Meirs withdraws

[vdiddy]

Harriet Miers withdrew this morning as a nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court.

In announcing the decision, Miers and President Bush cited their concern with the requests of members of the Senate Judiciary Committee for documents dealing with her work as White House Counsel that the administration has chosen to withhold as privileged.


Miers told the president in a letter of withdrawal that she was "concerned that the confirmation process presents a burden for the White House and our staff that is not in the best interests of the country."

Bush responded that he was "reluctantly" accepting the decision.

"I nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court because of her extraordinary legal experience, her character, and her conservative judicial philosophy," he said in a statement. But, he said, "I understand and share her concern . . . about the current state of the Supreme Court confirmation process.

"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.

"Harriet Miers' decision," Bush said, "demonstrates her deep respect for this essential aspect of the Constitutional separation of powers -- and confirms my deep respect and admiration for her.

"I am grateful for Harriet Miers' friendship and devotion to our country.

"And I am honored that she will continue to serve our Nation as White House Counsel," he said. My responsibility to fill this vacancy remains. I will do so in a timely manner."

 

[Greed]

this has CIA written all over it.

 

[The Dark Mind]

Nope conservatives and the conservative base decided they didn't like her.

 

[Nzinga]

The Democrats have no sense in their heads. The reasons why the Repblicans did not like Miers is that she may not be against affirmative action and abortion. What they want to do is to force Bush to appoint a right winger who will promote their extreme right wing agenda, and it seems it is gonna be that way. When that happens, the Republicans will be able to impose their tyranny on the country for next 20 years. Harriet Miers was a gift George Bush tried to give to the Democrats, partly because he wanted to stave off their withering criticism for Iraq and Katarina; the Democrats were however not wanting to help him by supporting her nomination or for that matter support a Republican nominee. I do not know what kind of stupid strategy that is because whatever happens, the Republicans will put someone in the Supreme court. Miers is probably the best person the Democrats could have got, and with the way things are, they probably had the numbers to seat appoint her to the court...

 

[Djmarkxr7]

this has CIA written all over it.

LOL!!!
Sure you're right!!!
This is a bullshit excuse though!
Nzinga, I don't know about affirmative action but Bush made it a point several times to say that Miers was "a good Christian" which was Bush-speak for she's against abortion!

 

[QueEx]

The Democrats have no sense in their heads. The reasons why the Repblicans did not like Miers is that she may not be against affirmative action and abortion. What they want to do is to force Bush to appoint a right winger who will promote their extreme right wing agenda, and it seems it is gonna be that way. When that happens, the Republicans will be able to impose their tyranny on the country for next 20 years. Harriet Miers was a gift George Bush tried to give to the Democrats, partly because he wanted to stave off their withering criticism for Iraq and Katarina; the Democrats were however not wanting to help him by supporting her nomination or for that matter support a Republican nominee. I do not know what kind of stupid strategy that is because whatever happens, the Republicans will put someone in the Supreme court. Miers is probably the best person the Democrats could have got, and with the way things are, they probably had the numbers to seat appoint her to the court...

What you say is, I believe, only partially true.

Without question, from the start Miers was an enigma. After throwing blazing fast-balls with John Roberts, GW came back with a change-up, an off-speed pitch. And, neither the "Base" or many democrats were looking for it.

When the nomination was first made, if memory serves me correctly, many dems quickly said she was okay with them. On the one hand, that was a dangerous move -- as it sent an ominous signal to the Base. At the same time, many dems asked the traditional anti-questions which had the effect of appearing "normal" (just where the Base expected them to be). The problem wasn't so much with the dems signals, however, its that the so-called Base, after the dust settled from the initial nomination, had a chance to look with skepticism at Miers. And, wanting to be ensured that she was what THEY were expecting and it didn't really come, they became skeptical.

Every since her nomination, I've seen things on both sides that indicated she might not be the arch-conservative that only the Base will settle for (some of those are noted in the The Supreme Court Nomination thread. As you aptly noted, she might not be anti a lot of the things the Base demands. In the end, however, it appears to me that it wasn't the dems mishandling of the nomination, it was the BASE coming up to speed -- as they never imagined GW appointing someone who might be less than what they want.

