Redstate

any other info on her?

Is this a for dead certain, not a head fake?

I can't think of a single reason the left would like her at the same time the right likes her.

Forget confirmable, Souter was a confirmable candidate as well, and look at what we got with him.

We're staying home. We're done. You lost the Catholics in the swing states. buh-bye OH. You betrayed us. Miers has NO SUPPORT WITH THE BASE. You ran on a platform of scalia. YOU LIAR.

Note to GOP candidates: Want our support in 2008? Reject this one.

here

If this is the nominee, Bush has just given the base a huge middle finger.  Who is this woman?  Nothing is known about her.  Why didn't he nominate Luttig, McConnell, JRB, Edith Jones, etc.  2006 is a lost cause now.

Powder Blue Report

Over the next few weeks, liberal groups and liberal bloggers are going to worry themselves sick about whether Harriet Miers holds any of several frightening conservative positions.  

You should use this time to check out some liberal blogs.  They'll probably make you feel a lot better about her.  

David Frum gets the award for pointing out this possibility nearly three months ago: Link Here

Now, he had this to say a few days ago (link)

I believe I was the first to float the name of Harriet Miers, White House counsel, as a possible Supreme Court. Today her name is all over the news. I have to confess that at the time, I was mostly joking. Harriet Miers is a capable lawyer, a hard worker, and a kind and generous person. She would be an reasonable choice for a generalist attorney, which is indeed how George W. Bush first met her. She would make an excellent trial judge: She is a careful and fair-minded listener. But US Supreme Court?

In the White House that hero worshipped the president, Miers was distinguished by the intensity of her zeal: She once told me that the president was the most brilliant man she had ever met. She served Bush well, but she is not the person to lead the court in new directions - or to stand up under the criticism that a conservative justice must expect.

So, going off Frum, the convential wisdom among Conservatives is we might be replacing O'Conner with a firmly pro-life O'Conner.  If the plan was to keep this fight low-key, he might just have succeeded.  This might take the wind out of everyone's sails, minus the left fringe.

The reaction here is ridiculously hysterical.

President Bush has nominated someone who he knows very well, and has confidence in.  This is not a stealth nominee like Souter.  Miers has worked closely with the President for years.

He promised he would appoint justices that would interpret the constitution as written and not legislate from the bench.  Absent evidence to the contrary, I'm confident that's what he's done.

People should stop hyperventilating like Kos diarists and get informed before freaking out.  

Please?

Is built upon the foundation that "the President" trusts the nominee. The problem is that many of us are just about done trusting the President.

I don't see the political benefits to this nomination. Bush will get no credit for finding a truly qualified nominee. It furthers the cronyism charge that's building among the Dems. Who knows if she's even willing to stick around in Washington once Bush is out of office, leaving no conservative or even mildly conservative imprint on the Court. The base will yawn, the Dems will still growl because she's attached to Bush. I just don't get it. It's almost as if our vaunted decision maker president just threw up his hands and said' "what the Hell Harriet, you take it, I'm tired."
That approach worked out well with the VP, but I dare say this was a MUCH more important selection process.

They all thought Souter was a disaster too.

That's pretty strong stuff. Personally, I'm waiting until Leon checks in before pushing the panic button.

You did get Clarence Thomas by us at one point.  I was pretty young then, so I really don't understand how that happened.  

Miers has worked with Bush since the mid-1990's (according to a WaPo article from last summer).  She has played a leading role in selecting Bush's nominees.  There is every reason to believe she will be a solid vote for a conservative approach to judging, and against legislating from the bench.  Why is that not enough?  

The fact that she has not been in the limelight, or created a paper trail for the liberals to distort, is a huge plus.  This looks like a smart pick, and one that will leave Schumer and his idiotarian friends, flummoxed just like Roberts did.

... that cronyism part, too.  This won't help with that stuff, either.

My belief has been, though, that Bush is a man of convictions. I tend to admire that even when I don't share those convictions.

This is troubling on that level.

Hmmmm.........given that we all just spent several months talking about how John Roberts shouldn't have to answer questions about specific cases or issues, exactly where are we supposed to get any evidence that Miers is a good choice?  Is it now okay to expect answers?  And what are the chances the Democrats will be a srabid about getting answers this time?  With Roberts they were ready to oppose him simply because they didn't know anything.  My guess is they know enough that they'll let Miers slide, and THAT worries me in itself.

There is no such thing as a "stealth nominee."  The only people to whom the nominees are "stealth" is the American people - every Washington insider and congressional staffer will know everything there is to know about Miers in about 2 hours.

This is a crappy pick - I have been and continue to be against picking people for the Supreme Court who have ZERO experience as a judge.  People like Harriet Miers are exactly the kind of people that wind up overstepping their bounds - she's never been a judge with a superior court reversing her to tell her what the proper role of a judge is.  That's not inate knowledge, and as one who went to law school, it's not something you learn there either.  In fact, you're more likely to learn in law school how judges should be pseudo-social reformers.

