American Spectator blog: filibuster Miers?

[tristano's ghost]

I love it!

Conservatives talk of filibustering Miers

Nothing like watching our little homegrown fascist party eat its own as a result of the king's incompetence. I wonder if the GOP wingnuts will be able to pressure 40 Senators into filibustering W.'s pick... boy, that'll be almost as good as the baseball playoffs.

[crawjo]

Something about this conservative attack, the way it has been so instantaneous and almost coordinated, makes me suspicious.

[tristano's ghost]

A conservative at RedState.org has an idea:

What we have to hope for is that a coalition of Republicans and Democrats go after and defeat Meiers. The argument that they could make is that, in the wake of the Michael Brown problem, this is another example of cronyism by the President.

Yes, GOP boys & girls, that would be a great argument to make... good luck with it!

[tristano's ghost]

Originally Posted by crawjo

Something about this conservative attack, the way it has been so instantaneous and almost coordinated, makes me suspicious.

It's true that Miers is a corporate wingnut and that she gave to Texans for Life in '88 (and Gore, I believe, to whom she--gasp!--gave money in '88, was ostensibly anti-choice when he ran for the Dem nomination that year). So the GOP militants would be fools to try to vote her down... she's going to give them most of what they want. Nearly all, I'd wager (she's a bit dubious for the conservatives, evidently, when it comes to gay rights, but then so was Roberts). However, I think W. & crew are a bit off their game right now... this is more about putting a loyalist on the court. Some have suggested that he may even be looking down the line at possible indictments arising from the Plame case. Who knows? The future wellbeing of the country is the last thing on this guy's mind.

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by crawjo

Something about this conservative attack, the way it has been so instantaneous and almost coordinated, makes me suspicious.

If you think that Bush put Miers up to be a sacrificial lamb and is encouraging conservatives to defeat her, I don't think so.

Bush will be crushed if she's defeated by a bipartisan coalition. I"m not making any predictions about the outcome but I"m sure he wants her confirmed.

Bush must have a tin ear to nominate Miers on the heels of the Michael Brown disaster.

There's been a lot of talk about her contribution to the 1988 Gore campaign. What people forget is that Gore in 1988 was a lot like Lieberman today. He ran to the right of Dukakis as a pro-defense, fiscally moderate Democrat. Gore also called Dukakis soft on crime for vetoing a change in the prison furlough program that would make convicted murderers ineligible for furloughs, i.e. Willie Horton.

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by tristano's ghost

I love it!

Conservatives talk of filibustering Miers

Nothing like watching our little homegrown fascist party eat its own as a result of the king's incompetence. I wonder if the GOP wingnuts will be able to pressure 40 Senators into filibustering W.'s pick... boy, that'll be almost as good as the baseball playoffs.

You come like a wingnut, yourself or worse, when you call the Republican party "our little homegrown fascist party."

[crawjo]

What I don't understand is why the GOP base has been so quick to pounce on this, after all the other fuck-ups that have happened over the past couple years. The ink hadn't even dried on this nomination before the National Review-types were foaming at the mouth. Maybe it's just me, but I would think that Rove and company would have put out feelers on this nomination ahead of time, to get a sense of the reception and the likelihood of appointment. It's not unusual for Bush to make a decision that is instantly greeted with jeers, but it is unusual for him to make a decision that is instantly greeted with jeers from his own base. I find myself wondering how Bush is ever going to dig himself out of this hole over the 39 months (!) he still has left in his second term.

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by crawjo

What I don't understand is why the GOP base has been so quick to pounce on this, after all the other fuck-ups that have happened over the past couple years. The ink hadn't even dried on this nomination before the National Review-types were foaming at the mouth. Maybe it's just me, but I would think that Rove and company would have put out feelers on this nomination ahead of time, to get a sense of the reception and the likelihood of appointment. It's not unusual for Bush to make a decision that is instantly greeted with jeers, but it is unusual for him to make a decision that is instantly greeted with jeers from his own base. I find myself wondering how Bush is ever going to dig himself out of this hole over the 39 months (!) he still has left in his second term.

So you agree with me now; he's past the tipping point
The Roberts choice was brilliant. Bush got a lot of credit when he needed something to go right for him. It's simply inbelieveable for me that he would piss it all away by selecting Miers. If Karl Rove encouraged this pick, then Rove's genius is overrated. It's also quite possible that Bush didn't listen to his political advisors when he made the selection. Harry Reid, perhaps not as incompetent as he seems, said nice things about Miers in a discussion with Bush.

