Me? Hell, no. I’d like to see him make a non-partisan nomination-- someone like Mario Cuomo, with impeccable and well-articulated pro-life beliefs, who would separate his personal beliefs from his legal opinions–but that’s very naive of me. I think Bush’s idea of a centrist judge will be someone from the center of the Republican Party’s right wing.
Hey, pal, you’ve just disqualified yourself for the Supreme Court right there!
Anyway, we’ll see within a week or two whether I’m right or wrong. Gloating rights to to the winner!
If it were up to me, I would nominate the SDMB’s very own Bricker – a smart guy, a lawyer, a Republican with crossover appeal, someone who knows and cares about the Constitution. And best of all, imagine the confirmation hearing:
Sen. Santorum (R-PA): Mr. Bricker, in your post to the Straight Dope Message Board of October 12, you used a certain coarse term for a disgusting sodomitical practice. Can you explain to America why you used this term not just once, but twice?
Etc.
I think it’s a good thing that Bush lost this fight. This was a healthy debate within the conservative ranks and after battling it out for a few weeks the right decision was made. Miers wasn’t qualified for the SCOTUS. It doesn’t matter how conservative she is. She wasn’t qualified and should never have been picked. It was arrogant of Bush to think that his personal atty would be acceptable for the court.
I hope his next pick has experience and a long track record of constructionism. Janice Rogers Brown would be nice. A SCOTUS pick is worth fighting over. Bush didn’t understand that, and seemed to treat the whole issue as a nuisance that wasn’t worth making political waves. He was wrong. Most conservatives knew he was wrong and correctly called him out on it. The next pick better be good.
I couldn’t agree more. This nomination was bad for the simple reason she was unqualified.
While I fear a more conservative nomination, I am hopeful it gets defeated also.
It’s debatable what direction Bush will go in for his next pick. I don’t think it will be a confirmed conservative with a paper trail like Brown though. Even before his approval numbers were in the dumpers (I heard they were below 40 on some polls, is that right!?) Bush didn’t want to do this, either because he thinks it will hurt his party in the long run or because he deep down doesn’t want a social conservative on the bench.
The timing surprised me, not the result.
I am perplexed how this all happened. I would think it’s pretty standard operating procedure that a president passes a short list of potential nominees to a few senators of his own party, just to see if any don’t pass the laugh test.
Bush apparently didn’t do this, and I haven’t a clue why he didn’t.
Heh, just read Meier’s withdrawl letter. She apparently is withdrawing because she’s afraid “I would be expected to testify about my service in the White House to demonstrate my experience and judicial philosophy”. :rolleyes:
I guess they figured “needed to spend time with my family” has already been overused.
Bush, or the powers behind the throne (depending on whether or not one believes the sock-puppet theory of this administration) certainly don’t want to tip the court to the point where Roe actually gets overturned – if that happened, Republican politicians would have to actually do something about the issue and thereby (in most regions) mortally offend a major chunk of their voting base.
I think he’s much more interested in rewarding his friends than putting a conservative on the bench.
How many actions has he really taken to benefit the social conservatives? It seems like there’s been a lot of lip-service, but not much doing.
I couldn’t agree more. I don’t fear (yet) and even more conservative nominee. I simply expect the next nominee to be, oh, I don’t know, qualified for the position. Whether or not that person is deeply conservative will be important, yes, but more important is that person’s ability to separate personal beliefs from the review and application of law. Miers could not prove that she had the experience or background to do so.
Just like Charles Krauthammer said last Friday. Think it was leaked?
More likely the other way around.
Miers: How do I extract myself from this embarrassing nightmare? [Reads CK’s opinion piece.] Hmmmmmm. I like it!!
So did Bill Kristol on url=“http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/videos/most_recent/index.jhtml”]The Daily Show earlier this week, brownie55. I don’t think it’s a leak, just a logical extrapolation from what was known at the time.
I wonder if she’ll still be in charge of selecting the next nominee… 
Oops – fixed Daily Show link
Probably. That’s a white lie, though. It’s like saying you have plans rather than saying you don’t want to spend time with someone. It’s a lie to save face.
You folks are going to be disappointed when Rove is indicted for his testimony but not the underlying “crime” … and not “frog-marched” out of the White House.
Bush will stick with him and argue that he is not going to ruin someon’e career for not saying “I don’t recall” as believably as Hillary did.
I think one reason she withdrew now was because it was becoming obvious that her hearings would end up being about the administration’s use of torture. The president just doesn’t need another platform to launch that discussion.
If I were Karl Rove, I’d be worried about the recent precedents of Michael Brown and Harriet Miers. It shows that the President will drop somebody if the situation gets too hot.
But I do agree that Bush will continue to use the “Clinton did it first” line as long as some people think it means anything.
I won’t be disappointed at all. As the Republicans liked to say during the Clinton leak (on a dress) investigation, perjury is a very serious matter. If indicted, Rove will not be able to continue his job without becoming quite damaging to Bush.