Tag Archives: harriet miers

Harriet Miers Withdrawn, Krauthammer Vindicated, The "Ha Ha" Guy Rejoices, Was Miers an Abortionist, Tom Barnett Thanked

Miers Withdraws Nomination to Supreme Court,” Associated Press, 27 October 2005, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,173665,00.html
(from Catholicgauze).

, that unqualified candidate who threw the White House into disarray, has been withdrawn!

Harriet Miers withdrew her nomination to be a Supreme Court justice Thursday in the face of stiff opposition and mounting criticism about her qualifications.

It gets better: Bush used the Krauthammer Option (as described by Professor Bainbridge)

Bush said he reluctantly accepted her decision to withdraw, after weeks of insisting that he did not want her to step down. He blamed her withdrawal on calls in the Senate for the release of internal White House documents that the administration has insisted were protected by executive privilege.

“It is clear that senators would not be satisfied until they gained access to internal documents concerning advice provided during her tenure at the White House — disclosures that would undermine a president’s ability to receive candid counsel,” Bush said. “Harriet Miers’ decision demonstrates her deep respect for this essential aspect of the constitutional separation of powers — and confirms my deep respect and admiration for her.”

Even the Ha Ha Guy is happy:

harriet_miers_withdrawn_md

Update: Her possibly pro-abortion views did her in:

The Washington Post reported Wednesday that Ms. Miers, in a 1993 speech in Dallas, spoke approvingly about a trend toward “self-determination” in resolving debates about law and religion, including those involving abortion rights and religion in public schools and public places.

“The ongoing debate continues surrounding the attempt to once again criminalize abortions or to once and for all guarantee the freedom of the individual woman’s right to decide for herself whether she will have an abortion,” Ms. Miers said, according to a copy of the speech. “Questions about what can be taught or done in public places or public schools are presented frequently to the courts.”

Concerned Women for America, a social conservative group that had been on the sidelines of the Miers nomination, reacted to the news of the speech by joining a coalition of conservative groups calling for her withdrawal.

Also, I want to thank for warning conservatives off Miers:

This could get really ugly, but I am loathe to wish for something better, because I feel that, in Miers’ defeat, we’ll set the stage for a truly right-wing justice in her place. In my mind, centrists and Dems the country over were lucky to see O’Connor and Rhenquist so “moderately” replaced. Roberts will be a good herder of cats, I believe, and Miers was unlikely to do much harm [suc], being an intellectual lightweight.

If Miers goes down, and I now believe it is entirely possible (when the Wills and the Kristols abandon you and the Left is gearing up, you’re in real trouble), we may all end up being happy with Roberts’ tendency to rule as a real centrist (which I believe he will), because what we end up with post-Miers may be fairly hardcore.

Update 2: The blogosphere responds:

Outside the Beltway corrects me: it was the Krauthammer-Morrissey option.

My girl Michelle Malkin is relieved. Blogs for Bush drops Miers, keeps Bush. Grinding Gears gives just the facts. TMH’s Bacon Bits does the same. Musing Minds tells it like it is, and looks at other blogs. Wingbang notes that Daily Kos is unhappy

The Wingnuts would not even wait for the confirmation process to unfold. The straw the broke the camel’s back was, wthout a doubt, the disclosure of Miers’ 1993 speech which may have signalled that Miers would uphold Roe. Miers wrote:

Purple States agrees, by the way. The Aggressive Conservative wonders whose next. Oblogotary Anecdotes demands “President Bush must heal the divide this nomination has created among the conservative base. He must name a clear cut conservative. No stealth nominees. If it means war with the Democrats then so be it.” The Consortium prepares for war. Going to the Mat just expects experience. ryanVOX calls this “a perfect opportunity.” GOP and the City blames Miers involvement in an underground rap group. bRight & Early just quotes Althouse.

Harriet Miers is sad. The Heretik ponders supernatural justice. Mark in Mexico talks ouija boards. WMD presents a nice bibliography. Ditto CatHouse Chat. PoliBlog goes with the flow. Decision ’08 loves the ellipsis).

