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.

NEXT: Passports and IO Ports

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. Goooood morning! Now, will he pick someone the Right is screaming bloody murder about, or another halfwit crony?

  2. Next up, Supreme Court nominee Scooter Libby.

    You heard it here first!

  3. 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.

  4. Now we can expect a justice in the mold of Scalia and Thomas which is not a good thing either.

  5. I wonder if Bush would have nominated Miers if there were no term limits.

  6. I am rooting for Janice Rogers Brown

  7. Now we can expect a justice in the mold of Scalia and Thomas which is not a good thing either.

    Says you.

  8. 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.

  9. I say nominate Judge Dredd.

  10. 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…..

  11. Let’s try Bork again – the news has been boring lately.

  12. You know, Judge Judy has a clear paper trail and has demonstrated strong commitment to family values….

  13. 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.

  14. If he had a spine, he’d nominate Janice Rogers Brown.

  15. “Sha-na-na-na…..”

    Umm…you appear to be confused by late 70’s cheese. 😉

  16. 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.

  17. she just didn’t stack up well with bernanke 😛 on to maryanne trump barry!

  18. I heard that Fitzgerald guy knows his law.

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

  21. 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!”

  22. Lawrence Lessig. Anything else would be second best at best.

  23. If we’re going to do the fantasy nominee thing, I have two words: Richard Epstein.

  24. 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.

  25. 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.

  26. I think it’s more that hers was spelled with a cron “e”.

  27. 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.

  28. 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.

  29. 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.

  30. 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.

  31. Adam,
    I remember someone leaking Bork’s rental history from his local video store. Those were the days.

  32. I read that Chris Matthews thinks Bush should nominate a “heavyweight”, like Ted Olsen.

    Works for me.

  33. “principled commitment to a competent Court” – HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! You libertarians KILL me!

  34. 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.

  35. *(the first two pages of Saying Yes)

  36. 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.

  37. What’s a Green Ceiling? Yes, I know I could look it up, but I’d rather have y’all tell me.

  38. 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.

  39. “Resume” actually has two accents graves, Ugh (not shown here due to character non-recognition). </Harriet>

  40. Now he’s pissed and going to do something crazy like nominate Pat Robertson or something. I’d prefer a submediocre crony.

  41. 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.

  42. Lessig, Epstein, or Posner. A guy can dream, right?

  43. Of course, I’d prefer Justice William Jefferson Clinton or Justice Judy. Purely for the entertainment value.

  44. 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.

  45. 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.

  46. If he’s going to pick a crony, why not Cheney?

    I’m really expecting Gonzalez though.

  47. I’m really expecting Gonzalez though
    Out of the frying pan and into the fire. Yikes.

  48. That’s too bad. I was kind of looking forward to the first sitting Goth on the Supreme Court.

  49. It could also be a sign that the administration reads the Washington Post (specifically, Charles Krauthammer).

  50. LOL Jennifer.

    One of the bar trivia teams Tuesday night renamed themselves, “Harriet Miers’ Makeup Artists”

  51. 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.

  52. 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.”

  53. ROVE! or why not just nominate himself? boy george the sun king 😀

  54. 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?

  55. “ROVE! or why not just nominate himself? boy george the sun king :D”

    Now that would be fun.

  56. 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.

  57. 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.

  58. I think it was all the public scatology that did Miers in.

  59. Marty,

    The focus on Roe is pretty amusing.

  60. “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.

  61. As long as we’re dreaming, how about Kozinski?
    Can you imagine the first abortion case? “NARAL is advised to chill.”

  62. hehe, andrew sullivan thinks bush is cruising for a filibuster! this is gonna be awesome [:)]

  63. 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.

  64. 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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  65. NoStar,

    Someone did in another thread I believe.

  66. I rescind my suggestions for Bork and Mr. T, and instead would like to put forward James Traficant.

    That shit would be hilarious.

  67. 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.

  68. I hope he nominates Janis Rogers Brown. Then you will see what RINO justice is. Read successful filibuster.

  69. The next nominee will be more moderate, I think. Wasn’t Anthony Kennedy the sequel to Bork?

  70. Judge Judy wouldn’t have as much entertainment value as Sen. Nathan Templeton.

  71. 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!

  72. 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.

  73. Judge Alex Kozinski for SCOTUS! Never happen, he’s too libertarian, but a guy can dream.

  74. 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.

  75. “His imperium ain’t what he thought it was. …Hurray!”

    Or maybe what you thought it was…

  76. Jennifer-

    I’m also slightly less pessimistic today.

  77. Olsen is 65, which is probably too old. (Even Miers at 60 was really older than Bush would have wanted with anyone else.)

  78. 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!

  79. Now… God… …please save us all from Alberto Gonzales.

  80. 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.

  81. 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.

  82. 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.

  83. “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

  84. 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.

  85. 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.

  86. 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.

  87. 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.

  88. 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.”

  89. For those who are playing along over at Intrade, James Carville said this morning the next nominee is gonna be a woman too.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.