Quagmiers

|

Wow. This doesn't look good. Orin Kerr at Volokh has rounded up some reactions to the Miers nomination from folks who normally, had the president accused each of them personally of having shot JFK from the grassy knoll, would insist it must be true. Even the ones under 40. They're screaming bloody murder. I half expect to see Michelle Malkin referring to BusHitler.

Advertisement

NEXT: See Ron Bailey and Others Debate the Politics of Science Journalism in L.A.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Another voice from the right. It’s nice to consider the possibility of a GOP rejection of the nominee by the Senate.

  2. I guess they thought that Bush would lead them to the theocratic promised land. 🙂

  3. George W. Bush has betrayed every traditional Republican constituency except the Evangelicals, up until now.

    …And I’m sure they see this as a betrayal. I don’t see why they wouldn’t. If they can’t get an above the board vocal abortion opponent under one party rule, then when can they get one?

    My question to exasperated Evangelicals is this: After the betrayal of pragmatic foreign policy people, free traders, tax hawks and fiscal conservatives, what did you expect?

    …Just because a man speaks like a hillbilly doesn’t mean you can trust him.

  4. Just overheard some co-workers wondering why the hell we don’t elect judges. I was thinking up the standard counter-arguments of removing judges from the political process and leaving such decisions to elected leaders who have the time and expertise to pick qualified candidates, when it occurred to me that perhaps those arguments are quickly (and sadly) becoming obsolete….

  5. More of the pony show they started a couple weeks ago. This is a sham nomination.

    Its purpose is to allow conservatives another chance to make it sound like they believe in principles of some kind, instead of just being mindless bootlicks who reflexively fellate all things Bush.

    Last week it was “Congress spends too much. See, we can say a bad thing about the GOP after all, which proves we are guided by principles and aren’t just a bunch of bots who whored out our minds for Bush and got nothing in return.”

  6. Mass conservative rejection by itself isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but I have a hunch that this lady will be unlibertarian in a Democratic way.

  7. My first thought upon hearing this nomination was “sacrificial lamb.”

    But this thinking doesn’t work out that well if the Republicans are against her too.

  8. Mass conservative rejection by itself isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but I have a hunch that this lady will be unlibertarian in a Democratic way.

  9. Mass conservative rejection by itself isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but I have a hunch that this lady will be unlibertarian in a Democratic way.

  10. “mindless bootlicks who reflexively fellate all things Bush.”

    Wouldn’t that make them lickers of things other than boots?

  11. Interesting that some of the complaint are about qualifications and experience rather than ideology and loyalty.

    It will be interesting to see how this shakes out.

  12. thoreau,

    I’d suggest that is code for she doesn’t have a consistent ideological position we can track.

  13. thoreau,

    Of course you know me, I can’t read between the lines. 🙂 Obviously given my condition I should take their statements literally and only literally. 🙂

  14. More of the “we have principles” re-branding pony show they started a couple weeks ago. This is a sham nomination.

    My guess is that its purpose is to allow our current crop of conservative pundits and congressmen another chance to make it sound like they adhere to some kind of core principles, and aren’t just mindless bootlicks for Bush (any more).

    Last week it was Don Young’s pork, giving them all a little chance to make a pretense of small government principles.

    Tune in next week when Bush announces a plan to appoint Noam Chomsky as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

  15. I’m just stunned at the arrogance of Pres Bush making such an important nomination without consulting the bloggers first.

  16. “…Just because a man speaks like a hillbilly doesn’t mean you can trust him.”

    In fact, this may be the only reason not to trust him…

  17. I hope for her sake that she’s never, ever hired a nanny, gardener, housekeeper, repair guy, or other service employee with visa issues.

  18. It looks like Bush has appointed someone very much like himself, an evangelical Christian. She attends a non-deonominational evangelical church in Dallas.

    This is the WORST possible pick for libertarians. She will probably be very conservative on individual rights (limited privacy, pro-War on Drugs) and doesn’t seem likely to be a conservative federalist when it comes to regulatory issues. O’Connor voted with the dissent in Raich and I can’t imagine Miers would have. Her background just doesn’t support a well thought out view of constitutional law that can distinguish the role of federal government yet still allow for broad individual liberties.

