Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
It's Been Real, Harriet
The news channels are reporting that Bush has "reluctantly" accepted Harriet Miers' request to withdraw her nomination. Looks like they're using as cover the combination of the White House's refusal to hand over internal documents and the (frankly rather serious) issue of how often Miers would have to recuse herself from hearing cases about policy she'd had a hand in forming. Which may be a sign that, unlike Trent Lott, the White House does read blogs, since that's more or less the exit strategy the conservative blogs have been pitching. Seeya H.
Addendum: The narrative emerging seems to be that this was, above all, about Miers' failure to meet the right's litmus tests—in particular, uncertainty about whether she'd overturn Roe. But that just doesn't make sense in a lot of ways. For one, the widely loved (on the right) Roberts doesn't seem to have been any more of a sure thing on that front—certainly not after he described Roe as a "settled precedent" that is "entitled to respect." Is it that hard to buy that this really was, at least in significant part, about her thin resumé? Heaven forfend we should concede that not everything is explicable through the lens of horse-race outcome-oriented politics, that some people actually have a principled commitment to a competent Court.
|10.27.05 @ 9:05AM|#
Goooood morning! Now, will he pick someone the Right is screaming bloody murder about, or another halfwit crony?
|10.27.05 @ 9:14AM|#
Nah, Libby's too controversial.
Jenna Bush will be the next nominee. It'll be a shame to see that
girl disappear behind the black robes.
greg wirth|10.27.05 @ 9:19AM|#
Now we can expect a justice in the mold of Scalia and Thomas which is not a good thing either.
MP|10.27.05 @ 9:21AM|#
Now we can expect a justice in the mold of Scalia and Thomas
which is not a good thing either.
Says you.
|10.27.05 @ 9:22AM|#
Now we can expect a justice in the mold of Scalia and Thomas
which is not a good thing either.
I could stand another Thomas. Scalia has too much of a blind spot
on church/state issues for me.
|10.27.05 @ 9:27AM|#
I have this great image in my head of a huge stadium full of loud cheering fans singing along in perfect unison to a wonderful song blasting over the loudspeakers...."Sha-na-na-na....."
|10.27.05 @ 9:29AM|#
You know, Judge Judy has a clear paper trail and has demonstrated strong commitment to family values....
|10.27.05 @ 9:31AM|#
Let's try Bork again - the news has been boring
lately.
Nah, last time I saw him I think he had shaved the beard off, it
just wouldn't be the same.
|10.27.05 @ 9:35AM|#
Julian, re: addendum - that's not the way I've seen the
narrative, but I'm watching FoxNews.
Oh jesus. They're suggesting re-nominating Robert Bork.
|10.27.05 @ 9:36AM|#
Rich Ard, woah man. They don't need any encouragement.
"You don't think they should play small ball, they should go for a
touchdown." Fox talking head in response to suggestion of Bork or
Bork-like character. Mixing sports in bad metaphors the day after
the world series? Talk about 15 yard penalties.
|10.27.05 @ 9:39AM|#
Adam-we can only hope. As others have pointed out, the entertainment value is unbeatable. Even though Bork embodied some of the worst tendencies of conservatives, he is also smart, sarcastic, and fun to watch. His condescention to the Senators throughout his hearing was priceless.
Rich Ard|10.27.05 @ 9:43AM|#
I wasn't being serious - I'm surprised Bork's even being
mentioned. I'd rather see Mr. T go for it.
"I pity the fool that doesn't understand separation of powers! I'll
legislate your ass from this bench!"
|10.27.05 @ 9:48AM|#
If we're going to do the fantasy nominee thing, I have two words: Richard Epstein.
|10.27.05 @ 9:51AM|#
The only thing that bothers me about the Miers withdrawal is the idea that she might have been pushed out by people who insist that the word "resum�" be spelled with an accent grave.
|10.27.05 @ 9:52AM|#
Thank God. Now he can nominate the libertarian favorite, the
Gavel from Greenville, the Bane of the Democrats, JANICE ROGERS
BROWN!
Let's get ready to rumble!!!
Or, as an alternative for a certain class of Reasonoid, there's
always Mr. Ginsburg. But I'd rather see the hysteria that will come
with a Brown nomination.
|10.27.05 @ 9:53AM|#
I could stand another Thomas. Scalia has too much of a blind
spot on church/state issues for me.
