Bush Expected to Make Next Nomination TODAY

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: Drbio
In your weak ass opinion only. Those who intelligently evaluate the facts realize that she is very qualified.

oh really? you're so very wrong about that.
-----------------------------------------------
"She's a very gracious lady, and I'm sure she's a conservative, but there's no way this woman is qualified for the United States Supreme Court," Republican author and commentator Patrick J. Buchanan told ABC's Good Morning America
------------------------------------------------
George Will in todays column: "It is important that Miers not be confirmed unless, in her 61st year, she suddenly and unexpectedly is found to have hitherto undisclosed interests and talents pertinent to the court's role.

Otherwise the sound principle of substantial deference to a president's choice of judicial nominees will dissolve into a rationalization for senatorial abdication of the duty to hold presidents to some standards of seriousness that will prevent them from reducing the Supreme Court to a private plaything useful for fulfilling whims on behalf of friends.

Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that Miers' nomination resulted from the president's careful consultation with people capable of such judgments. If 100 such people had been asked to list 100 individuals who have given evidence of the reflectiveness and excellence requisite in a justice, Miers' name probably would not have appeared in any of the 10,000 places on those lists.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"She doesn't have anything like the qualifications of recent nominees," Cass Sunstein, a liberal law professor at the University of Chicago and a Supreme Court expert, said of Miers. "They were exceptionally qualified, both by their judicial experience and experience before they were on the court. Those three were a whole different league of qualifications."

Miers, according to Sunstein, lacks the "conspicuous excellence" of Ginsburg, Breyer and the newest chief justice, Roberts. "She may be superb and her record isn't inconsistent with being superb, but she doesn't have demonstrated excellence compared to the records of the others," he said.

Presidents typically have preferred two pools of talent for their court choices. One is the federal bench and state courts that provide a telling record of a candidate's professional judgment.

"For 30 years, ever since John Paul Stevens, there has been an unbroken pattern of naming sitting appellate judges," said Supreme Court historian David Garrow, who cited Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer and Antonin Scalia. "No one could question their intellectual firepower."

"Measured against the standard of the last 30 years, Miers seems clearly questionable," Garrow said.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet some GOP senators continued to voice skepticism of Miers, including Trent Lott, R-Miss., who pronounced himself "not comfortable."

"Is she the most-qualified person? Clearly, the answer to that is 'no,' " he said on MSNBC's "Hardball," contradicting Bush's assertion. "There are a lot more people, men, women and minorities, that are more qualified in my opinion by their experience than she is. Now, that doesn't mean she's not qualified, but you have to weigh that."
-------------------------------------------------------------

[dude1394]

I don't see that Ginsberg was much more distingished than Meyers except for prior experience as a judge. Clarence Thomas WAS a judge for about 1 year however..

And for you to quote Buchanan cracks me up. Next you'll be promoting arresting all illegal aliens as well.

[Drbio]

Mavdog hanging his hat on Pat Buchanan????? I can't stop laughing....especially since his moronic assertions are so wrong. The other persons cited take a pretty good effort to not say that she isn't qualified but rather their OPINION is that others are more qualified. I agree that others had more impressive resume's but she is qualified for this appointment despite mavdogs ignorant rants.

You have nothing in your bag mavdog. She is very qualified. No amount of your weak ass drivel or yuck yuck yuck I'm stuck stuck stuck on stupid retorting will change that. Enjoy your new Chief Justice and new Associate Justice courtesy of YOUR President.

[chumdawg]

Doc, I appreciate your enthusiasm. It is such enthusiasm that will go a long way toward making a difference.

But did you ever wonder if maybe you are coming across as nothing more than a shill?

I think I'd be a little bit interested in hearing which candidates--among those who Bush realistically may have appointed--you might have disagreed with him on. Or at least, not have engaged the other side in a spirited debate upon.

I suspect the answer is: none.

Look, I love Bush too. I think he has cojones, as it were, bigger than anyone else we've seen in the Oval Office for quite some time. But cojones do not necessarily good government make.

