Full Version: Harriet Miers withdraws
Wow, I check the news and what do I see? Harriet Miers withdraws her nomination. 
I really didn't see this coming, I thought the president would want to try and negotiate further with members of his own party to get her nomination through-though it appears that the conservative base and liberal senators concerned over Roe v.Wade would not give her a free pass as they did Roberts.
Questions for debate:
1.)What is the ultimate reason as to why her nomination was shot down?
2.)Do you buy the administration's argument that the disclosure of confidential writings was asked for?
3.)Will this event lead to a further poisoning of the nominating and approval process?
4.)Who is to blame for this whole debacle?
I really didn't see this coming, I thought the president would want to try and negotiate further with members of his own party to get her nomination through-though it appears that the conservative base and liberal senators concerned over Roe v.Wade would not give her a free pass as they did Roberts.Questions for debate:
1.)What is the ultimate reason as to why her nomination was shot down?
2.)Do you buy the administration's argument that the disclosure of confidential writings was asked for?
3.)Will this event lead to a further poisoning of the nominating and approval process?
4.)Who is to blame for this whole debacle?
What is the ultimate reason as to why her nomination was shot down?
She lacked the votes for confirmation.
Do you buy the administration's argument that the disclosure of confidential writings was asked for?
From the beginning, because of the nature of their relationship, I thought Bush would use his presidential privilege to bat requests for "confidential" information requests out of the park. They're skirting the issue of her qualification for the position with this argument. All the better, IMO. It'll be harder for this explanation to stick for the White House when Democrats make information requests on the next nominee.
Will this event lead to a further poisoning of the nominating and approval process?
Why should it? The Senate's refusal to embrace the nomination on the grounds of qualification, instead of ideology, isn't partisanship. It's common sense. Will the next nominee be the second most qualified person for the job? We know the answer.
Who is to blame for this whole debacle?
Bush for his criminally negligent regard for loyalty. Miers, who knowing herself better than anyone else, thought she could pull it off with the Senate.
She lacked the votes for confirmation.
Do you buy the administration's argument that the disclosure of confidential writings was asked for?
From the beginning, because of the nature of their relationship, I thought Bush would use his presidential privilege to bat requests for "confidential" information requests out of the park. They're skirting the issue of her qualification for the position with this argument. All the better, IMO. It'll be harder for this explanation to stick for the White House when Democrats make information requests on the next nominee.
Will this event lead to a further poisoning of the nominating and approval process?
Why should it? The Senate's refusal to embrace the nomination on the grounds of qualification, instead of ideology, isn't partisanship. It's common sense. Will the next nominee be the second most qualified person for the job? We know the answer.
Who is to blame for this whole debacle?
Bush for his criminally negligent regard for loyalty. Miers, who knowing herself better than anyone else, thought she could pull it off with the Senate.
1.)What is the ultimate reason as to why her nomination was shot down?
I think she and President Bush are trying to put the best face on things with their comments about protecting privileged documents and such, but I think what really made her rescind was the realization that she was unpopular on both sides of the aisle. For whatever reason, too many senators either opposed or withheld support for her.
2.)Do you buy the administration's argument that the disclosure of confidential writings was asked for?
In that same article, both Democrats and Republicans deny ever asking for them. Either they did not, or the ones making the denial were unaware of somebody else's request. Whatever it is, I am more likely to believe it to be miscommunication than malice. Since Ms. Miers has withdrawn, it doesn't matter to me.
3.)Will this event lead to a further poisoning of the nominating and approval process?
Well, we've certainly learned a few things. We already knew that judges with long distingiushed careers provide plenty of fodder for being "Borked". We've seen judges with fairly short careers pass through with mild resistance (Roberts). And we've just seen one with no experience on the bench get tossed out on her ear. I expect to see the next candidate have experience similar to Roberts'. I don't expect to see any further poisoning the process, but it's unfortunate that the (mildly) stealth candidates have a better chance than the experienced ones.
4.)Who is to blame for this whole debacle?
I don't see this as having been a debacle, but a success. The President named a candidate, based on his personal judgment. The Senate gave advice, but refused to consent (or would have if it had come to a vote). The checks and balances worked properly for once. I have to smile over what has taken place.
I think she and President Bush are trying to put the best face on things with their comments about protecting privileged documents and such, but I think what really made her rescind was the realization that she was unpopular on both sides of the aisle. For whatever reason, too many senators either opposed or withheld support for her.
2.)Do you buy the administration's argument that the disclosure of confidential writings was asked for?
