Redstate

Ah, yes: that's the sound of me being wrong on this one.

Ach, well, not the first time.

"Ok everyone - back to the barracks, let's get ready to get behind a nominee we can support."

I don't know about this one....

Too bad...she didn't deserve this and if this is the result of being a loyal, team player, good luck to the next.

Well, now, one of two things can happen - Bush could come through with a solid nominee from among the dozens of conservative legal thinkers out there.  Or he could look to get revenge on those who dared challenge him by nominating another loyal friend and lackluster individual and start this over.

Now that we've all been wrong - anybody want to get an early jump on what/who happens next?

I have no doubt that this was to a great extent driven by the base - not as much by the pundits as the intense and relentless efforts of grass roots people contacting their elected representatives.   I wrote a personal e-mail to all Judiciary Committee Republicans just yesterday - and this has been going on.  

This is only one of THREE things which must happen.  the other two are:  the nomination of a proven originalist - and his/her confirmation.  Let's hope President Bush realizes the historic nature of this decision and Does the Right Thing.

It was becoming more and more clear that Harreist Miers, skilled attorney and good person though she may be, was the wrong fit for this Supreme Court nomination.

I am glad that she has withdrawn.

I hope the President has learned form this experience:  we need a nominee with directly relevant qualifications, who is outside the inner circle of the White House, who has a clear record, who has a definite and restrained judicial philosophy, and who can withstand Senate scrutiny in the manner

set to nominate Tom Selleck, cites vast knowledge of Hawaii, nice moustache.

Good spin. Blame it on Senators wanting White House documentation.

Now, pick someone conservative and don't send us AGAG, please :-)

It is clear that Senators would not be satisfied until they gained access to internal documents concerning advice provided during her tenure at the White House - disclosures that would undermine a President's ability to receive candid counsel.

Thank you, Alberto, now help us find someone who's never been to the White House, or even to Texas.

Conservatives have come out of the closet.  Time for our own pride parade in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Change the rules of conduct for the next 50 years.  Right the wrongs and return to originalist principles.

Yee hah indeed.

I just spit a mouthful of caffeinated beverage on this one.

I still think that the nominee should and will be a woman.  So it's time for Edith Jones to be the bride and not the bridesmaid at last!  Let's hear it for Lady Edith.

Because I'm sitting out the whole jduicial business from now on.

I have never seen such a dishonest effort against a judicial nominee in the time I've followed them. I thought Clarence Thomas was as bad as it would ever get, but this took the cake.

We have probably lost parental notification laws.  We'll probably lose the federal partial-birth abortion law.  All because the ideological purists of the Beltway conservative establishment chose to use the same dispicable tactics that were used elsewhere.  All because perfect was allowed to be the enemy of good enough.

I'm done supporting the Beltway conservative establishment.  I'm done with the "holier than thou" right that labeled me a shil, pimp, and Kool-Aid drinker.  I can no longer trust them, nor do I respect them.

Peace?  No.  My sword shall be drawn.

that we get a candidate we conservatives won't fight with each other over; the Dems got way too much mileage over that.  

And I hope we give a little energy towards helping her keep, or get back, whatever dignity we haven't already taken away from her.  However unqualified she may have been, a post somewhere else raised the concern that our rejection of her has made her a punchline.  She deserves better than that from us...that's what the Dems do to us to get what they want.

AGAG presents the exact same problem that Miers does - the Senate will request/demand White House and DoJ documents that the President will not want to release.  The only think that AGAG has is a year-plus on the Texas Supreme Court (which, by the way, does not handle ANY criminal law questions as they are handled by a separate high court).

Everyone has the play, and are running it well. Documents, documents, documents.

let's get down to business.  Can the replacement nominee be a Man?  I think Gonzalez is out of the question because of the way this nomination was opposed on cronyism grounds.  But can the replacement be a man?  President Bush seemed to want to name a woman for the O'Conner seat.  Has all this consternation from the base about qualifications given him the cover to nominate the best qualified and not just the best qualified woman?

worked out.  amazing.

Now I guess we will find out who, in President Bush's opinion, is the "Second Best Qualified" person for SCOTUS.  

It's time for reconcilliation.  Both sides to admit to things they never thought possible in the conservative movement.  Unite behind Reagan's 11th commandment and the true conservative revolution!

Though I don't know how they're going to get around the stated excuse for Miers withdrawing, given that AG was white house counsel, though I suppose he has a more public record than Miers.

Our loyalty-driven President may have a very negative view of what he may perceive as an  attack on his "good friend", and reward it with an ultra-moderate follow-up nomination.

He could also be thinking "OK, you want to go to war? Go ahead and have at it ..." and send up a Pryor, Owens, or Brown.

