Redstate

I think that in our shock, none of thought of the proper emergency response. Did anyone send paramedics over to Coulter's?

Rally to the conservatives in the House, the few in the Senate, and the men fighting the war.

The White House is on their own.

I just hope GWB knows something we don't. I am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt and wait to see how she rules on the SCOTUS before making any judgements. Nervous, but hopeful. Bush's instincts for people are better than his instincts for policy.

The Bush Presidency is over as conservatives know it.  He has spent the country into oblivian.  Not one spending bill has been vetoed.  He has expanded government.  He has left the southern border unguarded.  Now he gives us this crap?  Sorry George.  You are not a conservative.  Who the hell is this woman besides your personal lawyer?

Powder Blue Report

tell me this is the mother of all head fakes.

is sadness, not outrage.  That will change I suspect.

What we have to hope for is that a coalition of Republicans and Democrats go after and defeat Meiers.  The argument that they could make is that, in the wake of the Michael Brown problem, this is another example of cronyism by the President.

I see no reasons for conservatives to support her -- she is a blank slate on abortion, she is old, and there is no way that this affirmative action pick represents the most qualified person.  (Think of the contrast between Meiers and Luttig/McConnell.)

Bush lied to us. Let Kos cheer.

The post below should not get lost, that her name was on a list of acceptables supplied by the Democrats.

Bush is a gutless, abortionist liar. I spit on him. Seriously.

Worst day to be a conservative since Bader Ginsburg was confirmed.

I love(d) Bush and even am with him on some of the spending, but this is a depressing development.

Bush thinks he has people instincts.  He doesn't.  Putin?!

This is pathetic.  Air out of my lungs pathetic.  

And the thing is, I'm not even sure if the instinct about people we'd hope for is the one he's looking for.  Roe (or any other social issue) is simply not on his front burner.  I've feared this, and now I'm convinced it's true.  In fact, I think he and Rove are intentionally not placing anti-Roe votes on the Court.  Roe stands, both Miers and Roberts uphold it (although upholding restrictions) and it becomes clear we have a 7-2 Supreme Court in favor of Roe.  At that point, I vote McCain or even Giuliani (although I don't donate) and just don't bother myself with the lost cause on the abortion issue.  

This is terrible.  

Chuck Schumer is doing the victory dance right now.  This is going to be painful.

U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and former Texas Supreme Court justice, made the following statement regarding the nomination of Harriet Ellan Miers, 60, to the Supreme Court of the United States:

"The President will soon announce his nominee to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court of the United States: Harriet Miers, currently serving as White House Counsel. As he did with Judge John G. Roberts, Jr., the President has chosen an outstanding nominee for our nation's highest court. The Senate should consider this nomination in both a thorough and expedient manner.

"Harriet Miers is a brilliant legal mind. She is a woman of outstanding character who clearly understands what it means to follow the law. She is deeply committed to public service, and has a distinguished history of professional achievement. It is clear that her past experiences have well prepared her for the honor of serving our country as a Supreme Court Justice. I strongly support her nomination.

"It is important that we put aside partisanship, and that the Senate fulfill its constitutional responsibility of advice and consent. This fine nominee must be treated with civility and respect, not as a political pawn. I hope that we in the Senate can move forward in a manner worthy of the American people."

I wonder if she was asked to wear the giant cross at her nomination.

we have 55 republican senators.

could have picked a real conservative.

instead, he picks a 60-year-old woman who's never been married and has never had kids.  are we really to believe that she'll vote to overturn roe?

are we to believe that this woman hasn't had sex outside of marriage over the past several decades?  and if she has, hasn't she been counting on the right to abortion just as other career-oriented women do?

bush has betrayed us.  i will never again contribute to the republican party.

More like watercress.

I'm writing to the local rep on the Judiciary Committee, Mike DeWine, to urge his opposition.  

Miers may very well be "in the mold of Scalia and Thomas," but we don't know, do we?  And we're not likely to, if she's seated, till long after Bush is a private citizen.  

So there's really no reason to continue to support this clown.

way to judge and make assumptions about people's personal lives who have had a different life than you have.  

who are pro life and quite conservative who have not and do not want to have kids.

I had such confidence in Bush.  

I was just thinking that with all the immensely qualified people available:  Luttig, Alito, Jones, Owens, Garza, Estrada, etc. it was just too bad that we didn't have more vacancies.

Scratch that.  He obviously isn't out to pick the most brilliant legal mind who also happens to believe the justices should interpret the Constitution as written.  He just wanted someone who the Ds wouldn't fight.

Well, great.

That's what we have, folks. Bush had his chance. In a field with Luttig, Scalito, and Williams, he picks a crony who has never served a nanosecond as an appellate judge.

Que lastimo!

I can't believe that this poster is for real.

Many of you guys are bashing the nominee.

