Steve, what the hell are you talking about? The only thing that matters is how Roberts and Miers behave on the Supreme Court! I believe they are right wing nuts and will behave as such. The dems are just too cowardly to fight - so as usual the dems will just wimp out and go along. The dems know nothing of this woman. How much do I know? bush nominated her. Mier thinks that bush is brilliant and she has her nose up his butt. That is enough for me. This woman will do whatever her wing nut masters tell her to. bush has probably already told her to just vote the way Scalia does and shut the f**k up!
Posted by jj at October 3, 2005 01:19 PMIt will be interesting to see if wavering conservatives on the judiciary committee will try to draw some info out of her rather than simply lobbing softballs at her. Will she be more inclined to offer substantive answered to questions coming from the GOP side of the committee?
Regardless it sure will be an interesting few years seeing what happens as two new justices settle into their places on the court.
Posted by muckcat at October 3, 2005 01:20 PMI love the fact that Reid pointed out that Miers was a 'trial lawyer.'
After hearing for years that trial lawyers = bad from limbaugh, I'd bet that a whole lot of conservatives don't like her already.
Posted by stranger at October 3, 2005 01:27 PMRegardless of what happens, watching the Wing Nuts go ape-shit on Lyndon Baines Bush is almost worth the price of admission.
Imagine what will happen if Miers supports the Constitutional Right to Privacy and Griswold vs Connecticut. . .
Posted by ck at October 3, 2005 01:33 PMSteve I think you are exactly right. Reid is using jujitsu on the republicans and the right wing. I think he is purposefully trying to f up the other side.
jj is also right that the end game is who actually sits on the Court and Miers is definitely a fixer for Bush and his band of merry war criminals...but, I think what Reid is doing is not only setting up the 2006 election meme that that Bush white house is cronyism gone haywire, but I also think he is tring to get the rightwing wackos to derail this nomination. I don't think she will be confirmed and I don't think that bothers Reid to much.
Posted by John B. at October 3, 2005 01:38 PMI agree it's awful good fun watching the right go batty over this, but I believe within a couple of days they'll all calm down and support the nomination, once they're given some *wink-wink* assurances that she'll be a good right wing judge ("trust me", says the Dick). And then the Dems will have boxed themselves into a corner with their little mindgame, and there'll be no filibuster and Rove will have put someone in there who will support executive authority to torture and "render" GWOT prisoners at will.
Posted by Bruce K at October 3, 2005 01:51 PMUrgh. My instinct says bury her as an unqualified dingbat. If the far right piles on too, that's great. Chalk it up as a universally detested failed Bush crony-hire. Now, if Reid endorses her, he's got to make sure that he delivers his whole caucus or else Bush will say the Democrats can't be trusted to be bi-partisan. So the process turns into one of those "everybody had a hand in it" Washington circle-jerks that propelled this mediocrity onto the Supreme Court. I don't get it. Is the message to the Democrats and hard right going to be, well she's 60, she'll only be on the court long enough to stall impeachment proceedings against Bush and that's it? Looks to me like one of those disastrous Democratic "let's claim victory from a minimized defeat" plays that Reid was supposed to be moving beyond
Posted by Halcyon Days at October 3, 2005 02:17 PMI'd love to think the Dems are head-faking the righties by making nice noises about this nominee. I'm afraid they may be sincere, in some odd battered-victim way.
On the other hand, in their position, I might be making nice noises just to lower their guard while I prepared the pointed questions for the hearings, about what has been going on at the White House since she's been there. There's plenty of time to use a confirmation hearing to paint her as a crony who's been covering up the dirt for a long time. Then the rhetorical posture is "We wanted to vote for her, but once we learned all this...we just can't. It's not obstruction, it's defending the country from corruption."
Posted by biggerbox at October 3, 2005 02:21 PMNo doubt, once the GOP regroups, thinks (a little), they'll be all for the choice. bu$h (rove) will reassure them, this is the "right" choice for America. The Dems will still be scratching their asses and decide to filibuster, making them look bad!
She is nothing more than a sycophant in a dress!
