Redstate

Are you hearing anything from "the source" that would help conservatives feel better?

And .. BTW, I agree with your take above ... IF she is a prolife conservative.

You're rationalizing.

I'm making a plausible case that I do not necessarily agree with, but a good number of people do.

This is a heck of a ploy, just to get through a nominee who would have passed anyway.  Batchelder would have surely passed, too.

I know it's fun to think of it as a game of chess, and I'm sure my friends at dkos will have no problem seeing some elaborate Rovian gambit behind it all, but why the heck should the President have to pull some fancy play just to show the public he's willing to be bipartisan?

Occam's Razor says that if Bush wanted Luttig on the court, he would have nominated Luttig.

I don't blame him. And we will get the fight too. She's a devout evangelical born again christian that has a record of actvities against abortion.

And she filled out a questionaire favoring the sodomy law in Texas!

This is still a pig.

you could still get Luttig, who is the anti-Miers. Or you could get the nuclear option. So if the donks don't go along, it could get a lot worse.

This scenario (Miers = sacrificial lamb) is possible.  Most likely, however, is that this is just a terrible miscalculation by a badly battered White House.  Republicans and Dems could end up uniting in rejecting this nominee.  Once in committee, the contrast to Roberts will be stark and the numerous objections that have already been raised (lack of credentials, wasted opportunity, cronyism, rewarding mediocrity, etc.) will really take root and be plain for the world to see.  The net result could be that a better, more qualified, more deserving candidate goes to the Court...but the road to get there will likely be very costly from a credibility standpoint for the White House.

On who's gonna find out it's a pig... Schumer and Reid already all but OKed her.

And they just agreed to put a sure anti-Roe vote on SCOTUS replacing O'Connor.

Reid suggested Miers for a reason. If their is any indication of her being a female Scalia then Reid wouldn't have suggested her.

of the year, at least not for textualists and originalists. Most GOP appointees to the Court drift away from textualism to functionalism over time after appointment. That's the influence of law clerks and op-ed pages on weak-willed jurists. See, e.g., Harry Blackmun, David Souter, Anthony Kennedy, and S.D. O'Connor. If you have a justice who doesn't know constitutional law, and who therefore has to rely more heavily on law clerks sent to you from the likes of Larry Tribe, that justice is more likely to be snookered by law clerks on whom she relies heavily. Not even a micromanager, such as Miers, can supervise law clerks closely enough to make sure that doesn't happen. It takes a justice with a working, intimate knowledge of the Constitution. By all accounts, Miers lacks that. (Pardon me, but a district court clerkship doesn't make you a "con law expert.")

The first part of this seems reasonable enough; Reid indicated that the Dems would be content with Miers, so Bush shrugged and said "Why not?"

The second part is where plausibility wanes, since if Miers is rejected, it's not going to be a partisan affair. They'll almost certainly need help from disgruntled conservatives.  And since it seems that Bush was unwilling to start a partisan fight with this nomination, why should we think that a bipartisan rejection of his first pick will embolden him?

I'll believe Bush is serious about satisfying his base when he stops ducking the abortion issue at critical times.  For now, I think he's playing the base for chumps, and that the base is more or less content with that as long as it keeps the Dems out of power.

We'll know about it by the next time decisions come out .. what is that January?

If she votes against either of the abortion limitation laws then feel free to take it out on Bush .. otherwise... we need to fire up the jets since we need to preserve a Senate majority for 2006-2007.

that there will be a partisan filibuster of Miers, not after Reid supplied the name.  Hypothetically, even if there was, no way would the GOP acknowledge the validity of the judicial filibuster by withdrawing the name and offering up a replacement.

I'm not aware of any form of "stonewalling" available aside from the filibuster, so as far as partisan opposition goes, it's that or nothing.

There is at least a plausible scenario where there would be a bipartisan rejection on the grounds of competence, but in that case, it's hard to see how the President emerges any stronger from the process.  If Luttig is the backup plan, there was no reason not to go with him in the first place.

I don't consider her being an "evangelical born again christian" a plus, gamecock.  And I don't care what the gays do in the privacy of their homes...

Remember when being a conservative meant balanced budgets, states' rights and no unnecessary foreign entanglements?

Sigh

Is she a pig if she turns out to be a consistent vote for your side on your A#1 issue?

He had a reason based on sporadic contact. Maybe she returned his calls! But if he thinks she's not a solid conservative vote on the court, he's dillusional. I expect she will be attacked due to her religious and pro life stands.

Don't you feel better? We don't need another scholar, we need a pro-life, pro-business "pitbull in heels". This may be the only nominee that GWB could have absolute confidence in how a Roe vote would be made. If it turns out to be the case, I expect Leon to kiss the end without the lipstick.

I think Leon's biggest beef is not whether she is a 'conservative' (temperament-wise) or not, but that this is yet another stealth candidate.

The polishing post needs to go NOW

what Leon's upset at, he is mad at the stealth-ness of the pick.

People need to sober up, as it were, and think this through.

I think the biggest reason behind this non-sane reaction from conservatives is that the DNC/MSM drumbeat against Bush's abilities to lead are taking root.

That needs to be torn out by the roots. NOW.

