Redstate

they can do it any way they please.

I am sure she is a good attorney, and I am sure she is a nice lady, but she just doesn't seem to be qualified.

the President doesn't win, no matter how the nomination is withdrawn.

Even luke-warm supporters of the President on the matter of Miers, like me, would be pleased to see a more knowable nominee put forth;  and pleased even more that the voice of the represented republic is being heard.

The only problem I see is that a crucial vote will not be on the bench in time to hear upcoming abortion-related cases, I believe to be heard next month.

In some of these cases, a motion to rehear the case with a full court probably would be entertained.

A golden new column from George Will.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/21/AR200510210
1825.html?nav=rss_nation/special

I didn't know that.

I assumed that it was 'all or nothing' or, should the case be continued, that it would take several months, if not years, before it could be heard.

on the Miers nomination. Does anyone believe that if the judicial filibuster had been eliminated, that Miers would have been this pick? NO WAY!

The seven fence-sitting Republicans carry much of the burden of this quagmire. I don't hear McCain or Graham voicing there strong support of this pick, and they are the reason for this mess.

The President has the Constitutional authority to nominate.

The President has the obligation to fulfull his promise.

Don't hang the President's performance on the necks of McCain and the rest.

The Court is fully staffed.  Justice O'Conner is still on the Court and hearing cases and voting in conference.  She says she will continue to do so until her replacement is confirmed.

If the new person is confirmed in the middle of a case there are a couple of options:

If the vote is close they can ask for the case to be re-argued which leads to a new conference vote.

If the vote is not close they can just throw out O'Conner's vote and hand down a 5-3 decision.

I have read something similar to what you are saying here.

I was thinking it to be a good thing to have a conservative replacement for Sandy prior to the arguments.

Hypothetically, if a new justice was confirmed in the middle of a case, would that case necessarily be affected until he/she is sworn-in?

California Yankee, were you aware that your rap-daddy shortcut name would be 'C-Ya'?  That's pretty cool, methinks you may have planned it that way.

Seriously, if it's withdrawn pre-hearing, I'll have had Christmas early [sidebar to Mom - I can still use the socks and undies -- boxers not briefs; and to my better half, yes life still sucks without a router, but you might let your brother help you pick it out -- Craftsman, DeWalt, Milwaukee, all good].  

It's been my theme all along that if the Miers nomination were to last to Judiciary hearings it would be a disaster either way.  If she crashes and burns, obviously, but no less so than if she passes and makes it to SCOTUS.  In my mind occupying a seat that would be properly served warming the buns of (Alito | Brown | Jones | Luttig | McConnell | Owen |Estrada |Garza).

Memo to WH people -- hey, it's 4th and long.  You know what to do.  That's right.  Throw the long ball to ....... Edith Jones.  She's wide open.

the NH parental consent one?

There are some PBA cases working their way up, but I didn't think any of those had been taken by the SCOTUS for this term.

Of course her vote may be key in which abortion cases they do choose to take.

Her votes on abortion have been all over the place, so it is hard to say where she would fall, if she is still on the court when the NH case comes before it.

The President is responsible for his own bad choices.  If he sends up an uber-qualified Luttg, Estrada or Jones and they don't make it then take it out on the Gang of 14.  But the President isn't doing that.  He sent up a loyalist, not a jurist.  That's his fault.

I still have seen no evidence why a qualified nominee wouldn't be confirmed:

The bottom line: For a filibuster to happen, 3 of the "moderate" Democrats must choose on their own that a nominee creates an "extraordinary circumstance." Then Sens. Graham and DeWine must agree with those Democrats on their assessment. To be honest, if Sens. DeWine, Graham and 3 of the Democratic moderates agree on a candidate, then they probably wouldn't get voted up by the whole Senate. Thus, the filibuster is dead for this Congress but perserved for the future.

I'd love to see this thesis tested.  As of now, I see no way the qualified judges aren't confirmed.  This was a Bush screw-up and no one else should be held responsible for his folly.