The democrats are already opposing her and you are standing with them.  What I know about her is she is a woman of charector, pro-life, a constitutionalists.  Sounds good to me. Maybe not our favorite but I think we all will be very suprised at how conservative she is.  I think it is a good pick!

I wasn't aware that Bush ever appointed Putin to anything. I could waste my time and yours shooting down that bizarre comparison, but I won't.

She is a blank slate and will be confirmed easily. If a decade from now she proves to be another Souter, then you can get your panties in a twist. Until then, we'll have to wait and see. It could very well be that 10 years from now this page will look back and call Bush a genius for appointing her. Remember, he knows her very well. I would venture to say that the odds are good that GWB will be proven right.  

in this post.  Who needs us leftists when you are all fighting amongst yourselves.  This should be fun to watch.

to pass judgement. Its a long time ago, but what were the initial reactions
to Kennedy and Souter? I don't think Republicans were running for the hills
(until a few years later). However, I'll agree that I am suspicious of picking
from the so called inner circle and think it shows (again) a failing of Bush - too much loyalty and too narrow a pool of advisors. And from this WaPo story it sounds like she's been attached to him for quite some time. I guess you have
to think he knows her view on things pretty well by now. Hopefully.

Can you honestly say that out of a pool including Miers, Luttig, Jones, Garza, Alito, Williams, et. al. that HARRIET MIERS was the most qualified candidate?  I think not.  And the fact that she was selected because she was on some "approved list" submitted by Schumer, Kennedy, and others is just sickening.

Did we really think Bush was going to pick someone who we expected. He went under the radar.

Just becasue he suprised the conservatives doesnt mean she is not a conservative. Many of you will be eating your words. Many will be prasing this nominatin ears down the road. Some of these comments are just horrible.  So waht if she is not married. I have single never married ladies in my church who are extremely Godly. What a horrible judge on her charector! Shame on some of us conservatives.  

Rehnquist was nothing more than a lawyer before being tapped as an Associate
Justice by Nixon.

So much for the nuclear option, unless Senators Dewine, McCain and Graham think she's "extraordinary".

as I said earlier - I'm not passing judgement yet. But people need to take a
deep breath and show a little more decorum than is shown in Kos or DU.

Pull over, buddy. Language police. Cool the jets, eh?

plausible until one recalls that we were promised originalists in the mold of Scalia and Thomas, not a wait-ten-years-and-cross-your-fingers-and-believe-with-the-submission-of-fa
ith-in-a-president-who-has-already-reneged-on-too-many-promises

sort of candidate.  I hate to be so blunt, but acts of faith are reserved for God and the Church, not politics.

I feel I've been lied to.

---"Bush lied to us. Let Kos cheer."---

Bush did lie to us, and now that I know he is capable of such blatant lying, I am distraught.

Now we have to seriously wonder if the Democrats were right all along.  Did we go to war for oil?  Was it payback for daddy?  

Luttig, Jones, Brown, McConnell, Estrada, Garza, Alito, etc. etc. etc. ........so damn many good picks and they all get shunned - TWICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! TWICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I cannot believe that I ever trusted this man.  I am such a fool.  I cannot believe that I have been so foolish as to look past the open borders, the excessive spending, the support of moderate Senators over Conservatives, the nation building in Iraq, the twisted bankruptcy "reform," etc.

I feel so sad right now, so angry.  I have never felt so betrayed by George W. Bush, never.  I will not buy into his "trust me," and "wait and see,"  we need to urge our Senators to vote her down, and organize primary challenges for those Republican Senators who support her.  They're all probably going to stand behind her and the President.  we must not let their solidarity be the defeat of Conservatism.

I am so sad right now.  I will not, I absolutely will not support this party in 2006 or 2008.  No chance.

Good grief, what a bunch of crybabies.  "I'm never going to vote for / work for the Repupblicans again."  "Bush lied to us."  "I'm disgusted."  And best of all, "Bush is an abortionist."

And you wonder why conservatives get a bad rap in some quarters.  Get a grip!  I'm inclined to give the President the benefit of the doubt here.  I think he's earned it.

Seems to me there are two possibilities here:

1. She really will be a justice in the mold of Scalia and Thomas.
   
2. She's a sacrificial lamb, part of a deliberate Rovian plot to go down in flames at the hands of out-of-control Democrats so they can have the upper hand in ramming through the second nominee.

Either way, we win.

Jeez, I stop in at RedState, hoping to get some thoughtful analysis, and it's like this place has become DailyKos overnight.

Please stop the emotional reaction - this looks like a smart pick to me.  There is every reason to expect Miers will be a solid conservative vote.  Maybe not as flamboyant as Scalia (although we'll see - by all accounts she is a very energetic, hard-working attorney) but more in the mold of a no-nonsense Clarence Thomas type justice: consistent, principled, and appropriately deferential to the Constitution.

