Miers is OUT

According to Sen. Schumer, Miers now lacks enough votes from either side of the aisle to be confirmed.


Speaking personally, I think she's probably a nice person. As is George Bush. She's into math. She's a really bad actress (witness the christmas thing people put on the website..) and she's a good runner.

But this is a classic case of the jack of all trades being the master of none. She is so opposed to womens rights, has so little qualifications (president of the bar association is , for example, only a bureaucratically appointed task and not an executive job..)

That even if everyone thinks shes neato, enough on either side of the aisle thinks she's not to be able to stop her nomination. Unlike Roberts, which was a lock from Day one despite what bowers said - this one can be stopped.  She has lower approval than Robert Bork..

Tags: (all tags)



I wouldn't hold my breath
give the White House a week or two to whip the Republican Senate caucus in line.
by johnny longtorso 2005-10-23 11:36AM | 0 recs
Re: I wouldn't hold my breath
Oct. 28th is the deadline for prosecutor fitzgerald. Miers statement that bush is the ultimate president will come back to haunt her.. I don't think the white house and Karl Rove will be hurting anyone anytime soon. The caucus you're referring to is not a conservative caucus, its an evangelical liberal caucus.

Go read Robert A. Bork's letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal. That is the mood amongst conservatives. The caucus will succeed only insofar as the members of the GOP willing to risk their status as a conservative stand next to the free spending Bush administration , the lowest approval rating of a president in over 50 years. Worst than Herbert Hoover.

And to think we have Karl Rove, Miers close personal friend, to thank for all the damage done to the contract with america...

I am not too worried about it..

by turnerbroadcasting 2005-10-23 12:17PM | 0 recs
its a contract ON America...
..but (hopefully) we FIGHT BACK..
by ultraworld 2005-10-23 08:36PM | 0 recs
Re: I wouldn't hold my breath
Noticed "She's into math" in your diary. Like math, eh? :)
by NeoLiberal 2005-10-23 09:18PM | 0 recs
Re: I wouldn't hold my breath

My technique to find a nominee would've been to launch a website that said .. find the "first 10 digit prime in consecutive digits of e"  :-)

then the website that was numbered at that location would've taken them to the original writings of jefferson at which point they'd have had to have posted their resume and an essay the writings of Jefferson.

So you post this where federal judges hang out, and you're golden. Think it would've worked?

I guess I'm living proof  a critic knows the number for everything but the value of nothing..

by turnerbroadcasting 2005-10-24 03:22AM | 0 recs
Hm Sen. Specter (R-PA)
Will he stand up and protect Roe. Or will he chicken out and stick with Crazy ass Religous Republicans.
by Liberal 2005-10-23 01:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Hm Sen. Specter (R-PA)
One of the most salient observations anyone ever made, was in fact made by a former supreme court candidate in a letter to the editor recently in the Wall Street Journal.

He stated, that a judicial philosophy cannot be created on the judgement of one case - or one item.

Miers was a chance to reform the court, to build a decent and focussed set of rules and guidelines for support of the constitution and its framework - the very foundation of America.

The bar association position was a delegated, bureaucratic position that held no real responsibility. Also, being the head of the Lottery didn't prepare her very well.

I would take exception to Reid's statement that arguing as a lawyer helps her to balance the perspective on the court. Lawyers come in all kinds - and this lawyer, in particular, specialized in losing important documents and supporting frankly illegal activities.  Ex. case in point, was when she went to bat for Cheney , to claim he wasn't a resident of Texas even though he lived there... had a drivers license... so that they could do this thing with the 12th amendment. Lawyers are paid, professional liars.

A judge, on the other hand, has to have some balance, some perspective on the law that goes deeper than the mere insight that a clients cash will line his pocket if he argues one side effectively.

Even then, in fact, a lawyer would be good if that were the case - that she would be , in essence, able to support a wide variety of positions and argue them incisively.

There is no evidence anywhere that her written opinions are well written, or argued incisively. Her sole claim to fame is that she has always taken George W. Bush's side in everything.

