Redstate

Urged them both to reject this nominee regardless of her qualifications. Responsible members of both parties should condemn the kind of cronyism that led to this nomination.

In the days after 9-11, Bush said "I can hear you. The American people can hear you. And the people who did this to you will hear all of us soon."

Well Mr. President. "I hear you. The pro-Constitution movement hears you. And the Republican Party will hear all of us in 2006!"

again that Bush did what he intended all along, to put pro-corporation justices on the court.  How a justice may rule on social issues is not as important to Bush as it is to most here and it is also much harder to gauge how someone may vote on those issues once seated.  As a former corporate attorney Bush was probably very confident he could trust how she would vote on those issues and not make the social ones a priority.

That sums up my feelings pretty darn well.

The opportunity cost of Miers over, say, Luttig, is so great as to justify opposition to her nomination regardless of other factors.

It's this simple: if a generic Republican was President, what chance would Miers have of being nominated?

That's easy. Zero. None. Nada.

Bush betrayed his supporters directly-- he lied to them-- but more fundamentally he betrayed the movement that made his rise even possible. This goes beyond specific cases and into the very core of conservatism.

Indeed, his mistake was totally his own fault... and it was a mistake of Presidency-, Court-destroying proportions. Miers cannot get a pass. It's too bad a nice person, if she is one, has to attacked in the process.

"But from where we sit now, this is a profoundly disappointing nomination, a missed opportunity, and an abdication of responsibility to make sound, well qualified nominations."

Bingo!

Amen and Amen!

With Roberts, at least the conservatives could say that he is an incredibly well-qualified justice and deserved his confirmation.  But looking simply at Mier's credentials, and keeping her politics (as well as my own) out of it, why does she deserve to sit on the highest court of the land?  

If someone can answer this question to my satisfaction, I will have some respect for Bush's decision.  But lacking sufficient justification, I would have to say (agreeing with many posts I've read already) that she does not deserve to have an Fed. Appeals seat, much less the SCOTUS, and is another example of cronyism (see FEMA's ex-head Brown) that has been prevalent throughout the beltway (including my own Dems).

International Court, tax increasing and gay rights supporter with no judicial experience?

Over on dkos they are "outing" her as a possible lesbian? What reality am I living in? Is this what we fought for? What are the positives of this nomination? At least with Gonzalez we would have been courting the Latino vote.

I pray the conservatives ally themselves with the ultra-leftists in the Senate and crush this nomination!

Either way, I see where the President's allegiances are and I will not support this man or this party one minute longer!

I was already falling off the fence with this administration's stances on illegal immigration and spending but this is absolutely the final straw! The Constitution party and the Libertarians will receive all of my financial support from now on.

We as conservatives have taken a lot of lumps for this president and solid conservatives being appointed were all that we asked in return. Confirmed or not, we wanted to know that the president would stand by us. This shows that he will not, thus I will no longer stand by him.

I am so disappointed, feel so betrayed and am so outraged at this pick that I can't even put it into words. This is the final straw!

Part of the question we're all grappling with, purple.  I'll assure you that as much as anyone who is a dyed-in-the-wool Leftist would oppose almost anyone Bush nominated, what you're seeing here this morning is an (almost) equal degree of consternation by people on the Right.  

Finally, something that brings the parties together.  What an achievement!

If you're sincere about wanting SCOTUS to move away from what you term the "authority to answer many of these questions," isn't the only issue whether or not Meiers is an originalist?

By highlighting that you're hoping she's "right on life issues," though, you're undercutting that, no?

The first word I have seen on 'outing' Miers (which is just as ridiculous as it sounds) was on the GayPatriot website.

From Ryan Lizza's reporting we can infer Ms. Miers supported the International Criminal Court, tax increases, and a prohibition on laws that would prohibit gay adoption.

The report doesn't state that Miers or any other members of the Select Committee supported any of these measures but merely that they be brought forward for consideration.  The report doesn't "recommend" or "support" any of the items, it merely provides the information about them for the Delegates who ultimately decide whether to vote them up or down.

My own views on Harriet Miers and how we should deal with the nomination can be found here:

2)    We need to be careful and make distinctions in how we compare and contrast issues.  Just as many of us favor changes in the leadership in the House and Senate, it doesn't mean we have to believe every trumped up charge that's thrown against them.  In deciding whether to support or oppose the Miers nomination, we need to separate the wheat from the shaft and condemn those outrageous arguments that people will be throwing around even if the person or group tossing them out there might share the same the views we have on whether to support this nomination.

I'd strongly encourage you to update your post so that people who are undecided don't get fooled by what appears to be a TNR hit piece on the nomination and misrepresents the actual report of the Select Committee of the House.

If you're sincere about wanting SCOTUS to move away from what you term the "authority to answer many of these questions," isn't the only issue whether or not Meiers is an originalist?

No.

By highlighting that you're hoping she's "right on life issues," though, you're undercutting that, no?

