|
|
||||||||||||||||||
| 1) Posted by: The DC Guy October 4, 2005 10:46 PM Add George Will to the list of conservative thinkers dumping on Harriet Miers. It'll be interesting to see who else jumps on the right's anti-Miers bandwagon. |
| 2) Posted by: Cabol October 5, 2005 10:38 AM It looks to me like the conservatives upset about this wanted a SuperConservative (who would never get confirmed) or a hispanic to bolster the minority vote (again, never would be confirmed). I am concerned that she has never been a judge, but of course it has been shown it's not a requirement for a Suppy to be good. I just don't know enough about her to make any decision, which I guess is a plus for the President to get her confirmed. You're right, Bush might be doing a masterful job at spinning the Dems around trying to figure out whether to love or hate her based on Republican reactions. He could also be trying to play it as safe as possible in the wake of his tribulations over the last few years. In the end though, unless she has an illegal alien as her nanny, she'll make it through confirmation and lean conservative, so Bush will have achieved success in slanting the Court, but will have missed the opportunity to make a real statement for his political philosophy and shore up voters. Which is better for conservatives in the long run? Holding the Court by far. |
| 3) Posted by: jim collins October 5, 2005 11:50 AM If Caligula could appoint his horse to the Senate I don't see why Bush can't appoint his lawyer to the Supreme Court. |
| 4) Posted by: PhilB October 5, 2005 6:52 PM Excellent column. I had some thoughts along the same lines wondering if the dems might look at all the conservative hand-wringing and not be quite as hard on her as they would have been otherwise. |
| 5) Posted by: Scott October 7, 2005 11:25 AM Charles Krauthammer just released a column saying to withdraw Miers as a nominee. In the article, he goes on to say "There are 1,084,504 lawyers in the United States. What distinguishes Harriet Miers from any of them, other than her connection with the president? To have selected her, when conservative jurisprudence has J. Harvie Wilkinson, Michael Luttig, Michael McConnell and at least a dozen others on a bench deeper than that of the New York Yankees, is scandalous." |
| 6) Posted by: The DC Guy October 7, 2005 12:29 PM I have a lot of respect for Charles Krauthammer - I've run into him a few times, but have never had a chance to have a conversation with him. I'd be interested to hear his take on what I've written here. Despite his opposition, I really can't see any major impediment to Miers nomination. Nothing is coalescing that can be used (if you hear about her religious beliefs in the Senate, it'll be a big deal and a violation of precedent) against her other than, as Krauthammer lays out, her lack of any really distinguishing scholarship or accomplishment. Cronyism isn't anything new in Washington - 95% of every non-civil service job out here is gotten by who you know, not what you know. Who you know gets your foot in the door. What you know keeps you there. Whether or not that's a good thing is a topic for another column. |
| 7) Posted by: The DC Guy October 9, 2005 12:13 AM This article is on the front page of Drudge right now. Some Dems Defend Miers from Conservatives Granted, this doesn't mean they plan on voting for her, but this does follow the trend I outlined in the column. |
| 8) Posted by: vvs artikler October 30, 2005 6:01 AM As it happened Miers had to step down...or did she really do it by own request? No matter who was behind her resignment, I believe that having a supreme court judge without any experience as a judge would be a silly thing. VVS |
| 9) Posted by: søgemaskineoptimering October 30, 2005 6:03 AM Yeah...wonder who Bush will bring into the circus ring now? And further to that he has to handle the cia-agen scandal...phew! Do not want to be in his shoes now ;-) soege |