The "document issue" was really a non-issue. Mier's would never have withstood the confirmation process. Reagan appointed some judges that turned out not to be what the Right expected of him. There was no chance it was going to let GW do that to them again, with Miers.

QueEx

P.S.: The "change-up" may not have been what GW was actually trying to do. He wasn't trying to confuse his base, nor was he trying to do the Dems a favor. Sometimes, when you elevate friends with less of an emphasis on other things, shit happens.

 

[Black_Immortal]

The Democrats have no sense in their heads. The reasons why the Repblicans did not like Miers is that she may not be against affirmative action and abortion. What they want to do is to force Bush to appoint a right winger who will promote their extreme right wing agenda, and it seems it is gonna be that way. When that happens, the Republicans will be able to impose their tyranny on the country for next 20 years. Harriet Miers was a gift George Bush tried to give to the Democrats, partly because he wanted to stave off their withering criticism for Iraq and Katarina; the Democrats were however not wanting to help him by supporting her nomination or for that matter support a Republican nominee. I do not know what kind of stupid strategy that is because whatever happens, the Republicans will put someone in the Supreme court. Miers is probably the best person the Democrats could have got, and with the way things are, they probably had the numbers to seat appoint her to the court...

Bush was trying to give the Democrats a "gift"? If Bush couldn't get Miers past his own conservative base, what strategy do you think the Democrats should have employed to try and save her appointment? Regarding those "withering" attacks; attacks from your opposition usually serve to strengthen your standing with your supporters so I don't buy that argument. I happen to agree with you that the right wants Bush to appoint someone much more conservative than Miers, but Democrats are better served by supporting a reasonable nominee that Bush himself can garner at least modest support for, or saving their fire for someone who is sufficiently unpalatable to enough people so that he/she can be defeated.

 

[QueEx]

... or saving their fire for someone who is sufficiently unpalatable to enough people so that he/she can be defeated.

Sound like a man who knows something about picking your battles ...

QueEx

 

[Nzinga]

Bush was trying to give the Democrats a "gift"? If Bush couldn't get Miers past his own conservative base, what strategy do you think the Democrats should have employed to try and save her appointment? Regarding those "withering" attacks; attacks from your opposition usually serve to strengthen your standing with your supporters so I don't buy that argument. I happen to agree with you that the right wants Bush to appoint someone much more conservative than Miers, but Democrats are better served by supporting a reasonable nominee that Bush himself can garner at least modest support for, or saving their fire for someone who is sufficiently unpalatable to enough people so that he/she can be defeated.

If Harry Reid had held together his 44 or 45 Democrats, he would have needed only 6 Republicans to have Miers confirmed. Alan Specter would have voted for her, so that would leave 5 to go. Jim Jeffords, the independent, would have voted for her. Olympia Snow, one or both Texas Republicans and a couple of Republican from the Northern states would have put her in. What you have to understand is that the whole Republican Party did not oppose Miers' nomination, only the right wing neo-cons objected to Miers. As to picking your fights when a sufficiently objectionable nominee is presented, what are the Democrats gonna do when someone like Robert Bork is nominated? Already, a couple of months ago, the Republicans ran all of Bush's judicial nominees through the Senate Democrats as if the opposition did not exist. When the Democrats threatened to filibuster, Bill Thrift cowed them with the threat to take away the right to filibuster. I say it again, the Democrats have no rudder; Harriet Miers was the best choice Bush could have given them. The next nominee will be worse. At best he will be like John Roberts, at worst he will be like Antonio Scalia. The way the Republicans are running the Senate leaves no room for fighting so consider this contest over. If you plan to get an abortion for your woman, you have no more than 1 year to do it legally...though you may still use a coathanger in the bathroom..

 

[Nzinga]

What you say is, I believe, only partially true.

Without question, from the start Miers was an enigma. After throwing blazing fast-balls with John Roberts, GW came back with a change-up, an off-speed pitch. And, neither the "Base" or many democrats were looking for it.