No.

Because I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but:

(1) Nothing is gained by sandbagging this nomination.  The next nominee will necessarily be more of a squish, not less;

(2) We will know in less than a year whether our fears are warranted, by the time she votes in the Solomon Amendment cases and the parental notification case.  If she votes "wrong," THEN I'll commit to staying home in '06;

(3) Notwithstanding a brief 2-year stint on the Texas Supreme Court, her credentials are roughly analogous to those of Alberto Gonzalez.  Among the many (justified, to my mind) objections raised against Gonzalez, I don't recall anyone suggesting he wasn't "qualfied;"

(4) I'm glad redstate wasn't around when Clarence "I've never thought about Roe" Thomas was nominated.

"She could be great, but we're coming out against her because we don't know yet a few hours after her nomination."  This is a good way to lose influence.  You've certainly lost a bit with me.

Contrast this knee-jerk reaction to Beldar's remarkably thoughtful and well researched defense of the nomination.

By the way--are you seriously arguing that close ties to the judiciary are vital?  Seems to me that people who want to see the authority of the judiciary limited should be jumping for joy at a non-judge taking this position.

Don't believe everything you read in the New Republic.  The article Eric cited was a hit piece on Miers and they completely misrepresented an agenda of items to be discussed by the Delegates by claiming that it was a "recommendation."

What we need is pressure placed on conservative senators to stand up and say this:

"We will support this candidate for an appellate court seat, but not the Supreme Court."

All it takes is one to get the ball rolling.

If Bush was so high on H.M., why not just nominate her now to Robert's old seat?

why, as Dana Carvey says, the answer is always no.

But he brings up a good point. It seems to me that Republicans have made their no-rejection-only-on-ideology bed, and now they have to sleep in it. To try to go back on it now would be to march right into a Democrat's campaign ad.

even though your monosyllabic responses are ripe for snarking, I actually am curious.

Is it important for the next Justice to be "right" on issues so the court can return to a more "originalist" sensibility?

In other words, if you get strict originalists on the court, doesn't that more or less make their personal opinions on the hot button issues null and void?

Remember him? One of Nixon's first SCOTUS nominees. Less than stellar. Senator Hruska from Nebraska, trying to defend Carswell's nomination, said, "Even if he is mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they?"

Maybe now we have G. Harriet Carswell.

Well-put Strac... it seems that Bush is hugging the principle of keep everyone happy to keep support; but I really wish someone would have reminded him that a nominee like this is not going to keep his base and no one wins without a base (and moderates do not count)

Miers also has no practical experience with the SCOTUS, has never argued cases before the SCOTUS, nor she any reputation as a Constitutional or SCOTUS scholar.

This bit about her supporting an International Criminal Court, advocating for adoption of children by gays is absolutely staggering.

Obviously Bush, Rove, Cheney (who was just defending Miers on Rush Limbaugh), and so on believe that they can thumb their nose at their conservative base without consequence.

Well, we'll see about that in both '06 and '08, won't we?

I've voted Republican in natinoal elections since I was old enough to vote, because I knew that the Constitutional party would never be able to win. I voted for GHWB even though I didn't care for him, because I didn't want Clinton.

But I'll vote my conscience now. At leats I know where the Constitution party stands.

Given the out of control spending Bush has singed into law, his horrible track record concerning border security, his amnesty ideas for illegals, his kowtowing to the EU while the mullahs in Iran develop nukes, the bloated entitlement prescription benefit for seniors, his failure to get anywhere on social security, his pandering to Dems and "moderate" Repubs, his lip service to a Constitutional Amendment declaring that marriage is an instution between a man and a woman, his penchant for nominating "stealth" candidates to the SCOTUS, his cronyism, and so on, I believe its fair to say he is a RINO.

"Read my lips," no more donations or votes for the Repubs until they grow a spine and stick to their promises.

The Meirs nomination is another reflection of the narrow cadre of "insular group thinkers" that have run the Bush Presidency from the beginning.  The Chaney/Rove team has certainly been effective at winning elections for Republicans, but when it comes to governing the Nation, and materially impacting world events as the sole superpower, the Administration sorely lacks principled, determined, analytical thinkers, with strong character and a solid sense of their place in History.  Bush seems to actively avoid or dislike reaching out to strong people for advice and input.  He appears to rely on a very small group of like minded advisors, probably battle weary (literally) and suffering a bit from siege mentality that most organizations develop overtime. As WoPo writer, Hoagland recently suggested, Bush would be well served by binging in some new, experienced strong minded leaders.  

Looking back, one of Reagan's great strengths was his reaching out for diverse opinions, and surrounding himself with very strong statesmen-like advisors.  Reagan also benefited from Nancy stepping in at times and telling him what he needed to hear, not just what he wanted to hear.