This is all because of the lying media reports from Katrina,and the steady Moreon/MSM/DNC claims of W's inabilities to lead.

We are winning a war, have a good economy, are free of attack at home, a shrinking deficit, jsut got a true conservative to CJ of the SCOTUS, and we jump on this man for choosing someone he knows better than all of us?

Wake up, my fellow conservatives.

Wake up NOW!

on what basis?  "turd" /= anything near profanity.  If you want to call it a "personal attack" then strike about 500 other posts in the past 24 hours.

I think asked only if she favored the sodomy law repeal by the judiciary and not whether she favored the law.

I am a lawyer and for years represented Indian-Americans who owned hotels. They loved large groups of evangelical christians because they didn't tear up the rooms!

peace

No doubt. I'll take fucntion over form.

Personally, I hate the Miers nomination. That said, here's the scenario most favorable to her and the president. I have no idea whether this is actually what's happening.

------------

Bush wants to fulfill his campaign promise to nominate justices "like Scalia and Thomas." The biggest hurdle he faces is not the Democrats, the filibuster or a lack of excellent candidates. It is Republican "moderates" (i.e. RINOs) in the Senate. Many of these nominally Republican Senators like Roe vs. Wade just fine and have no intention of voting for a justice likely to overturn it. The president may have 55 Republican votes in the Senate, but he has fewer than 50 conservative votes--the votes he would need to confirm an openly anti-Roe justice.

Without 50 votes Bush can't go with a well-documented, card carrying conservative justice. The only way to keep his promise is to sneak one past. The nominee must be a cipher. So the many well known, exceptionally well qualified, long paper trail, brilliant conservatives are all out of luck. But a cipher poses its own problems. How can you be sure you aren't getting another Souter? For this to work you have to be 100% sure of the person, but the rest of the world has to remain in complete darkness.

With Roberts they took advantage of attorney-client privilege. The White House could read all of his work, but no one else could. But such as Roberts are few and far between. Bush compromised with the next best thing. Not the world's sharpest legal mind. Not the best resume. Not even a sitting judge. He went with another White House attorney (more attorney-client privilege) and a personal friend, another cipher who will be difficult to oppose but who comes with a close to 100% certainty of who she is and what kind of justice she'll make. If all goes well she'll even be confirmed in time to prove herself to conservatives prior to the '06 midterm elections.

Bush has proven himself willing to gamble when the stakes are high. This doesn't look like a "safe" nomination, so we may fairly infer that he's gambling again.

I have also said consistently that:

1. The fight over the court is not just about Roe, it's about meaningful reform of the role of the court. A solid Roe vote, while helpful and certainly welcome, would not necessarily do anything to change the culture of the court, as it were.
   
2. Judges should not have to hide their conservatism so that hopefully, they will be seen as having "no paper trail" one day, too.
   
3. I haven't the slightest belief or faith that she will consistently turn out to be a pro-Roe vote, much less a textualist. Literally the only thing I have is, "Trust Bush."

Hello, my name is Leon, and I've been a Republican activist for a long time. No offense, but my trust ran plumb out after O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter. And I trusted Reagan a LOT more personally than I do Bush. So, even if the President was also the President of the NRLC, I'd want reasonable evidence on the nominee. Of some kind. That doesn't include a supposed political conversion that occurred 10 years ago.

Do you suppose that the president is perhaps being very literal when he says he never sat down with Miers and talked about abortion?  Perhaps the discussion took place while he was standing up.  If that were the case he could have been speaking the truth, but not the whole truth.  Seems like a very politic thing to do.

Bush is very adamant about sending our soldiers to fight and die in an offshoot of the war on terror in Iraq.  But when it comes time for The President to fight the democrats in the Senate he folds and picks a recommendation of Senator Reid.

Look, if Miers was Roberts I'd give her the same 'pass' that I gave Roberts... even as Roberts said Griswald was decided rightly.

If Miers was Luttig, I'd say ---no record on Roe-- not the best choice; but Qualified...yes...he is qualified.

Miers is not only no Glendon, no Pryor, no Garza, no Alito, no McConnel, and no Jones, she is simply not qualified.

Further, she left the pro-life; pro-family, pro-chastity Catholic Church and joined --AT AGE 35-- the pro-abortion, pro-sodomy, pro-women 'priest' Methodist denomination.

Come-on... how can we trust someone who is not a religious origionalist and is anti-Bible in her religious life...how can we trust that person---who has no experience with Constitutional law-- to sit on the Supreme Court.

President Bush wanted us to trust him with Miers...umm...we trusted him by giving him 8 years in the White House --- IT IS TIME FOR HIM TO TRUST US!!!!

President Bush -- Harriet Miers is not Anthony Scalia.

question and answer? was this a news conference? I have no doubt they have talked about it and roe, a lot. Wow. Dubya pulled a Clinton.

the left thinks of Ginsburg? No. It's pretty much the same situation here. As much as we wanted a fight (I did), a publicly anti-Roe nominee is not going through at this time. We would not get any Dems on board (save Nelson of NE), and would lose the RINOs and a few more (Linc, the Maine Twins, Arlen, Murkowski, a probably one or 2 like the Crybaby from Ohio). That would mean we would lose, and lose the Constitutional option as well.

