Some of the Senate Republicans appear to be making unhappy, or at least “we’ll see” type noises. It’ll be weeks until they vote anyhow.
The first thing I thought when I heard about the pick a few minutes ago was “is there precedent for justices with no judicial experience?” And I see there is - Rehnquist was the last who had none - but I’m not a fan. Rehnquist’s and Robert’s (since people complained he didn’t have enough experience) both had more impressive resumes from what I can see.
Somebody else here used the same word yesterday. Diogenes, I think.
Er, why? Were you under the delusion that the Dems could actually win a fillibuster on a SC nominee without Republican help? Did you believe that Democrats in the minority get to nominate SC justices if only they just try hard enough? Sorry, but back to reality, GW won the last election, and that means he gets to nominate, and likely confirm almost any nominee he damn well pleases.
Why people like you insist that Democrats dance around in the streets naked chanting that Bush is Satan in the middle of Middle America or else you’ll go Green is beyond me.
Miers is a FABULOUS pick for Democrats: far far far better than anything they had any right to hope or deserve. They should rush to confirm her immediately. The alternative to her would have been a solid solid conservative: another Scalia. Instead, we got someone who no doubt believes herself to be conservative, and a steathly one, but by the time she gets a couple of heart-wrenching cases will be a bleeding heart in no time. She’s EXACTLY in the style of a Souter: a old-time conservative back when that actually meant something other than an acolyte of the Ann Coulter wing. It’s no wonder the right is up in arms. And word is, there’s even WORSE dirt on her that will drive conservatives batty.
This could honestly be a situation where a larger percentage of Democrats vote to confirm her than Republican. You might think that’s crazy now, but let’s wait and see how this plays out.
Yup. There’s wailing and gnashing of teeth over at The Free Republic, while Daily Kos is calling it a win for Democrats (albeit with some dissenters). The consensus on both sides seems to be that Bush wimped out.
Personally I don’t know enough about her yet to have an opinion one way or the other. But the fact that she pisses off the Republican base is encouraging news … .
I have to say, I first encountered this story with the headline “Bush Taps White House Counsel for Supreme Court”, and I thought, “Wow, he’s going with Gonzales! He must be itching for a fight!” Then I saw her name. But I’m wondering…did she work under Gonzales? If so, does that mean it’s likely that her opinions and thought processes are mostly in tune with his, but with the advantage of being a relative unknown, given the opposition Bush knows Gonzales would get over the torture stuff?
Wasn’t that back when Gore was anti-abortion?
What kind of record did Bensten have on abortion back then, before he hitched his wagon to Dukakis and the national Democratic Party?
Perhaps she’s staunchly anti-abortion, and Bush knows it, but she’s moderate enough in other ways for that to slip under the radar, and of course, she won’t answer any abortion questions during her confirmation hearings.
I could wake up some morning several months from now cursing both Miers and Roberts but for now I’m pinching myself and shaking my head in relatively pleased bewilderment.
Two out of two nominations — to replace O’Connor and Rehnquist —and my initial impression is that we’ll be no worse off than we were, and quite possibly better.
Fairness compels me to say something nice about GWB. He’s either picked candidates I cautiously approve of or he’s done a spectacular job of sneaking politically dangerous ones in, and therefore deserves some form of credit & acknowledgement either way.
It seems more likely to me that Bush likes to put the person he favors for a position in charge of its selection committee, perhaps as a way of testing their loyalty or judging their character. If they come up with a candidate he likes better (like Roberts), he picks them. Otherwise, the original gets the nod.
There should be no doubt that she’s anti-choice. She’s a long time evangelical, as I assume Bush hopes conservatives will soon realize and line up behind him for. But anyone who got this seat would have been anti-choice. The difference with her is that she’s a Gonzalez/Bush#2 version of anti-choice, which is to say, not going to sell the store over it.
My cynical view of the GOP revolution is this: the true intended beneficiaries are rich people and the corporate world; the Christian right is, when push comes to shove, no more than a gullible source of the necessary votes. When I think of the true Founding Fathers of this revolution, I don’t think of the folks at Heritage or Hoover or Cato or AEI, but rather the folks that bankrolled those foundations.
The point of that is to preface my belief that those people got exactly who they wanted here. Roberts is their boy, and Miers spent a quarter-century litigating on their behalf. If Miers goes through, what we have is a much more corporate-friendly Supreme Court than we’ve had in quite some time. And they’ll tilt towards the Christian right, but like you say, they’re not going to sell the store over it.
“We believe that those who have not accepted Christ as their personal Savior and are unrepentant will be judged by God in His perfect justice and doomed to eternal punishment (Ecclesiastes 12:14; Matthew 25:31-46; II Corinthians 5:10; Romans 2:16).” -Exodus Ministry, a group that I’m pretty sure Bush said she worked for.
My previous post got et by the boards, but I wanted to confirm that it’s Exodus Ministry, and not the pernicious Exodus International, for which she worked. The former is just a little icky and slightly worrisome; the latter would be an abomination.
Nuclear option, ‘obstructionist,’ blah blah blah. They could filibuster, but they’d get their heads kicked in. If there are unhappy Republicans as well as Democrats (provided she’s somehow so bad that all the Dems vote against her), they wouldn’t need a filibuster anyway. Although so far, they seem cautiously optimistic.
I now feel pretty sure that Bush’s strategy is to nominate people without long records that can be used against them. That actually makes me a little more suspicious of Roberts than I was.
My theory is that she’s ultra-hard-line on the abortion issue (not that she’ll admit it in confirmation hearings) and that’s Bush’s ultimate goal that he canbring home to show the base.
Let’s hope the next Democrat that gets in the White House shows the same “take no prisoners, make no compromises” attitude that you display. Let’s see how you feel about it then.
I insist that Democrats grow a spine and actually act as an opposition party. There are several issues which should be complete slam dunks for us yet we’ve been completely ineffectual about getting the message out to the public.
By beating teir heads pointlessly against a wall. They don’t have the votes. They don’t have the votes. Votes don’t magically appear out of nowhere.
YOU think they are complete slam dunks. That doesn’t mean that they are, or even that you have any clue what you are talking about. YOU probably think that most Americans are liberals at heart.