In the case of the Meirs nomination, the Bush Team got nailed by a brilliant Reid sucker punch: encourage the Administration to pick someone that will be perceived  by the general public as another unqualified Bush crony, and by his core base as a traitor to their central beliefs and policy objectives.  

Very lucid and well-thought critique.

the stuff in the TNR article is pretty slender in details. Note that it is talking about an International Criminal Court--not the same as an International War Crimes Court. Remember there are some international criminals out there (drug lords and the like) whose wealth and power indemnify them from the authority of any purely local justice system: an international effort against such big-time scum would not necessarily be a bad idea.

As for the gay rights thing it simply affirms what is already public policy in most states: that being gay is not per se a bar against adopting a child "when it is the best interests of the child". Also, note that both these issues were being dealt with legislatively, not judicially so the fact that the lady may have supported these initiatives in that form does not mean that she would rule that way on the bench. Even Clarence Thomas said he would have voted to overturn the Texas sodomy law if he were seated in the legislature, but he did not vote to overturn it judicially.

As for rumors of lesbianism, this is beyond the pale--utterly and totally. I cannot believe that people are repeating Kos slanders here as if they were the Gospel truth. And even if it is true, it ought not matter at all.  "Gay" (or "lesbian" is not a synonym for "liberal" and more than "Black" or "Jewish" are,

If you're referring to the Capital One commercials.

The verdict is already in: Miers is a disappointment at best - worse if you look elsewhere.

It seems they want their banzai charge (never mind past failures like Mediscare and the 1995 budget battle), and if they don't get their bloody "death or glory" charge, they will sulk.

If a prospective jurist believes that the Constitution required abortion on demand, we don't believe that they are strictly interpreting it.  That same desire to loosely interpret its words likely would apply to other areas as well (which explains why the liberal pro-abortion justices were in the majority on Kelo).

Others obviously disagree, but now you know our opinion.

...at least it will be on a party or on candidates that actually care about what I care about! Maybe they'd never win, but if they did, they would stand for what I believe in.

My heart and my head have been pulling me in this direction for a few years now, but this is the catalyst for action.

Let's see how far being the party of Lincoln Chafee gets the Republicans!

This is what my hours, days and months of election anxiety (three times since 2000) were wasted on? This was the ball-game and we just punted!

Luttig, Brown or Estrada would have given America a clear choice. Win or lose, we would have been on record as a party of priciple. Now, we're the party of mush!

At least I don't have to care about how the President is going to defend the Katrina criticisms anymore. If he thought the left and the press were throwing a lot at him, wait until he realizes his rear security has just bailed on him!

He used us, abused us and we let him. I promise you, it won't happen again for this conservative!

I'd say the answer is yes, that's correct.  If a jurist is a real, bona fide originalist, such a person will not flavor the law with their own policy preferences.

But why you're not being addressed seriously is (besides past history) that you make a federal case out of what was clearly a tiny sidebar ('right on life issues').  And also, whether or not Miers is really an originalist is by no means the only issue.  

If Luttig or Edith Jones had been nominated instead, there would certainly be a war in the Senate, but there's not a person on either side who would go to bed tonight wondering what the judicial philosophy of our nominee would be.  And a whole bunch of us have a problem with this.  We have a deep bench of highly qualified candidates, with known records and positions.  We have a pretty good idea how most/all of those would handle the bright lights.

With this stealth nominee, we know nothing.  If history is our guide, we have Kennedy, Souter, and Sandy-O to guide us, regarding the question of 'how's that stealth nominee doing'?

I agree with much of what you say, but you shouldn't fool yourself into thinking that a Gonzales pick would benefit the GOP in any significant way with Hispanics.  Nor would a Garza pick, or an Estrada pick, or any selection of a latino.  Its a pipe dream.

But of course excellent judges like Garza should be considered for the Court because his record suggest he would be an originalist/conservative.  Bush the Elder should have gone with him over Souter.

I recommend the link. The idea that this nominee is someone Bush knows well enough to know where she really stands on things -- That's compelling.  That's about as ... anti-Souter ... as is gets.

Maybe we're misunderestimating.

It isn't that I dislike her as a nominee, to be honest i know next to nothing about her or her views and thus have no reason to dislike her for her for that reason.  I am just profoundly dissapointed in her lack of credentials...

I am withholding judgement on whether I support her or want her rejected until I hear more about her and her post law school qualifications - to be honest, as a person who has been in college/graduate school for 9 years now, college is what you make of it, it is what you do afterwards that is much more important to me... and from what I have seen, while impressive in some ways, I am not impressed overall with her qualifications for supreme court justice.

Interested in talking about this particular aspect of Miers' background.  I want to know the facts about her involvement with the ICC, and I think we need to work to get those facts out sooner than later.  I don't want rumors -- I don't want "guilt by association" charges, and I would appreciate if it were put into historical perspective.

This is a question of singular importance to me, and it should be to everyone.

The full text of what Lizza cited turns things around quite a bit.