I think the Miers nomination has irretrievably split the Right - too many hard feelings will be carried around on this.

And this was not a Borking - there were no accusations that Harriet Miers would turn the country into some draconian neo-Inquisition.  Brok was accused of terrible things that were wholly false.  Miers was simply accused of being an unknown and was leaving Senators and the public in a position of being unable to judge whether the opinions being circulated about her views were true or false.  That is not a Borking, that is a legitimate question.

This is correct. I hope that GWB will not be so petty with something as critical as this. JRB, Luttig, and Jones better be at the top of the list.

Looks like the Washington Times scooped everyone, by the way.

Probably means that some interesting indictments are coming today. Couple the pieces of bad news together.

. . . She did the right thing.

Hah!  I'm sure the next nominee will be described exactly as Miers was, and most people, including the MSM, won't bat an eye.

talking about Gonzo, I was talking about those (like Harold below) that feel the way Miers was treated reflects poorly on the conservative movement. Put up a stellar nominee, and you still might not have everyone on board. Any nominee deserves better than the shabby way Ms. Miers was treated.

True, and friends are the best peopel to point out the problems amongst each other.

The GOP is more than the next appointment to the USSC.  Quite honestly, I'm just glad the whiners now might cease, if only for a couple weeks.

Hopefully, if he goes looking for revenge, is line of thinking will go something like this, "All right, if they want a conservative, fine! I'll give them Janice Rodgers Brown and let them fight for her against the Democrats! When they have a stress level from political combat that keeps them awake at night, then they'll be sorry!"

Please, God. please let push be that sort of vindictive president. The blogosphere and the conservative base have stretched their muscles, and we know that we are strong.

I think he goes with the next loyalist, Gonzales.  Which could produce some real fireworks (e.g. detainee issues).

for that.

A lot of pretty unforgivable -- my view, anyway -- things were said on both sides. I'm going to find it very hard to work with some folks I respected before this nomination.

also rented some new office space in DC, which indicates that this is far from over.  New grand jury anyone?

I'm sorry - why should I help out anyone who called me a shill or a pimp?

They can clean this up without my help.  Not one dime of my money, not one minute of my effort.

And I hope Schumer wants to ask questions about how your favorites go - the borkers deserve no less.  This was a borking - Miers was attacked on idoelogical grounds with no regard for the facts or giving her a chance to explain at the hearings.

Ok, are we all happy now?

and pass the collection plate.  This is a HUGELY important time for conservatives to bond together and march forward.  Let's hope President Bush does his part.  I believe he will.

I still like Emilio Garza. Qualified & I candidate that Democrats will need to handle with some care (although I have no doubt that any nominee will be attacked)

"Ok everyone - back to the barracks, let's get ready to get behind a nominee we can support."

Nothing would rally (and help heal) conservatives more than a real fight on principle right now, especially considering Bush's death of a thousand cuts that's really beginning to show. Let's nominate a Luttig and drive it down the left's throat. Perhaps the White House can work with the blogosphere for once and discover its effectiveness (unlike the left blogs, most of us fight for our principles and will unite when we're clearly working together).

Oh, and for all the lefties out there tuning in, keep wasting your time chaining the loons in your party to fences and sitting in ditches cursing world oil/Jewish conspiracies and demanding protection for terrorists and totalitarian states. Please keep Cindy visible as the icon for the left - we very much need your continued assistance as we get things put back together. And please tell Michael Moore to hurry on his next movie...

scoove

I've been called, among other things, a shill, a pimp, and a Flavor-Aid drinker because I didn't join the anti-Miers lynch mob.

Screw `em.  They can fight this on their own.  They've made this mess - they can clean it up.

In politics, almost everything is forgivable, almost. But there should be no gloating (one should never gloat when you win, in politics and elsewhere it's just bad sportsmanship).

The republicans begin to eat their young. Here's to hoping W puts someone up who has at least read the Constitution at some point in their legal career.

ever heard of being a gracious winner?

If there's one thing I think is clear about this president, it's that he doesn't like to give in. That's why I can't see the situation where he says "Fine!" and nominates a tried-and-true conservative, because then it would look like Congress and the conservatives just played him like a puppet. Which they would have.

Then again, I didn't expect the nomination to be withdrawn for the same reason. So maybe he has given in.

(On the plus side for a conservative nominee, my guess is it would be harder in the public opinion realm for Democrats to launch a filibuster now--not because the "obstructionist" charge carries any weight anymore, but because people are just sick of hearing about this stuff.)

I don't think it can or should be a man.  The idea of 'most qualified' I think is a false one.  There are a number of qualified people who can sit on the court.  I don't think that there's any one person who will be the best and I do think it appropriate to go looking for diversity.  I would be opposed to nominating a woman who was NOT qualifed, but given that there are plenty who are I see no reason not to pick one.