In that same article, both Democrats and Republicans deny ever asking for them. Either they did not, or the ones making the denial were unaware of somebody else's request. Whatever it is, I am more likely to believe it to be miscommunication than malice. Since Ms. Miers has withdrawn, it doesn't matter to me.
3.)Will this event lead to a further poisoning of the nominating and approval process?
Well, we've certainly learned a few things. We already knew that judges with long distingiushed careers provide plenty of fodder for being "Borked". We've seen judges with fairly short careers pass through with mild resistance (Roberts). And we've just seen one with no experience on the bench get tossed out on her ear. I expect to see the next candidate have experience similar to Roberts'. I don't expect to see any further poisoning the process, but it's unfortunate that the (mildly) stealth candidates have a better chance than the experienced ones.
4.)Who is to blame for this whole debacle?
I don't see this as having been a debacle, but a success. The President named a candidate, based on his personal judgment. The Senate gave advice, but refused to consent (or would have if it had come to a vote). The checks and balances worked properly for once. I have to smile over what has taken place.
1.)What is the ultimate reason as to why her nomination was shot down?
The nomination was in trouble because of the revolt of the right wing of the Republican Party that felt they were entitled to a nominee that passed their "litmus test" on abortion. The President would have continued to push the nomination but could not afford to have the Right Wing dessert him while he faced the coming indictments from the grand jury in the Plame leak case.
2.)Do you buy the administration's argument that the disclosure of confidential writings was asked for?
No, the merely used this as cover for withdrawing the nomination as Krauthammer suggested in his editorial.
3.)Will this event lead to a further poisoning of the nominating and approval process?
The withdrawal of the nomination will not have this effect. On the other hand, the President's desire to get the Right Wing of his party behind him during Plamegate will probably lead to the nomination of someone totally unacceptable to Democrats leading to a filibuster and the possibility of reinvoking the "nuclear option."
4.)Who is to blame for this whole debacle?
The nominee was obviously unqualified but the ultimate responsibility for the continuing confrontation lies with the ring wing of the Republican Party insisting on the appointment of judges that will rule as they wish on social issues rather than using a selection process that seeks distinguished judges acceptable to large numbers of senators on both sides of the aisle.
The nomination was in trouble because of the revolt of the right wing of the Republican Party that felt they were entitled to a nominee that passed their "litmus test" on abortion. The President would have continued to push the nomination but could not afford to have the Right Wing dessert him while he faced the coming indictments from the grand jury in the Plame leak case.
2.)Do you buy the administration's argument that the disclosure of confidential writings was asked for?
No, the merely used this as cover for withdrawing the nomination as Krauthammer suggested in his editorial.
3.)Will this event lead to a further poisoning of the nominating and approval process?
The withdrawal of the nomination will not have this effect. On the other hand, the President's desire to get the Right Wing of his party behind him during Plamegate will probably lead to the nomination of someone totally unacceptable to Democrats leading to a filibuster and the possibility of reinvoking the "nuclear option."
4.)Who is to blame for this whole debacle?
The nominee was obviously unqualified but the ultimate responsibility for the continuing confrontation lies with the ring wing of the Republican Party insisting on the appointment of judges that will rule as they wish on social issues rather than using a selection process that seeks distinguished judges acceptable to large numbers of senators on both sides of the aisle.
Who is to blame for this whole debacle?
The primary responsibility is Bush’s; the secondary Miers'.
The mismatch between job and qualifications were so great that I’ve thought this possible since the beginning.
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...ndpost&p=169805
Then on October 5, Tucker Carlson predicted outright that she would step aside and I posted that question in the thread I started.
I beat Tucker by a day.
Edited to add after Wertz's post:
Might Karen Hughes be next? Just joking.
QUOTE(Lesly @ Oct 27 2005, 10:17 AM)
Bush for his criminally negligent regard for loyalty. Miers, who knowing herself better than anyone else, thought she could pull it off with the Senate.
The primary responsibility is Bush’s; the secondary Miers'.
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Oct 27 2005, 09:36 AM)
I really didn't see this coming
The mismatch between job and qualifications were so great that I’ve thought this possible since the beginning.
QUOTE(BoF @ Oct 4 2005, 02:13 AM)
I’m not predicting this, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there is such a storm from the right during the hearings that Miers requests and Bush withdraws her nomination.
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...ndpost&p=169805
Then on October 5, Tucker Carlson predicted outright that she would step aside and I posted that question in the thread I started.
I beat Tucker by a day.
Edited to add after Wertz's post:
QUOTE(Wertz @ Oct 27 2005, 11:36 AM)
Of itself, it shouldn't. It depends what new horror story Bush will start with his next nominee. Let's hope that, this time, he at least looks for someone outside a fifty-foot radius of his X-Box.
Might Karen Hughes be next? Just joking.
What is the ultimate reason as to why her nomination was shot down?
It wasn't shot down, Miers withdrew it. She gave herself a "down vote" - and Bush seconded it. I suspect it has to do with the fact that Miers was uncomfortable with the scrutiny to which she was being subjected (and should have expected it from the moment she accepted the nomination). Whether it was investigations into her shady land deals (sort of like Whitewater, except - unlike the Clintons - Miers actually appeared to be guilty of something) or questions about her sexuality or the rumors that she was an Israeli agent (Lesbians for Likud!) or a combination of all of the above coupled with her ignorance of Constitutional law, I don't know. But if she couldn't stand the heat of the nominating process, it's best she decided to steer clear of the Supreme Court kitchen.
Do you buy the administration's argument that the disclosure of confidential writings was asked for?
I buy it as an argument in some circumstances, if confidential writings were actually requested. As no one seems to have requested any documents protected by legal privilege, it would appear to be a moot excuse. Whether absolutely everything that is ever discussed between the President and anyone else on the planet is automatically "confidential" is another question. I would suggest that it is not.
Will this event lead to a further poisoning of the nominating and approval process?
Of itself, it shouldn't. It depends what new horror story Bush will start with his next nominee. Let's hope that, this time, he at least looks for someone outside a fifty-foot radius of his X-Box.
Who is to blame for this whole debacle?
The man who nominated an eminently unqualified candidate for the highest court in the country. Who else??
It wasn't shot down, Miers withdrew it. She gave herself a "down vote" - and Bush seconded it. I suspect it has to do with the fact that Miers was uncomfortable with the scrutiny to which she was being subjected (and should have expected it from the moment she accepted the nomination). Whether it was investigations into her shady land deals (sort of like Whitewater, except - unlike the Clintons - Miers actually appeared to be guilty of something) or questions about her sexuality or the rumors that she was an Israeli agent (Lesbians for Likud!) or a combination of all of the above coupled with her ignorance of Constitutional law, I don't know. But if she couldn't stand the heat of the nominating process, it's best she decided to steer clear of the Supreme Court kitchen.
Do you buy the administration's argument that the disclosure of confidential writings was asked for?
I buy it as an argument in some circumstances, if confidential writings were actually requested. As no one seems to have requested any documents protected by legal privilege, it would appear to be a moot excuse. Whether absolutely everything that is ever discussed between the President and anyone else on the planet is automatically "confidential" is another question. I would suggest that it is not.
Will this event lead to a further poisoning of the nominating and approval process?
Of itself, it shouldn't. It depends what new horror story Bush will start with his next nominee. Let's hope that, this time, he at least looks for someone outside a fifty-foot radius of his X-Box.
Who is to blame for this whole debacle?
The man who nominated an eminently unqualified candidate for the highest court in the country. Who else??
1.)What is the ultimate reason as to why her nomination was shot down?
One word: unqualified
2.)Do you buy the administration's argument that the disclosure of confidential writings was asked for?
Of course not. It's just a face-saving rationalization.
3.)Will this event lead to a further poisoning of the nominating and approval process?
I don't believe the process is poisoned. Roberts was qualified, and he was approved by a supermajority.
4.)Who is to blame for this whole debacle?
Miers is to blame, first and foremost: she should have never accepted Dubya's nomination. Dubya runs a close second; doesn't he have staff to tell him this was a bad idea? The biggest concern is the unprecedented level of cronyism in the Whitehouse; however, to debate this would be off-topic.
AND to add a bit of levity to the thread: Mark Fiore
One word: unqualified
2.)Do you buy the administration's argument that the disclosure of confidential writings was asked for?
Of course not. It's just a face-saving rationalization.
3.)Will this event lead to a further poisoning of the nominating and approval process?
I don't believe the process is poisoned. Roberts was qualified, and he was approved by a supermajority.
4.)Who is to blame for this whole debacle?
Miers is to blame, first and foremost: she should have never accepted Dubya's nomination. Dubya runs a close second; doesn't he have staff to tell him this was a bad idea? The biggest concern is the unprecedented level of cronyism in the Whitehouse; however, to debate this would be off-topic.
AND to add a bit of levity to the thread: Mark Fiore
1.)What is the ultimate reason as to why her nomination was shot down?
The vehement opposition by the ultra-conservatives in the GOP. I don't think Bush realized that there would be such resistance from the party faithful. If Bush had continued to stubbornly support Miers, he would have seriously damaged his relationship with them.
Though I'd like to believe that everyone (except Bush, of course) realized she was pathetically unqualified. Yeeeeah, right...
2.)Do you buy the administration's argument that the disclosure of confidential writings was asked for?
I don't buy anything this administration is selling. I think she withdrew at the urging of her sponsor.
3.)Will this event lead to a further poisoning of the nominating and approval process?
It has always been a poisonous process. What worries me is what horrible thing lurks in the shadows as her replacement.
4.)Who is to blame for this whole debacle?
The person who was arrogant enough to nominate her, regardless of her qualifications or lack thereof.
The vehement opposition by the ultra-conservatives in the GOP. I don't think Bush realized that there would be such resistance from the party faithful. If Bush had continued to stubbornly support Miers, he would have seriously damaged his relationship with them.
Though I'd like to believe that everyone (except Bush, of course) realized she was pathetically unqualified. Yeeeeah, right...
2.)Do you buy the administration's argument that the disclosure of confidential writings was asked for?
I don't buy anything this administration is selling. I think she withdrew at the urging of her sponsor.
3.)Will this event lead to a further poisoning of the nominating and approval process?
It has always been a poisonous process. What worries me is what horrible thing lurks in the shadows as her replacement.
4.)Who is to blame for this whole debacle?
The person who was arrogant enough to nominate her, regardless of her qualifications or lack thereof.
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Oct 27 2005, 10:36 AM)
1.)What is the ultimate reason as to why her nomination was shot down?
2.)Do you buy the administration's argument that the disclosure of confidential writings was asked for?
3.)Will this event lead to a further poisoning of the nominating and approval process?
4.)Who is to blame for this whole debacle?
2.)Do you buy the administration's argument that the disclosure of confidential writings was asked for?
3.)Will this event lead to a further poisoning of the nominating and approval process?
4.)Who is to blame for this whole debacle?
1. Could it be that with approval ratings that had slumped into the mid-Thirties, the president doesn't have as much "political collaterial" as he boasted he had? Bush got a sharp reminder that while he may be the leader of a extremely conservative Republican Party, he isn't the boss. Bush tried to reassure the conservative critics that Miers would be a solid vote for repealing Roe vs. Wade. However, with no prior experience as a judge and no paper trail, it was painfully obvious that Miers was only minimally qualified for he court. She could have stayed the course and waited for the push over the ledge when the Senate voted her down. She chose to jump instead.
2. No way. Columnist Charles Krauthammer practically wrote the script for the Miers exit strategy. Almost a week later the White House followed it.
We need an exit strategy from this debacle. I have it.
Sen. Lindsey Graham has been a staunch and public supporter of this nominee. Yet on Wednesday he joined Brownback in demanding privileged documents from Miers's White House tenure.
Finally, a way out: irreconcilable differences over documents.
That creates a classic conflict, not of personality, not of competence, not of ideology, but of simple constitutional prerogatives: The Senate cannot confirm her unless it has this information. And the White House cannot allow release of this information lest it jeopardize executive privilege.
Hence the perfectly honorable way to solve the conundrum: Miers withdraws out of respect for both the Senate and the executive's prerogatives, the Senate expresses appreciation for this gracious acknowledgment of its needs and responsibilities, and the White House accepts her decision with the deepest regret and with gratitude for Miers's putting preservation of executive prerogative above personal ambition.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5102001635.html
Sounds familiar, huh?
3. The process has already mutated into a toxic mess. The president avoided the bloody fight with Democrats and forcing Bill Frist to invoke "the nuclear option" with the Miers nomination. Well, we're back to square one. Bush is not the kind of guy who likes to admit to a mistake. Harriet Miers was a mistake and Bush had his face rubbed in it by his conservative allies, not his liberal opponents. He may not be inclined to turn around now and give the Right exactly the kind of jurist they wanted in the first place. However, Bush needs conservatives apparently a lot more than they need him. Bush is going to nominate a conservative. Duh. No surprise there. That is his Constitutional privilege. Next time though he might want to nominate a candidate who actually knows something about the Constitution.
4. George W. Bush. Who else?
QUOTE
The president avoided the bloody fight with Democrats and forcing Bill Frist to invoke "the nuclear option" with the Miers nomination. Well, we're back to square one. Bush is not the kind of guy who likes to admit to a mistake.
How long to nominate a new candidate?? and how long can the nomnation process be dragged out? We are coming into election season very soon and I don't think either party is ready to play yet. Seems like we can really "fire up the troops" now with a hostile nomination process.bread and cicuses for the masses so to speak.
I will not be at all surprised to see the next nominee be a fire breather for the conservatives. Give the dems and Reps the necessary tinder for firing the election flames.
Got to start getting the Hate vote fired up for each side of the Republicrats Party's election show version of thunderdome.
1.) What is the ultimate reason as to why her nomination was shot down?
Opposition from within the GOP. Her qualifications were not convincing, nor apparently were her one on one meetings with the Senators. And the conservative GOP base wanted someone with a clear strict constructionist track record and a clearly articulated judicial philosophy to match. I agree with them on that. I think we deserve no less.
2.) Do you buy the administration's argument that the disclosure of confidential writings was asked for?
Yes, I believe it happened that way. Senators Lindsey Graham and Sam Brownback did ask for the documents... just as in the Krauthammer scenario nighttimer mentioned.
3.) Will this event lead to a further poisoning of the nominating and approval process?
My crystal ball is in the shop, but I think this could work out for the best if Bush leads the way he should, and picks a highly qualified strict constructionist, and fights hard for him/her.
4.) Who is to blame for this whole debacle?
Bush. Perhaps he was right and Miers would've been a good Justice. Now we'll never know, but he definitely did severely misjudge the politics of the situation. The GOP base has been waiting a long time for a chance to shift the balance of the SCOTUS, and they don't want it wasted on a barely qualified stealth nominee. It's something they're passionate about and will go to the mats for, and Bush didn't realize that.
Pournelle, echoing my own thoughts, as he so often does (except that I would've suggested Posner rather than Bork):
http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/view385.html
Opposition from within the GOP. Her qualifications were not convincing, nor apparently were her one on one meetings with the Senators. And the conservative GOP base wanted someone with a clear strict constructionist track record and a clearly articulated judicial philosophy to match. I agree with them on that. I think we deserve no less.
2.) Do you buy the administration's argument that the disclosure of confidential writings was asked for?
Yes, I believe it happened that way. Senators Lindsey Graham and Sam Brownback did ask for the documents... just as in the Krauthammer scenario nighttimer mentioned.
3.) Will this event lead to a further poisoning of the nominating and approval process?
My crystal ball is in the shop, but I think this could work out for the best if Bush leads the way he should, and picks a highly qualified strict constructionist, and fights hard for him/her.
4.) Who is to blame for this whole debacle?
Bush. Perhaps he was right and Miers would've been a good Justice. Now we'll never know, but he definitely did severely misjudge the politics of the situation. The GOP base has been waiting a long time for a chance to shift the balance of the SCOTUS, and they don't want it wasted on a barely qualified stealth nominee. It's something they're passionate about and will go to the mats for, and Bush didn't realize that.
Pournelle, echoing my own thoughts, as he so often does (except that I would've suggested Posner rather than Bork):
QUOTE("Jerry Pournelle")
Well the news is that Miers has withdrawn -- who can blame her? Now the egregious Frum will crow. Rush Limbaugh is trying to make the best of this, and doing fairly well; but the fact remains that the egregious Frum will lord it up, and a number of electoral shock troops who helped produce the Republican majority in 2004 will quietly go home and say to hell with it.
The choice of Miers was perhaps unfortunate and perhaps not, but she had this virtue: she was very unlikely to have wanted what the Left can give, dinner parties in Georgetown, commencement speeches at big universities, and accolade for "growing" in office. We can hope that the next candidate has that virtue. It may be unlikely.
I will continue to say it is no bad thing to have members of the US Supreme Court who did not rise through the judicial route. The American judiciary is a rarefied atmosphere and encourages the habits of power; a judge in his courtroom has very great powers, all of the low justice and much of the middle justice, and becomes used to having that power. Some enjoy it. Judges who came up through the political process have different views. Yes, Earl Warren, perhaps the most destructive Chief Justice this nation has ever had (Taney can vie for the appellation, but we need not debate that here) was without judicial experience; but so were John Marshal and Rehnquist.
We will see what happens next. The President may remember who his friends were. Perhaps.
Both the egregious Frum and the abominable Schumer are crowing. My favorite scenario is that the President appoints Bork. Alas, Bork is too old, so it won't happen. But my favorite scenario would be appointment of someone who will really horrify the Democrats, and then stand behind her. Unlikely, I know.
The choice of Miers was perhaps unfortunate and perhaps not, but she had this virtue: she was very unlikely to have wanted what the Left can give, dinner parties in Georgetown, commencement speeches at big universities, and accolade for "growing" in office. We can hope that the next candidate has that virtue. It may be unlikely.
