Redstate

These two nominations by bush will push the court to the left.  They are a disaster for conservatism and means the republican party is at an end as a majority party.  Your fantasies are only putting off your inevitable collision with reality.

do you see the Court moving left? I can see a small possibility Roberts and Meiers will be somewhat identical to the justices they replace, but even that would leave the Court where it is. I see no likelihood that either will be more liberal.

On Monday I asked these assembled masses:

What is it that Bush (and Rove) know that we (the masses) don't?

Sandy tries to answer that question, with good result.

Bob:

I completely disagree...if we are to be the majority party for the next 10 -20 years we must not OVERTLY play only to our far right fringe, but rather must learn to offer more and more `reasonable' solutions. Conservative but not bomb throwers. To become and be the true majority party we must do what the liberal Democrats did in the `60s `mainstream' our beliefs convince the middle that those beliefs are not `far out' and `wacky'

As one caller to talk radio said: `we on the right want Bush to go out and kill liberalism with the electric chair...and we're now p!ssed that he's using lethal injection.'

Sandy, Unfortunately you're thinking tactically/short-term. SCOTUS appointments are for life. The goal is to change the direction of the court and the country. The 2006 elections are a blip on the larger screen.

The question that the proponents of Ms. Miers have to answer with more than "trust the President's gut instincts" is on what basis, on what evidence can we have confidence that Ms. Miers has a conservative juriprudence that will be able to stand up to more experienced combatants and that will not melt over time.

Testimony of friends does not suffice; we need some written, thought out reasoning. This I would expect from any nominee, not just Ms. Miers. We got enough of this for Roberts, which is why I could strongly support him, even if tactically he might not please everybody with his decisions.

Otherwise, if Roberts and Miers (assuming she is confirmed) don't turn out to be the closet conservatives those in the wing-and-a-prayer camp insist they are, then the base will be upset, angry, dejected, and deflated come Nov. 2006.  

This is just another rationalization.  This pick is a dud.  How do I know that?  Conservatives are actaully split on her nomination.  Would any of you ever thought that Bush would have split the party on a Supreme Court nomination?  The party will suffer greatly next year because the base has been demoralized by another Bush.

I disagree that a protracted partisan battle in the senate would have caused voters to stay home on election night.  It would have been energizing because Rove could have used the obstructionist theme to great effect.

I agree that a quick Miers confirmation will likely shift the court to the right, particularly with the round of upcoming cases.  Unless she has the president completely snowed, she is a conservative and is unlikely to be the kind of moderate vote that O'Connor is right now.  Maybe her judicial temperament will change over time, but there are a bunch of biggees coming down the pike right now that will be decided before that happens.

Mr Crown, you are a nasty, nasty fellow sometimes.  Heh, heh....

the base.  I oppose her nomination even though she may turn out to be on the far right.

Does the end justify the means?  Should Bush validate the notion that real conservatives must be snuck on the Court by stealth?  That a conservative legal philosophy (with a track record) dare not be aired much less defended in a public forum?  

I hate what Bush is saying about conservatism: It cannot be discussed in public because everyone knows we're really just a bunch of hayseeds and racists.

The one thing this president has come through on has been nominating excellent judges. Miers has been with him through every step of his presidency, been his gatekeeper, worked on getting the right judges.

It's inconceivable to me that he doesn't know her conservative principles intimately.

She'll also be great at issues of national security, with her day to day experience in the White House. We need that on the court.

I am not sure I agree with your contention that the average voter would be put-off by a national debate regarding the proper role of the judiciary in our republic.  Couched in proper terms, the average American may well warm to the realization that the SC remains the last bastion of liberal theocracy in American politics.  Educating the public as to the various ways that the SC can use their power to undermine fundamental tenants of democracy could very well be something that would rally the base and "most" Americans in 2006.  Besides which, there was a discernable difference in the public perception of politics as usual between domestic legislation and judicial nominations.  The judicial nomination battle presents a unique opportunity for conservatives to permanently paint the democrats as obstructionists.  Just ask Tom Daschle how well his commitment to blocking conservative judicial nominations worked out for him.  It is also noteworthy that Bush got his loudest applause during the campaign from his remarks regarding judicial appointments.  The reality is that average Americans care deeply about this issue and would have gone to the mat for Bush if he would ever take up the battle.  My guess is that many sit out the 2006 elections because Bush betrayed his base and blew an opportunity we have been waiting 20 years for.    

Bush has for the most part (my disagreement ove BCRA aside) gotten results.