Bush's lawyer, who Bush knows better than harry. harry screwed up.

and has been a devout evangelical since the early 90's. very conservative. doesn't go to georgetown at night.

. . . I think Bush indeed ruled out asking Miers about abortion in the context of how she would rule:

Q Thank you, Mr. President. You've taken time to express that you know her heart, her character, you've emphasized your friendship. So it seems reasonable that over the course of the years you've known her, perhaps you have discussed the issue of abortion. Have you ever discussed with Harriet Miers abortion? Or have you gleaned from her comments her views on that subject?

THE PRESIDENT: I have no litmus test. It's also something I've consistently said: There is no litmus test. What matters to me is her judicial philosophy; what does she believe the role -- the proper role of the judiciary is, relative to the legislative and the executive branch. And she'll be asked all kinds of questions up there, but the most important thing for me is what kind of judge will she be? And so there's no litmus tests.

Q Sir, you've already said there was no litmus test --

THE PRESIDENT: Correct. And I'll say it again: There is no litmus test.

Q But she is not someone you interviewed for the job that you didn't know. You've known her a long time. Have you never discussed abortion with her?

THE PRESIDENT: In my interviews with any judge, I never ask their personal opinion on the subject of abortion.

Q In your friendship with her, you've never discussed abortion?

THE PRESIDENT: Not to my recollection have I ever sat down with her -- what I have done is understand the type of person she is and the type of judge she will be.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/10/20051004-1.html

I have a lot of resepct for my Catholic friends, but your comment is out of line.  It is also incorrect.  Miers does not attend a Methodist church (although President Bush does).  She attends a very conservative non-denominational church that is very pro-life and pro-family.  You can check them out at www.vvcc.org.

It's really quite amazing to have experienced this, and not everyone is thrilled about me being born again.  I would like to check out VVCC in Dallas if I ever get the chance if passing through.

Does this mean I could possibly be a candidate for any job openings in the White House?

Alright, Erick, I'm convinced.  At least enough to sit quietly and hope she's confirmed.  The pick still stinks for a number of reasons, but I'll hope she's a solid vote nonetheless. I just really hope the White House understands that I, and many like me, are serious.  I will be watching Harriet Miers VERY closely.  If she votes correctly on key issues, I'll be thrilled and Bush will get the credit.  If she doesn't, the opportunity cost of voting for conservative Dems will be narrowed considerably.

Good God, I hope Bush is right.

I've been reading all of the pro and con commentary in the Blogosphere and the MSM from fellow members of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy and, while I sympathize mainly with those who believe Bush has missed an historic opportunity by not nominating a Brown, McConnell or Luttig, it appears to me most everybody is missing the fundamental point.

That point is this: As long as the Senate GOP leadership refuses to confront head-on the Democrats' abuse of the filibuster and end it, the Democrats have a veto if they choose to use it. And choose it they will for any nominee short of one with an undeniably perfect record - John Roberts - or one with no record at all, Harriet Miers.

Bush knows all hell would break loose politically if he nominated a candidate from the Old Guard wing of the GOP who would satisfy the Senate Democrats. Such a move would likely spark a revolt among the GOP's conservative infrastructure (note, it's not just "the base"). The resulting Senate GOP majority of one or two and a paltry five or six in the House would mean Bush would twiddle his thumbs for the last two years of his White House residency.

So faced with a certain filibuster, which would quickly become bitter and impassable so long as the Senate GOP continued to shake in its boots and be terrified at the prospect of actually confronting the Democrats, Bush has only two choices.

Nobody expects the GOP majority on the Senate Judiciary Committee to vote the Miers nomination down and barring a miracle, her utter lack of written commentary anywhere in the known world deprives the Democrats of the usual ideological reasons to vote no. About all they have left is arguing that she lacks the appropriate "judicial temprament" or that she is another Abe Fortas presidential crony. Those last two dogs just won't hunt, as Slick Willie might say.

Put simply, with Frist and the Senate GOP leadership, we get a Roberts or a Miers. There is no in-between.

H/T Mark Tapiscott

From the Corner

GEORGE F. WILL'S BOMBSHELL COLUMN [ROD DREHER]

George F. Will goes as far as he can to oppose Miers's nomination without explicitly doing so. I don't have a link to it yet, as it just moved on the wire. It's terrific, and might just turn this thing around for conservatives. Here's the lede:

    Senators beginning what ought to be a protracted and exacting scrutiny of Harriet Miers should be guided by three rules. First, it is not important that she be confirmed. Second, it might be very important that she not be.

    Third, the presumption -- perhaps rebuttable but certainly in need of rebutting -- should be that her nomination is not a defensible exercise of presidential discretion to which senatorial deference is due.

    It is not important that she be confirmed because there is no evidence that she is among the leading lights of American jurisprudence, or that she possesses talents commensurate with the Supreme Court's tasks. The president's "argument" for her amounts to: Trust me. There is no reason to, for several reasons.

The reasons Will gives are brutal to Bush, and are, in a nutshell, as follows:

1. Bush has no interest or ability to make "sophisticated judgments" about such matters, and it's impossible to believe that anyone who can would have recommended Harriet Miers;
   
2. Bush "forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution" by calling McCain-Feingold unconstitutional back in 2000, then signing it into law.
   