Rove will have put someone in there who will support executive authority to torture and "render" GWOT prisoners at will.
except she'll have to recuse herself since she was WH counsel when these power-grabs were made.
Posted by benjoya at October 3, 2005 02:58 PMbest case: When push came to shove, Bush did the bidding of the corporatists and not the wingnuts. They are his "base", after all. If confirmed, Miers might well deliver some moderate decisions in the privacy/cultural areas. But she'll be anti-union, anti-environment, anti-consumer, pro-tort-reform, etc. Plus, as a Bush crony, she'll be pro-Executive Branch (secrecy, torture etc).
Pretty fucking sad when this is "best case". I sometimes wonder if both the wingnuts and the progressive left are being unduly distracted by the cultural issues - all the best pickpockets rely on distraction.
Posted by OkieByAccident at October 3, 2005 03:02 PMI hope you are right and that there is some sort of democratic strategy here in response to this obvious unqualified crony nominee.
Having said that, sometimes I can't help wonder if the Democratic Leadership is playing mindgames with its base and progressives. Perhaps they really are supportive of the Bush agenda after all. I mean perhaps this time around it was Harry Reid who drew the "short straw" so to speak and was the one who would play the bipartisan support card and perhaps take the potential wrath of disappointed progressives who may be unhappy with the spineless, voiceless, (opposition?) party. Last time around it was Leahy and Feingold, maybe on another issue it was Biden and Feinstein...it just seems that each time on each important piece of legislation or nominee it is a different set or group of prominent Democrats that sells out the party. I will try to be optimistic and less cynical here, but sometimes I can't help but wonder about the Republican-lite party and who is really being taken for fools here.
Sorry for the downer....it's been that type of a day.
Posted by emal at October 3, 2005 03:21 PMI think she will be a bu$h loyalist all the way. Shit, there is no stopping his lunacy. Remember this is his "political capital", and he intends to spend it. Nothing is safe. The Administration is a malignancy to America!
And the Dems...let's see, I hope, maybe, perhaps, possibly...
The Un-Christian Fanatics have not learned their lessons for the last 25 years.
Modern Republican presidents =( Reagan to Bush II ) use them to get elected, then after the ignaguration parties, they get thanked aand told to go away.
Either, the the leaders of Un-christian wrong are dupes or they are liars to the their followers.
Posted by mje at October 3, 2005 03:41 PMbenjoya, Supreme Court justices do not have to recuse themselves. For current examples, see Bush vs Gore and Sierra Club et al vs Cheney.
Roberts and Meirs are rear-guard actions to make sure that any criminal complaints that reach the Supreme Court will have a 4-judge advantage (Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Miers).
Posted by jhlipton at October 3, 2005 04:21 PMSteve,
I don't think the Democrats are that smart. You give them far too much credit. I think they see this nomination as a way to avoid a pissing match over the nominee because their corporate masters want this woman on the court. And so the Demos are only too happy to embrace her.
Posted by Phil from New York at October 3, 2005 04:57 PMI agree with Phil. The Democrats have not shown that sort of cunningness, at least not up until now.
Posted by Judith at October 3, 2005 06:51 PMOne thing is sure Miers is a true-believing fixer of unheralded proportions, reguardless of whatever politcal fu is being played out on the dem side, and therefore at the end of the day must not be appointed.
However for the ploy to succeed Reid must force a cross aisle coalition of which he cannot be part. The gamble for Team Bush is that they can smoke out the less than fervent in their own ranks while showing dems to be completely inneffective as an opposition. If dems prove weak enough they can also get a clear Team Bush retainer on the top bench. We would say this is typical bravado poker play by the administration, which is why the actual operatives like Rush are confused. Why gamble when you don't have to?
The answer is... they do have to, they are clearly that weak on the inside. Katrina-Plame-Delay-Frist-AIPAC spying-Abramoff-gao propaganda audits-Iraq. Its all going down the toilet. This bravado is as much motivated by desperation as it looks.
A Mier's nomination self destruction followed by the release of Fitzgerald's indictments will make for a very interesting November.
Posted by patience at October 3, 2005 07:19 PM