A 61 year old, with her experience, who has already been through a watershed change in her politics, described as a pit bull, able to snow Harry Reid, is not likely to lose her conservative anchor at this time in her life.

Certainly we need to see the weight of her reasoning in confirmation hearings, but it is definitely knee jerk to cry doom and destruction before then.

Bush is not saying anything about the GOP (except maybe the liberal, pro-choice RINO's that could not be counted to vote for your "ideal" SCOTUS pick   ; )

Since when are we the Kos kids that can't take a debate?

I respect all the conservative commentators that have weighed in.  It doesn't mean we have to agree in lock step.

However, punditry and achieving an agenda are two completely different animals.

I believe Harriet will move the court to the right.  If we can achieve that both short and long term, conservatives win.

I agree that the nomination of Miers could be good for the 2006 Elections (something I stated in my "Is the 'Architect' behind Bush's Judicial Decision" post a couple of days ago.  If Miers is supportive of "partial birth abortion ban","parental notification" and other issues like religious freedoms, death penalty, etc., then the President will come out a winner and the base of the party will be rejuvenated because the Republican party wants "strict constructionists" or "originalists" as judges.  We want a judicial system that takes away the power of the people to impact their own laws (which activist judges does).

If Bush is wrong in his assessment of Miers' judicial philosophy (and she rules differently), then the nomination of Miers will be detrimental to the mid-term elections.  Even though our knowledge of her is limited, I have got to believe Bush was looking more long term for the court...rather than short term and being scared of a fight.  Has he backed down because of his fear of a fight?  I trust he hasn't now.

conclusions.  If indeed Miers does turn out to be a very conservative justice (and I think she will) the results of the cases before the court this year will hardly energize the conservative base, as it is the result they expected and demanded.  It will, however, energize the Democratic base to come out in opposition of the Court, which could be a bad thing for Republicans in the long term, as court appointments are for life and a liberal court is what has really kept the Republicans in power and I fear a conservative court will return the liberals to power by the same means.

trump this angst.

Consider this, because I too am sure we can win the judicial philosophy argument and was even dissapointed with roberts' to some exent interms of speaking of past cases.

But I've changed my mind a bit.

1. Roberts' umpire analogy does advance the ball.
   
   
2. I suspect we may not have 50 solid votes to withstand an msm effective attack
   
   
3. we need to maybe make the fuller case on this to the people to egt more solid conservatibes
   
   
4. i have come to appreciate somewhat, the judicial integrity issue that somewhat impedes a full argument innthe hearings
   
   
5. Bush may be savibg the big fight for the next vacany and so not shooting the whole wad now,,esp when harry gives him his owm lawyer!

The actual performance on the bench will determine if W succeeded, not the dissapointment of some conservatives about the process.

i do think that we are advancing the ball with the originalist argument some

Completely that she has been with him and assisted with some outstanding choices on the lower courts.  These are now seeds for Bush or Future presidents to appoint.

Although I am very disappointed and unhappy with Bush in the way he is spending our money when it comes to his Judicial choices he has been on the money so far.  I have no reason to believe that he wants his legacy to go down in flames due to the lefts statements about the war and then disappointing his base with a bad nomination.

I could be wrong I voted for McCain in 2000 :)

Reid gave her name as acceptable, the Democrat base will rememeber that too.

I thought about the same thing.  But, part of the fight for our philosophy is to realize we are in the majority on most of these issues.

•  parents think they should be notified before their kids have an abortion
• the public is not in favor of late term abortions
• the majority don't understand why they can't say a prayer at graduation
• limiting our speech through McCain Feingold, while preserving the first amendment for the press?

We hold the high ground. This is where we educate the public on what it means to have conservatives in office. Get results on the issues they care about.  How many roll their eyes at every idiotic decision that goes against common sense?

Do we really believe the democrats can energize more than they did against Bush?  They would have to actually come up with ideas, not just hatred.

Both of the nominations are enigmas.  

While Miers has been described as conservative, anyone practicing law in Texas (at a large firm) must be 'conservative'.

I had many friends go on to work at large firms and become closet liberals because the firm environment is such that every client they have (i.e. large corporations) demand 'conservative' thinking.  In fact, I had this exact conversation earlier this summer with my roommate (who clerked with Bracewell Giuliani and Haynes Boone).  We both agreed that, although there are people who personally are liberal or moderate, at work they most definately put on their 'conservative advocate' face for obvious reasons.

Conservatives should be worried that Miers has been known throughout her career as being 'tight-lipped' about her political ideology.  

