actually the true intention, but it certainly isn't much of a stretch, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a weird line of play. Specially as the Admin holds all the cards and most of the chips.

They could have nominated a Thomas/Scalia clone instead of Miers and pushed that through in the first instance. If at all the Democrats should now argue that they were perpared to give the Miers a vote but the Republicans are the ones with the Litmus test.

With any luck, the government will stop functioning in the next couple of months. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

elwoodblues

10-28-2005, 02:24 AM

A moment of genius in a lifetime of lunacy.

Which one of us that applies to is open for debate.

vulturesrow

10-28-2005, 09:03 AM

<blockquote>En respuesta a:<hr />
<blockquote>En respuesta a:<hr />
<blockquote>En respuesta a:<hr />
<blockquote>En respuesta a:<hr />
Janice Rogers Brown!

[/ QUOTE ]

Im pulling for Luttig myself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bring it on!!! I would love to see him put Luttig up. I will also love when they lose this fight. Luttig doesn't have the votes and Luttig will not get the votes. I'll say it again. BRING IT ON!!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with your conclusions but I like this approach to politics. I'm 100% pro bring it on politics. Especially when my party is in power.

[/ QUOTE ]