The title alone reads "Potential agenda items".  We can also take a look at text almost at the top of the agenda:

This list includes issues which may be presented for consideration at the 1999 Midyear Meeting of the House of Delegates.

So, what she submitted was a list of potential items that would come up at a policy meeting for the ABA's House of Delegates.  This does not strike me as worth the collective hyperventialtion I'm seeing.

Thanks, get a glass of tea and start over.  A whole new batch will be here tonight and will need your perspective as well.

Yes, it may very well be more difficult to predict how a justice will vote on social/cultural issues, especially over time.  I mean, who thought that Anthony Kennedy would vote to create a right to sodomy based on some absurd (as Scalia puts it) 'sweet mystery of life' doctrine.  

But you can increase your chances of getting a judge who will rule properly (i.e. like conservatives) on such issues by picking among those with a record of such rulings on lower courts and of espousing such a judicial philosophy in writings and speeches.  

That Bush hasn't done that with either pick can be taken in any number of ways, but to me its speaks to a lack of will to fight.

... there were several more well qualified and more appealing picks for the conservative base. The qualifications and secondly, the views of this nominee are troubling at least, and appalling at worst!

I don't claim to know whether or not she is a lesbian. I think I'm safe in assuming that those conservatives who went to the polls in November of last year were not doing so to see Bush appoint a lesbian or even a possible lesbian. It's just one more characteristic of this nominee that doesn't jive with what the base actually needed.

A look at the document in question.

It merely lists potential agenda items for the a meeting of the ABA House of Delegates.  Nothing in this report construes any support by Miers for the ICC, gay adoption, or tax increases.  Unless you believe in "penumbras" or other such nonsense...

I was merely citing the fact that if we were going to get someone who met our needs on social issues at least we could have gotten a nominee with a possible upside and some better credentials!

Whatever...So much for that campaign promise.

I think "profoundly disappointed" dials it down far too much. The nomination of Harriet Miers is an absolute disaster. This is not like Rehnquist (as Erik already noted) nor is it like Roberts.  Harriet Miers was not a foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution like Roberts was (with memos to prove it). She is a foot soldier in this President's "revolution" and readers of this website know the difference.  

If Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer are out there praising Harriet Miers, this is absolutely the wrong time to wait and see and be convinced. GOP Presidential candidates need to be out there demanding more from a nomination and promising a hard NO vote on the Senate floor.  Now is not the time to trust the President (who has been SO conservative) or any political outfit that has been intoxicated by the WH's friendship to have already spouted their praise when the record on her conservative credentials is somewhere between scant and nonexistent.  Message to Senators:  Bring the nomination down!  The base said no more Souters, and we meant it.

Aleks311 wrote:

As for rumors of lesbianism, this is beyond the pale--utterly and totally. I cannot believe that people are repeating Kos slanders here as if they were the Gospel truth. And even if it is true, it ought not matter at all.  "Gay" (or "lesbian" is not a synonym for "liberal" and more than "Black" or "Jewish" are,

This has got to be one of the dumbest statements I've ever heard hear before.

First off, I have no idea if Miers is gay, and I didn't say that she was, nor do I believe anything that ever gets posted at Kos. So don't hang that canard around my neck.

Second, your point about how being gay does not equate to being liberal is blatantly and patently false. Who do gays vote for? Liberals. Who pushes the gay agenda in this country? Liberals. And don't bother mentioning any Republican names that support gays, as I consider them liberals and RINOs as well.

Finally, when you equate "gayness" with race, you are making a fatal mistake. They are not born that way, as people are born with a particular skin color, it is a lifestyle they choose, and a morally reprehensible and perverse one.

Now I'm sure you'll trot out the "homophobe" canard, and let me assure you that won't phase me one bit. I have no qualms whatsoever calling proponents of abortion propopents of murder, nor do I have any qualms about calling proponents of homosexuality proponents of perversion and immorality.

Its not homophobia to be disgusted with a perverse lifestyle like homosexuality any more than it would be for a person to be disgusted with people who advocate bestiality, rape, or child molesters. Its called common sense.

So I'll say this. If Miers was gay (which I have no idea if she is or not), I would say that would disqualify her to sit on the bench. Its a liberal view that "gay is ok," not a conservative view.

if we were going to get someone who DIDN'T meet our needs...

Here's what's happening: W has nominated this manifestly unqualified law-nun to the highest court in the land knowing full well that she will not make it out of committee. Then he can blame the Senate and nominate the man to whom he owes so much, Alberto Gonzales.

I really can't believe all you sharp guys and gals don't see this already. It's got KR all over it.

Because she has said she'd be ok with judges who returned abortion to the states. In the end, pro-choice or life, no true conservative can support the activism of Roe v Wade. If you are an originalist (Thomas) textualist (Scalia) or federalist (Rehnquist) you CANNOT support Roe vs Wade.