Er . . . as opposed to Thomas, who believes that incorporation does
not apply to the Establishment Clause, and that existing
church/state jurisprudence, including Lemon, has all been
wrongly decided?
Seriously, read Thomas's
concurring opinion in Newdow if you want a real scare
on church-state issues.
|10.27.05 @ 9:54AM|#
Number 6 - I was 8 years old when Bork was nominated, but heck, if I can catch up on the fun I missed back then, let's do this thang. Bork, baby, Bork! And I had no idea he gave the Senators a run for their money. Sweet.
|10.27.05 @ 9:55AM|#
Julian's addendum seems on the mark. Roberts is undoubtedly a
conservative, and not the kind of judge that I'd want to nominate,
but he's also something of a technocrat. Miers, on the other hand,
appears to be closer to a Bork-like activist/true believer. In that
context, it seems hard to believe that the GOP's evangelical hoi
polloi was really that bent out of shape over her. The anger,
rather, seemed to come more from pundits, politicos, and old-school
conservatives angered over what they saw as the triumph of cronyism
over judicial rigor.
Fortunately in this case, they, along with Democrats perturbed over
Miers' social views, had enough clout to kill the nomination. But
with the GOP's fundie base increasingly setting the party's tempo,
I don't think it's a sure thing that a situation like this will
play out the same way in the future.
|10.27.05 @ 10:05AM|#
Bush should nominate Coach Bobby Knight. It would be interesting seeing Coach Knight fling a few chairs around the court room in response to a bad ruling rather than some boring old opinion. Actions speak louder than words.
|10.27.05 @ 10:07AM|#
Adam,
I remember someone leaking Bork's rental history from his local
video store. Those were the days.
|10.27.05 @ 10:09AM|#
I read that Chris Matthews thinks Bush should nominate a
"heavyweight", like Ted Olsen.
Works for me.
|10.27.05 @ 10:11AM|#
"principled commitment to a competent Court" - HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! You libertarians KILL me!
|10.27.05 @ 10:13AM|#
mk - A Day at the Races, Ruthless People, and The Man Who Knew
Too Much? Tittilating.
I hope the President reads Hit & Run - where else do people
think far enough outside the box to suggest Bobby Knight?
Personally though, I think I have to get behind this Douglas
Ginsburg thing. We broke the Green Ceiling in the Presidency and in
Congress, and all over the private sector (hell, read two pages of
_Saying Yes_ for Example Numero Uno), but there's still a Green
Ceiling to break at the Supreme Court.
|10.27.05 @ 10:20AM|#
Somebody's gotta say it: Let's go down the William Howard Taft
route and get Justice William Jefferson Clinton!
(pause for the rotten tomatoes)
I also second the nomination of Judge Judy. Long track record,
clearly intelligent, good on camera for those confirmation
hearings.
A more serious one to consider: Richard Posner. He's written some
thoughtful books. Seems to be experienced.
|10.27.05 @ 10:31AM|#
What's a Green Ceiling? Yes, I know I could look it up, but I'd rather have y'all tell me.
|10.27.05 @ 10:32AM|#
thoreau,
Posner? But, have you read any of his stuff? I'm trying to read
"Catastrophe" or whatever the newest one is, but for a
self-proclaimed libertarian, he comes of as WAY old-school
conservative. I like him LESS now that I've read his work.
|10.27.05 @ 10:36AM|#
"Resume" actually has two accents graves, Ugh (not shown here due to character non-recognition). </Harriet>
|10.27.05 @ 10:37AM|#
Now he's pissed and going to do something crazy like nominate Pat Robertson or something. I'd prefer a submediocre crony.
|10.27.05 @ 10:40AM|#
linguist-
I remember reading something of his a few years ago and thinking
that he was a pretty smart and reasonable guy. Damn, now I can't
remember what I read.
|10.27.05 @ 10:42AM|#
Of course, I'd prefer Justice William Jefferson Clinton or Justice Judy. Purely for the entertainment value.
|10.27.05 @ 10:44AM|#
The good thing about Posner is that he tends to write very clear, well-reasoned opinions, even if you disagree with the conclusions he's reaching. Having a straightforward, well-written discussion of the rules underpinning a particular judicial opinion is in many ways more important that the actual decision of the opinion itself.
Dave W.|10.27.05 @ 10:50AM|#
I remember reading something of his a few years ago and
thinking that he was a pretty smart and reasonable guy.