"I am a dyed-in-the-wool conservative who has fought tooth and nail for Republican presidential and senatorial candidates over the past 6 years - all because of the issue of judicial nominations.  With his nomination of an unqualified, stealth candidate (Harriet Miers) to the Supreme Court on the basis that she is a friend of his and was on a "no filibuster" list provided by the Democrats, President Bush has completely lost my support, and judging by the reaction in the blogosphere, much of the support of his conservative base.  I for one will not donate another dime to the national Republican party if this nomination is approved.  I implore you to urge the president to withdraw this nomination and submit a new, qualified, bona fide conservative candidate to fill the seat of Sandra Day O'Connor.  Thank you."

---"Just becasue he suprised the conservatives doesnt mean she is not a conservative. Many of you will be eating your words."---

You must be new to the process, and new to this Presidency.  How exactly has he promoted Conservatism in his presidency?

He hasn't, and this is the move of a man giving his cronies lifetime appointments because he will never face the electorate again.  He just gave us the middle finger and said "deal with it."

No money, no volunteering, no voting; they ain't getting one more buck, one more minute, or one more vote from me for quite a while.

I appreciate the standards you uphold on this site.

I wanted to see Luttig or Janice Rogers Brown like most everyone here. This pick makes me nervous. But I do think there is more reason to be hopeful than distraught. For everyone condemning this President to eternal damnation for this pick, cool your jets until you actually have some evidence that she is another Souter.

but i think folks have a right to be dissapointed and sad here when there were so many better choices out there.

She was on the Dallas City Council when she donated to Gore and Bentsen.  That's just how it works, folks -- not a bad idea to curry a little favor for your city by giving a little cash.  And I'm sure her law firm PAC gave money to Democratic candidates as well.

I still trust the President -- I don't think he would have made the pick unless he was sure she was up to conservative standards.  To the extent he was trying to avoid a fight, well, that does bother me.  But I believe this will turn out to be a good nominee.

You may have it the target here, but you may have missed by a hair. It certainly puts the challenge squarely before the senate. What a bizarre role reversal - did the consultations yield a filibuster proof pick with Democratic cover? Will the GOP senators be able to sell this to the constituency? How will the no votes develop? If this pick fails, who looks more deliberative - democrats who vote no, or "thoughtful" republicans who respectfully disagree with the POTUS?

It's weird. I suppose it fall into the expected course quickly, but it could end up with a greater approval than Roberts, or a complete w/drawl. This seems a completely different dynamic than picks from the prior few decades.

We're back in Nixon/LBJ territory with this one.

Keep in mind that the POTUS may know a 3rd pick is coming.

Given the political mastery shown for much of the past 5 years, it could be expected to continue. If Stevens retires next year, that sets up a confirmation battle as the issue for the 2006 midterms.

If Miers is approved, and CJ Roberts assigns several high profile opinions to himself and her, judicial appointments continue to take a prominent role in electoral politics, as the passion in these posts shows.

If Miers follows the Roberts lead, and she and the CJ issue some notably originalist opinions, and another appointment arrives for hearings by the 2006 elections . . .

That's a lot of ifs and buts.

Still, it could happen.

You'll hit stage two soon enough.

Just given her age, it's a bad pick.

Now on to how she will judge.

We'll know in a month or two how she will judge on abortion.

Let's not make her angry now.

But I am deeply disappointed in Bush.

What we have to hope for is that a coalition of Republicans and Democrats go after and defeat Meiers.  The argument that they could make is that, in the wake of the Michael Brown problem, this is another example of cronyism by the President.

Obviously you missed Nick Danger's post explaining that a Supreme Court Justice doesn't really do anything except photo ops and paper shuffling. Everyone knows the clerks do all the real work. Honestly, a strict constructionist would go crazy trying to cope with the bureaucratic everyday tedium. This is a brilliant political ploy by the president in the run-up to 2006: the majority of the country wants a moderate, and nobody ever won an election by repudiating the center to play to the wings.

You didn't see that post? Maybe it isn't up yet... Nick, I demand credit if you use my insightful analysis!

But I do think there is more reason to be hopeful than distraught.

Like what? Every SCOTUS nominee who has been picked because he or she was a "sound conservative" without ample evidence of conservative legal philosophy has turned out to be liberal or moderate-to-liberal. O'Connor. Kennedy. Souter. Stevens. Blackmun. Powell. Burger. Brennan.

People who get involved in politics because they are business establishment types with a vague sort of affinity to conservatism mare the worst of the bunch.

win the $180 million powerball drawing on Wednesday, but I won't be ordering a Carrera GT or buying any islands in anticipation, either.

this is just sad. Bush either (a) flat-out lied to us, (b) has absolutely zero backbone on this issue, or (c) is as stupid as all of his critics have been telling us.

Like someone posted above, I have supported and defended this guy for precisely this moment and he let us all down.  