This pick rests on one thing - Bush thinking he has the base locked up.  He's in for a surprise.  When people are willing to trust the President to follow through, they may give him the benefit of the doubt.  But now many people don't trust him on this topic and so don't trust him to pick the right people.  Remember that Souter was well-known to Warren Rudman, a very respected Republican, who vouched for his bona fides.  

Either Bush is not what he claimed to be as a candidate (a real conservative) or he's just a chicken.  Not long ago he was fighting tooth and nail to get Appeals Court judges who were solid conservatives and backed the constitutional option to get them in.  Now, when it really matters, he isn't even willing to stand up and fight for one of those nominees to join the Supreme Court.  Hell he's not even willing to fight for someone acknowledged to be half as conservative as that group.  Instead he goes for someone pre-approved by the abortion lobby (and that is effectively who controls any list Democrats may have provided).

Bush and the White House, if they are going to save this pick, and themselves, from the wrath of the right, needs to point us towards something that Miers wrote that would at least provide a good guide to her position on Roe.  Otherwise, the Bush White House might see its poll numbers drop even further as conservatives start to "disapprove" of his job performance.

take a deep breath, and try to explain WHY you think Harriet Miers is unacceptable, or for that matter WHY she deserves no support from the base.

Re: "There is no such thing as a 'stealth nominee.'  The only people to whom the nominees are 'stealth' is the American people - every Washington insider and congressional staffer will know everything there is to know about Miers in about 2 hours."

Oh, and did we know that Souter would be a liberal pantywaist?  Insider knowlege is often, very OFTEN wrong.  Come on man, these are the folks who couldn't figure out who Deep Throat was for three decades.

http://frum.nationalreview.com/

American Center for Law and Justice

aclj.org

Conservative legal group on the front lines calls Meirs an excellent choice by Bush.  I believe this will be followed by just about all major conservative organizations endorsing this choice. It was a good choice by Bush.

  Bear with me. The President nominates a cipher, aggravates the base and does what to the Dems? Do they approve a known Bush crony without any judicial experience? Would you? They have to be thinking that she will be controlled by the White House, it's the only reason she was nominated for heaven's sake. If she makes it out of committee, doubtful, she gives Republicans a chance to vote no based on poor qualifications, establishing some distance between them and Bush and setting the table for the next nominee. Much fireworks, hyperbole and gnashing of teeth. So she gets rejected. Not a pleasant experience, but who better than a close ally of the President to take one for the team? Next candidate, Luttig or JRB. How can anyone now reject him/her on qualifications? This is a set-up, with Miers as a stalking horse. If it isn't, let the Dems and others on the fence vote yes, and risk the ultimate stealth candidate who ends up securing the base for the next 20 years. Their move.

I hadn't thought of that.

Don't you think people would wonder why, when he had his first choice, he nominated a moderate, then abruptly changed to a conservative when the moderate was rejected? Why not nominate another moderate who's more qualified and not a crony?

And I think this is too clever by half. I've also added the comment that POTUS may know Stevens is leaving and has that pick to make as well. I don't discount that he and his staff know far more than we do.

Still, this is a baffling pick.

Politics aside; before, during, and after the Roberts confirmation process, he was clearly an outstanding legal scholar, a brilliant intellect.

So far, Miers is 0 for 1 in the before phase, but can still look forward to the during and after portions of the process.

Even if she impresses in hearings, that says nothing of her tenure on the court, which is an advantage pretty much any appellate level judge has on her - federal or state.

What other proof do you need that she's a red-blooded NASCAR conservative?

Are more likely a sign of, shall we say, liberal tendencies.  See, e.g.:

http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/01.18.01/cover/mullet1-0103.html

has there ever been anything but cronyism in Washington. To charge that there is a culture of the stuff is simply rediculous. There has always been friends helping friends on both sides of the isle.

 Two things. One is that we don't know she's a moderate, in fact we don't know anything, nor do the Dems. While it's true we have been burned in the past with O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter, there is no law that says the Dems can't be burned with approving Miers, especially considering that her relationship with Bush is much closer than in previous cases. If I'm a Dem, I wouldn't jump at this bet - buyer's remorse cuts both ways.

  As far as brinksmanship goes, where's the risk to Bush? If he really doesn't want Miers, for whatever reason, and it seems that she'll be approved, he, or she more likely, simply withdraws her nomination; she's 'crony' and team player, after all.

  I think the play here is to check to the Dems. If they approve a Bush crony, how can they use cronyism as a talking point? If they don't, and here I believe they will have plenty of Repub support, Bush simply plays the bi-partisan card and pulls the nomination. The fight here is going to be about qualifications, not ideology. The next candidate will be eminently qualified. I really think the strategy is to place a Luttig or a JRB on SCOTUS, this is just a tactic; who better than a friend to sacrifice. Read Macauley on Frederick the Great.

