What color is your hair?
Posted on 10/18/2005 7:46:26 PM PDT by Crackingham
After the initial shock and awe over her nomination, the outcome of Harriet Miers's bid to join the Supreme Court now depends on how many Senate Republicans join conservative critics determined to bring her down. The White House had expected a small army of conservative groups to provide covering fire for nominees as they charged through the Senate. But many are now missing in action or outright hostile, because they doubt the nominee's legal and conservative credentials. The result is that Ms. Miers is now going it alone, making her testimony at next month's Judiciary Committee hearings even more important.
Senators who by this time in the confirmation cycle had announced support for Chief Justice John Roberts say they are withholding judgment until they evaluate her performance at the hearings. Just a half-dozen Senate Republicans voting "no" could derail President Bush's nomination. But some observers say that Democrats, fearing a more conservative replacement if Miers were defeated, could ultimately lend her their support.
"The great irony is that she might be saved by Democratic votes," says Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University.
While President Bush may have lost some conservative allies in Washington, he is still counting on an ability to rally his base to influence key Senate votes. That strategy is already unfolding in New Hampshire, site of the first presidential primary vote.
At the urging of the White House, several leading New Hampshire conservatives launched a campaign to get senators who are considered 2008 presidential hopefuls on record in support of a fair up-or-down vote for Miers.
"She's a born-again Christian, owns a handgun, and headed the Texas Bar Association. I have a hard time understanding why this is a bad thing," says Ed Naile, chairman of the Coalition of New Hampshire Taxpayers.
Some of these presidential hopefuls making frequent visits to the state, such as Sen. Sam Brownback (R) of Kansas, are also among those who have expressed the most reservations about Miers. "If they don't pay attention to what conservative Republicans think in New Hampshire, that's a foolish decision," says Mr. Naile.
In Washington, the Republican National Committee is encouraging state party leaders to write op-eds in support of Miers. Last week, RNC chairman Ken Mehlman held a conference call with more than 30 bloggers to build grass-roots support for the nominee.
"The rush to judgment on Miers from the president's allies has been striking. Not only has it been immediate and widespread, it also has been - in many cases - extraordinarily immoderate," wrote Ronald Cass, dean emeritus of Boston University School of Law and co-chairman of the Committee for Justice, writing for the website RealClear Politics, which is widely read by conservative activists.
In the Senate, some Republicans say that President Bush's nomination of his White House lawyer to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is tainted by cronyism and that Miers is not qualified.
One of the few Republicans in the Senate to openly back Miers, Sen. John Cornyn (R) of Texas, is urging his colleagues to hold their fire until they see her responses at confirmation hearings. Many have not. Former Senate majority leader Trent Lott (R) of Mississippi told MSNBC's "Hardball" that he was "not comfortable" with the nominee and that Miers was clearly not the most qualified person.
Although pressed by the White House to commit to the nominee, most Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee are holding back. "Harriet Miers is a very different nominee to the Supreme Court than was John Roberts. Most senators don't quite know what to think of her," wrote Sen. Jon Kyl in a "diary entry" for the Arizona Republican, after meeting with Miers.
Senator Brownback, also a member of the Judiciary Committee, says she needs to be clear on the issues of the day, especially the right to privacy and abortion.
"Like many others, I have a lot of questions and some concerns, quite frankly, with the Harriet Miers nomination," said Sen. David Vitter (R) of Louisiana, in a statement on Tuesday.
Vitter lost me when he came, hat in hand with Mary "I'll punch him in the face" Landrieu, begging for $30 billion to funnel to the corrupt Louisiana political system, ostensibly for things like infrastructure.
If the republicans won't allow anyone as loosely conservative as Harriet Miers, and the democrats & the McCain7 won't allow anyone staunchly conservative, does that tie the hands of Pres. Bush and FORCE him to make a recess appointment?
If so, it's sad because that leaves the lifetime appointment to the next administration which might be very liberal.
Oh, that's great. Bush is extending his hardball campaign against his own team. Now he's determined not only to wreck the remainder of his term in office, but ensure that some RINO gets the nomination for 2008.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice, was born in Brooklyn, New York, March 15, 1933. She married Martin D. Ginsburg in 1954, and has a daughter, Jane, and a son, James. She received her B.A. from Cornell University, attended Harvard Law School, and received her LL.B. from Columbia Law School. She served as a law clerk to the Honorable Edmund L. Palmieri, Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, from 1959–1961. From 1961–1963, she was a research associate and then associate director of the Columbia Law School Project on International Procedure. She was a Professor of Law at Rutgers University School of Law from 1963–1972, and Columbia Law School from 1972–1980, and a fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences in Stanford, California from 1977–1978.
In 1971, she was instrumental in launching the Women’s Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, and served as the ACLU’s General Counsel from 1973–1980, and on the National Board of Directors from 1974–1980. She was appointed a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1980.
President Clinton nominated her as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and she took her seat August 10, 1993.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscourtsystem/a/bioginsburg.htm
You mean to tell me Pubbies voted for this out-and-out socialist Marxist but doesn't have the guts to give a reasonable conservative Harriet Meirs a fair hearing at least? STUPID PARTY LIVES!
He doesn't care about the fortunes of his party or the conservative movement. All he cares about are the ambitions of his family and its cronies.
Could you do us a favor and cross reference GOPers who voted FOR Ginsburg but have reservations about Miers? Are there any who fit both categories?
He doesn't care about the fortunes of his party or the conservative movement.
-----
Sadly, it is true. I hope the GOP senators have the guts and love for this country to sack her nomination --- BUSH DESERVES IT.
It's an outright scandal that the GOP allows it to happen because it's easier than standing their ground.
ping
Some unorganized thoughts here:
1. Uncertain conservatism isn't Miers only problem. The cronyism accusation carries alot of weight. Her qualifications are borderline. If we truly can't confirm a JRB or a Luttig, putting up a different moderate candidate with a documented legal opinion history, unquestioned legal expertise, and no ties to the Bush inner circle would probably be confirmable. That would be preferable to leaving the pick to President Hillary.
2. On the McCain obstructionism. My theory is that Cheney will resign for health concerns in 2006 or early 2007 to make way for whoever is being groomed as the 08 nominee to run as the incumbent. Is it plausible that McCain is trying to make a deal with Bush to trade RINO cooperation in the senate for that VP slot? This assuming that the current public disapproval is a passing thing and association with this administration will be seen as a good thing in November 2008.
If it was Luttig, Brown, Owen, Alito or Jones plenty of us would be standing our ground. Miers isn't a Conservative, isn't qualified and therefore isn't worth standing up for.
Bush is on his own on this one.
Well you know if they write a good paragraph for future law students that's all that matters..not how they might vote actually. /sarc
"While President Bush may have lost some conservative allies in Washington, he is still counting on an ability to rally his base to influence key Senate votes. That strategy is already unfolding in New Hampshire"
A very sound strategy indeed. But, wait a minute, isn't New Hampshire the home of John Sununu who convinced GHW Bush to give us David Souter? And, yes, Warren Rudman, wasn't he from New Hampshire? Didn't he have a hand in the Bush-Souter debacle? Now GW Bush is asking his pals in New Hampshire to help push Harriet Miers through. I smell a rat.
GW is wagering that his authority alone will be enough to sway the base to influence enough Senators to carry the nomination. If he wins his wager, he gets Miers on the Court, but he may have used up his "mojo" for the rest of his term. If he loses...well...I think GW really hasn't thought at all of the consequences if he loses: he and his followers are simply spinning fantasies of vengeance against Miers critics if that happens.
I have a sense that Harriet could withdraw before the hearings. If the hearings proceed, it is entirley possible that Coburn and Brownback vote no. Even if Harriet is confirmed, the political damage to the POTUS has been devastating.
The RNC called again today and I told them that they won't get one dime from me. When they failed to take a hint, I told them that I will not contribute to a party that takes sides with a RINO in a primary fight with a conservative. She got even more desperate and continued her pitch regardless. I finally hung up on her.
The conservative movement is bigger than this administration. Bush told Trent Lott the conservative movement was bigger than one man. Now it's time to smack this administration back in line. No way we can back this nominee. President Bush is wrong to nominate a stealth candidate like this. Give us another John Roberts. Female or minority version if necessary, but give us someone qualified.
It isn't that simple.
A court decision is more than just yea or nay, there is an accompanying written explanation in very technical legalese. Interpreting those past decisions, in other words going over every word with a fine toothed comb, is a major part of law.
A ruling that goes the right way accompanied by a sloppily written or poorly justified opinion can do more harm down the road than losing the ruling today.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.