Jones, Jones, Jones!

Step 1: Nominate Edith Jones (5th Circuit) for SCOTUS

Step 2: Nominate Harriet Miers for Jones' seat on the 5th Circuit

In the event that two years or less hence another SC opening appears, GWB will then have the opportunity to nominate Miers again if he so choses, this time as someone with the same judicial experiance as John Roberts who is also at least one big-step removed from the White House - and those of us who believe Miers is a big "?" on judicial philosophy will likely have something other than a "Trust me" from GWB upon which to base our support for her.

This is hardly original as Dan Henniger (WSJ) has already forwarded it - doesn't make it any less the right thing to do.  By all indications, Miers is a good woman put in an unwinnable and indefensible position by someone who is supposed to know better.  There is still time to do right by all involved.

Let's hope the President is not too busy with "other matters" today and/or tomorrow to see to that.

"The base" did just that to Miers...

It's the truth.

Now it is time for President Bush to come out and say something along the lines of the following: "okay, I promised you I would appoint judges like Scalia and Thomas.  I didn't want to precipitate a big senate confirmation fight because I wanted to get my domestic agenda through.   But it is obvious the Republican base, and certainly our conservative support, want a fight.  So today I nominate Janice Rogers Brown (or put your favorite here) to be the next Supreme Court Associate Justice.  I know this is going to cause some Democrats like Senators Byden, Kennedy, Shumer, (add your favorite usual suspects here) to immediately reject her, but the American people voted for this, and I am following through on that commitment. Today I ask all Americans to contact their Senators and Congressmen and women and let them know that you expect their support for this nominee."

We conservatives want to see the stubbornness that Bush is so famous for put to work on doing what he said he was going to do.  We want to see him go to the attack mode.

He should write off any and all support from Democrats.  Promise the nuclear solution. PUSH this through; take no prisoners; just get it done.

I think the stubbornness Bush is so famous for will manifest itself in Gonzales.  He wants to reward his friends, Harriet didn't work, so Alberto is next.

very well set a record for the shortest time between registration and banning. One more cheap shot like this will be your last.

For all the Miers-bashers and Miers-Borkers out there, congratulations on your Pyrrhic victory. Hopefully this won't result in the next SCOTUS nominee (after O'Connnor is replaced by Bush's next nominee) being nominated by Hillary Clinton and confirmed by a Democrate Senate.

At the time Miers was nominated, President Bush probably doubted that he could count on Senate RINOs to break a Dem filibuster of a known judicial conservative, so he tried to take the "easy" confirmation offered to him by Senate Democrats, only to face mutiny from his so-called friends.

Now that Miers has withdrawn, President Bush has an opportunity to set this straight, albeit from a weaker position than before. Is now a good time for a huge filibuster/nuclear option fight in the Senate, with all the work that needs to be done rebuilding after the hurricanes and cutting pork out of the budget? President Bush will need a lot of courage for this next pick, because if he nominates an experienced, well-known judge with a long paper trail, he will need to twist a few GOP arms in the Senate. He will need to tell them, "You refused to support Harriet Miers because you thought we could have a stronger nominee--now you need to be strong and defend a stronger nominee before the Democrats."

Are all the Miers-Borkers out there ready to give the President the support he will need?

Happy, happy day.

So basically you've decided to abandon conservative officials and causes because of perceived slights by a small portion of people.

I don't know where someone called you personally a shill.  I don't know your position Harold.  But unless you were holding out, in the face of all the speeches and writings that came out, that Miers was the right person for this job, was a known quantity, and would be the best Justice we could have, then you are not a "shill" or a "pimp."

And you must admit that most people were not levelling such terms but were trying to have a respectful disagreement about the qualifications of this nominee.

"There are a number of qualified people who can sit on the court.  I don't think that there's any one person who will be the best and I do think it appropriate to go looking for diversity.  I would be opposed to nominating a woman who was NOT qualifed, but given that there are plenty who are I see no reason not to pick one."

Affirmative action triumphs at redstate? :)

Bush's statement was perfect.  Sticks it to the dems while allowing Miers a graceful exit.  Nice work.

But my question is, has the base upset the boss enough to stick it to us now?

Is this an indication that technology has shifted the balance of power?

Bush shouldn't restrict himself by gender.  According to most of what I've read here at RS and elsewhere, that's what got us Miers in the first place.

I'm sorry for the abuse you have endured.

Even though I have taken a wait and see approach to Harriet Miers, I'm relieved at this news.  The toll it has exacted on the conservatives has been terrible. I don't remember our side being this divided over an issue.