Attending law school at an Ivy League school, or Stanford, shouldn't be thought of as some prerequisite to being on the Sup Court, nor even should prior service as a judge as the Constitution makes no such demands.  

But I have to agree with you on this specific case.  I don't see what Miers has done to warrant this selection.  If Bush was set on making a diversity pick, then there were many women and minority candidates who seem more worthy.  Some may have been harder for you guys on the left to argue against (like Roberts), and some may have set off the war over judicial philosophy that I would like to see.  But either way seems preferable to the path Bush has chosen.

I've seen these before, many times.  Nothing there there.  If anyone else has any info., please bring it to the table.

Thanks for the perspective.

The early morning let down of thinking Luttig and getting Miers just about got me.

Now, I'm chillin'.  Or at least coolin' off a little.

Either the Directors didn't double-check the assertion from Lizza's piece on The New Republic website, or they simply ignored the fact that it was merely a document that listed  potential agenda items that would come up in a 1999 meeting of the ABA House of Delegates, and nothing in it or the cover letter indicates any support for these items.

I'd like a clarification on this.

A superior nominee - such as Luttig, Alito, Jones, and Rogers Brown - would not have required Vice President Cheney going on the Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity radio shows today to try and convince grass roots conservatives about the nominee.

This is a hack administration that has just nominated a hack crony.

Call and e-mail the Republican National Committee, your state Republican Party, and every Republican U.S. Senator and demand Miers name be withdrawn.

nm

Seriously guys, what was Bush smoking on this nomination?

As a Democrat, I am utterly stunned.  Someone who has a history of donating money to Democrats, including Al Gore?  

Excuse me for a second.  

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Heh.  Snort.

Hey, someone who supported Al Gore can't be all bad.  There is a rumor of a 1991 donation to Clinton.

She appears to be pro-business, but that is just fine with me.  Sure she is a crony, but I expected no less.

The good news?

Miers is pro-education in that she supported a 7% increase in property taxes during her tenure on the Dallas City Council.

Mrs. Miers also appears to tilt towards the left on Gay Rights.  While chairing a committee, she submitted a report which supported the enactment of laws and public policy which provide that sexual orientation shall not be a bar to adoption when the adoption is determined to be in the best interest of the child.

She also recommended the development and establishment of an International Criminal Court.

Oh, she was also a trial lawyer.

Wow, just wow.  

Honestly, I expected the next S.Ct. nomination to be an ultra conservative who would earn a fillibuster by Democrats.  

Just in case you conservatives were wondering, Ms. Miers was on our "no-fillibuster" list.  Thanks, Mr. Bush for your most excellent nomination of a woman who is an excellent lawyer and who clearly supports our social agenda.  

Pro Gay Rights.  Pro Education.  Pro Rule of Law.

Practically everything we actually wanted in a nominee.

-Democrats

You can obviously never say with certainty that membership in a certain group automatically gives away the politics and ideology of an individual member of that group.  

Afterall, didn't the lesbian member of the Mass Sup Court vote not to impose gay marriage on the state in that insane decision?

But having said all of that, you can definitely say that membership in a certain group makes it more likely that you hold certain views.  A white southerner is likely to be a conservative Republican.  A black voter is likely to be a Democrat.  

And its reasonable to assume that a homosexual judge would certainly be more likely to use the courts to advance a leftwing agenda.

This action will have severe and grave consequences for the Republicans in '06 and '08 if I'm reading the conservative tea-leaves correctly.

And I do believe I am.

Why now?  I don't get it.  For five years, George W. Bush has done nothing but nominate conservative after conservative jurist to the Appelate courts, it was his administration, make no mistake about it who tacitly if not overtly supported the use of the Nuclear Option in the Senate, it was his adminisration that renominated multiple justices who had been fillibustered by the democrats during his first term, and yet when he had the chance to reshape the court and there is no doubt that adding Luttig and Roberts would give the right three gigantic intellectual minds (Scalia) for at least the next ten years and the former two for at least 20-25 years, he blew it.

Given my moderate social beliefs (mostly pro-choice, anti- school prayer etc.), I'm ecstatic, even given that Miers could join the Right wing of the party, but no one can deny that Luttig, Roberts and Scalia on the Court would have provided the court with one of its most impressive intellectual blocs in the Court's history, no matter what side of the aisle one sits.  So to repeat, from a President who has not once paid attention to Democrats on any significant piece of legislation (except for NCLB) or major policy decision and who has gone out of his way to satisfy his base on tax cuts, appellate nominees, Iraq, the Environment, etc, why would he choose to make this nomination now?

I don't get it.

It basically says "Trust Bush" on the Miers nomination.

No thanks. The POTUS is proving himself to be a moderate on nearly every issue since his reelection, from spending, to immigration and the border, to his pandering to the moderates of his party as well as the Dems, cronyism, pandering to the EU on Iran, etc.

I for one have run out of patience, and "Trust Bush" articles are not going to restore my confidence one iota.