Well W, I hope you enjoyed the ride b/c your presidency is now done. Welcome to lame duck status.

Probably because I don't know what post you are talking about.  

Miers may very well establish a conservative voting record on the Court.  But, I do believe that there's more than that to the Court.  I believe in judicial restraint and I believe that it's not only that a Justice vote in the right way BUT ALSO that a Justice vote that way for the right principles.  I don't believe in any way that Miers has a clearly thought out originalist philosophy.  In that sense, she is a setback to all the principled arguments that we've been making.

Not so much you *personally* but it is one I have read here many other times -
generically it goes 'if Bush does/doesn't do XYZ I'll never give money/support/vote for a Republican again'.

So please help me understand this better - who then will you vote for? Will
you just not vote at all? Does staying home not just help elect the worse side,
generally speaking? Personally, I'll very rarely not vote in a race, and only if
I think both candidates are completely incompetent. I'll tolerate an opposing view
if they are significantly better qualified.

I'm not real happy with Jr. either - he has really disappointed me on the fiscal
front and I think his loyalty to Donald R and a few others has let Iraq become
quite a mess (the boots on the ground can only make up for so much managerial
incompetence). But this doesn't mean that I will vote for Hillary in 08. In fact,
the way the Dems are set up now I can't envision any which would cause me
to not vote for even my least liked 'R' (say Bill Frist).

The whos/whats/whys of things getting to this point are many. Two I see are the
classic 'power corrupts' (it only took 10yrs for the R house to work just like a
D house) and the focus of many in the party too much, if not exclusively, on social issues at the expense of fiscal policy (and foreign to a lesser extent).

55 Republicans? Not exactly... Don't forget the gang 7 Republicans who turned on us:

Collins

Dewine

Chafee

Warner

McCain

Graham

Snowe

And do you think we can trust:

Specter

Hagel

To have a conservative senate we need 4 more conservative senators.

I was being snarky about some of the comments made earlier here about Brown.

I don't know anything about Miers, but I can understand the frustration; from reading posts, it seems like everyone had a few people in mind they think would have been better choices. I'm gonna reserve judgement until I can read up on her. I agree with your points about decisions arising from fundamental principles rather than a desire to achieve a particular result.

But keep in mind two other things:

1 - As mentioned, what if a 3rd pick is coming - what are the dynamics there; and

2 - How does this make the McCain 2008 candidacy look? Certainly gives him plenty of manuevering room.

Wow, what's goin on RedState?

I thought things like "Bush Lied" and "He's an Idiot" and Bush is an "abortionist" was frowned upon here. Chillax. You guys know the President well enough to know that he wouldn't make an impulse decision to stick it to his base in the end. If Rove had his hands on this, you guys are probably in better shape than you realize. We'll know before the year is out.

Keep the golf clubs in the closet a little longer. Just because he consulted the Democrats for a "non-filibuster" nominee means nothing. Clinton did the same, picking a name from the list Orrin Hatch said would "get through" when he chose Ginsburg.

These outburst could only be the result of the 24-hours news channel Syndrome. Just wait a week, and I'm sure all things will be calm. These reactive responses are ill-timed. I'm sure you'll be satisfied. Three years is a long time, and there may very well be more vacancies before Bush leaves.

Easy now. You guys are too young to go grey-haired over this. Then again, maybe you should go get those clubs out of the closet and hit the links for a little while. I think I'm gonna go buy the new X-Men Legends Game--off of ebay, when the price goes down of course. Clear your mind so you don't enter the Five Stages too soon.  Then when your mind is clear, come on back and give this candidate a fair, objective look.

Bush 'knowing her views' means nothing because he knows nothing whatsoever about the law and it's her legal philosophy that is important.

Is it possible that this is the Sacraficial Lamb strategy playing out?  Bush nominates an under-qualified insider for the SC.  Dems oppose because..well, because that's what Dems do.  Republicans revolt.  Republicrat senators grow a backbone and rise up against the nominee, forcing a withdrawl and re-nomination of a conservative heartthrob like Luttig.  The Republicans in Congress get to distance themselves from Bush's bad poll numbers and gain street cred with the base in the run up to 2006.  Help me out guys, I'm grasping at straws here.

"there may very well be more vacancies before Bush leaves."

is that a good thing?

I would have said that was a TERRIBLE idea.  But hopefully that's the way it plays out now, given the shamefulness of this nomination otherwise.

Stage 2:

http://www.redstate.org/comments/2005/10/3/74558/9332/55#55

but Bush has always struck me as intensely loyal to his people, and I don't think he'd put Miers through that kind of devastating rejection. Maybe he's not in on the strategy?

This is unacceptable, period.

But you blew it.

She's too old (way too old).

She is not a "Scalia or Thomas" (if you wanted a female Scalia or Thomas, you should have gone with JRB).

She has no experience as a judge (and yes I know Renqhuist didn't either).