3. unless Miers demonstrates in her hearing that she has "hitherto undisclosed interests and talents pertinent to the court's role," the Senate has a duty to reject the nomination to prevent this or any other president "from reducing the Supreme Court to a private plaything useful for fulfilling whims on behalf of friends";
   
4. the Miers nomination vindicates the principle of tokenism under the rubric of diversity; writes Will, "for this we need a conservative president?"
   

Posted at 05:45 PM

Why on earth should we trust Bush. He's a liberal. Biggest spender in history.

You don't think low-key people like John Roberts and Harriet Miers could change the court just by how quiet they are?

If Americans get in the habit of people without clear political agendas sitting on the court, then in the future people like Ginsburg will look pretty unaccepable.  So will a Bork, but if quiet judges practice a quiet, deferential jurisprudence, we won't need a Bork on the Court.

to say "Reid recommended her"?

The main quote of Reid I know is :

"I said, `The vice president got here in a very unusual way. He was chosen by you to find a candidate to be your vice president. You liked the person in charge of finding a candidate better than the people he chose.' I said, `I think that rather than looking at the people your lawyer's recommending, pick her.'"

That seems like sound advice on the process, not on the person.

We beat them to Will.

I second that.  Great analysis...and I'm FisCon only.

I just don't see this as being a smart political move.  Aside from being a disaster as a pick, Bush has distroyed the party's chances in elections for at least the next two cycles.

Not that it would be a bad thing, to be out of power for a while (not too long though).  The Republican Party needs a break.  They need to find their roots again.  They have forgotten Reagan.  

From Bush's perspective, I think he is probably wondering how this went so bad so fast, and why the base reacted why they did.  Major miscalculation.  

With apologies to future Justice Miers, who will certainly be confirmed. For those who question her credentials, God Bless you, but for the life of me it is hard to understand what qualifies one for this hallowed court when Judge Bork is borked, and Justice Ginsburg is not. Both are qualified, no?

Is this a great country or what? Short answer....yes! I've read more intelligent political discourse about this nomination in the last 48 hours than I've seen in a coon's age.

In the inestimable words of the President, and the very estimable words of John Effin Kerry...."Bring it on."

I'm particularly looking forward to the spectacle of Senator Slow Joe Biden interrogating the candidate: "Have you now or have you ever been a Christian?"

"I start from the premise that Miers is exactly as Bush says she is --- a prolife conservative who will interpret the law faithfully to the original meaning of the constitution and not legislate."

That is a HUGE premise to start out with. If most of us were comfortable with that assumption we wouldn't be having any of these discussions. There is simply no argument for Miers other than "trust Bush" and as we have seen that is a non-starter. She isn't qualified, isn't brilliant, and is a Bush crony. All reasons why this pick is a political boner of a move.

Bush tremendously overreached with this pick. In trying to avoid a fight with the Dims, he decided to pick one with us - his base of support! That is a political fumble if there ever was one. Even if Miers turns out to be conservative on the court, we won't know it in time for the '06 and maybe not for '08. That is bad! Bush demoralized his base, a stupid move regardless of what party you are in.

I'm guessing that Bush thought he could say "Hey, I saw into her heart and she's a Christian so what more do you want?" Answer: someone with the background qualifications and intellectual might to do some heavy lifting on the court. Miers doesn't have it and can't develop it overnight.

Does Bush get any extra votes with this move? No. Do GOP Senate candidates? No.

Remember, the great strategy for this past presidential election wasn't "get those moderates" it was bring out the base in droves and we did and we won. How does this help us next time around? Do we help or are we cynical because we know that at the moment of truth our guys are going to cave?

There is simply no spinning this pick right now. It was a bad move and the GOP will pay for it.  

Are you proposing the Merthodists (or perhaps non-Catholics in general?) are not fit for public office? You are aware the George Bush happens to belong to the Methodist church.

Reid suggested Miers thinking there was no way in heck Bush would nominate her? At the time he made the recommendation her name was not being widely circulated as a possible candidate.

That would at least potentially explain how this could be considered a "win" for Bush, assuming Miers turns out conservative. Should she vote with Scalia & Thomas, Democrats would look pretty bad and the Miers pick would appear less odious (though no matter what it was not the best choice).

"I have never SAT DOWN and discussed abortion with that woman, Ms. Miers..."

Methodists come in all varieties-and while the church may have some official positions to the left of other Christian denominations, the individual members are going to vary greatly in their beliefs.

But I also am not all that comfortable introducing the issue of religion into whether or not one is qualified to serve.  This issue shouldn't be used to help, or reject a nominee.

you know they have discussed abortion often and roe

that's why I like her

He knows where she stands on everything

but if he's going to lie, now would be a good time to get Slick Willie for some payback from all that legacy rehab and backstabbing and get some lessons from the master!