Bottom Line: If you're voting this on RVW , constitutional travesty it might be - or great leap forward, however you want to look at it - then you've missed the point. For her entire life she will be interpreting and defending the very document that was the creation of, and legal sustenance for , all of America. She must be qualified in every respect.

Former Attorney General Rhenquist was eloquent,
decisive. He held a real position and had to argue cases effectively and incisively. He had written skills, and a philosophy of law that was well documented.  In essence, nobody is saying you absolutely have to be a judge, but you have to be qualified.

by turnerbroadcasting 2005-10-23 04:14PM | 0 recs
OMG hasn't this gotten ugly...
dubya's days are done.

Can you imagine the 9-11 Bush having these problems?

You may enjoy: The Twelve Days of Miers: An inappropriately early holiday motif song parody/commentary.

by The Muse 2005-10-23 02:33PM | 0 recs
Most of the republican noise is fake
Because most of the republicans, are also fake.

Reagan republicans stacked the precinct meetings five deep and 10 wide and made so much noise that these evangelicals have been there all along. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Reagan was all that bad.

but I am saying that if you've spent more money than in the history of the United States, and can't keep your hands off mucking around with making bigger and bigger bureaucracies - or if you can't vote down a bill that gives big federal payouts to corporations - then... - you're NOT a conservative.

by turnerbroadcasting 2005-10-23 04:18PM | 0 recs
Here's the paradox
Place a completely unqualified nominee on the Supreme Court or prepare for a real bear such as Brown or Luttig.

Unforutnately, I don't have a good answer this evening as I view both choices as being detrimental to our current form of government, the basic fabric of constitutional law and even our nation itself.

I am, however, willing to wager that BushCo will go to the cloth with this nominee, prevail in a Texas cage match to the death and permanently fracture the coalition between the Wall Street Repugs and evangelical Christians in the process. This is an extremely good development. Furthermore, I believe the entire confirmation process will alienate a significant number of "election day Americans." By that, I mean those commonly misconstued as being supposed "moderates." Somewhat unfortunately, this is both necessary and of equal positive value.

As much as I hate to admit it, one more bad apple won't spoil the barrel. Miers will likely take on a form of her own within the Court once appointed and life will go on. Democrats should remain guarded in their support but should nevertheless do what they can to make sure Miers is confirmed to the Court.

I'm going to recommend this diary because of my words on the subject as opposed to those of the diarist.    

by Seldom Seen Smith 2005-10-23 08:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Here's the paradox
Its not just a conflict between wall street conservatives and the evangelical liberal gop that so readily identifies with the group here -

The people themselves are going to enter into this discussion at some point, instead of special interest groups..

This is our constitution,  please try to remember that whatever you are doing to it whether it means pitting one faction of a party or another against themselves, or not - the final game is that those who take the court really do have at one point or another a chance to define things for your children and re-invent america.

So if you're happy to let partisan politics tinker with the machine - esp. in light of the fact that now two judges can be subpoena'd that show the Bush administration promising that Miers will overturn RVW in a conference call.. well lets put it this way... you're going to be happy with Newt Gingrich for president, he digs all this really partisan BS.


by turnerbroadcasting 2005-10-24 03:27AM | 0 recs
Important Development on the Case
John Fund, in the Monday Oct. 17th Ed. of the Wall Street Journal reported a conference call with religious conservatives October 3, the day the Miers nomination was announced, that indicated a lack of White House control over the process.

Fund wrote that Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht and U.S. District Judge Ed Kinkeade, on the conference call, flatly predicted that their friend Miers would rule against Roe v. Wade.


Seldom Seen Smith seems to be seldom understanding the implication

by turnerbroadcasting 2005-10-24 03:33AM | 0 recs
Bill Press
Last Week Bill Press was saying that the Bush staff was running around the Capital telling senators that they had to vote for Miers because it would destroy what is left of the Bush administration if hir nomination crashed and burned.

So Bush is now depending entirely on loyalty to get through congressional process.

And it looks like they are admitting among themseves to having hit bottom.

by aahpat 2005-10-24 05:25AM | 0 recs
So tell me again
What a GENIUS Harry Reid is to have kissed her butt?
by Parker 2005-10-24 09:12AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads