Not at all; definitions are matters of verifiable fact, albeit with some fuzziness at the edges. (That caveat doesn’t make the matter any less a matter of objective fact – you might not know the value of G to ten decimal places, but you do know that if you jump out the window you aren’t going to miss the ground and start flying.)
The fact that some people choose to lie via linguistic obfuscation does not change the fact that words have certain meanings.
Interesting that “separation of powers” was the excuse for her withdrawing her nomination. This had been predicted for several days as a face-saving way out for the administration.
Do we now have a “Miers Precedent”: that nobody who works in the WH can suffer a confirmation hearing, because obtaining their work records will violate SOP?
Here’s what Ninnyhammer said:
Bolding mine.
Let’s qualify that bolded statement, shall we?
It would have forever undermined the ability of any President to get unguarded advice from confidants with Supreme Court aspirations, but without much of a previous paper trail to justify such an appointment.
That’s the concatenation of circumstances that required Senators to get a look at Miers’ White House papers. That’s as far as the precedent would stretch.
Good thing Miers withdrew, protecting future Presidents who might face this dilemma!
Here’s what Ninnyhammer link.
“Fuzziness” that entirely covers the meaning, that is - making it very hard to point to any example that clearly establishes the definition with the clarity you pretend it to have.
And those meanings exist, how? By common use, right? Your own preferred choice of meaning is not definitive, no matter how much you’d like it to be. We’ve had this discussion before, and that’s what “the eye of the beholder” comes down to.
Let’s all bid a fond farewell to Harriet Miers and start speculating on the next nominee…
Best brown-nose evar!
I’m detecting the unwholesome aroma of a good ol’ Karl Rove bait-and-switch here.
Nominate an unqualified cipher that you know will never get confirmed. In the process you energize our lunatic fringe-rabid right wing to scream for a more conservative nominee. She takes the easy way out - claiming the the process will undermine executive privilege, gut the separation of powers, cause crops to fail, and generally lead to a decline in Western Civilization not seen since the Dark Ages, and then withdraws her nomination.
We’re now free to nominate one of our own, complete with a paper trail and judicial philosophy that would support the sacrifice of welfare mothers to Jesus Christ on a burning altar of banned books and the public flogging of fags, Commies, terrorists, and other enemies of the State. He’ll pass in a cake-walk.
Possible I suppose, but I think right now his attention is focused more on trying to dodge an indictment.
Wow. Rove really is the Boogeyman with unlimited powers and Q-like abilities, isn’t he?
I don’t see how any bait-and-switch would make the confirmation of a gold-plated conservative any easier. Republicans will support the nomination, Democrats will filibuster it, the nuclear option will be exercised, and the Senate will be thrown into turmoil. How does Miers’ nomination change that?
Rove may be a great strategist, but I still think his greatest talent is inspiring total paranoia and confusion in others. This was a bad nomination, and I’ve heard it speculated that he was not particularly involved in it. With Miers withdrawing today and the 2000th Iraq death Wednesday, it’s going to be a heck of a bad three days for the White House if there are indictments tmorrow.
I was being facetious.
Nah, the president’s obviously ill-considered nomination of Miers lowers the bar for finding extraordinary circumstances.
If anything this strengthens the Democrats’ play, since this nominee was deep-sixed by Conservative forces. This was the opposite of the Bork tactic anticipated. It makes it harder for Conservatives to block another nominnee pecieved as potentially too moderate without seeming very obstructionist, yet still gives Liberals an up at bat to object to someone not moderate enough.
elucidator: You should’ve taken that bet. 
Good call, although interesting enough both sides are blaming it on the right wing, not them evil libruls.
Next up? Either Gonzales or one of the two Ediths.
Great, next we get the Two Faces of Edith?
Oh, I dunno about that, Archie!
As a liberal, the withdrawal of Miers’ nomination scares the crap out of me. The next nominee will no doubt be even more conservative, to satisfy the conservatives who were so unhappy with Miers. And if the Rebublicans in Congress are on board, I suspect they’ll be able to ram through whomever it is, by means of the nuclear option if necessary.
Someone please tell me that I’m wrong.
The nuclear option can only work with total GOP solidarity. Bush’s approval ratings being in the toilet now, don’t you think more than a few GOP Senators, especially those whose home-state support is pregnable, would choose to position themselves with a moderate public image, not as Bush-toadyers? Frist’s own ethical problems now emerging, is *he * in a position to whip them all into line anyway?