"If...it seems that she'll be approved, he, or she more likely, simply withdraws her nomination"

Again, don't you think this might look just a tad suspicious? Short of lying ("I have cancer (sob)"), I don't see how she or the administration could play a withdrawal. She's going to be confirmed.

Reid's recommendation? Contributions to the DNC? If she's not a moderate, she's certainly doing a very good impression. And I think the Dems know that if they filibuster her, Bush will nominate a real conservative, because at that point he'll be able to. They'd rather take a maybe-conservative, maybe-liberal, who really knows than an avowed conservative.

Re: using cronyism as a talking point...no one cares anyway. This is not a winning issue for Democrats if Bush isn't on the ballot, and probably even if he were. As I feel constantly obligated to remind people, Daily Kos does not equal Democratic Party.

The "third option" theory is tantalizing - if you want to be comforted because you can't believe that W wouldn't deliver what you wanted.  From where I'm sitting, reality is far simpler.  The President wanted to give to his longtime confidant, and thumbs his nose at the base.

Sen. Reid is already quoted as endorsing this pick. He speaks very highly of Miers, and suggested her very early as a viable choice for President Bush.

I think the Democrats are doing veritable cartwheels.

  It's not about 08, it's about Republicans in 2006, who are going to be the first to feel the backlash if this pick does not satisfy the base, all politics being local and all. Many of them will be opposed to her after reading the reactions around the blogosphere, especially after hearing Reid's endorsement.

 As far as talking points go, wasn't Rahm Emmanuel blathering on about cronyism yesterday? It will be a dem talking point in '06. For now, there are only two possibilities. One, Miers gets confirmed and turns out to be another Souter - bad for us. Two, she gets confirmed and turns out to be another Scalia - good for us. First possibility wrecks '06 - would you risk that if you were Bush? Second seals the base, and threatens the Dems if their base thinks they got played like fish.

  Reid is bluffing,like you do when your kid says she's thinking to dye her hair green and you say "What a wonderful idea, let's do it right now". Let's see what he says when Bush comes back with the dye. Of course we are to think that we've been had. Perfect, now Bush can come out and talk about all this great bi-partisan support. If I were a Dem, I'd be getting nervous by now. Again, Bush knows this woman, the Dems don't. Now if possbility three is correct, that Bush just thumbed his nose at the base, that would really be a first. In which case, the Republicans up for re-election in '06 will be the first to pay him back by going against Miers. She is not going to be confirmed.

   Based on what I've read on the net today, we've got a lot of people enamored of First World War tactics - full, frontal attacks leave lots of dead bodies and stalemates behind. This reads like a gamed strategy to me.

They'll get a lot more attention if they filibuster than if they let it slide. The GOP's own rhetoric on this issue has been, confirm unless the nominee is extraordinarily objectionable or unqualified...how many references to Republican approval for Ginsberg have we seen on this site? You know, this was decided by the election, Dems can't turn down a nominee just for ideological reasons, all that. Since they're purveyors of that rhetoric, for Republicans to filibuster or reject a (basically) qualified nominee for purely ideological reasons would be a serious misstep, and I think they'd get called on it, just as Democrats would be called on a filibuster of a qualified nominee for purely ideological reasons.

On the other hand, if they let it slide, they can say to their constituents (who mostly voted for Bush in 2004), this was the president's nominee, and we have to respect that.

(They could, of course, reject her by pulling the crony card or the not-really-qualified card, but that'd be shoving Dem talking points into Bush's face and making him and his nominee look bad, and I don't think they'd like to do that. However the nominee was rejected, it would look bad, and if there's one thing this president doesn't like, it's looking bad. So I highly doubt any strategy of his would require it. I'd suggest you drop the conspiracy theory and proceed assuming that he (1) thinks she will be a conservative justice and the right's fears will be assuaged when she takes her seat or (2) has been cowed by his unpopularity and felt compelled to appoint a moderate. I don't think anyone here knows which is true at this point.)

Miers is basically an ambitious, politically smart lawyer who has put her career first and foremost in her life and risen the ranks without a paper trial.  Most of her life is protected by client-attorney privilege.  Moreover, we are told Miers is a conservative, strict constructionist.  This is the definition of a stealth nominee.  Fine.

Perhaps Miers is a true conservative who would pass the seemingly Democrat-controlled Senate?  Perhaps her nomination is actually a VERY clever Rove strategy to finally do away with the "stealth" nominee strategy altogether?  Perhaps it is something altogether different and unseemly?  Time will tell.  Btw, has anyone noticed that Miers looks an awful lot like Emperor Palpatine?