The McChain Gang's intervention is one reason, IMHO, the President went chicken with both of these picks.  With the filibuster broken and the Constitutional option firmly in place, one hopes and expects the SCOTUS picks would be a whole different affair.

But I will also agree with Neil that [to paraphrase and extend] in spite of the rocky landscape, it was an opportunity for the president to show great leadership and courage, by picking who he would have preferred to pick (I mean, other than AlGon).  And he failed to show anything admirable.

The 05/06 SC docket is here.

Though I don't know enough about Sandy to have an idea of how she will vote, I'd rather not risk it.

I hardly think John Roberts was a "chicken" pick. He was one of the most brilliant conservatives available, a legal mind so sharp that even Democrats had suck it up and respect it. Plus, he's young enough to shape and influence the Supreme Court and constitutional law for a generation.

I'll admit, I didn't know much about him until the nomination, but I don't think any of the "controversial" selections hold a candle to him. If I knew then what I know now, I wouldn't be pleased at all to see Pricilla Owen nominated over him.

I guess that makes me part of Hugh Hewitt's "Bos-Wash Axis of Elitism", but I can live with that.

a good quality router can be good for the soul.

Hold out for the Dewalt.

On which what O'Conners magic 8 ball comes up with when she is deciding which way to vote. I wouldn't be surprised if the decision was some kind of non-decision with more than 2 opinions. That kind of thing has been pretty common on the hot button issues with the current makeup.

> The President has the Constitutional authority to nominate.

  Ok.  With ya so far.

>The President has the obligation to fulfull his promise.

  Ok.  But I think you're also implying very strongly that he also has an obligation, above and beyond fulfilling his promise, of proving to Neil Stevens that he is doing so.  Indeed, he is obligated to pick one of the judges you like.

>Don't hang the President's performance on the necks of McCain and the rest.

   Well, that was a short trip.  You have no reason to believe that, if not for Media Slut McCain et alia, Luttig might not have been the nominee?  It's totally unreasonable to suppose that, if we had already nuked the j. filibuster, a papered originalist might have been nominated?  There's no possibility that the POTUS knows something you don't?

    Guess not.

Senator Schumer told reporters that he was underwhelmed by the nominee after he met with her.

   So here we are at RedState, giving credence to what Senator Schumer says.  Has any conservative ever been 'whelmed by Schumer in the past?  Ever?

I never said he had an obligation to prove anything to me.  I never even said that he failed to live up to his promise.

I wasn't trying to attack the President here.  All I was saying was, if you think Harriet Miers doesn't represent the fulfillment of the President's promise, then don't blame the Senate dealmakers.  Instead, place the blame with the President, where it belongs.

I'm still on the fence about Miers.

agree to disagree.  I agree that Roberts turned out to be brilliant in hearings, and will probably be most of what we hoped for as a jurist.  I'm perfectly happy he's there.  But his lack of paper trail is why he was selected, and that's why I call it a chicken pick.    

And there remain some unknowns for us with him.  And I don't think he is notably  superior to Mike Luttig in terms of intellect and legal deftness, and there are no unknowns with that guy.  Ditto for Janice Brown -- absolutely brilliant in writing and in person, and there are no questions about where she stands on what makes good judicial decisions.  For both of them, they remain unpicked precisely because their views are so clear and so battle-proven, not because Roberts was better qualified.

I guess I never really consider Luttig or McConnell "controversial" (why I use the scare quotes). Everyone is going to be controversial to most Democrats, but I think people like Joe Lieberman and Joe Biden, along with all the Northeast Republicans could get behind either of those picks. Filibuster wouldn't even be a consideration. I'm not suggesting that's why they should be selected, because it makes Lincoln Chafee and Nelson of Neb. happy, but you get a great pick AND no contentious fight - the best of both worlds.

I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV, but I never read about JRB alongside them as power intellects. It always seems to be McConnell, Luttig and everyone else. I'll take your word for it though.