She has no paper trail.

She's a crony of yours.

We wanted someone with an extensive track record, someone with known positions, someone young who would sit on the court for awhile, someone who is clearly and undeniably prolife.

Echos of GHWB come to mind. "No new taxes" echoes to become "I promise to appoint judges in the mold of a Scalia or a Thomas."

Not one more dime or vote from this disgruntled conservative until I either see this nomination withdrawn, or we see a well needed house cleaning of the squishy republican party.

My sentiments exactly TitanAFC. This is a disgrace.

I've overlooked many things from Bush as well that you mentioned (horrible border security, out of control spending, support for moderate RINOs, lack of support for conservative Repubs, failure to defend his policies better to the public, so and so on), but this is the last straw. Not one damn dime or vote from me until we get a Repub party with some backbone.

I'll vote my conscious and go with a Constitution party candidate. At least I'll know who I'm voting for at that point.

... stage one is "denial". If you are saying things like "I am grasping at straws here," then you are still there. Stage two is "anger."

Agreed.    

And why?  The reasons are clarity itself :

Those who have labored thousands of hours carefully crafting decisions that are synchronous to the constitution...

those who, through long experience & familiarity, have developed an abiding faith in the imutability of the constitition against the vagaries of time, against fleeting fads, against straining social crises ....

those persons, cannot be, and are not, swayed either by mercantilsm nor by social concern in pursuing the rightness of a matter as measured by our constitution.

Constitutional jurists are rugged individualists; The arena of jockeying and consensus-building comraderie of politicians - be though they may, 'sound conservatives', is not the demesne where everlasting constitutional freedoms are reclaimed.

You are hoping for a coalition to ensure that qualified folks are put in important positions instead of political cronies?

Where have you been?  The viscious polarization that has occurred since 00 in this country has been, IMHO, deliberately engineered to insure that such coalitions can not form as check on the power of a runaway government.  They've got us too busy hating each other and being sure that nothing that the other side says or does is ever worthy of support, to even question what they are doing.  And anyone who has tried to sound the warning bell or imply that the Emperor has no clothes is branded a RINO or a DINO or a traitor depending on which side you are on.  Politics is now more about deriding the other side, and defending your own guy no matter what, than putting forth sound policy arguments or actually governing.  

Blogs may be the only exception.  It is probably the one place in political life where the right and left can have meaningful dialogue.  But that is not what is going on out there in the heartlands.  Read the editorials in my small town newspaper.  Either all liberals are immoral atheist traitors and any insinuation that Bush has been less than perfect is a lie told by the liberal media - or Bush is satan and all conservatives want a Taliban like theocracy. There is very little reasoned discourse in the middle.  As an Independent, it's been like watching a trainwreck in slow motion as reason slowly seeps out of our political life.

As an Independent I've been hoping for several years now that Republican fellow fiscons would stand up and demand some fiscal responsibility from this administration; that my small government Republican friends would stand up and protest the excessive expansion of the federal government, that my Republican "run government like a business" friends would demand competent executives be put in positions of responsibility and held accountable for failure (and lauded for success), that my fellow federalists and civil libertarians would view any grab for power by the federal government with a discerning and skeptical eye.

I have been hoping for a coalition of folks genuinely concerned about our country to form.  Instead I've seen people abandoning values I've long held in common with them in order to express absolute and total faith that George Bush and George Bush alone knows what is best for this country.  People seem to have in Bush the sort of blind and absolute faith that I reserve for God and my faith.

I don't understand it and it concerns me deeply

Dems oppose because..well, because that's what Dems do.  Republicans revolt.  Republicrat senators grow a backbone and rise up against the nominee, forcing a withdrawl and re-nomination of a conservative heartthrob like Luttig

The Republican Senators aren't likely to buck the President.  The Democrats will let her go right through if they think it was a stunt.  

More importantly the President is working on his legacy right now.  While the Conservative Right may think he is beholden to them he most likely feels his beholden to himself and being remembered as the President that defined the Supreme Court for 20 years.

American Center for Law and Justice aclj.com

calls Harriet Miers an excellent choice by Bush.

This endorsement will be followed by many very conservative organizations.  I would agree with them.

American Center for Law and Justice aclj.com

calls Harriet Miers an excellent choice by Bush.

This endorsement will be followed by many very conservative organizations.  I would agree with them.

Anger is short-sighted.  We're all going to vote R in 2006 and 2008 regardless of who this nominee is or who the next two nominees are.  I'm grasping at straws in an attempt to reconcile this nomination with that fact.  Rather than getting angry, let's take a look at this nominee and see if we can make lemonade.

Let's put ideology aside for a minute.  Bush selected a 60-yr old White House aide who, as Frum suggests, worships him daily.  This is cronyism at its very worst.  It's Abe Fortas all over again.  Ronald Reagan would have NEVER done this.  John McCain (who perhaps we should have voted for in 2000) would have NEVER done this.  