And growing!

when you realize that we find more reasons to condemn each other and other people of any slight variance in our religion, including Christianity, it just makes no sense to find reasons to divide

How about returning to the simple message of Jesus?  Why isn't the Beattitudes not posted along side the 10 Commandments, especially if the last 5 are routinely not followed by those in White House today?

and the trust factor. Don't be amazed at the world's reaction to Christ. Its a scandal to the world, Paul says, but Go Ye!

even to dallas

or DC

white house counsel job is open!

a methodist. But, yes, most methodists I know are conservative.

The issue of religion will be the reason she will be attacked and hard. And it will be all to the good for us. many are already calling her an extremist. like night follows day

One issue that I'm going to do a column on here in the Atlanta paper is the prohibition of a religious test in questioning judges. mario Cuomo has it all wrong in several columns. I may post here as a dairy.

Walter Cronkite

He saw the effects of corruption before, he could at least advise how to better serve the Nation with things that don't destroy it.

I feel Mr. Cronkite or even Paul Harvey would do, since apparently job applicant's experience for White House or Supreme Court positions is not relevant, opening up a serious pandora's box for just anyone to take a position, like, say, Michael Brown for FEMA

Ethics.  Think about it.  Learn about it.  Live it.  Quit justifying wrong and live right for once.  The key factor is, would you want your actions on the front page of USA Today?  If not, maybe it's a good idea not to be indicted two times in a week after being the Distinguished Christian Statesman, or having to quit your job for violating many ethical codes as the appointed Attorney General of same award in 1996

It's our policy on trolls today. FYI, it will also apply to your other user name.

If Bush can't get 50 votes, he's got a problem. all it takes is 5 GOPs telling him they aren't excited and he's got a problem. Brownback telegraphed one today.

The reason not to go with Luttig was he was not confirmable out of the box. Given the alternative, he starts to look a lot better, even to Schumer.

Now that we know she became a Republican after she found Christ, I think this is even more true.

This is simply one of the worst actions of this adminstration.  What an opportunity - what a waste.  

The best that can be offered is "trust me."  Well, I wish

I could, but the simple factgs are that (1) when push comes to shove, W doesn't have care about the social conservative agenda, (2) the administration is weakened severely by its own self-inflicted wounds, and (3) when feeling weak, W falls back on the familiar, Texas chums.  I am so disappointed.

Pity that we can no longer troll rate some of the more idiotic comments here.

is bannable.  And so it shall be done.

But the facts speak for themselves. As the Washington Post reported this morning, it was Andy Card that pushed this nomination. A northeast moderate Republican from Kennedyville  Factor in expanding the entitlement state via the drug bill in medicare and to be honest, Bill Clinton is looking like a rightwinger compared to Bush.  Millions of rank and file movement conservatives voted for Bush even though they were against the reckless Iraq war, his failure to deal with the illegal alien invasion, even going so far as to encourage it because he promised to nominate Thomas Scalia types to the Supreme court. What a let down. I really don't think there's anyone in the White House with the stature to tell him the truth.  

Hunter, give us a break with the "posting violation" baloney.  This isn't third grade and you're not the hall monitor.  And even if you were, this isn't even close to the line in my view.

So should we give them a cookie, and send them on their way?...

Reid suggested Miers for a reason. If their is any indication of her being a female Scalia then Reid wouldn't have suggested her.

Or Reid may know she's a "conservative" (note: I'm not necessarily agreeing, at this point), but Reid may also know that her very mediocrity would doom her nomination.

IOW, Reid may have set a very subtle trap that GWB just blindly walked into.

with my cookie?

Don't you feel better? We don't need another scholar, we need a pro-life, pro-business "pitbull in heels". This may be the only nominee that GWB could have absolute confidence in how a Roe vote would be made.

Some of us are looking at the bigger picture than Roe.

For one thing, if Miers is viewed as a joke by the other 8 Justices, she's very unlikely to sway anyone to any of her opinions.

If she lacks intellectual rigor, she certainly won't.

There a number of conservatives here who are explicitly "results oriented" - as long as Roe (and that's pretty much all they care about), they don't care how they get there.

Unfortunately, the ballgame is much bigger than that.

Bottom line: I'm not going to support a mediocre nominee, regardless of the rationale.

It was posted on ConfirmThem first I believe.  Unfortunately it couldn't handle the traffic after Drudge linked to it.

is a second rate Senator from a small state and GWB is POTUS.

As long as the Senate GOP leadership refuses to confront head-on the Democrats' abuse of the filibuster and end it, the Democrats have a veto if they choose to use it.

Put simply, with Frist and the Senate GOP leadership, we get a Roberts or a Miers. There is no in-between.

This assumes facts not in evidence.

And if it's true, the GOP can kiss about half of its support Good-Bye. Permanently.

fond of her story.  See my diary on Harry and link to the article.  It's an interesting angle and one I hope to comment on some more after the kids are tucked in for the night and the Amazing Race is over.  :)  

In a position of national prominence, that becomes more of a title than anything that might actually translate into votes.

and quite anti-sodomy and anti-abortion-on demand.  And, I am very pro-bible.

And, I might add, that you are pro-pissing me off with your idiiotic statements.

FTR-Methodists don't have priests.

your madness. We had a great skit at church (baptist) the other day iwth a husband wife team that played mr and mrs martin luther and mr and mrs charles wesely. Thanks for the hymns!

