« The "War on Christmas" |
Main
| Is TV Good for You, or Are We Still Amusing Ourselves to Death? »
October 24, 2005
Miers Roundup
- It seems that Miers wasn't really raised in the Roman Church.
- WSJ comes out against Miers.
- Ed Morrissey and Charles Krauthammer see the escape route for the Bush Administration. Bush might be taking the bait.
- John Fund expands upon his predictions that the hearings will dig up uncomfortable Texas history.
- Todd Zywicki alerts us to a new interest group to b announced tomorrow:
Americans for Better Justice, Inc. (ABJ) is a 501(c)(4) political non-profit organization made up of grassroots conservatives from across the country who support President George W. Bush, but disagree with the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.
Update:David Frum gives us the URL and reveals that they will be airing TV and radio ads. - George Will takes Miers' supporters to task.
- More from Prof. Zywicki:
A friend of mine made the interesting observation that perhaps the best evidence of the continuing problems with the Miers nomination has been the willingness of so many inside and close to the White House to leak so much negative information to John Fund, from a White House that has been able to control such matters in the past.
John Fund's devastating piece on WH intimidation, lies, and incompetence is a must-read.
- Second piece based on high-level leaks: this Washington Times report that WH insiders are asking around about withdrawing Miers.
- National Review calls for some brave Senator to stop this madness else we suffer grave consequences:
It now looks as if the confirmation hearings will be the very fight over judicial principles that conservatives have long wanted, but the White House has tried to sidestep. Instead of having a nominee as equipped as, say, a Judge John Roberts as their champion, conservatives will watch the case be made by Miers, who may not even grasp all the principles or believe in them. If she implodes at the hearings, it will not just be her personal embarrassment. She will set the conservative cause back dramatically. Surely, she will be coached to say all the right things initially, but she has no depth in conservative judicial philosophy. If she wilts under questioning, the conventional wisdom might be that the principles themselves were indefensible.
- Jonah Goldberg comes out against Miers.
- David Frum: "You cannot serve a president well if you are afraid him - or if you admire him so much that you think that everything he does is always right. It's never fun to displease a president, but it's absolutely fatal to tell him only what does please him."
NY Daily News: "Bush usually reserves his celebrated temper for senior aides because he knows they can take it. Lately, however, some junior staffers have also faced the boss' wrath."
- WithdrawMiers.Org . . . This may put the 'Miers Roundup' out of business.
- Steven M. Teles uses an insightful framework to explain the elitist-populist split in the GOP over Miers.
- Very good news at ConfirmThem.Com:
RedState is able to report this morning that, very quietly, certain third parties have begun going back through the list of potential judicial nominees at the behest of the White House. Sources tell RedState that while the White House intends to make a public display of moving the Miers nomination forward, the reality of the situation has been conveyed to the President — namely that it is increasingly likely that Harriet Miers will meet a bipartisan effort to block her nomination.
- The Truth-Laid Bear counts noses in the blogosphere. Right now, 73% of blogs oppose her.
- Byron York contrasts Miers' selection process with Bernanke's. Does Bush think the Fed Chairman is a more important office than a seat at the SCOTUS?
- Daniel J. Solove: "Are Bloggers Having an Influence Inside the Beltway?" "In essence, a set of virtual confirmation hearings are being held in cyberspace, and the fate of the nomination may well be decided before the actual hearings in the Senate even begin."
- JB has a long discourse on what Democrats should do.
- Newsweek: "Behind the scenes, however, the comfort level is very low. Some White House officials are already worried that Miers's rehearsals for her hearings are not proceeding smoothly, according to current and former administration sources who declined to be named because the sessions are secret."
- Radley Balko imagines the hearings: "Sorry Senator, only had time to read every other page. Not really sure about the privileges and immunities stuff. Besides, I'm only here pass/fail."
Posted by Zach Wendling at October 24, 2005 01:16 PM
Just one question though. Doesn't every nominee deserve a straight up-or-down vote?
I don't think so, personally. But that having been the Republican mantra for judicial nominees over the past year or two, I think they are honor bound to allow her to proceed to the floor of the Senate for an up-or-down vote.
Posted by: Doug at October 24, 2005 02:26 PM | permalink
Reality Check. David Brooks on This Week sez:
"The President is defiant. I'm told that if Harriet Miers went to him and said, 'I want out,' he would say, 'No, we're fighting this through.' Which happened with John Bolton."
"And then it goes over to the Senate, and a Senator told me this week, 'if she's a C-plus in the hearings, that's good enough. She'll get through.' "
Posted by: JohnS at October 24, 2005 04:08 PM | permalink
Nevermind the WithdrawMiers.Org site, the roundup here is still better, thanks for the effort.
Posted by: Scof at October 24, 2005 04:34 PM | permalink
Doug, according to Ed Morrisey:
"Even if Miers gets defeated in committee, a previous agreement on Supreme Court nominees will send Miers to the Senate floor."
Posted by: Eric Seymour at October 24, 2005 05:24 PM | permalink
Thanks Eric.
To me, that's just crazy. Maybe I've spent too much time around the legislative process, but I think the committee process and other legislative maneuvers are good and valuable filters designed to force more than just bare majority consensus on an issue.
Posted by: Doug at October 24, 2005 05:57 PM | permalink
Interesting input from Brooks. So the president is defiant. We'll see how defiant he is about this nomination once a bunch of his associates get handed federal indictments. My guess is he won't have enough defiance left over to save this train wreck of a nominee.
Posted by: T Bailey at October 25, 2005 01:03 PM | permalink
Post a comment
