Replies

I recall that Bush said that he would appoint judges like Scalia and Thomas during his 2000 debate against al-Gore. I'm not terribly sure of the exact language (or which debate).

Did Bush mislead us? My take: Bush is trying to appoint such a justice; however, the present political situation precludes him from nominating an known conservative. The Senate has rejected many if not most of Bush's appellate court nominees and would subject his Supreme Court nominees to special ideological certainty to prevent a judge who might agree with Scalia or Thomas from reaching the bench.

Some on this forum have said that a sufficient number of distinguished Senators have indicated that they would end these Senatorial shenanigans and commence confirming judges. These Senators, however, thus far have failed to accomplish this act and probably lack the testicular fortitude (or feminine fortitude) to act on these indications. As they did last time push came to shove, they almost certainly would quiver, falter, and ultimately defect. Despite their numerical superiority, the Republicans have not asserted themselves as a majority in the United States Senate, and the Democrats effectively occupy that role and practically determine the course and fate of the legislation that it considers.

Given the RINO dominance of the Republican minority in the Senate, Bush faced a Senate that would reject a justice in the mold of Scalia or Thomas. Many RINOs would join the majority in that defection if Bush attempted to replace a more "liberal" justice with a less "liberal" judicial nominee. The Senate also demanded that Bush seek advice from them and respect and follow that advice.

Because of the august traditions of the hallowed Senate and the current Democratic majority therein, Bush must acquiesce in all their demands or face the rejection of his nominee--if the Senate even would bother to consider the nomination (a decision controlled primarily by RINO Specter). And yet he must respect his campaign pledge to nominate a jurist with the Clarence Thomas world view. This situation presents an almost irreconcilably tall order, which Bush chose to solve by pursuing effective stealth nominees--qualified candidates who seemingly meet the criteria that the Senate has imposed but who actually meet his own criteria.

Presidents in far less narrow straits have made mistakes with Supreme Court appointments in the past, and George W. Bush almost certainly has or will appoint one or more justices that do not fulfill his expectations. Bush gave us John Roberts, whose judicial philosophy remains narrow; we can hope that he subscribes to the same view as his predecessor, but he might align himself with Stevens or with Thomas.

The Senate mandated a perceptibly liberal-moderate woman for the O'Conner seat, so Bush searched far and wide. Given the political situation, I believe Bush when he says that Harriet Miers was the best that he could find. She obviously is not an ideal choice, but the bench for confirm-able female nominees is exceedingly thin and exclusively liberal. Several potential nominees declined the dubious honor for fear of the Senate. Without any viable sufficiently conservative female nominees with high-level judicial experience, Bush chose a woman whom he knows and respects--a crony with limited accomplishments and no judicial experience.

What are Miers's chances of reaching the court? I put them around 7%. But if the Senate rejects Miers, I do not expect Bush to put up another nominee until the conclusion of the 2006 election season. Even if he does name a substitute--or if he faces an equally or more hostile Senate in 2007--she will be more assuredly liberal than Miers. Why? Because the Senate will not confirm a conservative. And there aren't enough women who have ascended to high judicial office and continued to masquerade as liberals while awaiting appointment to the High Court before revealing their inner conservatism.

"I recall that Bush said that he would appoint judges like Scalia and Thomas during his 2000 debate against al-Gore. I'm not terribly sure of the exact language (or which debate)."

He didn't. You are wrong. If you don't believe me, here is a url that will take you to a site that has transcripts of every debate:

http://www.debates.org/index.html

You ask "Did Bush mislead us?" I would say absolutely not. Bush has done exactly what he said he'd do. The fact that the RINO senators you mention and the conservative commentators the liberal media has suddenly decided to listen to can't verify that Miers is not exactly what Bush said he would nominate, means ZERO to me. Talking faces get paid to talk. I still don't know what Senators get paid for. But Bush will be the man held responsible for appointing Meirs. His record on appointing judges is solid all the way back to his days of being governor in Texas. I very much doubt he has decided to cash that in on this appointment.

"Did Bush mislead us? My take: Bush is trying to appoint such a justice; however, the present political situation precludes him from nominating an known conservative. The Senate has rejected many if not most of Bush's appellate court nominees and would subject his Supreme Court nominees to special ideological certainty to prevent a judge who might agree with Scalia or Thomas from reaching the bench."

I'm not sure about the first assertation. Republicans never had 60 conservative senators and got Justices Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist through. And wasn't Suter supposedly anti-abortion at the time of his hearings, too?

Getting a non-activist Justice through *is* possible. Not likey on the first number of attempts. But eventually, and with enough political capital spent, the base can be satisfied.

As Bush's record has shown, he is incapable of such a confrontation. He could do it, though, if he really wanted too, IMO.