Publius Rendezvouz holds his peace.

Update 3 (28 October 2005): Brendan of I Hate Linux reports this horrifying thought from The Daily Show

the loyalties Miers showed Bush yesterday, with her withdrawing her name and trying to protect the privacy of what happens behind close doors there… is surly the kind of loyalty to be rewarded with perhaps… a supreme court nomination?

George Bush Really Grinds My Gears

How has offended me? Let me count the ways.

tdaxp_bush_defaced
The State of tdaxp Nation

Bush Passes Over Catholics For Supreme Court For Religious Reasons

Bush: Miers’ Religion Cited in Court Nod,” by Nedra Pickler, Associated Press, 12 October 2005, http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/12/D8D6JKBGC.html (from The Corner).

Add this to the White House staffers memos as a reason to fear . As if endorsements from social liberals and Democrats (hat-tip: Jim River Report) weren’t enough…

President Bush said Wednesday that Harriet Miers’ religious beliefs figured into her nomination to the Supreme Court as a top-ranking Democrat warned against any “wink and a nod” campaign for confirmation.

People are interested to know why I picked Harriet Miers,” Bush told reporters at the White House. “Part of Harriet Miers’ life is her religion.”

Just to prove this is a nightmare, Bush says this in front of a visiting Catholic Head of State:

Bush, speaking at the conclusion of an Oval Office meeting with visiting Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski, said that his advisers were reaching out to conservatives who oppose her nomination “just to explain the facts.” He spoke on a day in which conservative James Dobson, founder of Focus on Family, said he had discussed the nominee’s religious views with presidential aide Karl Rove.

Four current Supreme Court Justices (Kennedy, O’Connor, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas) are Catholics, plus the Episcopalian (Anglo-Catholic) Sandra Day O’Connor. Apparently, this is too many for our President, who announced he was replacing the (Anglo-Catholic) Sandra Day O’Connor with the (Evangelical) Harriet Miers. There can hardly be a question that he knew what he was doing: First Lady Laura Bush has opely been playing “identity politics” over the nomination.

At least this explains why Bush didn’t choose a Latino: can’t have too many dirty Papists on the Court, now can we?

Proof that Harriet Miers is Unqualified for the Supreme Court

Miers Smoking Gun,” by Mr. Sun, Mr. Sun!, 6 October 2005, http://mrsun.us/2005/10/miers-smoking-gun.html (from The Corner).

Big news… From Amazon.com:

harriet_miers_supreme_court_for_dummies

Update: Welcome South Dakota Politics readers. As reported by the Jim River Report, there actually is a White House implosion on Harriet Miers. And some more humor, too. Elsewhere, a very influential pro-Kerry blogger wants Miers confirmed. Hmm….

White House "Hiding From the Media" Because of Miers

The Right: With Friends Like These: The cheerleaders for Bush’s judicial pick found little to cheer.,” by Michael Isikoff, Newsweek, 10 October 2005, http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9629612/site/newsweek/ (from The Corner).

Withdraw this nominee now

Some revelations from Newsweek on White House staffers who know the truth:

We are keeping quiet. And hiding from the media,” wrote Abigail Thernstrom, the Bush-designated vice chair of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission and a prominent critic of affirmative-action policies, in an e-mail copied to other members of the network. “As for undermining trust in the president, I am afraid he has accomplished that all on his own—without any help from us.” (Asked for comment last week, Thernstrom said she was upset that a “private e-mail exchange ends up in the news media.”)

Bush’s defenses of Miers are hollow

Would Bush, [legal scholar Michael Greve] asked, replace Fed chair Alan Greenspan with “a young lady in the basement of the West Wing who did a terrific job on the TX Railroad Commission [and was the] first Armenian bond trader in Dallas …”

The best the apologists can do is argue for silence:

Others stuck by the president. George Terwilliger, a former top Justice Department official who worked for the GOP on the 2000 Florida election battle, said that “unless it does violence to one’s conscience, I would respectfully suggest that we suck it up and show our support” for the administration.