That said, I think her withdrawal is the best for her, the best for conservatives and the best for our country.

I wasn't happy with the Meyers nomination, but can the GOP Senate confirm a conservative Judge?  Can they overcome a Democrat filibuster?  Can they get the job done when there's little evidence to suggest they can - even with 55 of them?

That's a great idea.  Particularly given what she had to endure the last few weeks (all Bush's fault).

don't do this,come back please.  We're a ship without a rudder, a car without wheels, Bill Clinton in a chasity belt, Ruth bader Ginsburg without make up, Hillary Clinton without a girdle.  Reconsider and forgive, don't desert us in our hour of need.

We need the best qualified nominee. Period.

We are ready to fight for a qualified conservative candidate.  Forget about Bush.  We don't need to support Bush.  We need to support the qualified nominee he puts forward.  And we need to support Republican Senators who are willing to stand up for that nominee as well.  And I think most of those on the Right are ready to do that.

Please ban just for putting those images in my head :)

heh

The anti-Miers caucas will have to accept personal responsibility and clean up the resulting judicial confirmnation mess themselves.  It's not worth a dime of my money or a minute of my time.

Did Senator Vitter make this call on his own, or did  he do so at the behest of the President, to give cover for the withdrawal?

Obviously, Vitter and the Pres had the chance to bond when Bush spent so much time down in Louisiana last month.  I wonder if Vitter took one for the team by appearing to challenge the President's pick when he was actually providing a pretext for Miers to withdraw.

I'll take the bait.  I call bunk on that.

It got pretty heated , on this blog alone.  And the people in the sights were fellow Repubs.

I'll go with Harold on this..I can maybe understand the joy some feel now, if they will understand how I see some as nothing more than flame throwers from the Right.

Yes, he is definitely angry at the way Harriet Miers was taken down. But he has nobody to blame but himself for making such a mistake in nominating her in the first place. Now our President is at a crossroads: Does he try to "punish" us and nominate Alberto Gonzalez or Consuelo Callahan? Big mistake, they are also unacceptable.

If President Bush wants to re-energize his base he should nominate Janice Rogers Brown, Karen Williams, Edith Jones or Alice Batchelder (if he wants to nominate a woman). If he is inclined to nominate qualified Hispanics he should look at Emilio Garza, Miguel Estrada or Cecilia Altonaga. Sandra Day O'Connor's seat is not a "woman's seat"; thus, he should also evaluate Judges Alito, Luttig or McConnell.

The President has to reunite his base that was badly splintered with the Miers fiasco; if he wants to salvage his second term he needs the support of his base which worked so hard for more than 30 years to bring the Conservative movement to fruition.

that was who Miers was, so I guess we'll have to settle for second best.

My guess is that we will get a strong Conservative pick, and Bush will be looking to us to do a lot of the fighting for him/her. Oh and the person will have impeccable judicial and intellectual credentials, and big enough rocks or ovaries to get through the confirmation slime-storm.

The President can't do any worse politically than he has done lately (which is not to say it's all his fault- the hurricane fallout is essentially all media spin). So he may as well go for broke. We did learn that he may not trust conservatives or even actually be a conservative deep in his heart. But I think he learned for his part that we have a big voice and are not afraid to use it. To repeat though, he will be betting that we will do a lot of the fighting.

And the fight will not be in America's living rooms. There, the MSM will portray the nominee as bad enough to make Hitler blush, and to cause riots in Toledo. Rather the fight will be in the Senate. And there, conservatives have a voice, and it will be up to us to use it.

And for what it's worth, I think the chortling over Conservative disarray in the press and on the Left is just so much lemonade in the wind. What Conservatives have demonstrated through this process is conviction and reasoned dissent, which is a marker of strength, not weakness. It's like the stock market: at the time when no one wants anything to do with owning stock, when no one has anything good at all to say about stock, that's exactly the time to be buying stock with both hands.

Here is a nice summary at Bloomberg:

``The reaction to her nomination has been so intense and sustained that the White House couldn't ignore it any longer,'' said Roger Pilon, director of the Center for Constitutional Studies at the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, in an interview before the withdrawal. ``Confirmation was doubtful.

---------

``The conservative movement since (former Arizona Republican Senator Barry) Goldwater and (former President Ronald) Reagan has been deeply concerned about the role of the court,'' Pilon said. ``This nomination undermined that long history. It's been seen as a slap in the face.''

It was perceived as a slap in the face, and Miers' 1993 speech was the handprint on the cheek.  This country has gone through not a night, but a generation of the long knives with the horrific Republican confirmations of Warren, Brennan, Stewart, Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter.  We've been forced to suffer long enough.  The Red States have had liberal judical dogma forced upon us against our legislative will for most of 70 years, since the remaking of the Supreme Court by the appointments of Black, Douglas and Frankfurter back in the late 1930's.