Once the anti christian attacks start

any minute now

and no later than harball tonight

the discussion will be 180 degrees

see

http://www.americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=3273

http://www.worldmagblog.com/blog/archives/018821.html

http://www.worldmagblog.com/blog/archives/018816.html

About Cheney on Redhot:

What does it say about the administration that they've had to send out Vice President Cheney to reassure the base. I say that they know they have a crap nomination.

Maybe it says that Planned Parenthood and Emily Bazelon from Slate Magazine knew something nobody at RedState did.

"White House Counsel Harriet Miers has been vetter-in-chief of the Supreme Court candidates. What if Bush selects her over them, in the Dick Cheney tradition?"

-- Slate, September 20, 2005

Point number 4 is a good one, but surely you can understand the sense of doom and gloom.  I mean, how many SCOTUS picks in recent history have proven to be more conservative than thought or hoped for?  Maybe Thomas does fit that, but other than that you'd probably have to go back to JFK's pick of Byron White.

Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter.....the list doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

I have some negative feelings regarding this candidate, but "cronyism" is not one of them.  Just because the potential candidate was known and liked by the President does not BY ITSELF make that candidate a poor choice.  

I refuse to believe that W has sold us out.  I have to trust the President I have come to respect and admire has nominated a SCJ we will be proud of.  I am not going to jump on the antiW bandwagon just because he picked a SCJ that was a bit unexpected.  I wouldn't doubt that he and Karl have planned this out, and know what they are doing.

Thomas was no constitutional or intellectual giant when he was chosen.  We all know that there were many "better" choices from the elitist viewpoint.  Meirs is really in the same mold - a competent person who has worked hard to get where they are, a "minority" who has non-judicial experience.  (Thomas' was almost non-existent). I think she is a good pairing with Roberts. She will probably be better than the woman she replaces, whose judicial reasoning was occasionally questionable.

Come on, Bush knows Miers will never get confirmed. He chose an obviously unqualified and controversial candidate so that all the press and blogs would talk about his decision, which serves to take attention off the damaging Plamegate revelations made over the weekend. He did the same thing when he rushed Roberts' nomination to deflect attention from the then-recent news of Karl Rove's potential role in the Plame thing.

but since you're taking me seriously now, I'll press on. Taking

you make a federal case out of what was clearly a tiny sidebar ('right on life issues').  

and juxtaposing it with

We have a pretty good idea how most/all of those would handle the bright lights.

suggests to me that my "tiny sidebar" is actually the main source of the disappointment/anxiety here. Yes, I get that a desired judicial philosphy is important (and, honestly, I respect that), but I guess what I'm responding to is the way that a return to originalism seems to offer hope of the means toward a desired end. Not an end unto itself. Perhaps that's an unfair reading, but I honestly don't think so.

Hard to tell if you're being serious, but in case you are, then surely you're not serious about Bush owing Gonzales anything are you?  Its the other way around.  Giving his buddy the Attorney General slot should be enough to satisfy his 'loyalty' instincts towards Gonzales forever.

Agreed that she was "a big gamble."  But maybe we should be calling her "Dick Cheney's Big Gamble" and maybe that's why Dick Cheney was on Rush Limbaugh today...and maybe...and maybe...

walk and chew bubble gum.  I thought W. was a man of principle.  Do you actually think he'll throw a close, personal friend under the bus to save Karl Rove?

(1) Nothing is gained by sandbagging this nomination.  The next nominee will necessarily be more of a squish, not less;

Then let's test the proposition.

If Miers goes down, and the next one is worse, half of the present membership will know that the GOP is no longer the place for them.

At this point, a Guiliani nomination would confirm it.

In fact, her name appears first and foremost on the submission letter that accompanied the report.

Tell yourself whatever you want.  Democrats are very happy with this nomination.  A trial lawyer who donated money to Al Gore!  Awesome!

Even if she doesn't survive committee or the nomination process itself, what does that say about the President and his relationship with his Republican controlled congress?

Could you imagine if George Bush's own party sunk this nomination?  The political ramifications of such an event would be very damaging for Republicans.  They would no longer be able to use the "Democrats are Obstructionists!" frame in 2006.

Don't stop working to make the party better.  Leaving to join a fringe group might seem satisfying, but it will just leave more work for those of us who STAY IN THE BATTLE.

When the going gets tough, the tough get going!  We can use all hands on deck, so suck it up and get back to your station.

Remember, for better or worse, the USA is a two party nation, so joining any third party is tantamount to just making yourself irrelevent.

It is my understanding that Jay Sekulow, of ACLJ(American Center for Law and Justice), has had some kind and reassuring words about this nominee.  If Jay is for her, that's enough for me.  Too bad Jay wasn't the nominee.

The idea that she is a decoy for Democrats to gun for while Bush and Rove prepare the real nominee needs to be put to rest.