He can write pages and pages of reasonable stuf. He also has blind
spots (similar to how Scalia has blind spots). He also sometimes
gets off onto counting-angels-on-pinhead type side trips a lot. On
the whole: superlative law professor; okay judge.
The thing I enjoy about his judicial opinions in the patent law
area is that he recognizes real legal policy problems in patent law
that other judges gloss over. On the other hand, he seems pretty
unmoored from patent practice and doesn't always have good ideas
about how to solve the patent law policy problems he recognizes
(tho his recent copyright reform proposals are excellent).
In semi-related news: my patent law blog will go up in a couple
days bcs I finally resolved my computer situation here.
|10.27.05 @ 10:52AM|#
If he's going to pick a crony, why not Cheney?
I'm really expecting Gonzalez though.
|10.27.05 @ 10:54AM|#
I'm really expecting Gonzalez though
Out of the frying pan and into the fire. Yikes.
|10.27.05 @ 10:55AM|#
It could also be a sign that the administration reads the Washington Post (specifically, Charles Krauthammer).
|10.27.05 @ 10:55AM|#
That's too bad. I was kind of looking forward to the first sitting Goth on the Supreme Court.
|10.27.05 @ 11:07AM|#
LOL Jennifer.
One of the bar trivia teams Tuesday night renamed themselves,
"Harriet Miers' Makeup Artists"
|10.27.05 @ 11:10AM|#
Interesting excerpt from WSJ's timeline of the Miers nomination
Asked if there were any circumstances under which she would ask that her name be withdrawn, presidential spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters: "No one that knows her would make such a suggestion." He added, "And no one that knows her record and her qualifications would make such a suggestion,'' McClellan said.
I always knew McClellan was a tool, but this is ridiculous. He made those comments exactly 2 weeks ago, by the way.
|10.27.05 @ 11:14AM|#
In all seriousness (Goth jokes aside) I DO think this is too bad. I know nothing about Miers except that she wore godawful makeup, but I think she probably would have been less bad than whoever Bush will nominate in her place. All this talk of wanting a "conservative" judge--well, a real conservative judge might be a nice thing to have, but with Bush and the quality of the right-wing you see these days, it seems "conservative" is code for "gay people suck and sexuality must be regulated and church and state should be together and let's make excuses for why it's okay for the American military to keep professional torturers on staff."
|10.27.05 @ 11:19AM|#
thoreau, Clinton isn't a 100% impossibility, you know. Old man
Bush and Bill have some sort of unnatural relationship, after all,
and I can see Rove supporting the move as one that could forestall
any threat from Mrs. Clinton (I imagine few voters would like the
president to be related to someone on the Supreme Court). And, to
be fair, Bill Clinton probably has sufficient scholarly leanings
and is moderate enough to get confirmed. The POTUS could then talk
about compassionate conservatism until I choke on someone else's
vomit. Yuck, did I type that?
Can we somehow make the president nominate Ms. Brown? Any
White House people reading this? Get Brown on the Court, and I'll
vote GOP next election. Yuck, did I type that?
|10.27.05 @ 11:21AM|#
"ROVE! or why not just nominate himself? boy george the sun king
:D"
Now that would be fun.
|10.27.05 @ 11:22AM|#
With John Roberts confirmed as the next chief justice and the
withdrawal of Harriet Miers's nomination to succeed retiring
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the focus is again on President Bush.
Here are potential nominees.
Samuel A. Alito Jr.
Born 1950 in Trenton, N.J. Graduate of Princeton and Yale Law
School. Was assistant U.S. attorney in New Jersey before becoming
assistant solicitor general in 1981 and deputy solicitor general in
1985. Returned to New Jersey as U.S. attorney in 1987. Nominated by
George H.W. Bush and confirmed to the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals in 1990. Known among conservatives as a strict
constructionist in the mold of Justice Antonin Scalia.
Abortion-rights activists point to his dissent in the 1991 case of
Planned Parenthood v. Casey -- in which he argued to uphold a
Pennsylvania law requiring a married woman to inform her husband
before getting an abortion -- as putting him in the anti-Roe v.
Wade camp.
Alice M. Batchelder
Born 1944 in Wilmington, Del. Graduate of Ohio Wesleyan University
and law schools at University of Akron and University of Virginia.
A former teacher turned private-practice lawyer with a long career
on the bench that has included a stint as a bankruptcy-court judge,
district court judge in Ohio and nomination by the first President
Bush and Senate confirmation to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
in 1991. Her decision to uphold an Ohio ban on so-called
partial-birth abortions in 2003 is likely to draw tough scrutiny
from liberals.
