Miers Withdraws from Supreme Court Nomination

[Adam's Apple]

Go to www.realclearpolitics.com - lead article

 

[dilloduck]

Go to www.realclearpolitics.com - lead article

Been listening to it on FOX too. Maybe NOW Bush will nominate someone that the consevatives can fight for vigorously as opposed to apologetically.

Meanwhile, Dubin encourages Bush to appoint moderate and avoid a fight.

 

[KarlMarx]

Been listening to it on FOX too. Maybe NOW Bush will nominate someone that the consevatives can fight for vigorously as opposed to apologetically.

Meanwhile, Dubin encourages Bush to appoint moderate and avoid a fight.

Good news ... she did the right thing by withdrawing....

now the question is... will Dubya do the right thing and appoint a CONSERVATIVE judge as his mandate from the voters tells him to?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I think we should have gone with Miers. Why was David Frum, Bush's main speechwriter, SO against her? He was out spinning against her the next day. Maybe Bush was trying to throw the yoke of JEW control. But all the good little neocons jumped on board without knowing why.

 

[theHawk]

WASHINGTON — Harriet Miers withdrew her nomination to be a Supreme Court justice Thursday in the face of stiff opposition and mounting criticism about her qualifications.

Bush said he reluctantly accepted her decision to withdraw, after weeks of insisting that he did not want her to step down. He blamed her withdrawal on calls in the Senate for the release of internal White House documents that the administration has insisted were protected by executive privilege.

"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," Bush said. "Harriet Miers' decision demonstrates her deep respect for this essential aspect of the constitutional separation of powers -- and confirms my deep respect and admiration for her."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,173665,00.html

 

[Annie]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,173665,00.html

Yep, he followed the Kruthammer advice. Good show. Now GW needs to find a solid constitutional mind and let the chips fall where they may.

 

[Avatar4321]

Meanwhile, Dubin encourages Bush to appoint moderate and avoid a fight.

Wasn't this the problem to begin with? Well more than her judicial philosophy was unknown to avoid a fight but still, why should the President nominate someone else the base is going to get up in arms about?

I think the best choice right now would be Janice Rogers Brown.

I had a feeling something with Meirs happened today when my Constitutional Law Professor was telling us to learn Constitutional Law so that when we are brought before the Judiciary committee we would know what our positions are. It was an odd comment if something like this hadn't happened.

 

[Avatar4321]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,173665,00.html

What do you know...Rush was right...again.

 

[Avatar4321]

I think we should have gone with Miers. Why was David Frum, Bush's main speechwriter, SO against her? He was out spinning against her the next day. Maybe Bush was trying to throw the yoke of JEW control. But all the good little neocons jumped on board without knowing why.

Honestly, I dont think I would have had a problem with Miers. However, alot of the base was upset about her being such an unknown.

I think you need to leave whatever disagreement you have wish jews out of analysis. It just doesn't really apply.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

This is great! Now Bush can (he better!) nominate a proven conservative actual judge who has the track record, the qualifications and the experience and if the Dems don't like it - bring it on!

 

[Avatar4321]

This is great! Now Bush can (he better!) nominate a proven conservative actual judge who has the track record, the qualifications and the experience and if the Dems don't like it - bring it on!

What exactly was wrong with Miers? From all indications she was a conservative. So she has never been a judge before, so what? Chief Justice Rehnquist was never a judge before being appointed to the Supreme Court.

I think Bush is more worried about getting the outcome he wants in judges than causing a fight with the Democrats. If he can get the same caliber judge in the Supreme Court without the fight, why should he start a fight?

I mean dont get me wrong id love to kick the Libs butts on this judicial thing but I think what's most important is we fill the Court with conservative judges, whether they are well known conservatives or unknown conservatives doesn't matter.

I think Miers could have been a good candidate. And I think the base was out of line jumping on her the way they did. They could have aleasted waited till she showed what she could handle at the Judiciary committee meetings.

Regardless I still think the best road right now is Janice Rogers Brown. I would love to see the Democrats try to block her.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Honestly, I dont think I would have had a problem with Miers. However, alot of the base was upset about her being such an unknown.

Ann Coulter, who I sometimes agree with and sometimes think goes a bit far, did make somewhat of a good point when talking about the surface of the Miers nomination. With most nominees, no matter what they are nominated for, you hear about their qualifications and their record. With Miers, it was more and more about what a nice person she was. Frankly, I have to agree that there were times that it seemed more like President Bush was trying to fix her up on a date than nominate her for the Supreme Court.