Enough is bleep-ing enough.

Obviously, my post yesterdat predicting that Ms. Miers would NOT witdraw at this time was the last straw.  Ms. Miers and the White House saw the post for what it was, an excellent chance to embarrass me and could not resist.

Realizing the tremendous power I have. I predict...

1. The Congress will deal effectiviely with immigration in the near future.
   
2. Congress will reign in spending.
   
3. Peace and goodwill will break out next Monday.

Go ahead and embarras me some more.

You've mentioned this twice. The one thing I've noticed about Bush's management/leadership history is that he doesn't tend to make the same mistake twice. (That he makes profound mistakes at times, however, is another issue.)

Realistically, there was substantial Senatorial pressure that had to have had a governing effect on this nomination process (and less the nominee who as we all know, was more of an unqualified passenger to this process-gone-wrong and objectively could be said to have simply been trying to please her patron once more). I doubt some of our Republican Senators (many of which are under tremendous pressure from their pork-ridden transportation bill, such as our Senator Grassley and his infamous rainforest pork) are willing to suffer further erosion. Nothing would benefit them more right now like a hard-core fight with a solid , credentialed Rehnquist-type nominee.

scoove

My guess is W will use this as a chance to mobilize the base, so he will not nominate a Michael McConnell (who, by the way, is supported by his colleage at Chicago Law, Cass Sunstein, and clerked for the same judge as Susan Estrich).  In any event, I would love to see either a Luttig or a Sam Alito ("Scalito").  However, since identity politics runs deep in this administration (Condi:  "Look at the cabinet for a model of diversity!"), I bet we see Garza, or better, the return of Estrada.

Any thoughts?

though I'm not convinced the President will see this as a mistake.  I think he is/will be (a) extremely angry that he didn't get his close friend on the court, and (b) even more angry that it was his own party that did it to him.  Opposition from Democrats is to be expected, oppostition from Republicans is an unnecessary and unwelcome slap in the face.  The best way to deal with his (in his mind) "so-called" allies is to show them that they can't treat him this way.

OTOH, Gonzales has been AG for less than a year, so he may not want it (I'm not sure Miers wanted it either but I don't think she could turn the President down).  

In any event, I'm still wondering how anyone could have thought this was a good idea in the first place (lots of whispers that only Card and Bush supported this nomination).

The RINOs and Democrats called the dance on Miers and, frankly, that was the slap in the face of conservatives.  We work, pound the streets, spend our hard-earned money....and Harry Ried has more clout on this nomination than we do?

2004 Election

Second term for an embattled President

Largest vote count in US history

Increase for GOP in the Senate

Yet we still crap our knickers when faced with the prospect of actually doing something about the SCOTUS.

I'll never understand why Republicans are so solicitous of Specter, Snowe, Chaffee and their ilk - yes, yes, whatever you want...just as long as the letter "R" can remain as the majority in the Senate...not that we are accomplishing anything important to the "R" party...but we can sure be proud (via the capitulation to at best three or four NE Rockefeller-ites) that we've kept the letter between Q and S (that is R) blazing proudly as the one in control of Congress.

If he wants to reward his friends, those of us responsible for putting him in the White House for example, then he can nominate a Scalia or Thomas.  If he does anything other than that, if he thinks the conservatives were on the warpath over Miers, he hasn't seen anything yet.  And if the National Republican party and every republican in an elective office does not contact Bush and tell him to do that, they are going to pay big time come the next election.  

We conservatives are TIRED of this and we ARE NOT going to tolerate it any longer without making it very painful for those that betrayed us.  Hide and watch.

Years ago, a professional bowler named Ernie Schlegel was competing in the televised final match for a tournament championship. He had finished his game, and his opponent, a right handed bowler named Randy Peterson, needed a strike to win. Peterson rolled an apparently perfect ball, only to leave the solid 8. ("The only true tap in bowling.") As Peterson lay face down on the approach, Schlegel began dancing around (on live TV) cheering, saying, "I am the best!"

Years have passed, and I still have absolutely no respect for the man.

Contrast that with Tiger Woods' reaction when John Daly missed that short putt a couple weeks ago during a sudden death playoff. The missed putt gave Woods the championship, but Woods did not celebrate. He looked at the ground and hid his face for a moment, then he walked out on the green to shake Daly's hand.

IIRC, I have posted little on this site on Miers other than "wait and see", because I felt that I did not know enough to form an opinion one way or the other. As the weeks went by, I had seemed to be coming to the conclusion that perhaps she was not the best nominee after all, although I did not say so here. This conclusion was confirmed in my mind this morning when I found that my instantaneous reaction to the news of the withdrawal was a sense of relief.