I'm skeptical about this appointment. I'm not skeptical that this appointee can do a passable job. But this is a monumental opportunity. This justice can serve can twenty or even thirty years (depending). Candidly, it's not an appointment to be taken lightly. And the impression, at least, is that Bush has taken it lightly.

Or, if not that, that he lacks a certain respect for the gravity of the situation.

It's a worrisome scenario. I'm as big a Bush fan as any, but I think he has dropped the ball here. You simply cannot--cannot--remove the politics from the appointment. Nor should you even wish to, as I mentioned in another thread. The people who voted Bush in voted him in in large part on this specific situation--and it would seem that he MAY have betrayed them.

You don't want to go around betraying people in politics.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: dude1394
I don't see that Ginsberg was much more distingished than Meyers except for prior experience as a judge. Clarence Thomas WAS a judge for about 1 year however..

And for you to quote Buchanan cracks me up. Next you'll be promoting arresting all illegal aliens as well.

no, I disagree completely about the resumes. Ginsburg had depth in not only practice, but also in academia.

Thomas clerked for judges as well.

like I said, a deep resume is not the only criteria to select a judge, but a lack of experience (which George Will points out) isn't reason to select one either. Miers does have good intellect, but this position is not a good one for "on the job training". Anyone who claims (like Bio) that she is the most qualified candidate must also believe in the easter bunny and santa claus. or just aren't honest.

I do find the radical right's discomfort odd (not to mention funny to watch, but then Buchanan has been funny for years). they seem to want a "limus test' for the candidate, which is 1) a test that bush stated categorically he would NOT apply (and shouldn't) when he was a candidate for office, and 2) a dangerous manner in which to select a judge.

maybe we'll see a republican filibuster of the republican president's nomination. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

[Drbio]

chummy- a shill? Please. I've only stated that Miers is qualified (the ignorant doofus aboves states otherwise). I've very clearly stated that I thought others had a better resume. I'm not saying that Miers will be the second coming of Reinquist or anything....only that she is qualified. There are plenty of things in the Republican party that I wish were being done differently. However, this nomination was one made on qualifications. I think she certainly meets the minimum standards and have a hard time believing that she isn't solidly qualified based on her academic and work pedigree. Would I have picked her? Probably not. Do I have a large problem with Bush picking her? Absolutely not. I'm willing to take on faith that Bush has more information than those of us on this board.

[kg_veteran]

FWIW, here's a view on the issue from a guy whose opinion I really respect:


October 7, 2005
Republican Senate Is Weak, Not Bush
By Thomas Sowell

link

Conservatives who have for years contributed time, money, and sweat to help elect Republicans have often been justifiably outraged at the way the Republicans have then let them down, wimped out, or even openly betrayed the promises on which they were elected.

Much of that frustration and anger is now being directed at President Bush for his nomination of White House counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. Why not someone like Judge Janice Rogers Brown or any of a number of other identifiable judges with a proven history of upholding conservative judicial principles under fire?

Looming in the background is the specter of people like Justice Anthony Kennedy, who went on the High Court with a "conservative" label and then succumbed to the Washington liberal culture. But while the past is undeniable, it is also not predestination.

This administration needs to be held responsible for its own shortcomings but not those of previous Republican administrations.

Rush Limbaugh has aptly called this a nomination made from a position of weakness. But there are different kinds of weakness and sometimes the difference matters.

President Bush has taken on too many tough fights -- Social Security being a classic example -- to be regarded as a man who is personally weak. What is weak is the Republican majority in the Senate.

When it comes to taking on a tough fight with the Senate Democrats over judicial nominations, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist doesn't really have a majority to lead. Before the President nominated anybody, before he even took the oath of office for his second term, Senator Arlen Specter was already warning him not to nominate anyone who would rile up the Senate. Later, Senator John Warner issued a similar warning. It sounded like a familiar Republican strategy of pre-emptive surrender.

Before we can judge how the President played his hand, we have to consider what kind of hand he had to play. It was a weak hand -- and the weakness was in the Republican Senators.

Does this mean that Harriet Miers will not be a good Supreme Court justice if she is confirmed? It is hard to imagine her being worse than Sandra Day O'Connor -- or even as bad.

