Split on Right a Chance, Choice for Democrats: Fate of Miers Vote Held in the Balance

Washington Post ^ | October 16, 2005 | Charles Babington

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

That would make sense, considering the fact that Hatfield was pro-life.

Thanks for the clarification.

[ConservativeDude]

"They are going to sneak Miers in under the radar then hit the RATS with a Luttig when Stevens leaves."

If the Luttig scenario happens, at least all of us at FR will be able to turn our fire on the true enemy....

[Agrarian]

There's a difference between counting "sure" noses, and counting the noses of those you think you can arm-twist into supporting a nominee.

I think Bush counted the "sure and easy" noses and decided on Miers. I personally believe that Bush could have arm-twisted a more proven conservative jurist onto the bench.

That said, I have wondered from the beginning if this was all a dangerous but sly strategery to force the Dems into exactly this choice: be the ones to put a Bush "crony" with no experience onto the court and hurt themselves with their base -- or on the other hand to reject her and allow Bush to come back with a strong conservative that pleased his base.

It is a gambit that if "lost" puts his friend on the court, and if "won" ends up with a stronger conservative than he could have nominated in the first place without a firestorm from the left...

[cogitator]

If this is strategery, then conservatives protesting the choice help him.

Exactly!

[afnamvet]

"Four Quatludes for the newcomer Miers".

The Gamesters of Triskelion.

[ALWAYSWELDING]

I think we've all got our "coast to coast" hats on. Woooeeeeuuuuuuooooo. I believe it was all much more simple than this.

Bush didn't want a fight. He thought he could get conservatives to go along with the Miers pick because she's a Christian and arguably pro-life. He thought he could get it through without a filibuster because of Reid suggesting her. She was a friend of his and he knew he could trust her with WOT decisions for the next 3 years. So.. he nominated her.

He was not prepared for the uprising among his base at his administrations own admission. His base being this upset does him no favors no matter how you spin it. He blew this one and took some people who have taken bullets for him for granted.

[Les_Miserables]

Sounds like he checked with the Democrats not the Republicans. He now seems in a swivit issuing "threats" to the Senate that nonsupport for HW means nonsupport for Bush. Heard that on Fox this AM and haven't seen it in print so I have no reference but that is not the act of someone who carefully counted the votes beforehand. Bringing in the ole buddy Texas octogenarians seems a little weak for someone who is supposed to already have the votes as well. Whadda Gal.

[Agrarian]

I think you are basically right.

But I do hope that the "coast to coast" explanation is the right one.

One thing is sure, he most certainly did take people for granted that he shouldn't have.

Bushbots like to say that the Dems would rally behind anyone a Dem would put up, and only we nasty conservatives are foolish and evil enough not to trust our own president.

To that, I say: HOGWASH!

The truth of the matter is that no Democrat would nominate anyone but a hard-core liberal -- so this is an untestable proposition. On the other hand, GOP presidents have been pulling this "but we can't get a good one through the confirmation process" (insert whining voice) since Eisenhauer.

One party has the balls to demand what it wants and believes in when it holds the presidency -- the other doesn't.

[ALWAYSWELDING]

Agreed

[George W. Bush]

Bringing in the ole buddy Texas octogenarians seems a little weak for someone who is supposed to already have the votes as well.

It's a bit like the Texas judicial Mafia came to town, isn't it?

I'm trying to figure out who is supposed to be convinced by them. Texas allows judges to campaign for election and has a sour history of high court corruption. I can't imagine on what planet those robed clowns from Texas would impact public opinion favorably toward Miers. To me, seeing the WH dragging that sad bunch out makes Miers even less desirable than before, a considerable feat in itself.

[Les_Miserables]

Whatever Mr. Wonderful's motives, the result of this blind nomination has been to drive a wedge into the conservative part of the GOP coalition that has been built over the last two decades. It is absolutely inexcusable. The whole flap is unnecessary. The sad crowd from Texas is just another of those grasping clumsy swarmy moves supposed to substitute for a record that supports a well crafted judicial philosophy of constitutional constructionism. "Whadda Gal" may really be a Whadda Gal, but this is no way to get someone to the SCOTUS. It may work and she may work out ok but she is not the caliber of nominee the nation deserves. Most disturbing to me is this is not the process that will encourage judicial honesty on the bench from those who would aspire to the SCOTUS of the future. And it was so unnecessary.