I would say now to those of us who worked against this nomination, let us emulate Woods' reaction, not Schlegel's. Please. A great rift has formed on the right over Miers, let us not now continue to widen that rift, rather let us begin to heal it.

anti-Miers caucas will have to accept personal responsibility

Harold, I think many of us accept full responsibility for facilitating a critical dialog with the goal of finding the truth. A good (but difficult) reading that explains this concept which is only found in the right is addressed in the historically very significant document by John Milton, Areopagitica. A quick summary of the point Milton makes is that once must permit truth and falsehood to grapple in order for the truth to be known.

From your comments, it sounds as if you blame those who seek the truth - especially when we criticize the unimpeachable judgment of the King/President. Perhaps you would be more comfortable having your "truth" delivered by CBS news every night so you wouldn't have to work hard to find it? I'm certain your money and time would be more appreciated if your value system rejects the honest efforts of those seeking the truth. Why are you here, in other words, when your truth-finding methodology is so inconsistent with rational debate?

Objectively evaluated, the conservatives approach and debate about this nomination was remarkable and much in the spirit of the nation's founders (who "occasionally" disagreed with each other too). Unlike the left's personal attack methodology as shown in the Bork nomination (and countless other instances), the conservatives stood for merit over cronyism. While I'm always shocked to find those who prefer to be a mindless house slave and reject those of us who criticize the master, I do realize that critical thinking unfortunately isn't easy and some would rather take a less difficult path. Yet for some reason, you're here and I'd have to believe something stirs in you. I wouldn't give up on it yet if I were you.

I doubt you'll find many who will struggle over your choice - we all have our own issues to face - but I thought I'd reach out with some objective perspective. If you really do seek the truth, you're going to have to accept the sometimes passionate debate process and let truth work its way out. Otherwise, turn off that darn Internet now.

scoove

I think Estrada is almost a stealth candidate that would be satisfactory to conservatives.  We don't know where he stands... but he is an excellent attorney.

...do you mean Karl Rove?  

The last three weeks have been terribly unpleasant, and I would not personally engaged in them at all, if it were not for the importance of the cause. Even a "win" in this situation is hollow.

Yes, in a certain extent, I'm glad that Miers has been withdrawn. But I can't imagine what in the world one could gloat about in the aftermath of all this.

As conservatives we can no longer accuse the DEMS of borking a nomination. At least Bork had a hearing. It may be the best thing for the Republican Party that Miers did withdraw, but what conservatives have done is made the confirmation process a disaster.

the following no longer applies:

1. All we want is an up or down vote.
   
   
2. "Confirm them" blog should shut down or change name to "Confirm who we like"
   
   
3. Judicial philosophy is the important matter, we should not consider the personal belief's of a nominee.
   
   
4. Fair treatment

The list could go on. I am relieved that Miers did withdraw and it shows she does have complete respect for President Bush.

the more the likes of you speak, the easy it gets to turn away.

good luck

Miers' treatment and withdrawal signifies some unpleasant circumstances, I think.  It shows that the radical right elements of the Republican Party leave no room for compromise, and that the denial of the "litmus test" was little more than an empty assertion.

We'll see how it goes with the next one, I suppose.  

The anti-Miers purists have gotten their wish--so far. But they should have been careful what they wish for BEFORE Miers withdrew.

The question is, how badly divided are GOP Senators--the strong conservatives, the RINOs, and the GOP 7 in the Gang of 14? Does Bush now have the clout to twist their arms for an Edith Jones or Karen Williams? Do the GOP 7 in the Gang of 14 have the diplomatic skill to convince the Dems in the Gang of 14 that the next nominee isn't "extraordinary circumstances"?

As someone here pointed out, regarding conservative judicial nominees, we have a tripartisan Senate: 48 sure yes votes (R), 38 sure no votes (D), and the Gang of 14. Some of the purists here may regret it, but that's reality. What is needed is a nominee that can get either 5 Dem votes for cloture (from the Gang of 14) or 3 GOP votes from the Gang of 14 for the nuke option. (Specter isn't in the Gang of 14, but he's unreliable--47 R + 3 GO14 + Cheney passes the nuke option).

Given the choice, it would be preferable to get 5 Dem votes from the GO14 than use the nuke option, so the Senate doesn't become paralyzed on other issues. Any suggestions on who could get 5 Dem votes for cloture?

These days, it seems like the key to confirming a judicial nominee is the Gang of 14. A nominee doesn't need Ted Kennedy's or (up)Chuck Schumer's vote--the Gang of 14 is enough. President Bush SHOULD be meeting with them as soon as he can...

