Harriet Miers withdraws Supreme Court nomination (1 Viewer)

[cnredd]

Harriet Miers has sent a letter to the White House withdrawing her nomination to the Supreme Court.

Just heard on the TV...When articles show up, feel free to link them...

According to the forum rules, of course!...:2wave:

 

[cnredd]

Before the left declares victory...please keep this in mind...

One of the major impacts that influenced the withdraw was that the Conservative base believed that she wasn't Conservative ENOUGH...

If the left thought she was too Conservative...wait 'til you see the NEXT nominee...

That's why the leaders of the left didn't jump in hemming and hawing...They knew the right was going to do that...If she was confirmed, the left would've actually WON...

Remember...it has been reported that Harry Reid, Democratic Senate Minority leader endorsed her nomination...Bush tried to reach accross the aisle and went with Reid's endorsement...It was the Conservative base that stopped it, so ease up with the Bush rants...at least on THIS issue...:2wave:

Now we are PROBABLY going to see a true fight...Expect Bush to appease the Conservative base and choose a nominee more in tune with them...That will create voices of dismay from the left...

Keep in mind these points...they are still valid...

One does not have to BE a judge to be nominated...Many Supreme Court justices have been chosen without judicial experience and have turned out quite well...

Check and see what the National Bar Association has to say on the next nominee...

Check & see what the "Gang of 14" has to say...

 

[TurtleDude]

Here is perhaps the leading candidate right now

http://www.lw.com/attorney/attorneysearch_profile.asp?attno=00571

 

[kmhowe72]

It sad day. Our nation is is choas. First with the war in Iraq, and then with Katrina, now with the thing with Carl Rove. And now they cannot get ajudge replaced. Harriet Miers is whimp. Sh couldn't take the pressure. And the white House didn't want to give up secrets. What next. It's choas. It was domed from the start.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Before the left declares victory...please keep this in mind...

One of the major impacts that influenced the withdraw was that the Conservative base believed that she wasn't Conservative ENOUGH...

If the left thought she was too Conservative...wait 'til you see the NEXT nominee...

That's why the leaders of the left didn't jump in hemming and hawing...They knew the right was going to do that...If she was confirmed, the left would've actually WON...

Remember...it has been reported that Harry Reid, Democratic Senate Minority leader endorsed her nomination...Bush tried to reach accross the aisle and went with Reid's endorsement...It was the Conservative base that stopped it, so ease up with the Bush rants...at least on THIS issue...:2wave:

Now we are PROBABLY going to see a true fight...Expect Bush to appease the Conservative base and choose a nominee more in tune with them...That will create voices of dismay from the left...

Keep in mind these points...they are still valid...

One does not have to BE a judge to be nominated...Many Supreme Court justices have been chosen without judicial experience and have turned out quite well...

Check and see what the National Bar Association has to say on the next nominee...

Check & see what the "Gang of 14" has to say...

Harriet Miers left a bad taste in a lot of conservative mouths I think not because she was not conservative enough but she just didn't fit the image they believed they had been promised by a President who keeps his promises. She was his own counsel which gave the impression of cronyism. She was adored by the Left which raised considerable suspicions. And she was an unknown of disappointing stature--the warm sweater we got for Christmas when what we really wanted was a Red Ryder BB gun.

What many of us wanted was for the President and GOP to start acting like winners instead of timid sheep, take the leadership role we expected, and start acting like CONSERVATIVES that were elected to represent us. We wanted a supreme court nominee with positive conservative credentials, with proven originalist judicial temperament, and one with stature that would make the liberal left wingnuts howl with terror. We wanted a knockdown drag out fight on the Senate floor and the nuclear option implemented if necessary. We wanted them to fight for us and our ideals and values and to show that they have some backbone and that they understand they are in the majority because we wanted them to represent us.

Maybe, just maybe, we can now have all that.

 

[TurtleDude]

It sad day. Our nation is is choas. First with the war in Iraq, and then with Katrina, now with the thing with Carl Rove. And now they cannot get ajudge replaced. Harriet Miers is whimp. Sh couldn't take the pressure. And the white House didn't want to give up secrets. What next. It's choas. It was domed from the start.

a rather ignorant perception of attorney-client privilege
wimp? or a good lawyer doing what's best for her client
wimps don't end up being top partners in top lawfirms or WH counsel

 

[Quid Pro Quo]

a rather ignorant perception of attorney-client privilege
wimp? or a good lawyer doing what's best for her client
wimps don't end up being top partners in top lawfirms or WH counsel

Rather ignorant? VERY ignorant.

Kudo's to Harriet for having the....no, she doesn't have those....the boobs enough to know it was a sinking ship from the start. She was a very accomplished woman, and still that was not enough. Hopefully, the next nominee wears less makeup and has perkier....uhh...legal briefs. :lol:

 

[shuamort]

The Smoking Gun has a copy of her withdrawal letter.