[Slurpy]

Originally Posted by Gordon B

It's also quite possible that Bush didn't listen to his political advisors when he made the selection.

That would be a first.

My heart was warmed this am when I saw Cal Thomas questioning this pick. That can't be a bad thing.

My .02, I think Miers will be confirmed and she'll be more moderate than many expect.

[Dr Dave]

I think there is a certain amount of over-analysis going on here. When has George W. Bush ever done anything but the expedient? "Who should I nominate to the Court? Hey, how about ol' Harriet? Yeah, she'll do." I doubt whether much more thought than that went into it, although I am sorely tempted to jump on the Install-Miers-As-Insurance-Against-Future-Indictment bandwagon.

[lynn]

I think there is a strong possibility she will be confirmed also. Of course the jury is out as to whether she will make a significant impact one way or another.


"although I am sorely tempted to jump on the Install-Miers-As-Insurance-Against-Future-Indictment bandwagon."

Same thought crossed my mind. If Bush thinks about anything it's how to cover his own ass. Since she is also connected to Rove, you can double the odds.

[clinthopson]

Let's stand back and watch the Repubs self destruct.

Unfortunately the Dems haven't done much better.

[rollhead]

Originally Posted by Gordon B

You come like a wingnut, yourself or worse, when you call the Republican party "our little homegrown fascist party."

The Republican Party today -- as it is controlled by radical right wingers -- may not be a fascist party, but they are definitely "our little homegrown Plutocracy party."

They pretty much hit that nail on the head, as a plutocracy is a form of government where all the state's decisions are centralized in an affluent wealthy class of citizenry, and the degree of economic inequality is high while the level of social mobility is low.

Hendrik Hertzberg wrote a few months ago in the New Yorker that the United States was growing less like Europe and more like Latin America.

I agree.

The current Republican plutocracy does show some signs of fascism/totalitarianism/authoritarianism through its state-sponsored propoganda, its "you are either for us against us" mentality, the Patriot Act, and its attack on the labor movement.

Although, I think that the Republican "plutocracy" has much in common with a totalitarian regime in the sense that it radically wants to change this country -- dramatically shifting power away from the electorate and the middle class to the richest in the society.

In fact, right now the way the government operates, the Executive Branch and Congress focus nearly exclusively on defending the interests of major global corporations -- which are "American" in name only -- rather than the average American.

[rollhead]

Originally Posted by Dr Dave

I think there is a certain amount of over-analysis going on here. When has George W. Bush ever done anything but the expedient? "Who should I nominate to the Court? Hey, how about ol' Harriet? Yeah, she'll do." I doubt whether much more thought than that went into it, although I am sorely tempted to jump on the Install-Miers-As-Insurance-Against-Future-Indictment bandwagon.

Wasn't it Karl Rove, Bush's top advisor, who planted a bug in his own office to discredit Mark White?


"The 1986 governor's race was a prime example. The contest between Rove's Republican client, Bill Clements, and the Democratic incumbent, Mark White, was neck and neck, when Rove announced he had found an electronic listening device in his office, and cried foul. The furore swung the election to Clements and to this day Texan Democrats are convinced Rove concocted the whole episode."

[sonic1]

Originally Posted by crawjo

Something about this conservative attack, the way it has been so instantaneous and almost coordinated, makes me suspicious.

Me too!!

[tristano's ghost]

Originally Posted by Gordon B

You come like a wingnut, yourself or worse, when you call the Republican party "our little homegrown fascist party."

Me? Nah, I'm just a sensible left-center Wes Clark Democrat. And I'm hoping that folks like you--sensible conservative-types--get a grip on your party and turn back the American Taliban who've taken it over. I'm not overly optimistic, though.

Another key component of fascism is turning the government into an arm of corporate power. Do you seriously think or suggest that that is not what is precisely occuring under the reign of Bush and his ilk?

[Rob C]

Originally Posted by Gordon B

You come like a wingnut, yourself or worse, when you call the Republican party "our little homegrown fascist party."

With only two major political parties that are roughly evenly divided across the entire American voting populace, it would be unfair to say that the party per se is "fascist". However, it might be fair to say that (a) there are a consequential number of Americans with fascist or quasi-fascist leanings, and that (b) most of them align themselves with the Republican party.

As for Miers, I think Gordon called it right when he said Bush has a tin ear. I think that's really the bottom line, and would guess this is nothing more than an example of what he would call "loyalty" and others (like me) would call "cronyism".