The very fact that Harriet Miers is a member of an evangelical church suggests that she is not dying to be accepted by the beautiful people, and is unlikely to sell out the Constitution of the United States in order to be the toast of Georgetown cocktail parties or praised in the New York Times. Considering some of the turkeys that Republicans have put on the Supreme Court in the past, she could be a big improvement.

We don't know. But President Bush says he has known Harriet Miers long enough that he feels sure.

For the rest of us, she is a stealth nominee. Not since The Invisible Man has there been so much stealth.

That's not ideal by a long shot. But ideal was probably never in the cards, given the weak sisters among the Republicans' Senate "majority."

There is another aspect of this. The Senate Democrats huffed and puffed when Judge John Roberts was nominated but, in the end, he faced them down and was confirmed by a very comfortable margin.

The Democrats cannot afford to huff and puff and then back down, or be beaten down, again. On the other hand, they cannot let a high-profile conservative get confirmed without putting up a dogfight to satisfy their left-wing special interest groups.

Perhaps that is why some Democrats seem to welcome this stealth nominee. Even if she turns out to vote consistently with Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, the Democrats are off the hook with their base because they can always say that they had no idea and that she stonewalled them at the confirmation hearings.

The bottom line with any Supreme Court justice is how they vote on the issues before the High Court. It would be nice to have someone with ringing rhetoric and dazzling intellectual firepower. But the bottom line is how they vote. If the President is right about Harriet Miers, she may be the best choice he could make under the circumstances.

[Dooby]

Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC
Harriet Miers.

We'll see.

Dooby?

I can't think of any reason anyone would ever think I ever had or would ever have an opinion on Harriet Miers.
[img]i/expressions/moon.gif[/img]

She can walk intelectual circles around anyone. And she outworks everybody. And she would be great. This is from a friend of mine who has never and will never vote for a Republican-ever.

My predictions:
She will be very pragmatic
She will not legislate from the bench
She will ask 8 billion questions from the bench
Her written opinions will be very clear
She will not expand the constitution
She will not overturn longstanding precedents
She will be one of the more predictable judges

Though few are saying it, the conservatives are ticked because she is 60. That want somebody that is going to be on the bench for 40 years.

[Drbio]

Thanks for that insight Doobs, especially about her intellectual ability.

[MavKikiNYC]

Bork attempts to bork Miers------his misery seeks her company. Disgraceful.

Radical conservatives are defecating themselves.

Bush Defends Miers, Says U.S. Senate Will Confirm Her

Oct. 7 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. President George W. Bush dismissed calls from some conservatives that he withdraw Harriet Miers's Supreme Court nomination as he stepped up efforts to win over reluctant Senate Republicans.

The White House is trying to quell a rebellion by some Republicans, led by Kansas Senator Sam Brownback, who question whether Miers would be a reliable conservative vote on the court. Bush was asked about opposition from conservative commentators, including columnist Charles Krauthammer, whose Washington Post commentary carried the headline, ``Withdraw This Nominee.''

``She is going to be on the bench,'' Bush told reporters in Washington. ``She'll be confirmed, and when she's on the bench, people will see a fantastic woman who is honest, open, humble and capable of being a great Supreme Court judge.''

Bush's efforts to push Miers's nomination will include a pitch for her in his weekend radio address tomorrow. Some conservative Senate Republicans such as Mississippi's Trent Lott have expressed disappointment that the president didn't pick someone with a clearer judicial philosophy. Miers, 60, an attorney who practiced corporate law in Dallas before becoming White House counsel, has never been a judge.

``At this point the team is disagreeing with the play that was called,'' Virginia Senator George Allen, a Republican, said in an interview.

Allen, who has questioned the nomination, said he knew of no effort by fellow Senate Republicans to urge Bush to withdraw the nomination.

Gain Ground

Conservatives believe that Bush's chance to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor ``is where he could gain ground,'' Allen said. ``It may be we are gaining ground with Harriet Miers; it is not yet apparent to many.''

``Ultimately what will matter'' are the answers Miers gives to questions during Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings, he said. ``Then you'll get an idea. I will have a better idea and I think others will as well.''