Palpatine Before

http://www.mellody.co.za/michaela/palpatine/gallery/palpatine11.jpg

Harriett Miers (while the picture lasts)

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1510765/20051003/index.jhtml?headlines=...

Palpatine After

http://www.mellody.co.za/michaela/palpatine/gallery/emperor11.jpg

Seriously, one thing is quite clear as of today.  True Conservatives, like their Liberal Left counterparts, are tired of waiting for their promised land.  They want real, clear action on their most dearly held positions.  Conservatives are ready to come out of the non-gay closet and truly rule.

Is Bush's nomination of Miers the proverbial last straw for true conservatives (tired of fiscal bloat, borders, gay marriage, Iraq)?  To quote the overlord, "poor fool, only now, at the end, do you understand."  God, I hope not.  There's just too much for the GOP to gain over the next 50 years.

Nonetheless, conservatism has suffered a setback lasting at least a decade.  Face it.  We will all vote GOP in 06 and 08.  Who wants Hillary and the Dems?  If Bush is the best the past conservative movement could do, though, it is likely the next GOP presidential nominee will be a moderate by comparison.  The conservative base will now not be roused enough, and the GOP must therefore rely more on the center ground.  Don't write obituaries for McCain and Giuliani just yet.

I encourage true conservatives to hunker down WITHIN the party structure.  The newly rudely awakened conservative right has a long haul in front of them.  The movement must be organized and disciplined to avoid the dark path of the Liberal Left.

If anyone's interested, I'm willing to lead this movement, but need support.  It's not as crazy as you think, once you've seen my background.  I will not share it online.  Only to direct conversations with meaningful connections/direction.

 For one thing, I'm about as far from a conspiracy theorist as you're likely to find: Having a strategy hardly counts as a conspiracy. Based on everything I've read today the response from the right is overwhelmingly negative, which leads me to conclude, again, that this nomination is going to be rejected no matter what the grounds, which I'm certain will be an ABA not qualified. How many Senators of either party are going to vote for someone like that?

  She will not be confirmed, period. Again, that lets the Dems shoot one bullet. Next will be Luttig. I ask the same question as earlier. If Miers is rejected as not qualified, on what grounds can the next judge be rejected if he/she really is qualified? As you point out, the Dems would be loathe to resort to ideological issues. This is a gambit, a poisoned pawn, if you will. Maybe, just maybe, some people still know how to play chess. Everybody's bewitched, bothered and bewildered at this move, except the person who made it.

what the ABA has to say. It'd be easy to squirrel out of this one with an unqualified rating and some other tidbits on her lack of experience.

But I don't agree on the outcome. If Republicans join with Democrats in rejecting Miers, if she's a "consensus no," then I think Democrats will feel free to reject the next nominee on ideology just as they would have rejected him or her this time. You may believe they would have folded this time, and that's a perfectly reasonable disagreement. But to say that they'll fold next time because they already used up their "one shot" doesn't make sense when the GOP's hands are on the trigger too.

  I'm not a lawyer, but if Miers, who has no judicial experience, never clerked, never worked for the Justice Department, has never published in a refereed journal and attended a third-tier law school ends up with a qualified rating then it seems to me the ratings are a joke to begin with.

  Earlier you asked how she could withdraw her nomination, now you see. Furthermore, what if she lost in committee, or if 51 Sens said they would vote against her? There are many options for withdrawl, some of which actually save the taxpayers money.

  I'm not suggesting this of you, but a lot of people seem to have short-term memory problems. It was barely a week ago that we were hearing that the Dems were going to hold Bush to the new Roberts standard on qualified nominees. This will be the meme tomorrow. All these years I've heard how smart Rove is, always beat the hell out of me. But this time is different.

that this nomination will be shot down, though I think it's very unlikely. But that doesn't change my view that either Bush will appoint another "squishy" nominee or, if he appoints a true conservative, that Democrats will filibuster. I think what's most likely is my possibility (1), that he's pretty sure she'll turn out to be relatively conservative, and decided to go for it.

I do grant you that this seems on the face a flabbergastingly stupid move for a team that has turned a bare majority into a two-term presidency with smart politics. For that reason alone, it does make you wonder if, like you say, Rove isn't cooking up something really big that will blow us all away...a Judicial Everlasting Gobstopper. Time will tell.

maybe the fact that Bush PROMISED a nominee in the form of Scalia and Thomas...who both had strong views on all major conservative values and ideas...she's just another dark horse

you display is unfortunate. You don't know that her views are not conservative in the same fashion as Scalia or Thomas.  Really, only the president is in a position to know that.

As for what the president promised, well, he promised a strict constructionist.  He used Scalia or Thomas as examples of what that might look like.

but scalia and thomas knew where they stood...and proudly proclaimed it...long BEFORE they were voted into their judical black robes...

Miers has not