Unless it's some sort of grand plot conceived by Rove to distract from indictments:  nominate someone sure to stir up a hornets nest on most sides (not obviously qualified like Roberts, even more of a mystery, "assure" people like Dobson of her credentials, but her background doesn't support it, etc., etc., etc.), then when indictments are imminent withdraw her and nominate someone that is sure to be supported by the base (will overturn Roe) and at the same time outrage the left (will overturn Roe).  

All of a sudden, the screaming is about the nominee and the indictments (if any) play second fiddle.  

Second best in Bush's mind may be far better than Miers in the minds of many others.

that I don't buy that.  I think this was Bush's decision through and through, and after Miers had been on the hot seat for a few weeks she wanted out.

but what does that say about Bush's mind?

The President citing release of documents as a reason for accepting the Meiers withdrawal may be a tacit acknowledgement of the cronyism charge.  It seems to set a precedent that future SCOTUS nominees can't be professionally connected to the president.  I don't think that's a bad thing...

I'm hoping for Janice Rogers Brown for the following reasons:

1.  She is qualified.
   
2.  Bush needs a solid, qualified conservative nominee to unite the base and start rebuilding some political capital for other purposes.
   
3.  Given #2, expect a filibuster.  Not sure how it comes out in the end, but conservatives need to position themselves optimally for the debate and subsequent political fall out.
   
4.  Watching the Dems filibuster a qualified, AA woman with all the associated spin can only help the conservatives.
   
5.  Bush can make the arguement that the more acceptable candidate (to the liberals) could have been confirmed if they would have spoken out to support her.
   
6.  Bush gets to nominate the first AA female to the SC (legacy).

That's drastic.

None of our arguments are invalid.  We do want an up or down vote - we simply sought a down vote on this.  The withdrawal request was about saving the President the embarassment, and saving GOP Senators from having to vote against this nomination.  

Number 3 is exactly our point - we kept hearing about Miers' personal beliefs and how they prove her fitness.  And the opposition kept saying that we have no clue what her philosophy is and how we could determine what would guide her in making decisions.

And I'm not sure what "fair treatment" means - does that mean that discussing the prior statements, speeches and writings of a nominee is inappropriate?  Does that mean that we need to treat every nominee the way you decide is "fair?"  That we have to pretend that the scripted and staged kabuki theater that is the confirmation hearing will do anything more than let the nominee disavow everything that someone questioned?  "Fair treatment" is not a real argument without more.

The "Sky is Falling" crowd seems to conflate a lot of things.  There are distinctions between the situations that seem to be joined if you look at the question for more than 5 minutes.

My post was more to question the relevancy of Andy Card in anything the White House does.  Rove is "Deputy" Chief of Staff.  

I can't tell if the indictments are coming or not.  I bet yes, but I'm not sure that its better to couple "bad news" stories on the same day rather than to use the Miers the day after the indictments to divert the headlines.

I dont think the WH is prescient enough to have put Miers up as a sham to divert from the Wilson/Plame business.  But, it sure is convenient.

Now where has Miguel been hiding?  Get him back out here...

I think Bush simply stole Krauthammer's text. Pure plagerism. But then, Krauthammer is a bright guy, so if you must sponge ideas off someone, then he is a good place to start.

Means on the floor of the Senate. Not by the public.

Nominating a moderate or stealth candidate puts Bush right back where he was a week ago.  

The nominee will have to be a known, qualified conservative to unite the base.  

The filibuster showdown is coming.  If Bush picks the right candidate, Bush wins politically whether or not the filibuster is broken.  He either gets the conservative through the Senate, or has increased latitude to make a new (aaahhh, third) nomination, having already tried to please Harry Reid and the conservative base.  The general public will be completely sick of hearing about judges at that point.

other rumors have been going around that Card has been trying to assert himself with Rove's potential troubles bubbling about.

wanted documents from the WH. Specter, Brownback, Allen, Leahy, Schumer etc..i don't know how this "sticks it to the dems". The right wing did not like this nominee, because they were not convinced she'd rule like they'd hope (prejugding cases??)..so they truly wanted her out. Who knows who Bush will come up with next, but I'd call this a Dem victory of sorts. If it's a Luttig type guy, they'll turn Miers into a saint and force feed the extremism charge because its O'Connor's replacement. Maybe the lady from Arizona should withdraw her retirement and stay on to save the GWB from another bruising political situation.

Ideology is now an acceptable reason to oppose a judicial nominee.  Just ask George Will or National Review.  You can bet that Charles Schumer will happily cite them when he demands answers - and launches a filibuster when he doesn't get them.

between those of us who were anti-Miers and those of you who were pro-Miers.  A major factor behind the pro-Miers crowds' leanings was that you think that we can't get a good nominee confirmed.