For the life of me, I just can't understand why neither of those two was nominated. It would appeal to old Eastern establishment types, social conservatives, and even reasonable Dems would have swallow hard and realize there is no better candidate or look like fools trying to fight it.

(OK, I know it's not like Will is in the Witness Protection Program --- How about "Thanks for linking this for us :D )

I usually don't agree much with Will. But he's 'spot on' with this one. The last sentence is the key:

Finally, any Republican senator who supinely acquiesces in President Bush's reckless abuse of presidential discretion -- or who does not recognize the Miers nomination as such -- can never be considered presidential material.

Bingo.

And GOP Senator that votes for this nomination (assuming it gets that far, which I doubt it will now) can kiss 2008 support goodbye.

(Heck, Mitch McConnell has already lost a lot of my goodwill for his brainlessly reflexive defense of Miers on FNS the other week. And he's not even running for Pres.! Anyone who votes for Miers and runs will have my opposition as much as Chuck Hagel does! And I positively sure I won't be alone...)

for knuckling under to the Dem's filibuster pressure.  This pressure was maintained beyond the "showdown" moment last spring, rather than removed forever by the nuke option, thanks to the Gang of 14's deal.

The kingdom lost for lack of a horse: A causes B which causes C.  C is culpable for his own choices, but that does not exonerate B, nor A (where C=Pres, B=GangOf14, A=Dems).

I'll make no agrument with you that GWB has the ultimate responsibility on the nomination. But that's not the point.

The seven pseudo-Republicans built this box, and put GWB squarely in the center of it. His choice then HAD TO BE MADE from within the box. That's the reality.

Had the momentum to end the judicial filibuster not been knocked off track by the seven media whores, we would be discussing the merits of Luttig or Brown.

The seven now need to be held accountable for their actions. They need to stand in front of that same media and help us understand how what they did was good for conservatism, and good for the country.

because Roberts is qualified. This is not a procedural problem. It's a problem with Miers' qualifications.

The President put himself in a box when he made his campaign promises.

During the big political fight in the leadup to the deal, the President publicly distanced himself from that fight, saying it was an internal Senate matter.

I think he was right then, and so it's wrong now to blame the Senate for the President's choice.

I don't even accept the premise that the President has to make a stealth pick.  His base is ready to fight on this.  He just has to sound the charge.

And we're still waiting for it...

When you take a look at the judiciary committee and the mathematics of the vote I think a withdrawal is highly likely.

The committee consists of 10 Republicans and 8 Democrats.   None of the Dims will vote for her because of the Pro-Life issue, plus most of the Dim Senators on the committee are pretty far lefties.   That means in order for her to receive the recommendation of the committee she has to get every Republican vote.   If there is one defector, she gets a 9-9 vote which results in no recommendation being made.  2 defectors and she gets a negative recommendation.

Now, I believe Specter will vote no.  He's PO'ed over the questionnaire and the WH basically calling him a liar over Miers comments on Griswold, add that to the pro-life stance and I don't think there is any chance he votes for her.  Brownback and Graham have requested Miers documents as WH Counsel from the White House they aren't going to get, they are laying the foundation for a no vote.   Graham, while publicly supportive, is rumored to be privately disappointed in the nomination and is looking for a way out.  I believe Brownback will vote no, Miers will not come out against Roe at the hearings is likely to affirm a right to privacy which will be the breaking point for Brownback.

Those 2 votes are enough to result in a negative recommendation.   That's leaving out other possible no votes like Sessions, Graham, Kyl and Coburn.  If she gets a 9-9 vote the WH could possibly ask for the floor vote, but it would be tough.  The opponents would spin it as the WH forcing though an unqualified nominee that didn't receive the support of the Republican controlled Judiciary committee.  IF she has more than 9 votes against her it would be impossible for the WH to move forward, her nomination would be dead.

Her chances of getting past the committee aren't very good.

but does he have 60 Senators who will fight with him to over-ride a filibuster?

You can evade discussing my point if you wish, but I suspect you do so because you have no valid argument against it.