I will continue to say it is no bad thing to have members of the US Supreme Court who did not rise through the judicial route. The American judiciary is a rarefied atmosphere and encourages the habits of power; a judge in his courtroom has very great powers, all of the low justice and much of the middle justice, and becomes used to having that power. Some enjoy it. Judges who came up through the political process have different views. Yes, Earl Warren, perhaps the most destructive Chief Justice this nation has ever had (Taney can vie for the appellation, but we need not debate that here) was without judicial experience; but so were John Marshal and Rehnquist.
We will see what happens next. The President may remember who his friends were. Perhaps.
Both the egregious Frum and the abominable Schumer are crowing. My favorite scenario is that the President appoints Bork. Alas, Bork is too old, so it won't happen. But my favorite scenario would be appointment of someone who will really horrify the Democrats, and then stand behind her. Unlikely, I know.
http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/view385.html
QUOTE(christopher @ Oct 27 2005, 04:07 PM)
Got to start getting the Hate vote fired up for each side of the Republicrats Party's election show version of thunderdome.
Gawd Chris.
QUOTE(christopher @ Oct 27 2005, 04:07 PM)
How long to nominate a new candidate?
As soon as tomorrow accoding to this source (reg req, “White House advisers say that the President will nominate a new replacement for O’Connor as early as late today or tomorrow, and by the middle of next week at the latest.”); backing up what the Washington Times reported.
1.)What is the ultimate reason as to why her nomination was shot down?
She did not have the votes, for a number of reasons, and everyone knew it.
2.)Do you buy the administration's argument that the disclosure of confidential writings was asked for?
It's face saving for sure. The administration would never disclose the confidential papers between the president and his attorney...none should ever have to. Yet when the Republican senators began asking for them, it was an obvious signal that the votes were not there and a cue that the nomination was doomed.
3.)Will this event lead to a further poisoning of the nominating and approval process?
The nomination process to the Supreme Court is an extremely important part of our government. It should be debated heatedly and passionately and in the public forum. I do not think the process is poisoned at all, I tend to think there are people that are squeamish of politics and allowing others to have differing opinions.
4.)Who is to blame for this whole debacle?
I do not understand the love affair with the blame game these days. Everyone wants to point a finger at someone for anything that doesn't go the way they want it to.
She did not have the votes, for a number of reasons, and everyone knew it.
2.)Do you buy the administration's argument that the disclosure of confidential writings was asked for?
It's face saving for sure. The administration would never disclose the confidential papers between the president and his attorney...none should ever have to. Yet when the Republican senators began asking for them, it was an obvious signal that the votes were not there and a cue that the nomination was doomed.
3.)Will this event lead to a further poisoning of the nominating and approval process?
The nomination process to the Supreme Court is an extremely important part of our government. It should be debated heatedly and passionately and in the public forum. I do not think the process is poisoned at all, I tend to think there are people that are squeamish of politics and allowing others to have differing opinions.
4.)Who is to blame for this whole debacle?
I do not understand the love affair with the blame game these days. Everyone wants to point a finger at someone for anything that doesn't go the way they want it to.
1.)What is the ultimate reason as to why her nomination was shot down?
She did not have the votes, for a number of reasons, and everyone knew it.
I think I agree mostly with TedN5 on all of these questions. Miers lacked the support of the conservative base and thus the votes in the Senate. What was telling to me is the strength of the base. The conservative base was able to veto President Bush's nominee! This should be a wake up call to liberals in Washington as to how much power they've lost to the conservatives.
2.)Do you buy the administration's argument that the disclosure of confidential writings was asked for?
Yes and no. Yes it did happen, but it does make for a convenient excuse. President Bush definitely could have put up more of a fight regardless.
3.)Will this event lead to a further poisoning of the nominating and approval process?
No. What's a few more drops of poison into an ocean of it? Conservatives want a fight with this nominee, so we may get to see the Republicans actually push the nuclear option button.
She did not have the votes, for a number of reasons, and everyone knew it.
I think I agree mostly with TedN5 on all of these questions. Miers lacked the support of the conservative base and thus the votes in the Senate. What was telling to me is the strength of the base. The conservative base was able to veto President Bush's nominee! This should be a wake up call to liberals in Washington as to how much power they've lost to the conservatives.
2.)Do you buy the administration's argument that the disclosure of confidential writings was asked for?
Yes and no. Yes it did happen, but it does make for a convenient excuse. President Bush definitely could have put up more of a fight regardless.
3.)Will this event lead to a further poisoning of the nominating and approval process?
No. What's a few more drops of poison into an ocean of it? Conservatives want a fight with this nominee, so we may get to see the Republicans actually push the nuclear option button.