. Bad for America. Bad for the Supreme Court.

Barnettic, and Rovian, Reasons to Oppose Miers

“Base “uprising” gives “spine” to R Senate – Meirs withdrawals,” by a reader, private email, 9 October 2005.

Miers Remorse: Conservatives are right to be skeptical.,” by John Fund, Wall Street Journal, 10 October 2005, http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110007384 (from The Corner).

The tough choice on Miers: competency versus ideology (as in, be careful what you wish for),” by Thomas Barnett, Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog, 10 October 2005, http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/archives2/002440.html.

The blogosphere has been awash in criticism of Harriet Miers, Bush’s impossibly bad choice for Supreme Court justice. Now, the post that took me from skeptical of Harriet to outright hostile

The problem is, of course, that Miers seems to have so little to recommend her. Hell, Bush picks Oprah tomorrow and she sweeps in with HER real-world experience, but Miers comes off as a non-judge David Souter, picked for the doubleplusgood attributes of being both Bush loyalist and having no written legal record of note. Not a great combo.

Justice nominees usually get rejected in a fit of pique, and Bush has certainly earned his from both Left (for all the usuals) and Right (for disappointing them with both Roberts [whether most realize it yet or not] and–far more so–with Miers). What the opposition to her nomination have going right now is powerful: a passionate out-of-power party and too few in-power-party stalwarts to stand at the nominee’s defense.

This could get really ugly, but I am loathe to wish for something better, because I feel that, in Miers’ defeat, we’ll set the stage for a truly right-wing justice in her place. In my mind, centrists and Dems the country over were lucky to see O’Connor and Rehnquist so “moderately” replaced. Roberts will be a good herder of cats, I believe, and Miers was unlikely to do much harm, being an intellectual lightweight.

If Miers goes down, and I now believe it is entirely possible (when the Wills and the Kristols abandon you and the Left is gearing up, you’re in real trouble), we may all end up being happy with Roberts’ tendency to rule as a real centrist (which I believe he will), because what we end up with post-Miers may be fairly hardcore.

So two TPMBesque reasons to support Miers

  1. Miers can’t do the job well.
  2. Whoever comes after Miers will be more conservative

Listen to Thomas Barnett! Defeat Miers!

Of course, maybe it’s a conspiracy…

It is traditional for nominees to remain silent until their confirmation hearings. But previous nominees, while unable to speak for themselves, have been able to deploy an array of people to speak persuasively on their behalf. In this case, the White House spin team has been pathetic, dismissing much of the criticism of Ms. Miers as “elitism” or even echoing Democratic senators who view it as “sexist.” But it was Richard Land , president of the Southern Baptist Convention, who went so far as to paint Ms. Miers as virtually a tool of the man who has been her client for the past decade. “In Texas, we have two important values, courage and loyalty,” he told a conference call of conservative leaders last Thursday. “If Harriet Miers didn’t rule the way George W. Bush thought she would, he would see that as an act of betrayal and so would she.” That is an argument in her favor. It sounds more like a blood oath than a dignified nomination process aimed at finding the most qualified individual possible .

So is the White House setting Miers up for a fall? A tdaxp reader thinks so, echoing Barnett…

Is this another “Rovian” move? It is the Republican Senators that don’t have the stomach for a knock down fight to get “true” conservative on the SCOTUS.
GW isn’t running again, but they are. If Miers withdrawals then it will not be Pres. Bush forcing this fight on the “gentleman’s club”. (Sadly, the Republicans have expanded the definition of gentleman to include wimp.)
What could Arlen do then?
Several columnists/bloggers have written that it was clear that the Senate did not want the all out war necessary for passing the “Constitutional Option”.
Well, now the base has spoken.

Hopefully it’ll turn out that way, but I don’t think so. Bush is too loyal to his friends. Sadly.