Conservatives should kill the nomination.  About half the Dems will vote against her.  If half the Republicans will also oppose on the grounds that she just isn't a qualfied pick, Bush will have to go with someone else.

She is well qualified for the position. Bush picked her becasue he knows her and knows that she will be a conservative voice on the court for the next 20 years. The conservative groups will back her, she will get voted in, and she will do  a good job.

to many of us on the left because she's not rabidly anti-choice.  Also, if she is close personally to the Bush's, does she share Laura's moderate views on the choice issue?

The woman is already 60 years old pushing 61, less than five years from the national retirement age for goodness sake. The likelyhood that she'll spend 20 years on the bench is low.

Maybe that'll be a good thing.

if the President cannot be trusted to adhere to his promises on this nomination, why should he be trusted to adhere to them for nominee number three?  I'd really hate to think that all of that lefty rhetoric about the Party no giving a d*mn about the issues of the right, except insofar as they motivate the base to continue turning out, was true.  But that claim looks about 75% more plausible this morning than it did Friday afternoon.

McCain?  He has already burned his bridges with the part of the party that was promised originalist justices, so it's not really clear to me what manuevering room this will give him.

The comments in this particular little group are out of line.  Get off the questions about her marital status and sexual history NOW!

If this gets the floor (let's hope the R's on Judiciary have more spine than W) Brownback should fillibuster.

You would not be hearing this kind of talk if the nominee was a bachelor.  Please, cut it out, now.

We're better off with out you and your Kossian distortions.

Let all the chicken littles leave the party now, and then we can probably get more done.

Go make up some "Bush lied!" and "No blood for oil!" signs, and then the President can just ignore you in his future calculations.

To call him a liar before the facts are in is totally unfair to everyone involved.

... works both ways.  Maybe Miers agreed to be the lamb.

Since the POTUS caved into the Dem threat to fillibuster a real conservative nomination (and the Repub senate caved on using the nuclear option earlier this year), it would be deliciously ironic for a Repub Senator to use it against this horrible Miers nomination.

Maybe Providence is showing His face here.

Stage three.

What if McCain and others in the gang of 14 think this is an extraordinary pick? Forget limiting it to them, what if many GOP'ers express disdain and non-support for this pick, and it withers. Can McCain gain anything for demanding a "proven" conservative candidate. Notwithstanding his many prior troubling positions, he clearly has several very conservative stances, and I think his position on judges could be one of them. I don't know how this pick affects the "compromise", but I think it almost disregards it, and those in the gang won't have much to do.

That said, what if POTUS picks a Luttig/Brown/Estrada/fill-in-name satisfactory to the right as the Stevens replacement? How would that affect our opinion of him.

I try to watch my initial reactions to unexpected developments, so I'll stay in the baffled position on this one, before moving to the disappointed slot, but I'm really baffled.

It's depressing to have to speculate so far out about 3rd picks and effects on the 2006/08 elections when a clear fight could have been joined here. If the senate wants to fight - let them - that's their prerogative, and useful for the rest of us in sorting out policy positions. I don't see (yet) how this nomination will clarify those positions for voters. I fear the hearings will be muddled, confused, hesitant and uncertain.

If this is their strategy, they are fools.  The contingencies that have to be satisfied are far to great to think this is a doable strategy.  In all likelihood, she's going to be confirmed.  

Occum's razor - the obvious explanation is that W feels he can thumb his hose at the base.

By: Neil Stevens  

"Bye...We're better off with out you and your Kossian distortions.

Let all the chicken littles leave the party now, and then we can probably get more done.

Go make up some "Bush lied!" and "No blood for oil!" signs, and then the President can just ignore you in his future calculations.

To call him a liar before the facts are in is totally unfair to everyone involved."

What part of Bush's promise to appoint justices in the "mold of Scalia and Thomas" did you not understand? "Read my lips, no new taxes." Sound familiar?

And as far as your comment about conservative people leaving the Repub party and that you "can probably get more done now," we'll see how much you get done when you lose the support of your base, when the money stops coming in, and when you don't get votes.

But hey, lets examine whats "gotten done" so far.

Out of control spending. Liberal politics, not conservative.

Terrible management of the border. Liberal politics, not conservative.

Proposed "amnesty" for illegal aliens. Liberal politics, not conservative.

Support from the White House for RINOs and "moderate" Repubs (read, liberal Repubs). Liberal politics, not conservative.

Playin footsie with the EU on Iran rather than playing hardball with the mullahs (who are working on nukes and want to use them by the way, so much for the "war on terror"). Liberal politics, not conservative.

Cronyism. Brown at FEMA, Julie Myers at Immigration, Gonzales at AG, and now Miers for SCOTUS. Bush picked a nomination based on cronyism, not their qualifications and judicial philosophy. Liberal politics, not conservative.

