Harriet Miers withdraws Supreme Court nomination

[Deegan]

FYI - Frist called Bush and said he didn't have the votes - endgame.

Did Dean tell you this at dinner, or do you have a link?

 

[hipsterdufus]

Did Dean tell you this at dinner, or do you have a link?

Sure, I should have included it in the post.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usmiersq1028,0,4635024.story?coll=ny-top-headlines

 

[ALiberalModerate]

The biggest problem Harriet Miers had was she was not a big enough of a nut job for the radical right. Even Ann Coulter herself stated that the last thing they wanted was a jurist who would apply common sense to their rulings. There is no doubt that President Bush could have found someone more intellectually qualified than Miers, but lets not kid ourselves here, Harriet Miers mediocre intellectual qualifications are not why the radical right did not support her. After all, they had no problem with Clarence Thomas and no legal scholar in the nation would argue that he is the sharpest stick on court. The fact is, the radical and socially conservative right wants nothing less than a total nut job to replace O’Connor. O’Connor was a non-ideological slightly right of center moderate who probably represented the views of the vast majority of Americans. That is not the kind of jurist the radical right wants. They want someone to legislate from the far right from the bench. For all of their talk of judicial activism, the fact is, the fact is the biggest judicial activist on the court right now is Scalia and they see him as the model jurist.

The Republicans have a majority in both Houses of Congress and they have the Whitehouse. Yet, they have passed no bills to allow school sanctioned prayer in public schools, ban same sex marriage, eradicate federal wild land protections, or to severely restrict abortions. The fact is, they never will because they know that they would never get it past the public. So they want an activist judge to do it for them and they were worried that since Miers had not spent her entire adult life kneeling at the alter of extreme right wing activism and fundamentalism that she might not turn out to be the activist that they want.

 

[Deegan]

Sure, I should have included it in the post.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usmiersq1028,0,4635024.story?coll=ny-top-headlines

"But several sources close to the White House said the decision to withdraw came after Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) informed senior officials Wednesday that Miers did not have enough votes to be confirmed."

LOL, what is that you are always saying....oh, that's right......

A very coulteresque response. No facts, all BS. Typical :spin: :lol:

 

[cnredd]

The biggest problem Harriet Miers had was she was not a big enough of a nut job for the radical right. Even Ann Coulter herself stated that the last thing they wanted was a jurist who would apply common sense to their rulings. There is no doubt that President Bush could have found someone more intellectually qualified than Miers, but lets not kid ourselves here, Harriet Miers mediocre intellectual qualifications are not why the radical right did not support her. After all, they had no problem with Clarence Thomas and no legal scholar in the nation would argue that he is the sharpest stick on court. The fact is, the radical and socially conservative right wants nothing less than a total nut job to replace O’Connor. O’Connor was a non-ideological slightly right of center moderate who probably represented the views of the vast majority of Americans. That is not the kind of jurist the radical right wants. They want someone to legislate from the far right from the bench. For all of their talk of judicial activism, the fact is, the fact is the biggest judicial activist on the court right now is Scalia and they see him as the model jurist.

The Republicans have a majority in both Houses of Congress and they have the Whitehouse. Yet, they have passed no bills to allow school sanctioned prayer in public schools, ban same sex marriage, eradicate federal wild land protections, or to severely restrict abortions. The fact is, they never will because they know that they would never get it past the public. So they want an activist judge to do it for them and they were worried that since Miers had not spent her entire adult life kneeling at the alter of extreme right wing activism and fundamentalism that she might not turn out to be the activist that they want.

*paidforbyMoveOn.orgCindySheehanMichaelMooreandthe DemocraticNationalCommitteeHowardDeanChairman

 

[Deegan]

*paidforbyMoveOn.orgCindySheehanMichaelMooreandthe DemocraticNationalCommitteeHowardDeanChairman

Yes, is it not odd that they were all going to give a no vote yesterday, now they are all screaming, why not give her a chance! Do they not watch themselves on t.v at night, or read their own words in the printed press, lol!:rofl

 

[ALiberalModerate]

*paidforbyMoveOn.orgCindySheehanMichaelMooreandthe DemocraticNationalCommitteeHowardDeanChairman

Well that is pretty funny. However, I doubt anyone could really argue with my point. I think the President got elected twice and should be able to appoint who ever he sees fit. I have no problem with Roberts and had no problem with Miers either. In fact, I think any Dem or moderate Republican that did not support Roberts of Miers is pretty ignorant because we could have gotten a lot worse and I bet Bush's second choice will be well to the right of either of them.

 

[cnredd]

Well that is pretty funny. However, I doubt anyone could really argue with my point. I think the President got elected twice and should be able to appoint who ever he sees fit. I have no problem with Roberts and had no problem with Miers either. In fact, I think any Dem or moderate Republican that did not support Roberts of Miers is pretty ignorant because we could have gotten a lot worse and I bet Bush's second choice will be well to the right of either of them.

Now THAT is an intellectual post...

Compare it to comments in your last post...

The biggest problem Harriet Miers had was she was not a big enough of a nut job for the radical right...