Janice Rogers Brown
Born in 1949 in Greenville, Ala., and attended segregated schools
as a child. Graduate of California State University and University
of California law school. Served as associate justice on the
California Third District Appeals Court from 1994 to 1996, and was
then elevated to the California Supreme Court. After fierce
resistance by Senate Democrats, she was recently confirmed to
become a judge on the U.S. Appeals Court for the District of
Columbia, as a result of a deal between moderate Democrats and
Republicans. The opposition reflected her staunch conservatism. At
her nomination hearing, Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, the ranking
Democrat on the Judiciary committee, called her an "agenda-driven
judge whose respect for precedent and rules ... changing depending
on the subject matter."
Consuelo M. Callahan
Born 1950 in Palo Alto, Calif. Graduate of Stanford University and
McGeorge School of Law, University of the Pacific. Career
California prosecutor who once specialized in trying child abuse
and sexual assault cases. Raised to the bench as a Superior Court
judge of San Joaquin County in 1992, then the state Third District
Appeals Court in 1996. Nominated by President Bush and confirmed
unanimously by the Senate to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in
2003. She is a conservative Hispanic with tough-on-crime
credentials, but her positions on abortion and other social
hot-button issues remain unknown.
Edith Clement
Born in Birmingham in 1948. Received her bachelor's from the
University of Alabama and her law degree from Tulane. She worked in
private practice, specializing in maritime law, in New Orleans from
1975 to 1991, when President George H.W. Bush nominated her to the
U.S. court for Louisiana's eastern district. She served until 2001,
as chief judge in the final year, before being nominated by the
second President Bush to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit. She has drawn less criticism than some of the other
potential nominees but has also been less in the public eye.
John Cornyn
Born 1952 in Houston. Graduate of Trinity University and St. Mary's
School of Law, in San Antonio. Received a master's of law degree
from the University of Virginia law school in 1995. He spent six
years as a district court judge in San Antonio before joining the
Texas Supreme Court in 1990. He held that position for seven years,
and served as Texas attorney general from 1999 to 2002, when he
succeeded Phil Gramm as Republican U.S. senator from Texas. He is a
member of the judiciary, armed services, budget, small business and
entrepreneurship committees, and serves as deputy whip.
Emilio M. Garza
Born 1947 in San Antonio. Graduate of Notre Dame and University of
Texas law school. Served in the Marine Corps from 1970 to 1973. Was
a corporate litigator before being nominated by President Reagan
and confirmed to a federal district court in Texas in 1988.
Elevated by George H.W. Bush and confirmed to the Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals in 1991. Is on record as saying Roe v. Wade lacks
a constitutional basis and that states should have the right to
limit abortion.
Alberto R. Gonzales
Born 1955 in San Antonio, Texas. Raised in Houston, the second of
eight children of an immigrant family. Served in the Air Force from
1973 to 1975. Attended USAF Academy, transferring in 1977 to Rice
University and graduating in 1979. Earned Harvard law degree in
1982. Joined Houston firm Vinson & Elkins in 1982. Named
general counsel to then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush in 1994, becoming
Texas secretary of state in 1997. He was appointed to the Texas
Supreme Court in 1999. Became White House Counsel to President Bush
in 2001. Nominated and confirmed as U.S. attorney general in 2005.
He has often been cited as an attractive first Hispanic justice to
the high court. However, his Senate confirmation battle was heated,
focusing on a 2002 memo in which he called aspects of the Geneva
Conventions "quaint." Also, many hard-line conservatives worry his
judicial leanings are too moderate.
Edith Hollan Jones
Born in 1949 in Philadelphia. Graduate of Cornell University and
University of Texas law school. Worked in private practice in
Houston from 1974 to 1985 and in that year was nominated by
President Reagan to a newly created seat on the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and confirmed by the Senate.
Observers have said Justice O'Connor's retirement might prompt
President Bush to nominate a woman as her replacement; Justice
O'Connor was the first woman on the Supreme Court and was joined
later by Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Judge Hollan Jones was said to have
been on the previous President Bush's list for potential Supreme
Court appointments. Social conservatives are comfortable with Judge
Jones, who in 1993 upheld a Mississippi law that prohibits certain
minors from obtaining abortions without the consent of both
parents.