"She's a nice lady, she bakes cookies, and she's a good dancer. I think you two will get along fine."

More than anything, I think this came to soon after the Roberts nomination. Roberts was a great choice, and in my opinion the Senators that voted against him can't truely justify their vote. In comparison, Miers doesn't hold up.

Personally, I just didn't know. I wasn't sold on her, but I wasn't counting her out. I can't say that I'm shedding any tears now that she has backed out. I will say, I would be much more comfortable with a traditional, Constitution minded judge.

 

[Annie]

What exactly was wrong with Miers? From all indications she was a conservative. So she has never been a judge before, so what? Chief Justice Rehnquist was never a judge before being appointed to the Supreme Court.

I think Bush is more worried about getting the outcome he wants in judges than causing a fight with the Democrats. If he can get the same caliber judge in the Supreme Court without the fight, why should he start a fight?

I mean dont get me wrong id love to kick the Libs but*s on this judicial thing but I think what's most important is we fill the Court with conservative judges, whether they are well known conservatives or unknown conservatives doesn't matter.

I think Miers could have been a good candidate. And I think the base was out of line jumping on her the way they did. They could have aleasted waited till she showed what she could handle at the Judiciary committee meetings.

Regardless I still think the best road right now is Janice Rogers Brown. I would love to see the Democrats try to block her.

This group called for Mier's resignation this morning, then it happened. Here was their rationale:

http://keyword.netscape.com/ns/boom...amp;ampTest=1&remove_url=http://www.cwfa.org/

Miers’ Speeches Show Pattern of Feminism, Liberal Activism 10/26/2005
By CWA Staff

Supreme Court nominee laid out her philosophy while president of the Texas Bar Association.

Two speeches in 1993 by Harriet Miers, while president of the Texas Bar Association, indicate a radical feminist worldview, a penchant for judicial activism, race and se* quotas, a liberal characterization of the abo*tion debate and government spending, and an inability to articulate her positions clearly.

Abortion, morality and the law

“The ongoing debate continues surrounding the attempt to once again criminalize abo*tions or to once and for all guarantee the freedom of the individual woman’s right to decide for herself whether she will have an abo*tion. … And the more I think about these issues, the more self-determination makes the most sense. Legislating religion or morality we gave up on a long time ago.” -- A spring 1993 speech to the Executive Women of Dallas

Here are some excerpts from her speech “Women and Courage” during the summer of 1993, to an undisclosed group, and authenticated by The Washington Post.

Role Models
As examples of courage, she cites various left-wing figures, including Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, actress Barbra Streisand, and then-Congresswoman Barbara Jordan (D-Texas). As an example of a figure of courage fighting the odds, she cites a man – Winston Churchill.

As examples of women to emulate, she cites former Attorney General Janet Reno and former Texas Gov. Ann Richards, both extremely liberal. Her opening statement included these remarks concerning Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an ACLU attorney who once advocated lowering the se*ual age of consent to 12, and whose nomination was opposed by conservative groups, including Concerned Women for America:

“Her selection has brought praise from many quarters—and she is the most recent in a long list of women whose courage has set them apart and allowed them to achieve positions traditionally reserved for men.” Miers then quotes the Wall Street Journal on Ginsburg: “Read a lot of Judge Ginsberg’s [sic] opinions, and you are struck by the voice. … It is the voice of scrupulous honesty, freedom from cant and strong moral commitment.”

After then lauding Birdie Sue Harwood, a Texas mayor, Miers went on to say:

“Another Texas hero is the Honorable Barbara Jordan. And there is the poignant story about Dr. Jordan. She told us of her realization at one point in her life as she read those great words in the Declaration of Independence – We hold these truths to be self-evident--- that all men are created equal—her realization that those words did not apply to her.”

On Janet Reno

“Recently, we have celebrated the naming of the new Attorney General, the first woman to hold such a post.” In the other speech, given to the Executive Women of Dallas in the spring of 1993, she briefly mentions the disastrous incident in which Reno ordered a federal armed as*ault on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, resulting in the deaths of more than 80 men, women and children inside: “The Branch Davidian compound became a sight [sic] for speculation about legal responsibilities and legal rights.”

Se*-bai*ing

“We all know that Congress and of course the Senate are vastly male-dominated. Even our own State House and Senate are still significantly male-dominated….You can muse about what the reason for this is and I have to conclude that a large factor is the control of financial resources….Usually those millions contributed find their way into the coffers of male candidates.”