I think you're wrong, and largely because you're counting wrong.  R's do have squishy Senators, but when push comes to shove, a Luttig type would only lose at most 3-4 GOP votes (Chafee, Snowe, Collins & maybe Specter).  Yes, DeWine, Voinovich, McCain, Martinez, etc. have all bucked the party at times on issues.  But they've also voted to confirm every one of Bush's nominees to the courts.  And as for Democrats, we would gain Ben Nelson, plus probably Mark Pryor and a number of possibles: Landrieu, Nelson (FL), Lincoln, Conrad, Dorgan...

On a floor vote, we really start with a floor of 52-53 votes.  To go nuclear, we only lose Ben Nelson's solid vote, and have a floor of 51-52 votes.  DeWine, Graham, Warner & McCain (from the Gang) would all be with us on a normal SCOTUS nominee.  The only nominees conservative enough to possibly make them wobble would be JRB, and maybe Priscilla Owen.  Luttig, Alito, McConnell, Sykes, Williams, Batchelder, Garza, Corrigan, all would not be filibustered and the nuclear option would be successfully implemented if a filibuster was attempted.

We can only hope.  I think Bush is going to play it safe by appointing a mainstream conservative judge.  JRB would result in the fight of the century.  Conservatives would go to the mat for her.  It would be the Clarence Thomas hearings without the Coke can.  JRB has definitely made some statements that are very conservative/libertarian...

If "compromise" means that those of us on the Right should just shut up and accept another Souter, then you are correct.  

But I don't think that constitutes "compromise".  I think it constitutes surrender.  And that's not going to happen.

She has the temprament to be on the Supreme Court - some of her speeches went real far, if you ask me.

but the floor of the Senate IS the public...or so I thought it was supposed to be.

They are watching us here, and hopefully hearing from us in their offices.  They BETTER be extensions of us when they DO get to the debate.

And all of us, regardles of the Miers position, had better be ahead of the curve on this.  George is leaving relatively soon, this pick will be around a LONG time.  Let's put aside the "yabbuts" about the media fodder today, and get down to business.

Allegedly, Frist called Bush last night and told him the votes for Miers just weren't there. Withdrawal just saves everyone the time spent in going through the motions of an embarrassing confirmation hearing and vote.

Set the record.  There is no reason to leave a nasty cull loose in the house.  It's just one more mess to have to clean up.

they have to break the filibuster and they don't have the votes to do that.  

Chuck is not needed for confirmation.  The Repulicans in the gang of 14 are.

The comments I saw throughout the anti-Myers movement were almost never "we don't like how we think she will rule".  The big problem was with a perception that she 1) lacked intellectual heft and 2) lacked a judicial viewpoint that would reject a "living constitiution" interpretation.  I saw plenty of "we want the best" and almost no "we don't think she will rule the way we want".

McCain, Graham, DeWine and Warner are all on board to change the filibuster if the Dems abuse their rights to filibuster.  Filibustering a normal SCOTUS nominee like those I mentioned above is an abuse, as they have clearly stated.  That gives us 52 votes to change the filibuster (or 51 if you don't count Specter).

for the wounded feelings to subside. I suggest you get out of the blog and cool down. If you dont want to help in the new nomination, that is your prerogative, no one can force you to do what you don't feel doing.If you want them to go at it alone then fine.It is not constructive whining like a cry baby.If they called you names, if they derided you without basis then it shows more those persons lack of breeding and inability to argue and to accept that they are not the only ones with the capacity for wisdom. You dont have to give those people the pleasure of seeing you whine about. you deserve a little more dignity than what you are giving your self my fellow conservativew friend.

No, actually.  I respect your right to say whatever you want.  However, I think you've already gotten what you want in Justice Roberts.  It's ironic that we didn't hear the complaints about lack of experience when during his confirmation process, being that he only had three years of experiences on the federal judiciary, and no Supreme Court experience.  

Now, about Souter, he's a Republican who was confirmed 90-9 in a split Senate with a slight Democratic majority during a Republican presidency.  That's a success pretty much however you view it.  What more do you want?

The Supreme Court is composed of seven Republicans and two Democrats.  What more do you want?

It's a fact that the majority of both parties are moderate on the issues for which you villified Harriet Miers.  Your president nominated someone who appeared to be a moderate, which was the right thing to do.

The problem is, if Pat Robertson cannot be happy, the nominee isn't qualified to serve.  For once, I'd like to hear a little straight talk about this.  The religious right will not accept a nominee unless they support the imprisonment of women who seek abortions and homosexuals who want to have sex privately.  And, frankly, I think we have more important issues to worry about.