Jon Kyl
Born in Oakland, Neb. Received bachelor's and law degrees from the
University of Arizona, and practiced law in Phoenix before being
elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. The Republican served
four terms in the House and in 1994 was elected to the Senate. He
was re-elected in 2000. Serves on the finance and judiciary
committees, and is chairman of the Senate's Republican policy
committee. Known as a reliable conservative, he has been active in
the areas of victims' rights, national parks and border
security.
J. Michael Luttig
Born 1954 in Tyler, Texas. Graduate of Washington and Lee
University and University of Virginia law school. Was assistant
counsel to the Reagan White House. Clerked for Justice Scalia when
he was a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia. Clerked for U.S. Chief Justice Warren Burger from 1983 to
1984. Was nominated by George H.W. Bush and confirmed to the Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeals in 1991. Has close ties to several
high-court justices, both conservative and liberal. A supporter of
the death penalty -- even before his father's murder in a 1994
carjacking. Has penned several opinions considered anti-abortion,
including one reversing a lower-court decision against a Virginia
ban on so-called partial-birth abortion and another that backed the
state's law to require parental notification in teen
abortions.
Michael W. McConnell
Born 1955 in Louisville, Ky. Graduate of Michigan State and
University of Chicago law school. Clerked for Supreme Court Justice
William J. Brennan from 1980 to 1981. Was assistant general counsel
to the Office of Management and Budget from 1981 to 1983 and
assistant to the solicitor general from 1983 to 1985. Taught at
Chicago Law School from 1985 to 1996 and has been teaching at
University of Utah law school since 1997. Nominated by President
Bush in 2001 and confirmed in 2002 to the 10th Circuit Court of
Appeals. Known as a brilliant conservative scholar of
constitutional law who has openly supported overturning of Roe v.
Wade or limiting its reach.
Theodore B. Olson
Born 1940, in Chicago. Graduate of University of the Pacific,
Stockton, Calif., and University of California, Berkeley's Boalt
Hall School of Law. Was an assistant attorney general in the Reagan
administration. As partner in the Washington, D.C., law firm of
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, he argued numerous cases before the
high court. Represented George W. Bush against Al Gore in disputed
2000 election. Nominated by President Bush and confirmed as U.S.
solicitor general in 2001. His wife, Barbara, died Sept. 11, 2001,
in the hijacked plane that crashed into the Pentagon. He resigned
in 2004 to return to private practice. Comes with no bench
experience or record but has lent his courtroom skills to
traditional conservative causes, including overturning or limiting
affirmative action.
Larry D. Thompson
Born 1945, in Hannibal, Mo. Graduate of Culver-Stockton College,
Canton, Mo., and University of Michigan Law School. Was U.S.
attorney in Georgia from 1982 to 1986. Served in the 1990s in an
array of government roles, including independent counsel probing
corruption in the Department of Housing and Urban Development in
the Reagan administration. Was a member of the Republican legal
team in the contentious confirmation of then-nominee Clarence
Thomas in 1991. Nominated by President Bush and confirmed as deputy
attorney general in 2001 under John Ashcroft. Resigned in mid-2003
to return to private practice, and currently is general counsel to
PepsiCo. Known for his antipathy to affirmative action, though is
considered more moderate than long-time friend Justice Thomas.
Conservatives cite him as an attractive choice to become the third
black justice ever on the high court.
J. Harvie Wilkinson III
Born 1944 in New York City. Grew up in Richmond, Va. Graduate of
Yale and the University of Virginia Law School. Ran unsuccessfully
as a Republican for the House of Representatives in 1970. Clerked
for Supreme Court Justice Lewis F. Powell from 1972 to 1973. His
career has spanned many roles, including law professor at
University of Virginia and deputy assistant U.S. attorney general
in the civil-rights division. Nominated by President Reagan and
confirmed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1984. Known for
his vigorous questioning during oral arguments. Key opinions
include a ruling upholding President Clinton's "Don't Ask, Don't
Tell" policy concerning gays serving in the military and a 2002
opinion all but foreclosing judicial review of a citizen held as an
enemy combatant. The Supreme Court vacated that opinion, ruling
that both citizens and aliens held as enemy combatants may contest
their detention in court.