Or, who knows, maybe she's got incriminating pictures of him or something. I certainly don't think this is some kind of Machiavellian scheme to put up a sacrificial lamb and then sneak in the "real" nominee, because, well, that would just be ridiculous.

[jesus marion joseph]

I think she's Alice Cooper's long lost sister, and if she's confirmed it means one thing, and one thing only:


SCHOOL'S OUT FOR-EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by Crawjo,seconded by Jared

Something about this conservative attack, the way it has been so instantaneous and almost coordinated, makes me suspicious.

I have to say it for the second time, this is plain absurd.

Nobody knows whether Roberts or Miers will be more 'conservative.' Columnists and bloggers, not part of your conspiracies, have been more critical than politicians.

Any person, whether he's conservative, moderate, or liberal, who said that Roberts was a great pick because he's brilliant, highly experienced, and a top notch constitutional scholar would be a total bullshitter if he didn't note that Miers failed on those counts.



TG, when you make inflammatory statements and call Republicans fascists your effect is not to convince waverers to come over to your side but quite the opposite. I would never support anybody who thought that the Italian Fascist Party and the German Nazi Party, the Afghan Taliban that ruled Afghanistan until attacked by the U.S. and the Republican party of George Bush were barely distinguishable.


I"m printing the NYT editorial, here. Read between the lines and it sounds like the NYT is very pleased by the pick.

October 4, 2005
The President's Stealth Nominee

It is a sign of the times that President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court was greeted with so many sighs of relief. Ms. Miers's record is so thin that no one seems to have any idea of what she believes, and she was clearly chosen because of her close ties to the president, not her legal qualifications. Still, there is no evidence as yet that she is an ideological warrior who would attempt to return American jurisprudence to the 18th century, and these days, the nation seems to be setting the bar for almost everything pretty low.

Ms. Miers's résumé gives at least some reason to hope that she could be a moderate, pragmatic judge in the mold of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, whose seat she will fill if she is confirmed. She has spent much of her career in corporate law firms and bar associations, environments that encourage pragmatism over ideology.

The Senate minority leader, Harry Reid, Senator Charles Schumer of New York and other Senate Democrats made it clear that an extremist nominee would face a tough confirmation battle, and they may have helped convince Mr. Bush not to nominate a judge or law professor with a long record of opposing privacy rights, civil rights and other freedoms. But choosing Ms. Miers, a member of his team who was also his own personal lawyer, is still very much in character with the president's tendency to reward familiarity and loyalty over independence and a reputation for excellence.

The American people are certainly entitled to know a lot more about Ms. Miers. As a non-judge who has largely operated behind the scenes, she does not have a lengthy record of judicial opinions, law review articles and public comments. While this page complained about the lack of information available about John Roberts, the new chief justice was a veritable font of background records compared with this new nominee.

This administration likes to argue that Ruth Bader Ginsburg declined to say much about her views when she was nominated. But she had been a federal appeals court judge for more than a decade, and her approach to judging was well known. The Senate needs to ask Ms. Miers directly where she stands on important legal issues, and it should not confirm her unless she makes clear her commitment to well-settled rights that Americans take for granted.

Ms. Miers's nomination is a sign of just how politicized judicial selection has become. The normal model for a Supreme Court nominee is a judge, usually from a federal appeals court, who has served long enough to develop and demonstrate judicial excellence. But today, anyone who meets that standard runs into a political Catch-22. The far right of the Republican Party will oppose anyone who has shown signs of moderation, and Senate Democrats will try to block anyone who has not. Rather than select a strongly qualified candidate from the legal mainstream, President Bush has taken the easy way out by choosing a less accomplished nominee who will raise fewer political problems.

Many of the best justices have taken odd routes to the court. Ms. Miers could prove to be a pragmatic, common-sense justice who ends up making this court the Miers Court, the way Justice O'Connor effectively made the last one the O'Connor Court. Before taking that risk, however, the Senate needs to get to work to learn a lot more about her.

[tristano's ghost]

Originally Posted by Gordon B

I have to say it for the second time, this is plain absurd.
TG, when you make inflammatory statements and call Republicans fascists your effect is not to convince waverers to come over to your side but quite the opposite. I would never support anybody who thought that the Italian Fascist Party and the German Nazi Party, the Afghan Taliban that ruled Afghanistan until attacked by the U.S. and the Republican party of George Bush were barely distinguishable.