QUOTE(deerjerkydave @ Oct 27 2005, 06:46 PM)
Miers lacked the support of the conservative base and thus the votes in the Senate. What was telling to me is the strength of the base. The conservative base was able to veto President Bush's nominee! This should be a wake up call to liberals in Washington as to how much power they've lost to the conservatives.
Anyone who can count could tell you deerjerkydave that liberals in Washington (or more correctly, Democrats) have been on a downward spiral in power since Newt Gingrich led the GOP to power in the House of Representatives. That's not exactly a news flash.
What is telling is how the conservatives ideologues of the Republican Party can force a two-term president to back down in the face of their opposition. Bush could have brought over some key Senators for a knuckled-rapping session and told them to get behind his nominee. He could have, but in his present weakened political state he didn't. Bush got punked by rebellious neophytes like Senator Lindsay Graham and ambitious dimwits like Senator Sam Brownback.
Liberals had nothing to do with Harriet Miers crashing and burning. That one can be chalked up to a cranky and cantankerous conservative cabal demanding a true believer to replace Sandra Day O' Connor, not a crony.
Short list: Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen and Edith Jones. You read it here first.
1.)What is the ultimate reason as to why her nomination was shot down?
As others have said, it is quite clear that Miers did not have any support at all in the Senate. Only 4 Senators had said they were for her confirmation, one being Lindsay Graham who has since asked for her memos from her White House job, which everyone knew was not going to happen.
2.)Do you buy the administration's argument that the disclosure of confidential writings was asked for?
Definitely a face-saving move. Miers knew she was doomed I am sure from her inability to win over Senate Republicans in face to face meetings. I can't comment if the withdrawal was her idea or not, but I'd guess she saw the writing on the wall either way.
3.)Will this event lead to a further poisoning of the nominating and approval process?
It has shown that Republicans are not lap dogs to Bush's choices.
It has also shown some interesting "about face" comments from Democrats, who were against her before the withdrawal of the nomination and are now using it to show how "ideologues" control the Republican party (apparently for agreeing with those who felt she was unqualified on her face).
The more that has come out about Miers, the more it appears we didn't know about her. Bush's assurances that she "won't change her positions" was directly contradicted by her actual change in stance on several issues over a period of only a few years.
The next nominee will be a solid Conservative, simply because Democrats will never support a Bush appointee, even if Solomon was up for the Supreme Court vacancy.
4.)Who is to blame for this whole debacle?
Bush made a poor choice. I believe he wanted a woman to replace O'Connor, but was unwilling to make a hard choice, such as Janice Rogers Brown. The next nominee will need to be either impeccably qualified (something that will be hard to convince some Democrats of) or else another risky "stealth candidate".
As others have said, it is quite clear that Miers did not have any support at all in the Senate. Only 4 Senators had said they were for her confirmation, one being Lindsay Graham who has since asked for her memos from her White House job, which everyone knew was not going to happen.
2.)Do you buy the administration's argument that the disclosure of confidential writings was asked for?
Definitely a face-saving move. Miers knew she was doomed I am sure from her inability to win over Senate Republicans in face to face meetings. I can't comment if the withdrawal was her idea or not, but I'd guess she saw the writing on the wall either way.
3.)Will this event lead to a further poisoning of the nominating and approval process?
It has shown that Republicans are not lap dogs to Bush's choices.
It has also shown some interesting "about face" comments from Democrats, who were against her before the withdrawal of the nomination and are now using it to show how "ideologues" control the Republican party (apparently for agreeing with those who felt she was unqualified on her face).
The more that has come out about Miers, the more it appears we didn't know about her. Bush's assurances that she "won't change her positions" was directly contradicted by her actual change in stance on several issues over a period of only a few years.
The next nominee will be a solid Conservative, simply because Democrats will never support a Bush appointee, even if Solomon was up for the Supreme Court vacancy.
4.)Who is to blame for this whole debacle?
Bush made a poor choice. I believe he wanted a woman to replace O'Connor, but was unwilling to make a hard choice, such as Janice Rogers Brown. The next nominee will need to be either impeccably qualified (something that will be hard to convince some Democrats of) or else another risky "stealth candidate".
1.)What is the ultimate reason as to why her nomination was shot down?
Simple. Most conservatives did not support her. It became increasingly clear that she tailored her message to whatever audience she was addressing. She was a poor writer. She did not have an established judicial philosophy, let alone a record of one. She was a terrible choice. WE DODGED A BULLET with this one.
2.)Do you buy the administration's argument that the disclosure of confidential writings was asked for?