Karen Williams
Born 1951 in Orangeburg, S.C. Graduate of Columbia and University
of South Carolina Law Center. Was in private practice until
nominated by the first President Bush and confirmed by the Senate
to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1992. Most recently wrote
the opinion upholding a Virginia law requiring public schools to
lead a daily recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance that had been
challenged by a father who objected to the phrase "under God" in
the Pledge.
|10.27.05 @ 11:31AM|#
linguist
My guess is that the Green Ceiling refers the prohibition on anyone
who has smoked pot rising to high [:)] office.
Anywho, that's what the context suggests. I had not actually ever
heard it before.
That's my contribution. I have no opinion on who should be
on the court, but I do know Miers doesn't belong there.
dhex|10.27.05 @ 11:40AM|#
"However, his Senate confirmation battle was heated, focusing on
a 2002 memo in which he called aspects of the Geneva Conventions
"quaint." Also, many hard-line conservatives worry his judicial
leanings are too moderate."
read that a few times over and then find a nice bowl of soup to
vomit in.
|10.27.05 @ 11:44AM|#
As long as we're dreaming, how about Kozinski?
Can you imagine the first abortion case? "NARAL is advised to
chill."
|10.27.05 @ 11:49AM|#
hehe, andrew sullivan thinks bush is cruising for a filibuster! this is gonna be awesome [:)]
|10.27.05 @ 12:08PM|#
dhex,
This was my favorite (because I found it so loathesome) out of the
bunch:
Most recently wrote the opinion upholding a Virginia law
requiring public schools to lead a daily recitation of the Pledge
of Allegiance that had been challenged by a father who objected to
the phrase "under God" in the Pledge.
Blut und Boden. Blut und Boden.
|10.27.05 @ 12:11PM|#
Come on, Reasonoids. There is only one candidate for the job
that will please both sides (Conservative Christians looking for a
champion and the rest of us looking for an entertaining nomination
process.)
I am surprised no one has mentioned his name:
JUDGE ROY MOORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Rich Ard|10.27.05 @ 12:20PM|#
I rescind my suggestions for Bork and Mr. T, and instead would
like to put forward James Traficant.
That shit would be hilarious.
|10.27.05 @ 12:29PM|#
I'm thinking the next nominee will be less anti-roe than Meirs. Bush will tell his evangelist buddies that he tried to get a hard core christian on the court but the right shut it down. So now he is forced to nominate a confirmable moderate to the post, a la O'Conner.
|10.27.05 @ 12:38PM|#
I hope he nominates Janis Rogers Brown. Then you will see what RINO justice is. Read successful filibuster.
|10.27.05 @ 12:40PM|#
The next nominee will be more moderate, I think. Wasn't Anthony Kennedy the sequel to Bork?
|10.27.05 @ 12:43PM|#
Judge Judy wouldn't have as much entertainment value as Sen. Nathan Templeton.
|10.27.05 @ 1:03PM|#
I know nothing about Miers except that she wore godawful
makeup, but I think she probably would have been less bad than
whoever Bush will nominate in her place.
I based my opposition to Miers on the President's apparent contempt
for the Senate's advice and consent role.
His imperium ain't what he thought it was. ...Hurray!
|10.27.05 @ 2:04PM|#
That is a good point, Tom--from the point of view of the
President and administration, it must seem of late that "things
fall apart" and "the center does not hold." Which increases,
however slightly, the chance that unpleasant things like torture
privileges and prisoners without trials and insanely expanded
executive powers might be a temporary blip on the American radar
rather than an ominous foretaste of things to come.
Maybe. I'm not more optimistic, exactly, just less pessimistic.
|10.27.05 @ 2:10PM|#
Judge Alex Kozinski for SCOTUS! Never happen, he's too libertarian, but a guy can dream.
|10.27.05 @ 2:16PM|#
Tom Crick:
I based my opposition to Miers on the President's apparent
contempt for the Senate's advice and consent role.
Umm, Miers was nominated in part because Senate Minority Leader
Harry Reid proposed her to Bush as the type of candidate he'd
endorse.
|10.27.05 @ 2:19PM|#
"His imperium ain't what he thought it was. ...Hurray!"
Or maybe what you thought it was...
|10.27.05 @ 2:22PM|#
Olsen is 65, which is probably too old. (Even Miers at 60 was really older than Bush would have wanted with anyone else.)
|10.27.05 @ 2:56PM|#
Umm, Miers was nominated in part because Senate Minority
Leader Harry Reid proposed her to Bush as the type of candidate
he'd endorse.
Umm...The President nominated Harriet Miers with no paper trail and
repeatedly defended the nomination with little more than the
admonition that he trusted her and he knew her,
so there's no problem... That is to say...