    Like Bush I believe she is a social conservative and economic liberal. Again, the WORST possible judge for libertarians.

  19. Does this mean Justice Sunday worked?

  20. I don’t think Feddie or Bainbridge can be accused of mindless following of Bush’s every command, however ridiculous. (I would agree with them, however, that his ideas, methods, have become unsound.)

  21. KERRY WOULD HAVE APPOINTED A WORSE CRONY!!!!!1

  22. Kerry might’ve appointed somebody I’d find worse, yes. Although it is possible that he’d have appointed somebody I’d find better.

    Or he might’ve just appointed another Souter, like Bush just has.

  23. I thought being a Bush crony was a good thing, due to the Maximum Leader’s tough, common-sense wisdom and unwavering principles being transitive and stuff. I’m watching for independent worm’s pony show sceanrio to play out.

    Tune in next week when Bush announces a plan to appoint Noam Chomsky as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
    We just filled that job last week. Maybe the bullroarer of MIT could be nominated National Security Advisor?

  24. Now Democrats like Harry Reid are saying nice things about Mier.

    Fundie idiots who are just now discovering the manipulative contempt in which the Bush White House holds them deserve every moment of despair they’re feeling. Bush has been lining them up and blowing them off since his first term in Texas, and the stupid sheep just kept lining up for more.

  25. “Or he might’ve just appointed another Souter, like Bush just has.”

    Souter was qualified.

  26. “Bush has been lining them up and blowing them off since his first term in Texas, and the stupid sheep just kept lining up for more.”

    Shultz’s First Law of Social Dynamics states explicitly, “Jesus was right, people are sheep.”

  27. I think its about time we get some less qualified people on the bench, considering how things like the Kelo decision came from the qualified. But he could have done a little better – could have appointed one of his own daughters, or his mom. A good son would have appointed mom.

  28. …Honestly, I’m just glad it wasn’t Gonzales.

  29. joe,

    Harry Reid is anti-abortion Democrat, so he might not have problems with her views if she opposes Roe v. Wade.

  30. I’ve already alienated eveyone *except* my base–and I’m not the kind to walk away from a job half-done!

  31. I am a little angry about the idea of appointing this woman just because she is a woman and George Bush knows her well. That said, I do see where she recognizes the right to bear arms as a Second Amendment Right. So, whatever, she is, she is not all bad.

  32. Bush has been lining them up and blowing them off since his first term in Texas, and the stupid sheep just kept lining up for more

    He has curtailed abortion rights and restarted federal obscenity prosecutions. Gay marriage has been kept unrecognized. Christian organizations have won a place on the federal dole thanks to the faith-based initiatives. He has even endorsed the inclusion of Creationism in federal education programs.

    So no, he hasn’t been blowing them off. He hasn’t given them everything they want, but he hasn’t the power to do so — Congress does, and while Congress is majority-Republican it is not majority-religious-right.

  33. Does anybody think there’s a chance that 51 or more Senators will look at her and then say to the President “Of all the fine candidates out there, you went with your third string? WTF?!?!” and then reject her?

  34. I think it’s interesting that of all the negative things the bloggers could say about her, the worst is that she lacks “conservative credentials”…

  35. Shultz’s First Law of Social Dynamics states explicitly, “Jesus was right, people are sheep.”

    Don’t you mean Crick’s first law?

  36. DB,

    “He has curtailed abortion rights and restarted federal obscenity prosecutions. Gay marriage has been kept unrecognized. Christian organizations have won a place on the federal dole thanks to the faith-based initiatives. He has even endorsed the inclusion of Creationism in federal education programs.”

    Haven’t you noticed that everything on list is either 1) a minor, highly symbolic actions with very little real world consequence, or 2) deals with a subject that the president has very little opportunity to interfere with?

  37. Even if she is mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren’t they? We can’t have all Brandeises and Cardozos and Frankfurters and stuff like that. I doubt we can. I doubt we want to.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.