Race-bai*ing
In the speech to the Executive Women of Dallas, she said:

“The justice system is under scrutiny for its very makeup because of the few minorities who serve in the judiciary.…We still have all-white juries trying cases which significantly impact the rights of minorities.…We undeniable [sic] still have a justice system that does not provide justice for all as provided by the Pledge of Allegiance. One justice for the rich, one justice for the poor. One justice sometimes for minorities, one for whites. …[J]ustice for all does not exist.”

Judicial Activism
Following a laundry list of Texas’ apparently dismal record of not spending enough on government social programs (sample: “18 percent of the population….live in poverty”), Miers defends intervention by the courts:

“Allowing conditions to exist so long and get so bad that resort to the Courts is the only answer has not served our State well and we need to reverse this phenomenon.”

“Where science determines the facts, the law can effectively govern. However, when science cannot determine the facts and decisions vary based upon religious belief, then government should not act.”

On Stealth Public Figures (Does this include Supreme Court nominees?)

“We should not as a public respond to politicians whose behavior demonstrates a lack of conviction even though they seem to have a capacity for getting elected. We cannot afford it.

“Cautious, careful people, always casting about to preserve their reputation and social standing, never can bring about reform. Those who are in earnest must be willing to be anything or nothing in the world’s estimation.”

 

[Mr. P]

Sheeeeeeeewwwwwww....I think the whole Country missed a bullet on this one.

 

[OCA]

Yep, he followed the Kruthammer advice. Good show. Now GW needs to find a solid constitutional mind and let the chips fall where they may.

Don't hold your breath, if past action is evidence he'll try to appease the left again because he is more comfortable in the center what with not actually being a conservative and all.

 

[OCA]

Maybe Bush was trying to throw the yoke of JEW control. But all the good little neocons jumped on board without knowing why.

And the colors bled through.......................

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Don't hold your breath, if past action is evidence he'll try to appease the left again because he is more comfortable in the center what with not actually being a conservative and all.

Yeah, what is that all about anyway? Doesn't he remember who got him elected in the first place? I think the base is hopped up enough to be watching his new choice veeeeery carefully....Bush ain't really to be trusted anymore. Although there are rumors that he put Miers out there on purpose as a decoy to get the base riled up enough to fight for a real conservative judge....pure speculation by the ever-loyal.

 

[Nienna]

Without anything to put my finger on, I never had a good feeling about Miers. I just don't understand the President, though. What does he have to lose by "pandering to his base"? It's not like he can run again. So why not please the people who put him in office? Isn't that what a representative is supposed to do?

 

[musicman]

Without anything to put my finger on, I never had a good feeling about Miers. I just don't understand the President, though. What does he have to lose by "pandering to his base"? It's not like he can run again. So why not please the people who put him in office? Isn't that what a representative is supposed to do?

My sentiments exactly, mom4. Some conservative columnists have advanced the theory that this President Bush is no more a friend to the true conservative movement than his father was. His attitude toward the base appears to be, "They'll stick with us; what are they gonna do - vote Democrat?"

The feeling I have is that - in the odd-numbered years, with no presidential or midterm elections to worry about (that is to say, no accountability), these "convenient conservatives" shove their TRUE agenda down our throats. Then, come the even-numberred years - with their jobs on the line - they start feeding us the sugar sticks again. A pretty shabby way to do business, if you ask me.

 

[Annie]

My sentiments exactly, mom4. Some conservative columnists have advanced the theory that this President Bush is no more a friend to the true conservative movement than his father was. His attitude toward the base appears to be, "They'll stick with us; what are they gonna do - vote Democrat?"

The feeling I have is that - in the odd-numbered years, with no presidential or midterm elections to worry about (that is to say, no accountability), these "convenient conservatives" shove their TRUE agenda down our throats. Then, come the even-numberred years - with their jobs on the line - they start feeding us the sugar sticks again. A pretty shabby way to do business, if you ask me.

I thought this a good time to highlight this again:

"Bush may be getting a fight anyway. And while he can laugh off the Angry Left, which would never support him no matter what he did, the Angry Right is a force he'd be a fool to misunderestimate" - James Taranto

My feeling is that GW has been more 'compassionate' than his backers thought he would be. We expected the 'conservative' part to drive the compassion, not the other way around.

On the other hand, IF he kept up the pressure on WOT, he would keep the backing. Problem is, focus has been lost to a degree that is now becoming problematic. He got too caught up on the hurricane and such.