Lets see what we have in this post by California Yankee:

1. A conservative republican telling the times the White house is exploring ideas on how to withdraw the nomination. Unknown source ofcourse, but probably anyone of the following Frum, Kristol, Kraut, Bauer. They want Miers out and here is a way of keeping the discussion going.
   
2.  Apparently by two unnamed sources the White House is worried how she will do in the hearings. But the most important person in the White House has been on record as saying he thinks Miers will do extremely well.  All he is asking is for people to wait for the hearings. Maybe some of you have heard of him, his name is George W. Bush.
   
3. Has Miers cancelled any meetings. The answer is no.
   
4. Are you really using a quote from Senator Schumer. I would assume if the nominee was Luttig or Brown or Jones then we would have negative comments form Chuckie but you would not be using it.  You probably would be attacking it.
   
5. Also quoting poor Senator Specter who has been attacked by many conservatives for being a "RINO". It is funny how you have come to use his displeasure as another source to attack Miers. My guess is that Specter who is extremely pro-choice has realized that Miers is extremely pro-life. Specter is worried not about Miers but about Roe being settled law. If we all remember it was the first question he asked Roberts about.  
   
6. I have seen more people applaud her responses on the Senate questionnaire than attack it. Senator Brownback seemed pleased with her answers and even said she has the mental capacity to be a judge on the SCOTUS. I will go with Brownback before Leahy and Specter.
   
7. You still do not get it. Unless she falls apart in the confirmation hearings she will be confirmed. "W" will not withdraw the nomination.
   

But I assume that is your goal. You want her out before the heearings, because if she does well your chances of her withdraw has been moved to zero.  

Your point is your assertion as to what the president HAD to do.

You won't budge from there, so there's nothing to discuss.

I wish we wouldn't use silly nicknames like that for the opposition, specially when some of them are plainly not stupid.

I'd pit an average 10 year old against Rep. Pelosi, but Senator Schumer clearly has a brain to work with.

There's no reason for anyone to stoop to "clever" nicknames for other human beings.

Part of the reason there is so much animosity in politics is this labeling that goes on.  It's evident even in the name of this site.  There aren't in actuality "Red" or "Blue" states.  That is media short-hand for labeling PEOPLE as "Red" or "Blue".  It's dehumanizing and disgusting.  "Well, you're free to leave, then, mujadaddy."  Well, yes, but I enjoy the generally mature level of discourse here and haven't found any other place on the internet with such intelligent people, excepting Tbone, of course. ;) :P

It is most unfortunate, too, considering that the whole idea of red and blue states were perverted after the 2000 election.

Previously, the incumbent candidate or party was colored in blue, and the challenger in red. That's why Gore's states were blue and Bush's states were red.

In 1992, for example, President Bush's states were blue. Clinton's were red. Then in 1996, Clinton's were blue and Dole's were red.

This caused some rather memorable events in people's lives, actually. Dave Leip from the US Election Atlas said that the reason why he uses blue for Republicans and red for Democrats on his site is because he remembers the 1984 election, when Reagan was the incumbent, and the big wash of blue across the map.

Theoretically, then, Bush should have had the blue states and Kerry should have had the red states in the 2004 election. I wish the media people had been consistent with their previous behavior across prior elections and colored the map that way, perhaps to make a larger social point: there really is no such thing as red states or blue states.

Unfortunately, they were not inspired to do so, and instead they continued down the path of red vs. blue, retro vs. metro, Jesusland vs. United States of Canada, and all the other silly divisions that have been put in place.

I wish they would go back to the old way.

that without the actions of the GO14, the filibuster would not have been an option. GWB would not have had to concern himself with a filibuster, and the ramifications. The pick would no doubt NOT have been Miers.

I'm not debating whether or not GWB SHOULD have stepped up to the plate and nominated a proven commodity (my choice would have been Luttig). He absolutely should have. But he didn't.

And he didn't because he couldn't spend the political capital given the current state of affairs. He would not have gotten 60 votes to over-ride. He was forced into the "box" of dealing with the the filibuster, when he absolutely should not have had to.