The White House effort to rally support for Miers included a series of conference calls with conservative groups, including one yesterday with Ken Mehlman, Republican Party chairman.

During that call, Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, sought to reassure conservatives by saying Miers and Bush valued courage and loyalty.

Republican Dissent

``He and she both understand'' that if, as a justice, she ``ruled in ways contrary'' to what Bush expects, ``it would be a deep personal betrayal and would be perceived as such by him and by her,'' Land said.

The Republican dissent ``will not unseat any votes'' for Miers, said A.E. Dick Howard, a University of Virginia law professor and Supreme Court expert. ``Republican senators, when the time comes, reluctantly or not will vote `yes.'''

Republicans such as Brownback and Allen who are considering presidential candidacies ``are playing to their own base and want to make the right sounds,'' Howard said. ``They can make the right sounds and still vote `yes' and, in effect, have it both ways'' by appealing to supporters and being loyal to Bush.

Brownback yesterday said he could envision voting against Miers even if Bush made a personal appeal for his support. The Kansas lawmaker said he wanted to know how Miers stood on issues that would come before the court, such as abortion, property rights and gay marriage. He wouldn't specify which circumstances would lead him to oppose Miers.

Bush's Optimism

Today, Allen said he won't try to find out how Miers would decide cases. Rather, he said he would seek to determine her methods of legal analysis and philosophy of judging.

``I am one who presumes that the president has nominated a person who has that proper judicial philosophy, but I have yet to be able to discern that,'' Allen said.

Bush's comments were his most optimistic yet about whether Miers will be confirmed for the high court. Earlier this week, the president said he hoped the Senate would confirm her.

Bush defended Miers as someone who ``will not legislate from the bench and will strictly interpret the Constitution.''

The president will devote his weekly radio address tomorrow to promoting her qualifications -- a step he didn't have to take for his first Supreme Court nominee, John Roberts, who was confirmed last week as chief justice.

In Roberts's case, Bush pressed in weekly radio addresses for a fair and timely confirmation process, and touched only briefly on his nominee.

Reassure Republicans

The president has sent aides such as Republican lobbyist Ed Gillespie to reassure Republicans about Miers in private meetings and on television shows. Miers met today with Senator Conrad Burns, a Montana Republican, who said in a statement their discussion was ``extremely positive.''

Bush, whose presidency ends in January 2009, ``has nothing to lose'' by mounting an aggressive fight for Miers, said Jim Davis, a professor of presidential Studies at Washington University in St. Louis. ``His agenda is in tatters anyway and he doesn't need the conservatives to win an election.''

Anti-abortion group Operation Rescue called on Miers to withdraw from consideration unless she explains her views. Conservative columnist George Will also has called for withdrawal of the nomination.

Robert Bork, whose 1987 Supreme Court nomination was rejected by the Senate, called Bush's choice of Miers ``a disaster on every level'' during an interview with MSNBC television, according to a transcript released by the network.

Bork told interviewer Tucker Carlson he was ``not a bit'' impressed by Miers because she appeared to have ``no experience with constitutional law,'' the transcript said.

Democrats and liberal advocacy groups have refrained from criticizing Miers. The Alliance for Justice, a Washington-based group that opposed Roberts and many of Bush's judicial nominees, said today it needed to get more information on her.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Miers will go to Dallas over the weekend to look over her old legal cases for a questionnaire she will fill out for the Senate Judiciary Committee.

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: Dooby

Though few are saying it, the conservatives are ticked because she is 60. That want somebody that is going to be on the bench for 40 years.

I've read a few people saying this, when they do check to see if Janice Brown was "acceptable" to them. Janice Rogers Brown, 1949.
Harriet Miers, 1945... How bogus can an argument get.

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran
FWIW, here's a view on the issue from a guy whose opinion I really respect:


October 7, 2005
Republican Senate Is Weak, Not Bush
By Thomas Sowell

link

Conservatives who have for years contributed time, money, and sweat to help elect Republicans have often been justifiably outraged at the way the Republicans have then let them down, wimped out, or even openly betrayed the promises on which they were elected.