The only difference between a baptist and a methodist in upsate sc is that a methodist will speak to you the liquor store.

god bless

Erick,

If Bush is right about Miers, it will turn out to be a brilliant move.  However, if he's wrong, conservatives like myself, who have been toiling for over 2 decades will have been fooled again.  I'm not about to sit by silently while the President rolls the dice with my children's future.  If I'm wrong, I'll happily admit it, but as Rush said yesterday, we don't have the luzury of waiting 10 years to find out who was right!

in a liquor store.  :)

I actually have a very convoluted religious history.

Mom's side was Southern Baptist, no drinking, smoking, dancing, you know the drill.

Dad's side was ultra Church of Christ.  Just, no thanks.

Spent most of my life worshipping in Protestant military chapels and eating tuna fish casserole (yuck) on Fridays with my Catholic friends.

At the end of the day though, I am a baptized (sprinkled) Methodist that attends a Presbyterian church because the local Methodist church is way too liberal.

Follow all that?  

Erick,

If Bush is right about Miers, it will turn out to be a brilliant move.  However, if he's wrong, conservatives like myself, who have been toiling for over 2 decades will have been fooled again.  I'm not about to sit by silently while the President rolls the dice with my children's future.  If I'm wrong, I'll happily admit it, but as Rush said yesterday, we don't have the luzury of waiting 10 years to find out who was right!

Bush loves him and would love to have his close pal as supreme but instaed went for Harriet cause he knows Alberto is a moderate and she is a real conservative. The fact he didnt pick Alberto speaks volumes

But many of the non-Kool-Aid drinkers here will not vote in '06 or will throw away their vote on a never-gonna-win-or-even-have-an-impact-candidate like the Constitution Party's guy.

I'll still vote.  I'll still ring doorbells and phones for Talent (R-MO) and Blunt (R-MO).  I'll still contribute.  And my vote will still matter.

I like chocolate chip or oreos, please.  And can I have some Cherry Kool-Aid.  Extra ice.

(This is tounge in cheek, but it is too fun not to suggest):

   What if... This was all part of a conspiracy between Reid (a pro-life Dem) and Bush to appoint a pro-life Supreme Court justice.

Reid can't openly support an open pro-life canadiate.  But lets assume his pro-life loyalties actually exist.  What if he is actually a (Que Dramic Music) Pro-life sleeper agent!

So he convinces Bush to nominate a dependable stealth canadiate, and he uses his carefully cultivated reputation with the Dem base to give her cover, making her nomination unstoppable.

It's so delightful that I can't help wishing it was true.  Too bad it's rubish, but still... it is fun to dream.

It looks like he already has.  :]

By the way, gamecock, I'm glad you're in the game.  You're a good rooster (as roosters go.)

You know we have been talking almost exclusively about what this does to alienate the conservative base, but what about what it does to the Democrats:

There are two possible results that I can see:

1: Justice Miers is not the legal conservative Bush thinks she is- this would be devastating.  However, Bush has always appointed conservatives in the past, and fought hard for them... it would be unlike him to screw up so badly on a judical nomination.

2:Justice Miers is a legal conservative. Lets assume this is true.

There are three routes to this:

1:Confirmed with solid support from the Democrats (as per Reid's comments)

Let's think about what happens in this case.  If the Democrats support the confirmation of the Justice who moves the Supreme Court to overturn Roe, their base will go bonkers.  Reid in particular will come under attack by the liberal base, and the Democrats will be utterly demoralized going into the Mid-term elections.  Sarcasm: (After all, why bother voting for a Democrat when they won't stand up to defend Roe, and are fooled by a simpleton like Bush).

2: Confirmed with solid opposition by the Democrats.  This has two sub-routes:

A: The Democrats try to filibuster, but the Gang of 14 deny the Dems the votes.

Under these cicumstances the Dems will get crushed politicaly.  The country is pretty evenly divided into 40% true believers on either side with 20% who desperately want to remain on the fence.  This 20% looks for signals about who are the "moderates" of the day.  All the signals will be pointing to Republicans as moderates, and the Dems as partisans indebted to extreme liberal interest groups.  Meanwhile, the Dems who break the filibuster will be shunned by the strongest interest groups among liberals, greatly weakening them.  Moderate Dem canadiates (think Casey in Pennsylvania) will be the worst off.  They will lose votes from the moderates who feel Dems have shown they can't be trusted to be moderate.  Meanwhile, the base won't turn out for them.  (Why should they vote to increase the number of DINO's in congress, and strengthen the Gang of 14).  (Also, McCain will reap big political rewards for helping form the Gang of 14).

B: The Dems stick together and succesfully filibuster.  After such a strong negative reaction from the Conservative base, and after Reid suggested Miers, the American public will be unable to understand the Dem position.  We pull the nuclear trigger, and suffer no negative consequences.  Instead, the Dems are cast as extremists, and we get rid of the filibuster, so if Bush gets a chance to nominate a third justice he doesn't need a stealth canadiate.  He could nominate Brown, or even Pryor.  Plus, all the lower court positions can be filled as Bush wishes.

Under both of the above possibilities- We win, and we win BIG!  However, lets consider the third possibility.

