Rah Rah (Yawn) Rah

|

Via The Agitator comes a link to a Newsweek story about a "brain trust" network of conservative lawyers and scholars handpicked by the White House to cheerlead for Bush's judicial nominees. And (according to some leaked e-mails between them) even they can't stand Harriet Miers. Abigail Thernstrom (vice chair of U.S. Civil Rights Commission, chosen by Bush): "As for undermining trust in the president, I am afraid he has accomplished that all on his own—without any help from us." Michael Carvin (who argued Bush v. Gore!): "This is becoming more embarrassing as every day passes." But this is my favorite:

"It no longer matters whether she's the second coming of John Marshall; the cronyism charge has stuck, bec. [sic] it's so obviously true," wrote Michael Greve, a legal scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. Greve wondered what was next. Would Bush, he asked, replace Fed chair Alan Greenspan with "a young lady in the basement of the West Wing who did a terrific job on the TX Railroad Commission [and was the] first Armenian bond trader in Dallas …"

Then from a New York Times piece running today, we've got Republican staffers and attorneys on the Judiciary Committee offering up comments like this:

Everybody is hoping that something will happen on Miers, either that the president would withdraw her or she would realize she is not up to it and pull out while she has some dignity intact.

And this:

I don't know a staffer who approves of this nomination, anywhere. Most of it is outright hostility throughout the Judiciary Committee staff.

NEXT: Nearing the Outskirts of Damascus?

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. One side of me loves, LOVES, watching this clusterf@#$, the other side earnestly worries about my country. Let me predict here that Bush will not withdraw the Miers nomination. Maybe she withdraws of her own accord, forced to fall on her sword for Bush’s hubris. But Bush wont eat crow no matter what. If only the Senate Dems had some couyans we might see some fireworks at the hearings.

  2. Matt-I ran a across a guy the other weekend who made a habit of letting his friends beat the crap out of his car. As long as it ran, he simply didn’t care. The car was a beater anyway (pun intended).
    The US is the same these days. We’ve got a beater government, and a tired jalopy Constitution. The only thing we can hope to get from them is some entertainment.
    Of course, the analogy only goes so far…this guy’s car did get him from point a to point b.

  3. Matt,
    This might be a rare case where it would not be the Democrats obsequiousness to Bushiness would not be the deciding factor. They have to consider that Meirs is the best Bush could possibly do for them.
    I would hope they can at least make some hay out of it, but it is not clear to me that being tough on her personally benefits them.

  4. Number 6, ive got irony coming out of my ears. I can watch slapstick marathons and vaudevillian doubleheaders with the best of them. But some last little romantic idealistic kernel of soul just wont die in me. Stoopid soul.

    Coach, I hear you re: what could’ve been. And I guess I’d prefer Harriet Miers on the court to John Ashcroft, from a Machiavellian POV. But, see above response to Numer 6, I cant help but get offended when my government is into a complete mockery. I try to call BS when I see it, even if it would likely benefit my politics by not saying so. And this is BS of the highest magnitude.

  5. With all the complaining coming from republicans, it will be interesting to see how many vote no in committee and how many will actually vote no when it comes to a full vote. Will loyalty to the president / party trump all their other concerns.

    I doubt Bush is going to withdraw her and I doubt she will withdraw herself when Bush is out there saying things like “Harriet Miers is going to be confirmed”, withdrawing her will be quite embarassing and quiote a retreat from a group of people who aren’t keen on backing down

  6. If only the Senate Dems had some couyans we might see some fireworks at the hearings.

    Don’t hold your breath. Reminder: Harry Reid recommended her for the job.

  7. But Bush wont eat crow no matter what.

    this is the thing. her nom isn’t going away. and — worse, imo — there isn’t enough of an independent congress left to throw her back at the emperor.

    everyone despises her, and she’ll make it to the bench anyway. what does that say about the titanic power of the imperial presidency? and about the mere facade of divided powers that we still claim to exist?

  8. If only the Senate Dems had some couyans we might see some fireworks at the hearings.

    The fireworks should come only from the GOP. The Senate Democrats need simply to unite and issue a statement that says “Regardless of the views or qualifications of the Nominee, the outright cronyism will not be tolerated and the Nominee will not receive our support.”

  9. “Regardless of the views or qualifications of the Nominee, the outright cronyism will not be tolerated and the Nominee will not receive our support.”

    MP, I guess you disagree, but such a bold, unambiguous, and uncompromising statement uttered by an out-of-power, floundering minority party would qualify as MAJOR fucking fireworks, IMO.

  10. MAJOR fucking fireworks

    Yes, but not during the hearings.

  11. The neo-cons must have something up their sleeves with the Miers nomination. They’re going to get her nomination to squeak through and then, right after she’s sworn in, she’s gonna pull back the mask and reveal that – OhMyGod – it’s DAN QUAYLE!

  12. MAJOR fucking fireworks

    Yes, but not during the hearings.

  13. Yes, but not during the hearings.

    MP, I suspected you were a strict constructionist when it came to Con Interp, but with blog posts also? Technicality, shmecknecality.

  14. Technicality, shmecknecality.

    If I don’t comment on exactly what was written, I might suffer the wrath of Phil.

  15. “Regardless of the views or qualifications of the Nominee, the outright cronyism will not be tolerated and the Nominee will not receive our support.”

    Not. The party in the other glass house can’t afford to hand the President that big a bag of rocks.

  16. What worries me is this – the vileness Gonzales did for Bush earned him four years at Justice. What did Miers do to earn twenty-five years on the Court? There must some real eye-openers in her work product – too bad we’ll never see it.

  17. My biggest concern is the born-again status that Harriet claims. “Born-again” automatically signals to others that understand the phrase that abortion rights, gay rights are wrong. That the male is the king of the house, that Catholics, Mormans, and most main-stream Protestants don’t know the real truth of Christ’s message.

    “Born-again” means the belief in all of the “gifts-of-the-Spirit” – including present day prophecy, healing-on-demand, etc. I believe in Christ’ message – but I have problems with leaders and a leaders entourage governing me by the seat-of-pants method of waiting for God’s direction.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.