She's got some bad grammar there. Tsk, tsk.

 

[TurtleDude]

The Smoking Gun has a copy of her withdrawal letter.

She's got some bad grammar there. Tsk, tsk.

cheap shot. I would suggest your grammar in the above sentence is hardly perfect. I don't think your academic or professional resume would rate very well compared to hers.

 

[cnredd]

cheap shot. I would suggest your grammar in the above sentence is hardly perfect. I don't think your academic or professional resume would rate very well compared to hers.

Or the grammatical error was put there intentionally and you didn't catch it because he didn't include a smiley or reference to sarcasm...

 

[Binary_Digit]

What many of us wanted was for the President and GOP to start acting like winners instead of timid sheep, take the leadership role we expected, and start acting like CONSERVATIVES that were elected to represent us. We wanted a supreme court nominee with positive conservative credentials, with proven originalist judicial temperament, and one with stature that would make the liberal left wingnuts howl with terror. We wanted a knockdown drag out fight on the Senate floor and the nuclear option implemented if necessary. We wanted them to fight for us and our ideals and values and to show that they have some backbone and that they understand they are in the majority because we wanted them to represent us.

Maybe, just maybe, we can now have all that.

And maybe after that, they'll replace the Constitution with the Bible. Won't you be happy then?

 

[cnredd]

For those who would like a little more detail...

Notice the condensed article and inclusion of source?...As per forum rules?...

Miers Withdraws Under Mounting Criticism
By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent
24 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Under withering attack from conservatives, President Bush ended his push to put loyalist Harriet Miers on the Supreme Court Thursday and promised a quick replacement. Democrats accused him of bowing to the "radical right wing of the Republican Party."

The White House said Miers had withdrawn her name because of a bipartisan effort in Congress to gain access to internal documents related to her role as counsel to the president. But politics played a larger role: Bush's conservative backers had doubts about her ideological purity, and Democrats had little incentive to help the nominee or the embattled GOP president.

http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2005/10/27/251227.html

 

[TurtleDude]

And maybe after that, they'll replace the Constitution with the Bible. Won't you be happy then?

do the moonbats actually believe the chicken little nonsense they spew? does these lame scare tactics mean that the moonbats really don't have a principaled argument against Bush nominees?

 

[shuamort]

cheap shot. I would suggest your grammar in the above sentence is hardly perfect.

It was a joke. Of course, my grammar was perfect in that post.

I don't think your academic or professional resume would rate very well compared to hers.

Yes, part and parcel of that would be that I'm not 60 years old either. Then again, I'm not being nominated for that position so my curriculum vitae isn't relevant in this ad hominem either.

 

[AlbqOwl]

And maybe after that, they'll replace the Constitution with the Bible. Won't you be happy then?

I don't believe I mentioned the Bible in this discussion. Is it important to you that they replace the Constitution with the Bible? Why?

 

[danarhea]

Good. She was not qualified in the first place, has no judicial experience whatsoever, and even flunked the questionaire given to her by the Judiciary Committee. She was a bad choice. Lets see if Bush can make a better one this time. The prevailing concensus is that Bush nominated Miers not from a position of strength, but from a position of weakness. Now Bush has a chance to show whether that is true or not. His next choice will either start the war in congress that many expect, or will show that he indeed is weak.

 

[Binary_Digit]

I don't believe I mentioned the Bible in this discussion. Is it important to you that they replace the Constitution with the Bible? Why?

Sorry, you were talking about wanting them to have a knock-down, drag-out fight for conservative values and ideals. I mainly wanted to point out the slippery slope, that blindly following leaders just for their ideology might eventually lead to them making a decision that you actually disagree with, but by then it's too late because you've given them too much power already.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Sorry, you were talking about wanting them to have a knock-down, drag-out fight for conservative values and ideals. I mainly wanted to point out the slippery slope, that blindly following leaders just for their ideology might eventually lead to them making a decision that you actually disagree with, but by then it's too late because you've given them too much power already.

I don't recall mentioning blindly following leaders just for their ideology either. I do recall inferring that conservatives elect representatives to represent us and our values. There is a huge difference between that and 'blindly following leaders'.

 

[cnredd]

I don't recall mentioning blindly following leaders just for their ideology either. I do recall inferring that conservatives elect representatives to represent us and our values. There is a huge difference between that and 'blindly following leaders'.

I think he was just "blindly" accepting the perception that all Conservatives are Bible-thumpers and attempting to use it publicly as a cheap-shot...

Now that that has been proven wrong, I'm SURE he would think twice before making such ill-informed generalizations again...

 

[getinvolved]

I have often thought, it would just be a matter of time since all of this began, until Ms. Miers withdrew. First, of all, I did not think that she was as qualified a candidate as Bush could have chosen. I did love the fact that the conservatives were so angry about this nomination. I think perhaps the next nominee could be Pope Benedict XVI as to calm conservative's nerves...