Yeah, maybe confidential writings were requested in connection with the upcoming senate hearings. So what. The withdrawal of the nomination did not hinge on this issue. It allowed the president to save face.
3.)Will this event lead to a further poisoning of the nominating and approval process?
How could it get any worse? The process has been "poisoned" since the Bork nomination.
4.)Who is to blame for this whole debacle?
The buck stops at Mr. Bush. He made a lousy choice. He should have known better. Here's hoping he thinks through the next nomination a little better.
1.)What is the ultimate reason as to why her nomination was shot down?
I think it was two things that in combination lead to Miers withdrawing her nomination.
1) She didn't have the conservative credentials that many extreme elements of the GOP wanted. Bush has made numerous promises to the religious wing of the Republican party he snubbed them on Roberts and this nomination was their last chance. Why do you think the opposition was lead by none other than people like Sen Brownback? They want Roe served up a platter and they'll throw a fit about the next nominee as well if he or she doesn't pass that litmus test.
2) The fact that it was blatantly obvious that her only qualification for the position was the fact that she was a Bush crony. I do not feel that this would have mattered to the GOP were it not for recent exposure of failure due to cronyism - the poster boy being Bush's nominee Michael Brown.
If you take either of these two things alone it wouldn't have been enough, the moons had to be aligned just right. For Bush's entire administration he has nominated the people that he wanted to nominate regardless of their qualifications and he hasn't made very many attempts to placate the religious sect of the GOP. Up to this point the senate hasn't cared, they've rubber stamped almost everyone he's submitted.
Had Katrina and Rita not happened this year exposing the crony factor or if Bush's approval rating wasn't in the low 40's/upper 30's we'd soon be talking about Justice Miers latest airheaded legal opinion.
I wouldn't hold your breath on that one. Bush is going to continue to nominate people that he has personal relationships with, that is just the way he works. Another newsflash is that despite a lot of talk Bush isn't really a conservative nor is he religious, he just plays that role on TV.
I think it was two things that in combination lead to Miers withdrawing her nomination.
1) She didn't have the conservative credentials that many extreme elements of the GOP wanted. Bush has made numerous promises to the religious wing of the Republican party he snubbed them on Roberts and this nomination was their last chance. Why do you think the opposition was lead by none other than people like Sen Brownback? They want Roe served up a platter and they'll throw a fit about the next nominee as well if he or she doesn't pass that litmus test.
2) The fact that it was blatantly obvious that her only qualification for the position was the fact that she was a Bush crony. I do not feel that this would have mattered to the GOP were it not for recent exposure of failure due to cronyism - the poster boy being Bush's nominee Michael Brown.
If you take either of these two things alone it wouldn't have been enough, the moons had to be aligned just right. For Bush's entire administration he has nominated the people that he wanted to nominate regardless of their qualifications and he hasn't made very many attempts to placate the religious sect of the GOP. Up to this point the senate hasn't cared, they've rubber stamped almost everyone he's submitted.
Had Katrina and Rita not happened this year exposing the crony factor or if Bush's approval rating wasn't in the low 40's/upper 30's we'd soon be talking about Justice Miers latest airheaded legal opinion.
QUOTE(hayleyanne)
The buck stops at Mr. Bush. He made a lousy choice. He should have known better. Here's hoping he thinks through the next nomination a little better.
I wouldn't hold your breath on that one. Bush is going to continue to nominate people that he has personal relationships with, that is just the way he works. Another newsflash is that despite a lot of talk Bush isn't really a conservative nor is he religious, he just plays that role on TV.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Oct 27 2005, 05:36 PM)
QUOTE(deerjerkydave @ Oct 27 2005, 06:46 PM)
Miers lacked the support of the conservative base and thus the votes in the Senate. What was telling to me is the strength of the base. The conservative base was able to veto President Bush's nominee! This should be a wake up call to liberals in Washington as to how much power they've lost to the conservatives.
Anyone who can count could tell you deerjerkydave that liberals in Washington (or more correctly, Democrats) have been on a downward spiral in power since Newt Gingrich led the GOP to power in the House of Representatives. That's not exactly a news flash.
Actually, I would argue that the spiral began when Ronald Reagan booted Jimmy Carter out of the White House and restored conservatism to its roots in limited government. Note that I'm talking about conservatives and not Republicans. With that in mind, conservatives have been working for 25+ years to get to this point where the Supreme Court can lean to the right for a change. Harriet Miers was not what conservatives have been fighting for after all these years. Hopefully President Bush will recognize this and go with someone like Janice Brown. Cube_Jockey, I hope that you are wrong, but I can see your point. President Bush is somewhat of an enigma on these matters.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.