Miers bows out

[Black Dog]

Miers bows out of US court fight

Harriet Miers served George W. Bush faithfully for a decade and she showed that loyalty again on Thursday by removing herself as a nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court before she damaged the president even more.

I'm not sure how to take this. On the one hand, Miers' nomination was but another example of Bush-league cronyism at work, whereby unqualified incompetents get a shot at important posts based on their personal proximity to the president. On the other, I'm disturbed by the fact that the extreme right wing has basically demanded that the next SCOTUS justice be a militant, right-wing activist. (Gee, I guess not all nominees deserve a straight up or down vote after all, do they Mr. First?)

Quack quack quack.

[Shady]

Thank God, now Bush can appoint a real conservative to the court. How does Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown sound to everyone? I love it!

[Montgomery Burns]

This is great news for conservatives. The Miers nomination, like BD said, smacked of cronyism. It would have been okay if she was a noted great conservative judge, but she was basically a "nobody" who happened to be Bush's personal lawyer. The conservative base was very upset as part of the reason they voted for Bush, was because everyone knew there was going to be 2 or 3 vacancies in the Supreme Court--and the Republicans had a chance to swing the court their way and stop the out-of-control left.

That's part of the reason why Bush's approval ratings have been low; he pissed off his base--the people that voted him in! Notice how he polled at 44% today, versus the high 30s that he had been getting in the past month.

What did Bush expect? He spends like a Democrat, gives $223 million for a bridge in Alaska that links up 50 people; gives millions to the art community (who are mostly hardcore leftwingers who hate his guts and create "art" with feces smeared over the Virgin Mary); keeps Norm Mineta as the head of the Travel Security (or whatever it is) Dept; spending billions buying mobile homes for the Katrina victims who were previously renters--plus giving them a $5000 education voucher; gave millions (or billions?) to a pork-barrel filled Highway Traffic Bill (I saw some of the items in that bill--wasteful pork that should be the responsibility of the state, not the feds). It smacks of buying votes, i.e., politically for the Senators and State Representatives; doesn't address the porous Mexican border, dubbed the Minute Men "vigilantes"; serves the manical Jihadists Duck a la Orange at Gitmo, and then nominates a capable center-right nobody who just happens to be his own lawyer - for the Supreme Court? Get real.

Bush blundered terribly with Miers. However, everyone is entitled to a mistake--because the rumors are... ... that he is going to nominate Janice Rogers-Brown or Samuel "Scalito" Alito. That would energize the Republican base.

I predict that Bush will pick one of those two, the Dems will filibuster, and the Repubs will use their "nuclear option" to get their pick through.

Batten up the hatches. I sense that the Republicans want to fight back. The Bush administration should get their message out more. They have to fight back against the liberal media's propaganda. The fur is going to fly.

[BHS]

I'm not sure how to take this. On the one hand, Miers' nomination was but another example of Bush-league cronyism at work, whereby unqualified incompetents get a shot at important posts based on their personal proximity to the president. On the other, I'm disturbed by the fact that the extreme right wing has basically demanded that the next SCOTUS justice be a militant, right-wing activist. (Gee, I guess not all nominees deserve a straight up or down vote after all, do they Mr. First?)

Quack quack quack.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Frist. Or maybe it's a play on words. Anyway, Bill Frist didn't have anything to do with the Miers withdrawl. There's a big difference between internet pundits and newspaper columnists complaining about a nominee until she chooses to withdraw, and Democratic Senators using procedural tactics to block a vote. (At least, there is in the real world.) And what the right wants is a judicial conservative sticking to the text of the Constitution as written, not an activist. But other than that you were close.

Thank God, now Bush can appoint a real conservative to the court.  How does Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown sound to everyone?  I love it!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh, baby. Democratic heads exploding everywhere, like some kind of sick 4th of July celebration for Republicans.

[Guest eureka]

And what the right wants is a judicial conservative sticking to the text of the Constitution as written, not an activist. But other than that you were close.

And what part of the text of the Constitution do you suggest that they want to stick to.

[BHS]

And what the right wants is a judicial conservative sticking to the text of the Constitution as written, not an activist. But other than that you were close.

And what part of the text of the Constitution do you suggest that they want to stick to.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The written parts.

[Guest eureka]

Then perhaps you should read it and note how much of it and the legal interpretations they are trying to avoid. Separation of Church and State for instance.

Presumably you are also talking of the written Constutution that forms only a small part of the Constitution. It is simply the enabling documant for the many hundreds of documants that form a Constitution.

The "written part" of any Constitution is not "The" Constitution: merely a framework for a Constitution. The spirit of a Constitution is waht counts and is what the Courts and legislators keep to the fore - other than what this federal US government is trying to construct.

[Montgomery Burns]

I'd like to congratulate the Republicans for fighting Bush on the Miers affair. One doesn't like too much infighting, but sometimes you have to, and it’s one thing that I've always admired by the right. No lockstepping, no unconditional worship of Great Leader (eg, Clinton). Instead, you have a bunch of outspoken individualists unafraid to speak up on matters of principle, even when it means beating up on "their own."

When the Democrats don't have much problem with Miers, then you know she was a poor candidate. Judge Alito is a far better nomination. The ACLU, MoveOn, NOW, and Howard Dean have already issued statements complaining about Alito. Any guy that make the "progressives" of the far left seethe with rage, is A-OK in my book.

[Black Dog]

, Bill Frist didn't have anything to do with the Miers withdrawl.

No, but if you'll recall, Frist is an opponent of the filiubuster, calling instead for a straight-up-ordown vote to confirm SCOTUS candidates. Miers didn't even get that far, thanks to the machinations of the radical right (a faction whom Frist himself is aligned with: remember "Justice Sunday"?)

And what the right wants is a judicial conservative sticking to the text of the Constitution as written, not an activist. But other than that you were close.

If someone chooses to use their interpretation of the Constitution to override longstanding judicial precedent, that person is an activist. So the right wants activist judges.

[Montgomery Burns]

And what the right wants is a judicial conservative sticking to the text of the Constitution as written, not an activist. But other than that you were close.

And what part of the text of the Constitution do you suggest that they want to stick to.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The written parts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How dare you? How DARE you suggest that a judge interpret the Constitution of the American founding fathers?

Don't you know that the Supreme Court is to be filled with leftwing activists who claim that there is a "seperation" between Church and State? Don't you know that the founding fathers approved of nearly 1 million innocent American babies to be slaughtered every year because of the "right to choose"? Don't you know that the founding fathers wanted to change a 2000 year definition of marriage?

Don't you know this?! Haven't you been reading the NY Times?!

[Guest eureka]

Your stupidity and trolling has worn out, Montgomery.

[Black Dog]

Your stupidity and trolling has worn out, Montgomery.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't you know eureka that it's entuirely reasonable to base the laws of a 21st Century industrial society on a strict interpretation of a 230 year-old document, who's agarian framers left considerable room for future interpretations?

It's scary to think that 200 years of jurisprudence could be overturned by a handful of wingnuts to please a base of people who's worldview derives largely from a literal interpretation of a 3,000 year old collection of myths.