When the nomination was first made, if memory serves me correctly, many dems quickly said she was okay with them. On the one hand, that was a dangerous move -- as it sent an ominous signal to the Base. At the same time, many dems asked the traditional anti-questions which had the effect of appearing "normal" (just where the Base expected them to be). The problem wasn't so much with the dems signals, however, its that the so-called Base, after the dust settled from the initial nomination, had a chance to look with skepticism at Miers. And, wanting to be ensured that she was what THEY were expecting and it didn't really come, they became skeptical.

Every since her nomination, I've seen things on both sides that indicated she might not be the arch-conservative that only the Base will settle for (some of those are noted in the The Supreme Court Nomination thread. As you aptly noted, she might not be anti a lot of the things the Base demands. In the end, however, it appears to me that it wasn't the dems mishandling of the nomination, it was the BASE coming up to speed -- as they never imagined GW appointing someone who might be less than what they want.

The "document issue" was really a non-issue. Mier's would never have withstood the confirmation process. Reagan appointed some judges that turned out not to be what the Right expected of him. There was no chance it was going to let GW do that to them again, with Miers.

QueEx

P.S.: The "change-up" may not have been what GW was actually trying to do. He wasn't trying to confuse his base, nor was he trying to do the Dems a favor. Sometimes, when you elevate friends with less of an emphasis on other things, shit happens.

I agree with many of the things you are saying... one good indicator of what type of person Miers is can be founding from the ringing endorsement she got from all the people in Dallas who worked with her. These include John Wiley Price, the corn-rows wearing County Commisioner, who has been the most strident black militant in Dallas, if not all of Texas, for much of the last generation... I am not endorsing her, but we both know that the Republicans are angling for a right-wing neo-con in there. The Democrats could have saved Miers. If they could have held together (since there is no political danger to them), all they would have needed were 6 or 7 votes, of which we are certain of Alan Specter and Jim Jefford's. There is a good chance that Olympia Snow and Kay Bailey Hutchinson, (being from the DFW metroplex and a woman herself) could have pushed the whole things over even with the most suffocating intimidation from the Republican leadership. This is not even counting the fact that the Republicans were divided.

 

[Black_Immortal]

I agree with many of the things you are saying... one good indicator of what type of person Miers is can be founding from the ringing endorsement she got from all the people in Dallas who worked with her. These include John Wiley Price, the corn-rows wearing County Commisioner, who has been the most strident black militant in Dallas, if not all of Texas, for much of the last generation... I am not endorsing her, but we both know that the Republicans are angling for a right-wing neo-con in there. The Democrats could have saved Miers. If they could have held together (since there is no political danger to them), all they would have needed were 6 or 7 votes, of which we are certain of Alan Specter and Jim Jefford's. There is a good chance that Olympia Snow and Kay Bailey Hutchinson, (being from the DFW metroplex and a woman herself) could have pushed the whole things over even with the most suffocating intimidation from the Republican leadership. This is not even counting the fact that the Republicans were divided.

The fact that the Meiers nomination has been withdrawn indicates to me that the Bush administration was not sure enough of Republican votes to risk pushing this thing any further. If Bush feels that he can’t fight for his nominee, then the Democrats were right in not pushing for here any more than they did. I also think that there really are issues and documents relating to Meiers work as the white house counsel that the administration did not want to have to delve into. On a nonpartisan note, nothing I have read about Meiers legal work leads me to believe that she would be a high quality judge. She has been praised for some of her civic work and the fact that she was a managing partner at an important Texas law firm neither of which I find particularly relevant. Meiers was simply a poor choice. However more satisfactory she is than some of the staunch right-wingers, if she can't be confirmed, she is a poor choice. I think Bush picked someone who is personally loyal to him without doing the groundwork necessary to make sure that she had least a reasonable chance to be confirmed.