Much of that frustration and anger is now being directed at President Bush for his nomination of White House counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. Why not someone like Judge Janice Rogers Brown or any of a number of other identifiable judges with a proven history of upholding conservative judicial principles under fire?

I think Dr. Sowell is very,very correct here. However to me this sounds just like the radical left who also has contributed time, money and sweat to elect Democrats and could not be satisfied unless the judge was an avowed abortionist. I would imagine in most cases that this is the elite and more radical class ranting, but that the mainstream of republicans just don't see this as some sort of fiasco.

I would expect the mainstream to want someone who will not legislate from the bench, try to create laws from whole cloth and not try to create a completely secular society from what was founded on anglo-saxon religious principles. That's about it, learned detailed treatise's from prior appellate positions are not of much interest.

I also would believe that most americans think a judges character means a lot more than legal briefs. An ample supply of common sense in a judge is worth more than an Ivy league law degree.

[mcsluggo]

...
I also would believe that most americans think a judges character means a lot more than legal briefs. An ample supply of common sense in a judge is worth more than an Ivy league law degree.

You really think so? You are skittering dangerously close to suggesting that you'd like a supreme court justice who ruled from "all I need to know I learned in kindergarden".


I'm not suggesting Miers doesn't have an adequate legal background, I just don't know, its not my field and all I can do is believe what one or another legal commentator postulates. However i DO know that simple "common sense" is NOT enough. There are a LOT of potential entaglements for any legal position, and the law of unintended concequences dictates that you NEED to have a better feel for the overall effect a ruling will have than "common sense". Supreme court justice is not a "common" position.

[mcsluggo]

and by the way. So far I'm hearing alot more complaining about Miers from the conservative side than from the liberal side, relative to any epected level of status quo.

[dude1394]

Of course I'm not. But certainly souter, ginsberg etcetera (I believe) had ivy league pedigrees.. But not a lot of common sense (at least as I define it).

Do you feel that legal briefs means more than character? Or common sense for that matter? You are advocating to me someone who hasn't been out of academia, that would be a disaster imo.

[Usually Lurkin]

This whole Miers thing is pretty fascinating to me. There was an article on one of those news magazine shows reporting that Evangelicals were offended that Miers faith would be treated as a motivating factor in her nomination. How often does the media attempt to make a political point from the viewpoint of evangelical christians? The whole world seems to be turning inside out. If you listen to some people, it seems the conservative movement, after decades of steady growth and gains, is turning on itself like a pack of rabid dogs over one supreme court nominee, and that republicans are finally seeing that George Bush is, after all, a big idiot loser who has done nothing but fail those who would support him. It's been like a flash-fire. (again, though, only some places). To me, that means either there was a lot of resentment building, and Miers is a straw breaking the camel's back - or there is no real heat in the fire. I'm starting to lean toward the latter. Some people I've talked to seem to be warming (or at least resigning) to her after being initially disappointed that a more-sure-thing wasn't picked. And some of the opposition is getting into rediculous territory.

link
Looks like republican support for Miers is lower than for Roberts. But republican opposition for Miers is about as low as it was for Roberts.
It looks like most of the "opposition" that is fueling the conservative crackup (Fineman the idiot) is people taking a "wait and see" approach to Meirs. From the poll:



The fact that we don't know a lot about her (including lack of experience / lack of paper trail) is legitimate cause for some concern. But if the opposition to Miers continues to reflect the same kind of petty sensationalist attack style that conservatives have complained about from the left, then more people will shy away from the anti-Miers bandwagon. Check out NRO's TheCorner, where trite political agendas like anti-quota-ism motivated a couple days worth of ugly "debate".

[Mavdog]

It is almost as if the WH didn't see the response coming and were surprised by the lack of enthusiasm for the selection.

The news today seems to indicate a still confused WH. On the one hand, there is the Bush statement focusing on her religious values, coming just a few weeks after the same people were adamant that Robert's religious faith was not to be broached. Second, a statement from the WH that there is no truth to the idea that Miers might withdraw, leaving one to ask why they would say anything at all to that subject.

very interesting.