The Miers pick, and the current show of unrest in the movement, can be laid squarely on the GO14, and specifically the 7 Republican traitirs. Without their actions, GWB would not have had to make the choice of "right" versus "politically less dangerous".

Miers is the fault of the 7. They must be held accountable!

Hello again.

Yesterday I gave an update on the Miers situation over at confirmthem.com based on information I've received from numerous sources I deem reliable. And the feeling yesterday among my sources was that the Miers nomination is in serious trouble because of the potential opposition coming from Specter and the other Rhinos who do not like her conservative views on abortion. I once again have new information today (Saturday) from two of the same sources. Below is the new update.

As of today, there is serious discussion inside the White House regarding how best to go about repairing damage done in the last week. A political calculation is being formulated this weekend with one of two possible outcomes.

1. Ask Miers to withdraw before the hearings.
   
2. Increase verbal support of Miers and hope she can withstand the hearings and be confirmed.

I have learned that there are high level conservative activists which have consulted with the White House on which direction the Miers situation should go. If Bush decides to allow the Miers hearings to go forward, there is serious concern that not only will she be rejected, but it will look terribly bad, even worse than the Bork hearings. The primary reason for this is due to Miers perceived "unqualified" demeanor.

The political calculation being discussed also involves how best to make a "credible" exit strategy if withdrawal is the action taken. With the Plame indictments coming down next week, the odds increase that Miers name would be withdrawn under the rader of press coverage focused on the indictments. The White House plans on restarting an effective PR campaign pertaining to the indictments and will need as much conservative support as possible. The theory being that if Bush can reignite conservative republicans with a new pick for SCOTUS the White House won't have to fight two media wars at the same time.

Personally, I have no idea which direction the White House will go in deciding Miers fate. But my sources feel there is a 60% chance Miers won't be the nominee by November 1st. Just twenty four hours ago the same sources felt there was no chance of that happening. One thing is for certain, the White House is listening to conservative opposition now, whereas a week ago they were laughing it off.

Thanks for the update but as we have seen in the past most of the sources discussed here have a less than a great record.

If she steps down on her own is the only way I see this happening. "W" could care less about Specter and the RINO's. They know if she is withdrawn then a proven conservative will be nominated or Gonzales. The RINO's fear that worse. Also many of Miers close friends say there is zero chance of her stepping down.

"W" has taken a lot more pressure and heat from the DEMS than a small fraction of the republican/conservative base.

 

that has to be the fundamental question.....and I wonder where the dobsons, robertsons, bauers and Lands of this world feel about an Al Gonzalez nomination.  

would probably get hit hard by the Dems over the "torture memos," and they'd probably get some traction with the RINOs on the issue. I don't see his chances as being very good either. (I realize this doesn't actually answer your question.)

Gonzales would be very popular with the left.  He is also soft on life.

Theoretically, then, Bush should have had the blue states and Kerry should have had the red states in the 2004 election.

I think you've got this slightly wrong. The way I hear it, the incumbent (party) keeps the colors they started with. (So I'm pretty sure Clinton had Red again in 1996.)

It's 2008 when the GOP should regain Blue, and the Dems go back to their (natural!) Red.

I have no idea if the networks will actually go back to that system in 2008 though - the Red/Blue meme seems too obvious for them to pass up.

With all the cronyism talk surrounding Miers it would be very hard for Bush to nominate another insider.   I would expect the next to pick to have impeccable credentials with no ties to the White House or Bush personally.

Really?

I didn't know that they kept the same colors they started with. That would explain keeping Bush red in 2004 at least.

I should read more into this. Thanks for the information though. You may very well be right.

I think red should always be Democrat, because red is pretty universally used as the color of the major center-left parties of the free world.

Sure, some Democrats will respond that they, unlike those parties, aren't socialist, but that argument disappears when Howard Dean and co. softplay Bernie Sanders in that Senate campaign.

Softplay? I am fairly certain Dean endorsed him.