In this, the emperor had no imperium!
The President didn't get away with installing a Supreme Court
justice over us merely on the strength of his determination to put
her there like some Caligula appointing his horse. Yes, Senators
used the excuse that they didn't have a paper trail to measure her
buy--but that's one heck of an excuse!
...I don't care what the motives of the Senators were anyway, they
rejected her and her non-existent record as well they
should...
Score another point for the Framers!
|10.27.05 @ 3:12PM|#
I have a little free time, so I'm going to play connect the dots: since Bush's word alone isn't good enough to determine whether or not someone deserves to be a Supreme Court justice. . . . maybe Bush's word alone isn't good enough to determine whether, say, an American citizen can be arrested and held with no trial or contact with the outside world. . . . and maybe, saying that one man shouldn't be trusted with that much power isn't a personal, hate-driven attack on that one man, but an attack on the idea that any single individual should get such power. . . . maybe this is a sign that things will get better.
|10.27.05 @ 3:18PM|#
It very well could be Jennifer. ...That's what I'm
thinkin'.
...and if there were to come a sign that the party's over and
people are soberin' up, an event demonstrating that the President's
word wasn't good enough might be that sign.
It's also a signal to a lot of people who haven't thought about it
much over the past few years that questioning the President's
judgment isn't necessarily an act of high treason.
|10.27.05 @ 3:56PM|#
I also think it would be interesting to see Posner nominated.
He's an interesting guy, but I don't think the Bush team likes him
too much. For one thing that Posner guy isn't Christian enough and
he likes to think on his own. (Besides Posner hasn't sent the prez
nearly enough cute little notes and cards.)
For some reason I think Bush will go for either Gonzales or
Priscilla Owen. I only think this because both really scare me,
worse than zombie movies.
|10.27.05 @ 4:18PM|#
"The narrative emerging seems to be that this was, above all,
about Miers' failure to meet the right's litmus tests�in
particular, uncertainty about whether she'd overturn Roe."
Yeah i think the real narrative is that bush was stary eyed when
looking at his buddy and it just took awhile for the rest of
conservadom to convice him that she was not all that he thought she
was.
But I love looking at the plot holes of the democrats
narrative...it is my oppinion on the Roe v Wade issue is that she
was pro-life and would strike it down...when the democrats are at
press releases and saying it is the far right wing of the
republican party who derailed the nomination...what the democrats
mean is not the social conservatives anti-roe republicans what they
mean is the libertarian free-market wing of the republican
party.
I mean be honest does anyone really question her pro choice street
cred? hell no...its her small government street cred which is in
question.
The democrats think it is the libertarains of the party that are
the far right wing...not the social conservatives...which makes
sense..social conservatives just want to run the government
differently then the dems...not limit it like the
libertarians...who scare the bajezus out of the dems
|10.27.05 @ 5:16PM|#
In the flip side of the Brown/Miers/Gonzalez crony appointments, there is absolutely no way Michael McConnell will be nominated, despite his qualifications, ability, and judicial philosophy, because he wrote an article critcal of the Bush vs. Gore decision.
|10.27.05 @ 5:16PM|#
On the flip side of the Brown/Miers/Gonzalez crony appointments, there is absolutely no way Michael McConnell will be nominated, despite his qualifications, ability, and judicial philosophy, because he wrote an article critcal of the Bush vs. Gore decision.
|10.27.05 @ 5:16PM|#
On the flip side of the Brown/Miers/Gonzalez crony appointments, there is absolutely no way Michael McConnell will be nominated, despite his qualifications, ability, and judicial philosophy, because he wrote an article critcal of the Bush vs. Gore decision.
|10.27.05 @ 5:27PM|#
Julian,
With two vacancies open, the Right was happy to give Bush a freebie
on Roberts, because they were going to get theirs next time.
No, I don't believe the people (Red State.org, National Review,
Assrocket) who've spent three years defending the brilliance of the
Iraq postwar, and calling everybody and their mother an "elitist"
are motivated by a genuine commitment to high standards of
ability.
|10.28.05 @ 10:24AM|#
Damn it! If you want something done right, you've got to do it
youself.
(At the Greyhound Station) "One-way ticket to Washington, DC,
please."
|10.28.05 @ 11:01AM|#
For those who are playing along over at Intrade, James Carville said this morning the next nominee is gonna be a woman too.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245