Also, I'm not buying into the whole evangelical hype that the media is playing on.  I've been to Valley View Christian Church (my scout troop--Circle 10, Troop 876, visited there and had leadership retreats & lockins at their youth facility) and it was rather mainstream and moderate.  It seemed just about the same ideologically as my church (Ridgeview Presbyterian which was located in Farmers Branch just down the road from Valley Views old building) and their website specifically says:

"Our beliefs are not innovative. Anyone familiar with historical Christian teaching will find these statements fall well within the boundaries of evangelical theology. (Evangelical means theology derived from the evangel , or the Gospel. In other words, it's biblical theology rather than speculative theology or theology rooted in tradition.)

We try not to be dogmatic about matters on which believers hold divergent views. Our core beliefs are centered in Christ and His message as supported by Scripture. More obscure doctrine, as well as controversial issues about which the Bible is silent, are left to believers to sort out on their own."

If anything, I see Miers as a moderate in the mold of O'Connor.

What if the Democrats decide, after exhaustive and candid testimony about Ms. Miers religious views, that she is "extraordinary" to the degree that jusitifes a filibuster? And what if the GOP side of the the Gang of 14 disagrees and goes to the nuclear option? And what if the whole senate then votes to reject the nomination?

The nomination would be withdrawn long before this played out, a-la-Bork, but for the lure of eliminating the filibuster.

Could a weakened filibuster be Bork's revenge?

Who knows where this is headed. I suspect odd developments as we proceed.

If HM gets through and turns out to be a conservative, Bush may feel emboldened against the base and nominate Gonzales. He seems to be dying to do so.

I don't know what to think of her at this point, honestly.  What I've seen in the past few days gives me a little optimism.  (Her history of concern for human rights and her call for neutrality on abortion issues with the Texas Bar, specifically.)  

Regardless of which party you belong to, one thing is certain at this point, we need to know more.

First of all, if the Dems buy this analysis - and they may - it gives them an incentive to drag out the confirmation and limit her participation.

Second, she may need to be recused from some of this term's big cases on grounds of having advised the president on them.  Dems will have every incentive to uncover what they can about the subjects she has worked on, to facilitate recusal motions.

Third, don't you find it a bit ethically disturbing to have a close confidant of the president enter the Court knowing that the president - for reasons of pure politics - needs her to rule certain ways on certain cases that were pending at the time of her appointment?  I find that troublesome.  John Roberts owes Bush nothing, and I trust that he will call them as he sees them.  Even as a Bush supporter I feel a but queasy thinking that Miers could enter the Court feeling as if she is under pressure to produce results for the GOP in her first year on the Court.

Why was GWB stumping for so many of those RINO's in the Senate to begin with?

Sandy, I agree that we need hear her out in hearings before forming final opinions. My reference to "short-term" was only tangentially in reference to Ms. Miers; the main thrust is that assessing her suitability for SCOTUS should not be predicated on complicated speculative scenario plotting regarding how she might affect the 2006 elections -- that is short-term thinking. Instead -- and I think you agree in concept -- the focus should be on her long-term impact on jurisprudence. You at this point seem more sanguine than I regarding her temperment and commitment to conservative juripredence, and this is a valid difference of opinion (or gut feelings).

What I think many of the commentators are lamenting is the fact that we have to go through all the speculation and scenario building when there were clearly numerous candidates who had a much stronger; this raises the fear of setting a precedent that a conservative has to sufficiently hide their light under a bushel (i.e. stealth candidates) to be SCOTUS-confirmable in the future.

Depending on how soon she gets on the Court, I think she will try to "get results" but GWB is not running for re-election, so what is the big deal?  Supreme Court Justices do NOT have to recuse themselves unless there is a financial / personal conflict - the "appearance of impropriety" standard does not apply to them since the SCOTUS is the Court of last resort.

Second paragraph, second line, should read:

...numerous candidates who had a much stronger record;

Because as much as we might hate it, in some states it would be almost impossible to get a hard core conservative elected.  We need the numbers in the Senate.  Then we need Senate leadership to hold them together, (which I'm not convinced we have.)

As I understand it, the abortion rulings will be on partial-birth and parental notification.  The pro-life people I know will not be impressed or energized by a favorable ruling on these issues unless those rulings actually reverse Roe v. Wade, which I suspect they will not.

Rulings on religion that are largely "symbolic" are likewise unlikely to energize conservatives.  Indeed, there are conservative, fundamentalist Christians who are at best lukewarm about "dumbed down" public prayer in schools or anywhere else.