I'm very intersted to see who Bush nominates, and the knock-down-drag-out that will ensue afterwards in Congress. Go gett'em boys.

 

[TurtleDude]

Good. She was not qualified in the first place, has no judicial experience whatsoever, and even flunked the questionaire given to her by the Judiciary Committee. She was a bad choice. Lets see if Bush can make a better one this time. The prevailing concensus is that Bush nominated Miers not from a position of strength, but from a position of weakness. Now Bush has a chance to show whether that is true or not. His next choice will either start the war in congress that many expect, or will show that he indeed is weak.

for those who don't understand or practice appellate law, judicial experience has very little relevance for a supreme court justice. Unlike trial courts, where a judge is on his own and must make instant rulings on objections or proffers of evidence, supreme court justices consider matters for days with the help of brilliant law clerks and by the time an oral argument is scheduled the case will have been discussed and analyzed.

some of the very best justices in history had Zero judicial experience including Hugo Black "whizzer" White, as well as chief justices like Rehnquist, Warren, Jackson and Marshall

that being said, I believe the USSC should be reserved for those who are the best of the best-top graduates from the very best schools who have a distinquished career including appellate advocates, constitutional law professors or high level appellate judges. Miers didn't fulfill any of those criteria.

there is a woman being discussed now-I linked her resume in earlier posts who has no judicial experience but being a top drawer supreme court litigator is perhaps even more compelling than being an appellate judge

 

[Pacridge]

Before the left declares victory...please keep this in mind...

One of the major impacts that influenced the withdraw was that the Conservative base believed that she wasn't Conservative ENOUGH...

If the left thought she was too Conservative...wait 'til you see the NEXT nominee...

That's why the leaders of the left didn't jump in hemming and hawing...They knew the right was going to do that...If she was confirmed, the left would've actually WON...

Remember...it has been reported that Harry Reid, Democratic Senate Minority leader endorsed her nomination...Bush tried to reach accross the aisle and went with Reid's endorsement...It was the Conservative base that stopped it, so ease up with the Bush rants...at least on THIS issue...:2wave:

Now we are PROBABLY going to see a true fight...Expect Bush to appease the Conservative base and choose a nominee more in tune with them...That will create voices of dismay from the left...

Keep in mind these points...they are still valid...

One does not have to BE a judge to be nominated...Many Supreme Court justices have been chosen without judicial experience and have turned out quite well...

Check and see what the National Bar Association has to say on the next nominee...

Check & see what the "Gang of 14" has to say...

Left claim victory? How exactly would it be a victory for the left? I'd see this as a victory for the right wing rather then the left.

 

[cnredd]

Left claim victory? How exactly would it be a victory for the left? I'd see this as a victory for the right wing rather then the left.

Read the first sentence again...

Before the left declares victory...please keep this in mind...

That is what I'm saying...Her withdraw is NOT a victory for the left...

Try THIS sentence from the post...

If she was confirmed, the left would've actually WON

Now that that she withdrew, it seems the RIGHT won...

We're in agreement...:2wave:

 

[Binary_Digit]

I think he was just "blindly" accepting the perception that all Conservatives are Bible-thumpers and attempting to use it publicly as a cheap-shot...

Now that that has been proven wrong, I'm SURE he would think twice before making such ill-informed generalizations again...

Er, no. I said it might eventually lead to them making a decision that you actually disagree with. That hypothetical decision is replacing the Constitution with the Bible. I assumed AlbqOwl would find that decision unacceptable, so I used it to illustrate a slippery slope.

I don't recall mentioning blindly following leaders just for their ideology either. I do recall inferring that conservatives elect representatives to represent us and our values. There is a huge difference between that and 'blindly following leaders'.

Maybe I shouldn't have said "blindly", but when someone says they want their leaders to fight for conservative/liberal values, I get the impression they are strictly conservative/liberal. Personally, I agree with conservatives on gun control and the economy for the most part, but I have a hard time making the same conclusions on several social issues without using the Bible. Especially on homosexuals. But maybe it's just me.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I think he was just "blindly" accepting the perception that all Conservatives are Bible-thumpers and attempting to use it publicly as a cheap-shot...

Now that that has been proven wrong, I'm SURE he would think twice before making such ill-informed generalizations again...

I honestly don't think that was in his mind. I think he genuinely believed Harriet was a good choice for the Supreme Court, and she very well may have been. I think he had great respect and admiration for her. Where he erred was in assuming that we would see her in the same light and failing to recognize how important the SCOTUS nominations were to those of us appalled at the assault on our rights and values at the hand of liberal judges.
He didn't understand that we didn't want 'safe'. We wanted an absolute, definitive statement made by his nomiantions--a statement that this is a new era, a brave new world; a statement that we're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore.

Of course I don't know the President's mind any more than anybody else does, so this is all speculation. But I'd lay down a pretty good bet that I'm right about it.