 

[Nzinga]

The fact that the Meiers nomination has been withdrawn indicates to me that the Bush administration was not sure enough of Republican votes to risk pushing this thing any further. If Bush feels that he can’t fight for his nominee, then the Democrats were right in not pushing for here any more than they did. I also think that there really are issues and documents relating to Meiers work as the white house counsel that the administration did not want to have to delve into. On a nonpartisan note, nothing I have read about Meiers legal work leads me to believe that she would be a high quality judge. She has been praised for some of her civic work and the fact that she was a managing partner at an important Texas law firm neither of which I find particularly relevant. Meiers was simply a poor choice. However more satisfactory she is than some of the staunch right-wingers, if she can't be confirmed, she is a poor choice. I think Bush picked someone who is personally loyal to him without doing the groundwork necessary to make sure that she had least a reasonable chance to be confirmed.

What are these great qualifications everyone talks about?? John Roberts was a Judge for what, 2 years? Before that he had been a lawyer just like Miers is...'Qualifications' is more of a euphemism to weed out people you do not like than anything else. The Dems are without a clue and a spine; they wimped out without a fight and Republicans are going to shove someone worse than Robert Bork down their throats... By next year half of the enviromental laws, labour protections etc, will all be under assault....

 

[Djmarkxr7]

Actually, it's more about trying to see what people's judicial ideologies are which is why people want to see some decisions that these nominees have made. At least Roberts had 2 years on the bench to show partially which way he leans while Miers has none. Nzinga, please read the article below. Arlen Specter was by no means a definite "yes" vote! This move was strictly about Bush trying to pull the wool over the Dems eyes, but he got caught!!!

[FRAME]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/19/AR2005101902402.html[/FRAME]

 

[QueEx]

... we both know that the Republicans are angling for a right-wing neo-con in there. The Democrats could have saved Miers.

Yeah, we both know that they want someone with a decided right-wing bent, but I am confused as to how the dems could have saved her.

If they could have held together (since there is no political danger to them), all they would have needed were 6 or 7 votes, of which we are certain of Alan Specter and Jim Jefford's.

As I read the news, it wasn't the Dems that <u>underminded</u> her nomination. In the political climate existing in this country since Nixon, you woiuld expect the out-of-power party to request some information that might border on the absurd -- because it has been the case that the out-party will use anything under the damn sun to try to discredit a nomination in the process of trying to discredit the sitting president, hoping that will help them in the next election. However, in the Miers' case, Republicans were demanding certain files and information relating to that tricky area known as executive privilege - which <u>they</u> <u>knew</u> they were <u>not</u> going to get. While you would expect that from the out-party Dems, by the Republicans doing this, it was a <u>sure</u> <u>sign</u> that they were undermining their own president's nomination.

I mean, how the hell does it look when Repubs are demanding their Repub president to produce files that he is claiming Exec. Privilege ??? With all the shit thats going on right now (Iraq, Frist, Rove-Libby, Katrina response, No Social Security reform, Delay's indictment, high assed gasoline, falling poll numbers ... you name it), do you think GW wanted a fight with his base over this nomination ??? Moreover, some say Miers was nominated in the first place because of all the shit thats going on -- that is, he didn't want to fight with the Dems over a nomination right now.

In other words, the right-wing of the party sent GW a message that it was unlikely to pass muster on Miers; Miers saw the hand writing on the wall and did herself a favor (in the name of doing the president a favor) and withdrew her nomination. Hell, if GW could have, he might have done it himself -- but that would have caused him more of the same grief he is already suffering.

The Dems are without a clue and a spine; they wimped out without a fight and Republicans are going to shove someone worse than Robert Bork down their throats... By next year half of the enviromental laws, labour protections etc, will all be under assault....

I completely disagree with the "wimped out" statement. As I said above, the Dems did what the could not to get too supportive of Miers since to do so (assuming she was worth confirming) would have clearly signaled that she might be a lot less "Right Wing" than the president was selling. The criticism over Miers was originating primarily in the repub right camp. If the Dems had done much more, she still would have been forced (as I suspect she was anyway) to withdraw.

It is my opinion that sometimes its not worth fighting over shit when you only win a small battle in the hearts of a few supporters and lose the damn war. It allows your opponent to point out just how silly (real or imagined) you really are. It doesn't really further your cause, though you've made some on the fringes happy. Whats that saying: Even if you win the special olympics, you're still retarded ???

QueEx