"Stealth" nominations to the SCOTUS, fearing the, even though he has a Repub majority in the Senate. Liberal politics, not conservative.

The only reason alot of us conservatives were willing to overlook much of this was because we were holding out for conservative SCOTUS nominations who had known track records as both conservatives and originalists.

The POTUS has chosen politics over principle.

These are not "Kossian distortions," they are political facts of life. Its not about being a "chicken little," its about holding the POTUS to his campaign promise to appoint qualified, originalist judges.

We'll see how much the Repubs can "get done" when the base abandons them.

So, you may be glad to see us go now. But in '06 and '08 when you can't figure out why Repubs are losing elections, don't say we didn't tell you ahead of time.

If you want to drop President Bush for his liberal domestic policy, please do so.  I recently posted a tirade of my own on those matters.

In fact, I voted Browne in 2000 because of those matters, with only the war getting me to vote for Bush in 2004.

But to treat this nominee as the last straw, before any hearings or votes, I think is a tremendous overreaction.

I'm still flying through the five stages:

http://dalythoughts.com/?p=4338

and stuck in bafflement. It's just weird that the Delay/Frist/Miers issues may be an opening for the conservative wing of the party to reassert itself.

The only positive is the opportunities available, both in the judiciary committee hearings on Miers, and in the house on spending issues if the RSC can gain traction in wake of Delay's issues.

The POTUS knew what conservatives were looking for. There have been at least 8-12 names floated for O'Connors slot on the SCOTUS that conservatives would not only have supported, but actually cheered. He knew we wanted him to take on the Dems and fight this battle. And yet he went ahead and made a politically convenient nomination.

Harry Reid, Geraldine Ferraro, and Schumer have already come out to say they are fine with this nomination. Miers was on the list that the Dems gave to the POTUS that would be "acceptable." Bush should have known that practically any nomination that would be acceptable to the Dems would be unacceptable to the base, but he went ahead with one anyways.

Its not an overreaction at all. Its the reaction that should have come months and months ago on other issues, but that many of us overlooked, holding out hope for SCOTUS appointments.

I will never, ever again "play ball" with the Repubs when they are not following conservative principles in the hope for a promise to be fulfilled "later."

were to regard this nomination as extraordinary, they could only do so on grounds that a nominee with a minimal paper trail, and little experience, could be extraordinary.  I consider that possibility so improbable that it need not occupy our thoughts for more than about 30 seconds.  The odds are that any such nominee will NOT be an originalist.  

If POTUS felt it best to nominate someone who might well prove to be Souter 2.0, Skirt Edition for this go-round, under what possible-worlds scenario could we envision him nominating a legitimate originalist should Stevens opt to retire?  

Attention John McCain:

You've always been pro-life.  In fact, you promised to appoint conservative, pro-life judges in 2000.  You've always been pro-integrity in government.  In fact, you've always been opposed to fat-cat political patronage and the like.  Your old opponent, the president, has given us a nominee whose conservatism is a big question mark and who is the epitome of cronyism.

You want to be president in 2008.  Now is the time for you to win conservatives back over.  Come out publicly against the nomination.  Ally with Brownback and Coburn on the right, and Graham and DeWine in the populist middle to filibuster the nomination should it come to the floor.  Get fellow decency-in-government Dems like Lieberman and Feingold to join the filibuster.  41 senators can kill this nomination and force the president to pick a well qualified appellate jurist to the Court.

Signed,

A two-time Bush voter

have already reached stage five: acceptance.  As in complete and utter indifference to the fortunes of the President and the Republican Party.

I spent about 45 minutes in anger; passed over the stage of bargaining, since there is no upside to this nomination; and have settled upon a melancholy resignation to the inevitable.

To all of those mired in the stage of bargaining: if you want to bargain, stay home during the next two - at a minimum - electoral campaigns.  The only bargaining chip we have left to us is the ability to stay home, withhold our contributions, and hopefully deny the Republican party the one thing they need us to achieve: electoral victory.

this is the last straw precisely because so many of us have already swallowed our principles on all of those other issues in the now vain and forlorn hope that, in the end, Bush would give us originalist justices.  

Absent that, there isn't anything left.

this philosophy.

I have purposely left my Bush/Cheney sticker on my minivan since the election as my way of pointing sticks in the eyes of the many liberals I live among.  I wondered when would be the appropriate time to remove the sticker.  I have my answer.  It will come off today and be replaced with a "support the troops" or some such sticker.

I will not abandon the Republican party, as I have no where else to go.  However, I will no longer defend W.  He is on his own.

I will not stay home in 2006 or 2008, as that would only hand the dems a sure victory, but I am definitely holding my nose right now.

And that is about all I can say without swearing, a lot.

Seems to me there are two possibilities here:

   1. She really will be a justice in the mold of Scalia and Thomas.

   2. She's a sacrificial lamb, part of a deliberate Rovian plot to go down in flames at the hands of out-of-control Democrats so they can have the upper hand in ramming through the second nominee.

