Posted on 10/21/2005 10:13:21 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
Harriet Miers will not join the Supreme Court.
It may seem a little early to say that; Miers's Judiciary Committee hearings, after all, don't even start for two weeks. But given the news this week, I think it's a pretty sturdy limb I'm out on.
John Fund reported on Monday that Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht and Dallas-based federal Judge Ed Kinkeade, both friends of Miers's, apparently assured social conservative leaders on a conference call that Miers would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. Hecht and Kinkeade deny it, but two of Robert Novak's sources, who were on the call, confirm Fund's story. And in a document issued to the Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, it was revealed that Miers pledged, in a questionnaire she filled out for the Texans United for Life Political Action Committee (TUL-PAC) during her 1989 campaign for Dallas City Council, to support various pro-life policies, including a Human Life Amendment. That may do a little to reassure some conservatives on Miers, but it won't be enough to earn her monolithic support from the Right. After all, if Miers is defeated or withdrawn, her replacement will almost certainly be at least as reliably conservative as Miers, who, as I noted last week, appears to believe that public universities can constitutionally employ race-based admission policies.
Democrats might have concluded that it would be better to back Miers than risk facing a stronger conservative. But after the latest revelations about her pro-life views, Miers can expect almost no support from the party of Roe v. Wade.
Consider just the Judiciary Committee. Unless she explicitly declares fealty to upholding Roe, the five Democrats who voted against John Roberts won't vote for her. The three who did vote for Roberts -- Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, and Patrick Leahy of Vermont -- did so on the grounds that the overwhelming qualifications of the nominee trumped their ideological concerns. With Miers, the qualifications are significantly less and the ideological concerns are now arguably greater. Miers will probably not get even a single vote from the Committee's eight Democrats.
She can't count on Committee Republicans, either. Another conservative Committee member, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, commented after the TUL-PAC questionnaire came out that Miers still needs to "show she has the capacity to be a Supreme Court justice." The New York Times reported two weeks ago that after meeting with Miers, conservative Committee member Sam Brownback of Kansas "said he would consider voting against the nomination, even if President Bush made a personal plea for his support." And squishy Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, along with ranking Democrat Leahy, it was reported yesterday, was very displeased with Miers's "incomplete" answers to a Judiciary Committee questionnaire.
Under a bipartisan agreement, Supreme Court nominations can't be killed in committee. But if all the Committee Democrats and even one Republican vote against her, the vote will be 9-9 and Miers will go to the Senate floor without a recommendation that she be approved. This will make it much harder to get Miers confirmed on the Senate floor. It will be harder still -- probably impossible -- if ten or more Senators vote against her in committee.
"This is going to be an unusual hearing," says Specter, "where I think all 18 senators are going to have probing questions." There's not much reason to think that Miers can skillfully navigate that buzzsaw.
Her nomination is doomed.
ping
Conservatives in November of '06 will vote for the rightward most candidate for office who is viable.
Nothing new under the sun.
A good strategy, although given that it looks like the GOP is going to lose seats in the Senate, I would think that then the Democrats will try to stall until the new Senate is seated.
This betrayal by Bush of selecting this political hack to the high office of the S.C., might finally be unraveling.
ROFLMAO
"Do you REALLY think that Bush would be stupid enough..."
Let's not "misunderestimate" his stupidity.
Souter was always a liberal. The only reason Souter even appeared conservative was he worked for a conservative governor, and it was part of his job as AG.
"Wishful thinking.
More likely, with Mier's vote, the Supreme Court rules that illegals can vote, otherwise we have taxation without representation. In a rush to pick up these new votes, the lurch to the left becomes an stampede, and the USA becomes a bankrupt third-world country."
Hmm...very interesting....Very interesting indeed!
Re # 57--that's a great post.
And I have to believe that the President wouldn't nominate Gonzales if Miers withdraws. Is he truly that vindictive? I'm having a hard time reconciling that man with the man who impulsively hugged the daughter of a 9/11 victim.
If he is that way, he's not the man I voted for.
If he cares at all about his party and the future of his country, he will NOT name someone who will further divide the Republicans and pave the way for liberal control of Congress and maybe the presidency.
"You know, bunny, you've shown yourself, over the past three weeks, to be a primary instigator of the divide that has taken place on this forum. You ping your little lists of sycophants"
LOL! Admit it, spur. That's actually funny. You acuse flash of being devisive, and then in the same breath procede to berate the anti Meirs people in provocative terms.
See my post #86 on this thread.
It seems sinkspur has lost the ability to detect irony in his own posts.
"You are determined to win at all costs.."
Actually, isn't that really more of a characteristic of the pro bush crowd? "Damn the ideology, what's important is that we WIN!" ?
"You know something, Eccles? You are entering into the area of personal attacks against Miers, something you clown-car-driving bozos said you wouldn't resort to."
Another classic, spur: Accusing someone of personal attacks in the very same sentence that you call them a "clown-car-driving" bozo!
I'm not even sure what that's supposed to imply. People who don't drink Kool Aid drive small, heavily occupied cars?
I don't get it.
Yet another bit of irony that I didn't bother pointing out.
Instead, I used a sinkspur tactic and responded with a photo...
Just a Rovian ploy to get Al Gonzales to step out from the wings into the spotlight and save the day. I'm more and more convinced of this. Only slightly more palatable to conservatives, but far more qualified for the bench.
I suspect this all started with a meeting between Bush and Miers where the President said "Harrie, I need you to take some arrows for me," and the ever loyal subordinate said "Yes, Mr. President, it would be my honor."
Flashbunny and pessimist, you guys remind of a couple of knee-jerk liberals I know. Tactics and approach to argument are exacly like you have demonstrated lately. I've watched this develop and I for one want you to know that it makes you look stupid.
I think sinkspur also looks stupid when he(or she) lowers himself to your level. Let's face it, this silly, childish, liberal-like insult game really accelerated when you anti-Miers people starting calling pro-Miers people "bushbots" Kool-aid drinkers and a number of other insults.
Life is too short to be a mean spirited liberal.
Grow up.
pot calling the pyrex black.
LOL! Except when you're trashing me behind my back. Like now.
I bet he's smarter than you, newbie. How dare you insult our President. Your post sounds like something from DU.
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.