3: Conservatives derail Miers, and refuse to pass her out of committee.

The result?  Bush looks weak and stupid.  Republicans look extreme, and the Dems run off laughing all the way to the voting booth.

So...  As incredibly nervous as I am about this nomination, I think we should stand by our man and hope to heck he knows what he's doing.

http://cicero.redstate.org/story/2005/10/4/21447/4796

You also managed to be wrong.

She is a member of the Christian Church (according to James Dobson - who knows her preacher personally.)   Not a Methodist.  (Not that there is anything wrong with Methodists.)

And watch your superiority complex.  

Some of us Pentecotals don't believe the Catholic Church will be the only one that makes it.

Duh.

was not a slam dunk, but the chances of a filibuster were pretty low.  Leon thinks his problem was one abortion-related decision, but I tend to think it was the white male thing and nothing else.

I don't think the Dems have done the intellectual groundwork to educate people on why Commerce Clause jurisprudence matters.  I don't see where he would have had a major problem getting through.

is simply inconceivable on this nominee.

While I wish that President Bush HAD named an experienced judge known to be a strict constructionist, I believe that conservatives here should NOT try to derail Miers' nomination.  

President Bush has frequently been "misunderestimated" by his opponents, at their expense, and if he REALLY knows Miers better than most bloggers and Senators, he might slip past the Senate Democrats, not a "Souter in skirts", but a "Thomas in skirts": speak softly, and vote with Scalia.

Let's try to follow the President's reasoning. Sandra Day O'Connor announces her retirement in June, and Bush sees an opportunity to replace a "swing" SCOTUS vote with a solid conservative, and chooses John Roberts, who dazzles the Senate with his judicial brilliance and gets half the Democrats to confirm him.

But something happens on his way to the "forum": Chief Justice Rehnquist, a reliable conservative, dies, and suddenly President Bush finds himself with a huge problem:  no Chief Justice, and only two solid conservatives (Scalia and Thomas) on the court, Roberts not yet confirmed, and another vacancy to fill, and two major abortion cases to be decided in December.

President Bush solves the Chief Justice problem by nominating Roberts for the spot, thereby avoiding waging THREE confirmation battles at once (for example, if he tried to promote Scalia to Chief Justice).

Then, the attention of President Bush (and everyone else) turns away from SCOTUS nominations to how to rescue and rebuild New Orleans, costing Bush precious time in finding his second nominee. Wisely, Bush waits until after Roberts' confirmation before announcing the second nominee, so that Democrats couldn't "punish" Roberts because of the second nominee.

But now it's early October, and Bush needs another solid conservative confirmed BY DECEMBER. Yes, he COULD have "swung for the fences" and nominated Luttig or Alito or Edith Jones, but he could not afford a protracted filibuster / constitutional option battle, which might have allowed Sandra Day O'Connor to cast the deciding vote on those abortion cases, while his nominee argues with Democrats in the Senate.

So Bush and Miers (who vetted JRB, Owen, et al) search for a known anti-Roe vote, with a short paper trail that Democrats can't pick apart, and suddenly Harry Reid says that Miers is on Democrats' acceptable list. Bingo! Bush knows Miers is a reliable conservative, Harry Reid and the Democrats don't, and she'll slip into SCOTUS with nary a peep from the Democrats, and vote on the abortion cases.  

Now for the downside: Republican Senators (who would have gone to bat for Luttig, et al) don't know Miers either. But for all those on this site ready to ask Republican Senators to vote against her, look what Miers herself is doing right now: meeting PRIVATELY with REPUBLICAN Senate leaders. She can explain to THEM her heartfelt judicial philosophy, prove to THEM that she's a reliable conservative, so that THEY go to bat for her, then she can be sufficiently evasive publicly (a la Roberts or Ginsburg) before the Judiciary Committee to please Reid and a few moderate Democrats and avoid a filibuster.

To summarize--Bush needed a QUICK confirmation for the abortion cases, and Harry Reid handed him a freebie--and Bush took it!

Harriet Miers might not be the most brilliant legal mind to be nominated, but if she repeatedly added her name to opinions written by Scalia or Roberts, isn't that good enough?

But we're not there yet. Harriet Miers needs to convince a majority of Senators to confirm her. Let's get behind her, and not give the opposition any ammunition against her. And let's not misunderestimate President Bush!

Then, if Stevens or Breyer retires or dies by 2008, and there is no time pressure, THEN President Bush can "swing for the fences" and push for Luttig or Alito, and let the chips fall where they may.

"Whoever is not against us is with us".

  Erick got it right. Now Reid is retreating and even Dobson is singing the praises of Miers. If she's rejected on the basis of qualifications, likely IMO, the next nominee will be in the Robert's category and the only Dem objections will be ideological, unacceptable as per the gang of 14.

  There's another element here that plays in the President's favor, namely the homeliness of this woman. She's all 'luck and pluck', the self-made kind of nominee that many voters, especially women, would identify with. Let's not forget that Roberts was criticized because of his Golden Boy looks, resumé and charmed career: Who could be more (a)opposite?  There's an essential critique here of the Yale/Harvard circle of connections that filters down to the less blesséd amongst us.