Either way, we win.

Actually, there is a third possibility:  David Souter.  That's not a win.

I'd never say anything to the effect that I'd never vote for a Republican again, but this does put a crimp on things.  I'm not so upset about the SCOTUS - I'm far more ticked about the runnaway spending.  I blame the house and senate GOP for this just as much or more than the Prez.  I was delighted to see Delay get kicked - this wouldn't have happened were Newt still in charge.

I supported Perot in 1992 because of Bush Sr. breaking his tax pledge.  In 2000 I withheld my vote from Bush Jr. mostly because I suspected he was going to be a rampant Arabist and supported Browne.  I was wrong about Bush being an Arabist - he's been the most Pro-Israel Prez. ever and so he got my support in 2004.  But this spending!  I wanted John Kasich to get the nomination in 2000 - how much better off we'd have been under him.  Right now my money is on McCain - I do think he'd do a much better job on the spending than Bush has.

What bothers me about this nomination is that it shows how Bush and his crew are such an 'All for me, Baby' group.  I doubt we'll see much get done for the rest of his term.  Look for some pardons for rich people in the final weeks, though.

about a filibuster.  You sound like the dark side has reached you.

After all we have done to express our views that judges deserve an up or down vote, we cannot abandon our values now.  If you feel so inclined, encourage your senator to vote no, but forget the talk of a filibuster.  

Really excellent comment. I too have long been concerned about the increasing polarization in our politics and the attendant reduction in deliberative thought, which is supposed to be the hallmark of a republic (versus a democracy).

While it's too easy to come up with blithe explanations, nonetheless, I think these trends primarily reflect the increasing level of fear that many of us feel and which the media and many politicians aggravate for their economic or electoral advantage -- fear of terrorism, fear of crime, fear of our neighbors, etc. -- all valid fears, but only when examined with a reasoned and deliberative attitude.

Historically, societies need to find a balance between love of freedom and desire of safety. Too much of the former leads towards anarchy, while too much of the latter leads to totalitarianism. Fear pushes the balance towards the safety side.

Our country was founded by people who mastered fear and who started our new form of government with optimism and hope for the future. I see signs that this spirit of American -- its buoyant hope with opportunity for individual advancement -- risks being swallowed up by fear and the desire for a strong leader and a strong government to take charge.

The hour is late for true republicans (and I mean this with a lower case "r") to stand up together for the American spirit and to reject the fear mongers and the looking for a "big brother" to protect us. Idolatry of any form is wrong!

This is an excellent comment. I too have long been concerned about the increasing polarization in our politics and the attendant reduction in deliberative thought, which is supposed to be the hallmark of a republic (versus a democracy).

While it's too easy to come up with blithe explanations, nonetheless, I think these trends primarily reflect the increasing level of fear that many of us feel and which the media and many politicians aggravate for their economic or electoral advantage -- fear of terrorism, fear of crime, fear of our neighbors, etc. -- all valid fears, but only when examined with a reasoned and deliberative attitude.

Historically, societies need to find a balance between love of freedom and desire of safety. Too much of the former leads towards anarchy, while too much of the latter leads to totalitarianism. Fear pushes the balance towards the safety side.

Our country was founded by people who mastered fear and who started our new form of government with optimism and hope for the future. I see signs that this spirit of American -- its buoyant hope with opportunity for individual advancement -- risks being swallowed up by fear and the desire for a strong leader and a strong government to take charge.

The hour is late for true republicans (and I mean this with a lower case "r") to stand up together for the American spirit and to reject the fear mongers and the looking for a "big brother" to protect us. Idolatry of any form is wrong!

... you're making that case that any woman who has had sex outside of marriage is pro-Roe?

Uh ... okay ...

let's keep the unjustified conjecture to ourselves please.

A filibuster may be over the top, but I think the point conservatives were making was that the filibuster should not be used to block nominees for ideological purposes, which is what the Dems were doing.

Abe Fortas, for example, was the subject of a bipartisan filibuster because he was an obvious crony pick and unqualified to serve on SCOTUS.

Some would argue that Miers is similarly unqualified.

the shock speaking, but I would love to see a fillibuster happen.  Ever the pragmatist, however, I agree it would be counterproductive.  I do hope that conservative R's are at least not enthusiastic in support.

ever come from swallowing your principles?

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.

and if today is any indication, never will.

So, if there is a hue and cry on the internet about her nomination, that means she might rule the other way on abortion out of spite?  I suppose given the lack of knowledge about her and her views one could have that suspicion.  That speaks volumes as to how weak a nominee she truly is.

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 cartwheels and slapping high fives.

the Received Wisdom on the matter was that all the presidents' nominees deserved an up or down vote. That would seem to preclude filibustering for any reason whatsoever.