Posted on 10/27/2005 8:19:28 AM PDT by Pokey78
No conservative should be in a celebratory mood now that Harriet Miers has withdrawn her nomination. For one thing, reasonable conservatives who considered her unqualified for the Supreme Court conceded that she has had an accomplished career and that she has served the president loyally and, for the most part, well. Gloating would be unseemly. For another thing, the object of conservative agitation against Miers was to get a solid justice confirmed. So the conservative opponents of her nomination have not yet won a victory.
Still, today is the best day Republicans have had in some time. It was clear almost from the beginning that the president had made a poor choice, and has been clear for more than a week that withdrawal was advisable. An ill-considered nomination had reached an impossible pass. One day would bring news suggesting that Miers would be (or at least vote like) a judicial conservative. The next would bring news suggesting the reverse. The net effect was to leave both liberals and conservatives concerned about both the substance, and the muddle, of her views. Even minor mistakes in her answers to senators' questions were being judged harshly. And her meetings with senators were not going well.
Yet some observers especially those well-disposed to Miers's nomination still insisted that the president would "never back down," even to correct a mistake. These observers gave the president, and Miers, too little credit. The president is strong-willed, but not willful.
But presidential mistakes have consequences that cannot be simply erased. If President Bush now nominates someone whom most conservatives can support, as he should, then Bush and the conservatives may, together, win the nominee's confirmation. But their chances of jointly succeeding were better immediately after the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts than they are now. The Democrats will insist that the far Right has forced a nominee beholden to it on a weak president.
But taking on the Democrats, even Democrats armed with that argument, still seems the best option. Republicans still have a majority of the Senate. If Democrats mount a filibuster, Republicans should be able to break it one way or the other. Republicans will need only two members of the "gang of 14" who made the filibuster deal to prevail.
While parts of the public argument over the Supreme Court will favor each party, we think the balance tips toward the Republicans. The public favors Roe (even if it misunderstands it), likes the sound of the "right to privacy," and will worry about the notion that a judge would dismantle the welfare state. On the other hand, the public also sides with conservatives on crime, on church and state, on partial-birth abortion, and on marriage, and, perhaps most importantly, favors "conservative" over "liberal" judges. Values issues generally benefit the Republicans, as we saw during the last election especially when the Democrats seem to be intolerant of conservative values, as they would almost certainly both seem to be and be during a battle over a conservative Supreme Court justice.
It follows that President Bush should pick the most qualified and confirmable conservative he can find male or female. Such a fight could be the way out of the president's current trough.
We do not for a moment believe that the president will pick someone unacceptable to conservatives out of spite. He did not pick Miers in that spirit; as we said on the day of her nomination, we thought it was a good-faith, though mistaken, choice. Bush and conservatives on both sides of the Miers debate should now let bygones be bygones, and stand together in the fight they will now almost certainly face.
Get ready for a hispanic pick.
I don't think Bush wants to be criticized for a THIRD time that he overlooked qualified hispanics for the court.
I can't wait for the editors at National Review to start demanding the next nominee "just get an up or down vote in the Senate".
Estrada would make an excellent conservative Justice. I have a feeling he was one of the candidates that said no before Dubya turned towards Meiers.
If you can't see the difference between a filibuster, and a candidate being withdrawn because W realized the votes weren't there, then you need some help with your logical thought processes.
They should demand and up or down vote. Filibustering is, quite frankly unconstitutional.
At least the cronyism & executive privilege arguments takes Gonzales out of the mix.
Yet some observers especially those well-disposed to Miers's nomination still insisted that the president would "never back down," even to correct a mistake. These observers gave the president, and Miers, too little credit. The president is strong-willed, but not willful.I think I'll wait to see who he nominates next before opining just how non-willful he is.
Already a lot of scuttlebutt about Ted Olson......could we be so lucky?
This is not accurate. There were actually a minimum of 11 republicans considered willing to participate in John McCain's scheme.
Republicans will need 6 to prevail. I don't think they'll get it.
That's the bad news that Frist has known all along.
Supposedly, we "know" that we have 55 Republican votes and the VP to break ties. That means we can lose only 5 votes and no more. There's no chance of picking up a democrat vote on a partyline fight.
Who are the most conservative of the McCain 7? Supposedly, we need only two of them to get a victory.
Republican Senators John McCain (Az.), Lindsey Graham (SC), Mike DeWine (Ohio), Olympia Snowe (Me.), Susan Collins (Me.), John Warner (Va.), and Lincoln Chafee (RI),
However, here's the real truth. This was the group rumored PRIOR to the actual nuclear option deal to be willing to vote AGAINST any nuclear option
(Link) Susan Collins (Maine), Chuck Hagel (Nebraska), Arlen Specter (Pennsylvania), John Warner (Virginia), Mike DeWine (Ohio), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), John Sununu (New Hampshire)
In short, there are actually 11 Republican senators more than willing to vote AGAINST the nuclear option.
That means that SIX of the most conservative of that group must become converts.
I don't think it's possible to get anyone to the right of John Roberts confirmed, AND they will have to have nearly the same credentials and ability as Roberts.
If you can't see the difference between National Review demanding that every nominee be given a fair exposure to the confirmation process and their demand that Miers not even be allowed an opportunity to explain her views in Senate hearings, than you are most likely as hypocritical as they are.
That would be a good choice.
But his age is a factor. Too bad he's not 50.
Maybe we could all chip in to supply him with Growth Hormone Shots to keep him alive for 30 more years.
The democRATS are going to go nuclear on the next nomineee, giving the writers at NRO all the grist for their lazy writing mill they need.
Hm. Don't know much about his philosophy.
But he seems to have stayed in shape.
Dan
"Estrada would make an excellent conservative Justice. I have a feeling he was one of the candidates that said no before Dubya turned towards Meiers."
Was Estrada a judge before?
She was given a fair exposure to the nomination process. It was clear before the hearings that she was no good, and so W withdrew her. NRO didn't prevent her from going to the floor. The democrats were preventing nominees from going to the floor, not just voicing their opinions about how bad a candidate was.
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.