I'd pay to see Ted Kennedy  go after her biblical views.  That's Entertainment!

She was in the meetings with Bush, Rove and Cheney to select the nominee.  She was part of the frank, open conversations about what qualities the person needed to have. She was there with the president bemoaning the risks involved in possibly selecting another Souter.

In short, she had to be on board with the entire Scalia/Thomas/originalist/pro-life checklist.

And yet, she won't be required to reveal just exactly what she said as the president's advisor, and she didn't have to be guarded in a tense interview while making the president understand where she stands on the issues.

Perfect.

Get it?

is that we needed a nominee who would sail through confirmation in order to BE ON THE COURT in time for the 2 abortion cases that are coming up. Yes a known (to us) quantity would have been preferable, however, such a known quantity would have been dragged out in the Senate for a while, leaving O'Connor on the bench ruling in those cases.

I honestly think he is drinking the cool aid on this one.  

"Given my moderate social beliefs (mostly pro-choice, anti- school prayer etc.)"

Wouldn't that mean that your social beliefs are more liberal than 'moderate'?

But anyway, there are several possible answers to your questions;

1.  Bush is afraid of a fight in light of his low poll numbers.
   
2.  Bush always intended to do as he promised with regards to appellate and district court nominations, but never intended to follow through on the Sup Court because of the fear that doing so might actually deliver a conservative court for the first time in decades, and then with the Left left to fight (and lose in most places) the cultural war where it belongs in the proper democratic arenas at the state level, then the GOP would not be able to whip up the base for national elections over cultural matters because they will have largely been settled.  This is the coldest and most treacherous explanation, but it may just be the correct one.
   
3.  Bush truly believes that Miers is in the mold of Scalia and Thomas, and therefore believes his is fulfilling his promises while avoiding a big fight.

I've been saying both here, and on ConfirmThem.com that only two criteria should come into play in choosing a nominee:

1. Judicial Qualification/Credentials; and
   
2. Judicial Philosophy

At this point, you could convince me that Miers was "100% Originalist" on criterion #2, and it wouldn't matter.

She clearly fails criterion #1. It's not even close.

Erick's sources implied that Bush was looking for "Roberts II" - i.e. someone with impeccable credentials. Miers fails this test outright.

It astounds me that this was the choice when there were at least a dozen, a DOZEN better choices, who "passed" both criteria.

This almost plays like a joke.

It's cronyism at its worst.  

This is the end of Bush 43 II. It's over from here on in. He's a lame duck. If anyone ever asks you the date that it happened - it was Mon., Oct. 2, 2005. Time stamp it.

That's why I recommended the diary that I recommended a bit earlier today.

Just because the potential candidate was known and liked by the President does not BY ITSELF make that candidate a poor choice.

Ordinarily I'd agree with you; if this administration DIDN'T have a regrettable tendency to elevate cronies to positions of responsibility, then I'd be in Thorley Winston's wait-and-see camp.

However, this administration DOES have that tendency. And since we're talking about a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court...

This administration has not earned my blind faith, sorry.

she is a fundamentalist christian. Bush has outfoxed reid. She will be unmercifully attacked by the left but can also keep the spineless gop sens.

I think this is a brilliant strategy given the weak senate spines less than 50.

to promote the President's SCOTUS picks?

We've expressed OUR opionions and a REPUBLICAN president has made HIS selection.  Bush is a conservative.  It's not a matter of 'just trust Bush', it's that this is a political decision made by the elected (thank God, not Kerry!) president. Lets get behind this choice!  

It was aimed at the entire RedState community.  I knew already that you "got it". I should have been clearer.

...but I'll be interested to see the historical record (when it becomes available in future years/decades) as to his actual level of involvement in all of them.  I suspect that the lower court nominations was much more of the White House machine running it, and his level of review/approval was much more yes/no.  

And skip over the "trust Bush" parts if you must.  There are plenty of facts in there that should put the lie to the "unqualified" complaints.  

But clearly, you've made up your mind already.

that Bush might be thinking here.  If that is the case it could save the pick.  If not I dont understand it.

We're having a bad enough day already. We don't need "clever" trolls stopping by to throw inane bug-muffins at us. Consider this your one warning. Another one like that one, and it's off to The Pile™ with you.

In my neck of the woods, more than a few Christians are going to be unhappy about her service on the lottery commission.

had better wake up.  You're so fixated on Roe that you are oblivious to the political damage to the GOP that would be wrought if the Supreme Court actually overruled it (which it won't).  While I appreciate the earnestness with which these views are held as a moral issue, I think a lot of liberal Democrats would secretly welcome an overruling of Roe because they believe it would usher the GOP right out of the White House in '08 (and possibly the U.S. Senate).  Regardless, to overrule Roe would not outlaw abortion.  In other words, be careful what you wish for. . .

A friend asked me if Bush would betray the conservative movement with his next SCOTUS nominee.  My response was, "I think he'll do the right thing."  I'm eating my words a bit this morning.