  If she is confirmed, we'll find out her real positions soon enough. However, in regard to the 'certainty' that some people seem to hold for Luttig, et al., the only person I could absolutely guarantee would vote a certain way is me, nobody else. Let's keep the faith.

This nomination is cronyism through and through.  The judicial branch is suppose to be a separate and independent part of our government.  Bush says Ms. Miers is "someone who shares my philosophy ... will not change".  Orrin Hatch says "she will do what the president thinks she should do".  What happened to separate and independent?  Ms. Miers herself said that presidents should not expect judges to toe their line on abortion.  She said, "Nominees are clearly prohibited from making such a commitment, and presidents are prohibited from asking for it and people who think such inquiries are proper show a misunderstanding of the separation of powers by proposing that judicial nominees should mirror a president's views." Why does Bush need such a close friend on the court?  Bush also tells his supporters to "trust" him.  While governor of Texas, Bush appointed moderates to the court whose rulings "shocked" Joe Kral, the legislative director for the Texas Right to Life Committee.  Alberto Gonzales was one of these judges appointed by Bush.  Operation Rescue president Troy Newman said, "we must reject the nomination of Harriet Miers", so not everyone is going to trust Bush.  This country does not need to have a "Brownie moment" in the Supreme Court.

What would you do?

You are gearing up for the biggest fight for SCOTUS of all time, rivaling the Bork hearings. You receive a list from your political opponents of acceptable candidates that includes a name of someone that you know will make Scalia look like a liberal. But you are the only one who knows. What do you do?

and what reagan would have done if Byrd pre approved Meese! Its a coup.

This whining is elitism. The fight I welcome as well and was at first upset with the stealth roberts answers, but really, his umpire analogy did make the argument. And i think harriet will actually make it better because, she will speak a language that is more accessible to non-lawyers because, as a trial lawyer, she talked to juries. Roberts has only talked to other lawyers. i am a lawyer by the way.

Just because we exalted chatterers don't know her means nothing,, as if the only qualified people are people that we know. bush knows he and we know bush

And will probably try to drag out the confirmation process until after the abortion cases are heard.  They've already started asking for documents they know the White House will not release.  What is your proposal for how Senate Republicans counter the "We know so little about this nominee that extrodinary openness on the part of the Administration is required," strategy that the Dems will mount?

Both parental consent and partial-birth abortion will be heard THIS term.  I am right there with you IF Roberts and Miers vote to uphold Roe v. Wade.

I would add that I think another part of it is that the base has been spoiling for a no-holds barred frontal assault on Schumer and Reid, and all of a sudden, they are not getting it.

I personally think that frontal assaults are stupid, and not likely to succeed.  Even when the they do succeed, the same result could have been achieved with much less bloodletting (figuratively).  Why take a frontal assault when they can be outflanked?

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino reiterated that President Bush did not ask Miers her personal views on abortion or any other issue that may come before the court.  "A nominee who shares the president's approach of judicial restraint would not allow personal views to affect his or her rulings based on the law," Perino said.

But the liberal fringe will push for one any ways.  The crud won't hit the fan though until after Justice Miers rules on an abortion case.  Then the liberal base will start screaming about how Reid betrayed them.

In short, Bush nominated Miers in order to give the Dems their own Souter-like mistake, which will be sure to demoralize their base.

"We asked you for names, you gave us one, and we picked her.  How can you argue with your own Minority Leader."

The elected Democrats are already Vichy appeasers in the eyes of the left-wing base, mostly because of the war, but also because of the cooperation of some Dems in every legislative initiative of this Congress, aside from Social Security.  It is not a belief that Democrats are achieving results that motivates the base.  The motivation is and has always been a desire to stop the Republican agenda.

If Miers has a role in some unpopular decisions that will absolutely be more of a motivator for the Democratic base, not less.  Pointing out that the Dems were complicit will be irrelevant, not only because it is par for the course, but because the entire goal is to get some fresh blood in there anyway.

Will weaken them in the short term.

You have Hillary planning her `08 run as more of a centrist.  You have a few folks trying to emerge as the "true Democrat".

And keep in mind that this time, MoveOn/Kos have the levers of power in the Democratic party, while the Clintons have a bit of a "shadow party" of their own.

Their base is not going to really sit for a quasi-appeaser, nor will they tolerate a "Sistah Souljah" moment.  The problem is, Hillary's the type of person who doesn't agree to disagree.  He holds grudges and tries to destroy her opponents both personally and politically.

If she gets the nomination, she will be badly weakened.  If she loses, she'll go scorched earth, and that's going to be U-G-L-Y.

But yes, anyone who votes to confirm Miers will have a tough time running for President on a platform of not appointing any more judges like that.  It's one of the many problems with Senators trying for a promotion.

There are a lot of things that are going to happen between now and 2008 other than the Miers nomination, however.  Judges aren't as big an issue for the Democratic base as for the GOP, except when a nominee is actually on the table (which is part of the problem).  A few really unpopular decisions might be the only thing that would change that dynamic.

when the attack on her faith comes and that will all  be in our favor. The libs can't help themselves. The money people don't even care about winning. They just want a toy or platform to be heard as if they are God's gift. It will be interesting to se how harry reacts.