The fact is, the radical and socially conservative right wants nothing less than a total nut job to replace O’Connor...

So they want an activist judge to do it for them and they were worried that since Miers had not spent her entire adult life kneeling at the alter of extreme right wing activism and fundamentalism that she might not turn out to be the activist that they want.

Partisan rhetoric...Stu Ghatze's mirror image...

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Now THAT is an intellectual post...

Compare it to comments in your last post...

The biggest problem Harriet Miers had was she was not a big enough of a nut job for the radical right...

The fact is, the radical and socially conservative right wants nothing less than a total nut job to replace O’Connor...

So they want an activist judge to do it for them and they were worried that since Miers had not spent her entire adult life kneeling at the alter of extreme right wing activism and fundamentalism that she might not turn out to be the activist that they want.

Partisan rhetoric...Stu Ghatze's mirror image...

No, there is a difference, I don't think that nearly all Republicans are looking for a nut job on the court. Its more that I am being smart ass-ed than anything else.

 

[KidRocks]

Humiliated Bush forced to retreat as moral right turns its guns on him

And that is about the gist of the story folks, can't put it any other way, sorry.

Looks like the Bush administration is crashing in flames right about now with what may occure in the coming weeks namely an indictment against at least one top aide if not two.

With friends like DeLay and Rove who needs enemies?


http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1602653,00.html

George Bush said one of the reasons he picked Harriet Miers for the supreme court was that he knew her so well. It says a lot about the president's current standing that the endorsement not only failed to save her: it may have helped sink her.

The withdrawal of a nominee before formal confirmation hearings have even begun is embarrassing enough. Dropping her after repeated personal endorsements, in the face of rancorous opposition from the president's own party, is an unprecedented humiliation.

[Moderator mode]

Cropped full article...as per forum rules...

8. Copyrighted Material - All material posted from copyrighted material MUST contain a link to the original work. Please do not post entire articles. Proper format is to paraphrase the contents of an article and/or post relevant excerpts and then link to the rest. Best bet is to always reference the original source.Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107 http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html

[/Moderator mode]

 

[hipsterdufus]

"But several sources close to the White House said the decision to withdraw came after Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) informed senior officials Wednesday that Miers did not have enough votes to be confirmed."

LOL, what is that you are always saying....oh, that's right......

A very coulteresque response. No facts, all BS. Typical :spin: :lol:

Ah, some common ground! I'm glad you agree that Ann Coulter is full of it. And I also concede the point that you can't trust anything that comes out of Bill Frist's mouth.

I stand corrected.

 

[Deegan]

Ah, some common ground! I'm glad you agree that Ann Coulter is full of it. And I also concede the point that you can't trust anything that comes out of Bill Frist's mouth.

I stand corrected.

True, I don't trust Ann, and I don't trust Bill, but not because they are Republicans, or people of faith.......now, can you say the same?

 

[cnredd]

[Moderator Mode]

Merged the thread "Humiliated Bush forced to retreat as moral right turns its guns on him" into this one...same topic...

Also cropped the post...the whole article was posted...

[/Moderator Mode]

 

[Russell Hammond]

Well that is pretty funny. However, I doubt anyone could really argue with my point. I think the President got elected twice and should be able to appoint who ever he sees fit. I have no problem with Roberts and had no problem with Miers either. In fact, I think any Dem or moderate Republican that did not support Roberts of Miers is pretty ignorant because we could have gotten a lot worse and I bet Bush's second choice will be well to the right of either of them.

Some of us think that good jurisprudence trumps ideology. We have no idea how Miers would vote on the Court, and chances are she would have simply been an empty seat that voted along with a particular Justice on the Court (perhaps Scalia or Roberts or even Kennedy). There is no evidence in her entire career of serious thought about Constitutional law. She could have been terrible, and there's absolutely no legitimate evidence that she would have been a moderate.

And so what if conservatives didn't like her because she was an unknown or not qualified. That doesn't make her good for liberals or moderates.

 

[TurtleDude]

Some of us think that good jurisprudence trumps ideology. We have no idea how Miers would vote on the Court, and chances are she would have simply been an empty seat that voted along with a particular Justice on the Court (perhaps Scalia or Roberts or even Kennedy). There is no evidence in her entire career of serious thought about Constitutional law. She could have been terrible, and there's absolutely no legitimate evidence that she would have been a moderate.

And so what if conservatives didn't like her because she was an unknown or not qualified. That doesn't make her good for liberals or moderates.

good call on that. I didn't want her not because she wasn't a judge (some of the best justices weren't and as YOU know, supreme court review isn't anything like a trial court) Did you see who I am thinking might be the next

"roberts in a skirt"-Maureen Mahoney

Number 1 at Chicago, one of the very top supreme court advocates in the country-argued the (I guess this was the liberal side) Michigan affirmative action case-considered a flawless argument

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

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Some of us think that good jurisprudence trumps ideology. We have no idea how Miers would vote on the Court, and chances are she would have simply been an empty seat that voted along with a particular Justice on the Court (perhaps Scalia or Roberts or even Kennedy). There is no evidence in her entire career of serious thought about Constitutional law. She could have been terrible, and there's absolutely no legitimate evidence that she would have been a moderate.