I'm not asking you to vote for me. I'm asking you to help put a lid on the theocrats and yes, quasi-fascists, who have all but taken over your party....the Schiavo crusaders, the anti-evolutionists who believe that the devil planted dinosaur bones, the people who call for new sedition laws, who say that internment based on ethnicity is OK (see Michelle Malkin), who scapegoat citizens based on their sexual orientation, who start imperialistic wars based on false premises (see Iraq), who attempt to destroy organized labor, who proclaim that African-Americans are inherently criminal, and who view government primarily as a means of enriching powerful business interests. These people currently control the Republican Party.

I'm tired of sniveling DLC Republican-lite tactics to win over right-centrists. It worked only for Clinton... the ideological paradigm must be shifted back to a more sensible mid-point, as opposed to the re-enactment of the Snopes trial that we are currently living through. Given the damage that the Republicans have wrought on the economy, the government's fiscasl health, the middle-class, the environment, and the military, it may be too late. I'll tell you, if liberals and leftists were truly America-haters, they'd be secretly rooting like hell for George W. Bush. His presidency may well mark the graveyard of America as a great and powerful country.

[walto]

I think that Times piece is absolutely pathetic. It could be rewritten substituting "Bush's goldfish, Tammy" for "Miers" everywhere it occurs. It's a pretty freaking sad state, when the American people ought to be relieved that a nominee for U.S. Supreme Court Justice is no worse than a loaf of pumpernickel.

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by walto

I think that Times piece is absolutely pathetic. It could be rewritten substituting "Bush's goldfish, Tammy" for "Miers" everywhere it occurs. It's a pretty freaking sad state, when the American people ought to be relieved that a nominee for U.S. Supreme Court Justice is no worse than a loaf of pumpernickel.

I agree that it is a pathetic editorial but it signals that Miers, barring some huge mis-step will be confirmed.

Why is Harry Reid not coming under attack. By his own account, he recommended Miers to Bush. He voted against Roberts. Those who think the rottenness in the Senate starts and ends with the Republicans need to think again.

We'll probably never know for sure, but my reading of events was if Reid told Bush that Miers would be a bad choice and that he would oppose her as unqualified, Bush would have chosen somebody else. It is also doubtful that Reid would have recommended Miers without first discussing her with other Senate Democrats.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

What I find interesting is that many Republican commentators don't seem to trust Bush's judgement in this case. Especially the social conservatives. Bush says he's never discussed issues like abortion with Miers but I find that hard to believe. I'm judging Miers by the man that chose her. I believe she'll turn out to be more conservative than prominent conservative commentators are willing to give her credit for.

Concerning Harry Reid, I have a feeling he's just tweaking the Republicans. He's reading the same articles about their angst over Miers and is just stirring the pot.

[sonic1]

I think we can depend on Bush, somehow, ensuring that the courts will move away from the mainstream toward a more socially conservative agenda. I have faith that he is doing all he can to wreck the judiciary. Don't loose faith in him yet people.

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by Darryl G. Thomas

Concerning Harry Reid, I have a feeling he's just tweaking the Republicans. He's reading the same articles about their angst over Miers and is just stirring the pot.

Darryl, you've got it backwards. Reid told Bush that he liked Miers as a potential nominee BEFORE Bush chose her. There were no angst articles before the selection was made.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

Gordon,

OK. You're right. But I still think Reid's using this as an opportunity to try to fracture the conservatives. Toss this in with Bush's fiscal policies.

I don't think Bush is out to "wreck the judiciary", merely to have it conform to whatever passes for conservative beliefs these days.

[Rob C]

Originally Posted by Darryl G. Thomas

Bush says he's never discussed issues like abortion with Miers but I find that hard to believe.

Did he even really say that? In the bit of the press conference I saw, he answered the question of whether they had discussed abortion with the non sequitur, "I don't have a litmus test."

[Darryl G. Thomas]

Rob C., you're correct. I guess I'm using my interpretation of that comment (or repeating something someone else said on TV perhaps).

But my point is this: Bush likes jurists in the Scalia-Thomas mode. I seriously doubt he would nominate anyone who he thought was a political moderate. Hopefully Miers, if she's confirmed, will be similar to 0'Connor. I have my doubts. History is filled with justices whose rulings surprised people.

I haven't read George Will's column yet. I hear he's almost hysterical over this matter. It's almost a role-reversal. You'd expect folks on the left to lose their minds over a Bush nominee, but the right is having a huge coniption fit.