Campaign finance may be a hot issue for wonks, but it's difficult to get the average person to become passionate about this.  Federalism also is too complicated for many people.

You evidently do not realize that religious conservatives are divided on the death penalty.  Some oppose it based on the seamless garment of life.  Others oppose it based on lack of trust in the ability of the government to insure fair trials.

We are supposed to take comfort in the argument that Harry Reid has been snookered?  Since when have Democrats suffered as a result of disagreeing with Harry Reid?  If Miers restricts Roe v. Wade without overturning it, I think there will be more unhappy with President Bush and the Republicans than with Mr. Reid and the Democrats.

Above all, this smacks of weakness.  Would the Democrats have really been able to force the constitutional option and close down the Senate?  I really doubt it.  President Bush blinked.

I don't actually think this is much of an issue for the general public. Frankly, they are more concerned with Iraq, the economy, and the Katrina issue. Unless the confirmation hearing were to turn into a media circus like the Thomas hearings, the general public won't pay much attention to this (despite the fact that it will impact them more dramatically than anything else going on).

This is an issue for the Republican base -- which is why this appointment is so puzzling. The base was itching for a fight -- why not give them one? With Republican poll numbers so dismal, they'll need the base more than ever in 2006.

Long-term...well, long-term, I think Miers will turn out to be (slightly) to the Right of Justice O'Connor. However, in regards to 2006, I don't think this appointment helps.

I'm not simply relying on her first term.  I expect her to be a solid conservative for her entire term.  (I was concerned about her age, but at least her mother is like, 95 or something.)

Think about it. Would you say that Bush doesn't know Karl Rove's philosophy? Miers has been working with W for over 10 years.

He's not sending her in there with an agenda on specific cases.  He's nominating her because they hold the same core beliefs.  Nothing unethical about that.

that Roe V Wae will be overturned on a short term basis, you're much more of an optimist than I.

While I am strongly for life, I can't imagine it happening in one fell swoop. The cases before the court would be an excellent start.

I think the Dems made a conscious decision in 2000 to sacrifice a few Senate seats in order to derail Bush's judicial nominations. I think they succeeded, with the caveat that they probably lost more seats than they had figured on.

So why on earth are we stopping them? Let the bleeding continue! Let Democratic Senators explain to voters why the pledge needs to be banned and why Kelo makes sense. This is a winning issue for us.

It seems to me you are saying it is smart to give up having a Luttig on the Court for decades in exchange for  - maybe -  an energizing effect on the base in the 2006 mid-terms.  Seems short sighted to me.

And to what end?  What's the point of strong 2006 mid-terms if you aren't going to use Republican control of the executive and legislative branches to rein in spending, make government smaller, make goverment more accountable, make government more competent, make our borders more secure, fight for states rights and individual rights, raise ethical standards, establish a policy of filling goverment positions based on party, yes, but merit also, to put first rate thinkers and writers on the Court?

This administration could have been doing all that over the last five years.  It could have really changed the face of government in this country.  We could have seen what smarter, smaller, more efficient, more functional government looks like. But the administration didn't deliver, and doesn't want to deliver, any of that and for reasons I can't fathom, the party faithful don't seem to have the spine to demand it.  Sure Bush has pleased you with some lower court judges and bribed us all with some fairly paltry tax cuts and he has no doubt appointed two conservatives to the SCOTUS. But those are slam dunks - the minimum you should have expected from Republican control.  You should have gotten those things and everything else besides.  But you haven't and you ought to be asking yourselves why.  It's a question I'm pondering and I don't really have an answer.  I don't know why things haven't turned out as I expected when Bush was first elected.

So what do you really hope to achieve with the 2006 mid-terms other than continuation of an obscene amount of power in the hands of about 20 individuals? And what principles are you willing to sacrifice to do it?  Clearly having a heavyweight conservative Constitutional scholar on the Court for decades to come is one thing.  

Are you advocating living under laws imposed by liberal judges, so we can have the numbers in the Senate?

Why would that do us any good when activist judges overturn any law they disagree with from the legislature?

The argument for why she was picked, maybe.  But your argument for why she could help politically is premised entirely on her first term.  And if she knows that Bush needs her to produce results GOP candidates can point to in 2006, that concerns me.

at worst I see a maintenence of the status quo or a slight shift to greater shift right.

It seems very clear that Mike Luttig was NOT going to be the pick.

It was either going to be Alberto Gonzales, or some other Latino, but most likely Gonzales.  Otherwise the President was going to pick a woman.

And every female candidate was flawed, either because of philosophy questions, or because they had comments in their past which would make them unconfirmable.

the best Candidate was probably Maureen Mahoney.  The Base rejects her because she defended Michigan in an affirmative action case.  The other potentially confirmable female judges (Sykes, Callahan, Williams, etc) had some questions about their philosophy, and also most had some issues that could end up creating A unexpectedly difficult confirmation battle.

I'm very aware of the discomfort of the base because there's no tangible documentation we can hold up to prove her conservative bona fides.

It's definitely a risk politically for W to ask us to trust his judgement. (It's obviously got a lot of tempers up!)

But one thing we should know from watching this President is he makes decisions based on their results, not on appearances.

There's been a ton of reaction that this will kill us in the midterms, see here for example.  My post was meant to remind everyone that leaders govern for results, and it's  likely we will reap the fruit of this nomination even in the short term.

It's starting to be a cliche, but W is a poker player looking for the best return.  If that causes the base temporary discomfort, but moves the country in a conservative direction, I can live with that.

Is she the best legal mind we could choose?  I don't know, but she was chosen many times for the top 100 lawyers in the nation.  She has experience in the executive branch, dealing daily with national security.  (I'm not fond of the recent ruling to release the rest of the Abu Ghraib photos, are you?) She has lived and worked in the business community, outside academia.  Hmm. Most of us live outside academia too, in the real world.

I see no reason to eat our own before we know all the facts.  Listening to the shrieks of horror and dismay, you'd think that W nominated an actor from LA Law.

  One condition: if Miers (assuming she's confirmed) votes conservative on the issues that matter most, the base will be there in '06. What will help even more is the simple goodness and toughness of this woman's story, which will cross over implicit class boundaries and attract some votes. There is a world outside the beltway, and if there was ever a nominee that simple working people could relate to, it's Miers, within, of course, the confines of a SCOTUS nominee.  

You seem to be operating on a 2004 line of thinking. In many realms--Iraq, the economy, even terrorism--this is not 2004. Then, the independents were split, Democrats were blah on John Kerry, and all it took to win Ohio (and thus the election) was a big turnout of the Republican base. Now, independents have turned against Bush, Democrats see with good reason an opportunity to make gains in 2006, and simply turning out the base is not going to be enough to push Republicans over the top in PA Sen, MN Sen, the numerous governor's races, or competitive House races.

And that's assuming that Miers really will excite the conservative base. Not only does that not seem likely (we'll see soon enough), but even if she does, you're assuming she alone will excite the conservative base.

The best thing for the Republicans in 2006 would be to confirm Miers, put this nomination behind them, and work on passing legislation. Not to be callous in my terminology, but there have been so many distractions, from the tsunami and Terri Schiavo to Katrina and the judicial appointments, that people could easily be forgiven if they couldn't name a single thing the Republican Congress has done since November.

In reality, just how much more can the Democrats do? How much more can they be energized?

2004 was an `all out' push against Bush. More people voted for Democrats than ever before. And they lost.

How much more...more money, more voters, more `energy' can they have/get?

parents think they should be notified before their kids have an abortion

Abso-effin-lutely. What we have now: parents must be notified before their kids have an aspirin, but not an abortion. How crazy is that?

There is also the issue of how a lurch to the right by the Court would activate the leftwing base in 2006.  Yes, conservatives would be happy.  But in my experience, the strongest emotions are often felt by the party who feels they were screwed.  And any dramatic restructuring of abortion rights might leave a lot of liberals feeling screwed.

 I'm referring to the base here, actually. I agree about the distractions, but based on what I've seen of the polls it doesn't appear that the Dems have made any major advances in popularity.

  If Republicans lose ground in '06, it will simply be a matter of returning to historical form, contradicted, as far as I know, by Republican mid-term gains in Bush's first term.

  I made no assumptions about anything, although you most certainly do, but simply state the obvious - the woman's personal story is compelling, perhaps compelling enough to attract some votes from people who ordinarily associate Republicans with rugs to riches types like Mr. Roberts, pun intended. Even Harry Reid could see that.    

http://www.redstate.org/user/Cicero/diary

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.

This will hurt the Republicans in '06.  Many conservatives are upset about this nomination because they are put in a position of uncertainty.  They are forced to trust Bush and discount those indications that point to her being a moderate.  And, on top of that, he sent up a blatant crony - precisely what the advise and consent rule is designed to stop.  Bush did not have to take this route.  But he did.  

What is more, it sends the strong signal that being an out of the closet conservative is a bad thing in the legal community.  Did Clinton worry about sending up RBG when the Republicans controlled the Senate?  No.

The genie is out of the bottle.  It doesn't matter how she will vote (my gut feel is she is a hardcore social conservative, but that's just it ... I don't know.  Do you?).  The point is that Bush could have put up a credentialed, intellectual, conservative heavyweight as he promised.  He did not.  Instead, he alienated a large portion of his base by taking it for granted and gambling that they would swallow the "trust me" line twice in a row.  

Do you honestly think that Rove et al. will be able to mobilize the same coalition in '06 as he did in '04?  What's going to be the rallying cry?  "We need your conservative vote, money, and time so that we can give you more ... er, um, question marks for SCOTUS nominees?"  

Good luck with all that.

I don't think the Democrats are going to make big gains in the 2006 elections. I was just responding to the idea that the Miers nomination will somehow be good for Republicans. I think it's a neutral.

Well said!

I think a lot of the posters here who are predicting disaster for Republicans are overdoing things.

According to RasmussenReports.com, which was the most accurate polling firm for the 2004 elections, President Bush's job approval went from 46% on October 3 (all interviews before the Miers nominations) to 47% on October 5 (2/3 of interviews after the Miers nomination).

A 1% improvement is certainly within the margin of error, and I wouldn't claim that the Miers nomination has helped Bush based on this alone. But there's no proof that her nomination has hurt Bush either! The "base", so far, doesn't care!

It seems like a good idea for all conservative bloggers and pundits to stop bashing Bush and Miers, and let Miers prove herself before the Senate. If she starts catching flak from the left, we should try to defend her. But above all, let's not do her any harm!

Listening to the shrieks of horror and dismay, you'd think that W nominated an actor from LA Law.

I like it.  :)

I believe GWB has proven beyond all reasonable doubt that if he had wanted AGAG, he would have nominated him.

The man just does not govern with his ear to the ground and his eyes on the polls.

If the Senate Ds filibuster, we have them by the short hairs.  HM was on a short list of potential nominees that Reid offered to Bush as "filibuster proof".  Either he's a liar or a baby-trader (meaning he won't stand by his earlier offer).  Either way, we win.

IMHO

over the qualified people?

And mind you, he hasn't called lately to let me in on the whole story.

He was worried that a) we might lose if it came to the nuclear option and not only have another nominee go down in flames ala Bork, but also lose in the midterms for even trying.  Therefore, he went with one of the names on the no-filibuster list of Reid.  And he also worried that b) other judges that had thinner paper trails might pass Senate muster but turn out to be swingers like SDOC.

He wanted someone who he believes to be capable and qualified (and by the way, I believe that a previous position as judge is not a prerequisite) for whom he was certain he knew his/her judicial philosophy.

His prerequisites:  

1.  Nominee had to be able to get through Senate without nuclear option.  There are just too many squishes there that we can't trust.  e.g.  Twins from Main, Chaffee, Specter, Ohio Crybaby, etc.
   
2.  Nominee had to be originalist that he could be certain of who didn't have an enormous paper trail.  (See #1 for reason.)

bonus point for HM:  She has an enormous paper trail, but he's the only one who can see it.

3.  Qualified (which he believes she is.)

I would have had questions concerning the First Amendment about Lutting (involving a case where Paladin Press was sued).

Once she is in she is in for life.  While I could see this I don't see her doing so unless the GOP issue is one she agrees with.  If she were sucking up to Bush for this and she is confirmed she had it.  Thus no reason to suck up to Bush or any other republican at that point.

The base is the great unwashed conservative voters who want conservatives on the court, not just the few elitists that get airtime, a few of whom are mad Bush hasn't picked a judge they pre approved. But, Bush, the voters and evn thse elitists, all want judges that rule correctly. originalists.

So the base doesn't care HOW and WHO Bush accomplishes this. One way would be to nominate a known to the elitists judge, fight it out and get the 50 votes. Or, lose and take it to the country and get a few more real conservative seantors.

One way is to nominate a KNOWN TO BUSH AND others  conservative who has been instrumental in assisting bush in putting some of the great justices on the appeals courts that the elites love, who is not known to the elites, and get 50 + votes and then have decisions handed down that please the base voters.

Bush is right, and his way can suceed.

Busg=h is not dying to put a NON-CONSERVATIVE on the court.

If he puts Ginzales up, it means gonzales shares his originalust view.

imho bro