Harriet Miers seems to be well qualified and experienced.  She has many advancements as a female lawyer in a state (Texas) dominated by the male personna--excepting Ann Richards, and we all know what a wonderful thing that was for the Lone Star State.

While reading through the RNC talking points email today, I was struck by the repeated references to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and the similarities draw between Miers and her.  Especially this one,

Like Justice O'Connor, throughout her career, Ms. Miers has been a female trailblazer.

It is evident that this choice was strongly influenced by a fear of two things:

   

                     
1. A nomination fight based on hysteria drummed up by the Democrats if a male nominee was chosen.

   

2. The desire to avoid any comparisons to Justices Thomas or Scalia.

How sad.

Maybe I am wrong and she is a star, but I doubt it at this point.  Will she be bad?  Who knows.  One thing is for sure, it is likely we won't get any worse than O'Connor.  It just seems likely we won't get much better.  And the one who said in 2004, "I want Justices who have the temperment of Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia," in an attempt to drum up the conservative base in a tough election seems to have buckled under the pressure of falling poll numbers in the aftermath of Katrina.<

Since you are "time-stamping" this event, you might want to get the date right.

I don't see how the Religious Right can support this nomination when Mrs. Miers has a history of supporting socially liberal causes.    Also, she supported Al Gore.

I guess this is the moment when Bush's Base cracked, at least according to IJB.

Now, Democrats can thank Mr. Bush for his best case scenario nomination of a social liberal.  

Bush is a uniter.  Who knew?

Bush is a conservative.

You keep a-using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means.

Hat tip to the first person who correctly names the movie that line comes from.

There's plenty of time to see who was or was not drinking the so-called kool-aid.

I don't think that you are a homophobe so much as out of date.  100 years ago people felt the same way about masturbation.  I don't care if Miers is a lesbian or not - I just don't think she's qualified to be on the Supreme Court.

There's a good number of Gays who vote for the GOP - to suggest that someone who is gay would be liberal for that reason means that Thomas should be a liberal as well because most blacks are.

I'd second that motion.  I am always incredulous when that man has the audacity to talk about anything to do with morality.  What a hypocrite!

But you'd practically have to go back to Byron White to find a Dem appointment who lasted long enough to disappoint.  If you're willing to go back farther, Frankfurter, Jackson, Reed, and almost all of Truman's appointees could be considered disappointments to liberals -- if Ike had done his job we never would have even had incorporation of the Bill of Rights, much less Miranda.  And while Breyer is no Whizzer White, he comes out "conservative" on a surprising number of issues.

I guess I just look at it this way.  When I was a kid, I very much wanted a Mighty Men & Monster Maker for Christmas.  Don't ask, but I thought it was a really cool toy.  When Christmas came around, I could tell by the size of the presents that I didn't get that Mighty Men & Monster Maker.  I was despondent until I found out that I got the Legoland castle, with working drawbridge, and which was wayyyyyyy cooler.  

People here are looking at a wrapped present, and have convinced themselves that, because it isn't the Mighty Men & Monster Maker, that it must therefore be an ill-fitting tartan sweater, rather than the Legoland castle.  I know people here have convinced themselves that Bush is actually the frumpy aunt who wears too much perfume and who would likely give you the sweater or even worse -- socks.  I just haven't seen that, like I said, I think he's been pretty straightforward about who he is and what he will do.

Shudder.....do you really want Chucky and Teddy ramming home Hillary's SCOTUS nominees?

Yeah, but I think the fact that she went to SMU is one of those tag-on attacks on her. It's clearly not the major point here.

I for one don't have any problem with a Supreme Court justice coming from a non-Ivy League school. Ivy Leagues are the very bastion of liberal elite snobbery, and I see no reason why we should consider having attended such a place to be a positive rather than a neutral or even a negative point.

Chucky and Teddy ramming home Hillary's SCOTUS nominees

That image is now seared in my brain, and I am repulsed.

Is it too late to have Teddy drive home Hillary's nominees?

Are conservatives suddenly of the opinion that Judges really do have some sort of special powers?  Getting a non-judge on the court will be a very, very good thing, especially as far as reining in judicial power goes.  And as a non-judge, she has fantastic credentials.  If she were running for Senate, RedState would love her.  

And as for "supporting socially liberal causes," keep dreaming.

OK, I am perfectly willing to kick this around some.

The 2 things you juxtapose are utterly unrelated as far as I can tell.  First, the tiny sidbar:  The editorial expresses, in great detail, how and why this pick is disappointing.  Lost amongst the 1000 words or so, prominently including the 'we don't know anything about her', is this little tidbit, What we know is encouraging to the extent that she might be right on life issues.  Edward, it's just a little comment (if I may put words in the mourths of our Editors), meaning, approximately, that if she proves to be less of an originalist than we hope, perhaps at least she won't stand on the desk and wa