And so what if conservatives didn't like her because she was an unknown or not qualified. That doesn't make her good for liberals or moderates.

Then why did they like Thomas so much then? His career was even less remarkable then Miers. What far right conservatives and social conservatives want is a committed Judicial right wing activist. They did not know whether Miers would be or not so they did not support her.

 

[Navy Pride]

I am sorry to see HM quit but maybe now President Bush will nominate someone like Priscilla Owen or Janis Rogers Brown and then the real fun will begin.............

 

[Kandahar]

I am sorry to see HM quit but maybe now President Bush will nominate someone like Priscilla Owen or Janis Rogers Brown and then the real fun will begin.............

Why exactly are you sorry to see her quit? You don't think that this nation can do any better than a SCOTUS nominee who has no experience, who has no judicial philosophy, who would have a conflict of interest every time the Bush Administration appeared before the SCOTUS, and is unwilling to discuss any of this in hearings? If she just had one of the above problems, I might be able to look past it, but all of them combined indicate a solid reason to oppose her appointment to the SCOTUS. There are tens of thousands of people in this country more qualified for this position than Harriet Miers.

 

[JOHNYJ]

Chalk one up to the Right wing they have forced President Bush to give in.
An unintended consequence,Justice O'Conner will stay on the bench and be able to vote on cases, up through december. If the senate keeps to its usual slow ways she maybe on the court in January.

 

[TurtleDude]

Then why did they like Thomas so much then? His career was even less remarkable then Miers. What far right conservatives and social conservatives want is a committed Judicial right wing activist. They did not know whether Miers would be or not so they did not support her.

Do you know why THomas is on the Supreme Court? Because the majority party in the senate then (The DEMOCRATS) had blocked Bork and told WH Counsel attorneys Lee Lieberman (Otis) and Peter Keisler (These two were charged with vetting nominees for BUsh I-they were part of the team that founded the Federalist Society BTW-both brilliant legal scholars) that THE DEMS WOULD ONLY CONFIRM A BLACK to replace Marshall

 

[TimmyBoy]

Do you know why THomas is on the Supreme Court? Because the majority party in the senate then (The DEMOCRATS) had blocked Bork and told WH Counsel attorneys Lee Lieberman (Otis) and Peter Keisler (These two were charged with vetting nominees for BUsh I-they were part of the team that founded the Federalist Society BTW-both brilliant legal scholars) that THE DEMS WOULD ONLY CONFIRM A BLACK to replace Marshall

Helps the dems keep their black voters.

 

[Navy Pride]

Why exactly are you sorry to see her quit? You don't think that this nation can do any better than a SCOTUS nominee who has no experience, who has no judicial philosophy, who would have a conflict of interest every time the Bush Administration appeared before the SCOTUS, and is unwilling to discuss any of this in hearings? If she just had one of the above problems, I might be able to look past it, but all of them combined indicate a solid reason to oppose her appointment to the SCOTUS. There are tens of thousands of people in this country more qualified for this position than Harriet Miers.

Because I was confident that she would make a good justice who would interpret law and not make it...........That said I am now very excited about the possiblility of a true Conservative like Janis Rogers Brown or Patrica Owens nominated and I dare the democrats in the Senate to try and filibuster either.......

 

[Kandahar]

Because I was confident that she would make a good justice who would interpret law and not make it.

Why in the world would you be confident of that? Is this anything more than an act of blind faith in the decisions of your perfect president? She has no experience being a judge, and (unlike most other SCOTUS appointees) she doesn't have any other impressive credentials to make up for that. She hasn't studied constitutional law since college and reportedly couldn't answer even basic questions that senators asked her. From the few statements she's made about judicial activism she sounds like she'd be one of its proponents. Furthermore, the Bush Administration would most likely be appearing before the SCOTUS on a regular basis and she'd have a conflict of interest every time because he is her former employer.

 

[hipsterdufus]

True, I don't trust Ann, and I don't trust Bill, but not because they are Republicans, or people of faith.......now, can you say the same?

Yes, I don't trust Frist and I don't trust Coulter.

 

[Navy Pride]

Why in the world would you be confident of that? Is this anything more than an act of blind faith in the decisions of your perfect president? She has no experience being a judge, and (unlike most other SCOTUS appointees) she doesn't have any other impressive credentials to make up for that. She hasn't studied constitutional law since college and reportedly couldn't answer even basic questions that senators asked her. From the few statements she's made about judicial activism she sounds like she'd be one of its proponents. Furthermore, the Bush Administration would most likely be appearing before the SCOTUS on a regular basis and she'd have a conflict of interest every time because he is her former employer.

First of all your statement about having no experience as a judge means nothing......It is not a requirement to be a judge to serve on the SCOTUS and just a few years ago Earl Warren was apponted with no judicial experience and their have been many others.............

I would not expect a person of your political leanings to approve of anyone President Bush nominates, but let me remind you by being re elected in 2004 this president has the right to nominate anyone he sees fit............Clinton did it with a left winger by the name of Ginsberg....

What is good for the goose is good for the gander........