<p>And apparently Bush has “reluctantly agreed”. Being reported on CNN.</p>
<p>The nomination never should have occurred.</p>
<p>Now we’ll just have to settle for someone the President says is NOT the best qualified for the job.</p>
<p>Oh, well… (There is Michael Brown…)</p>
<p>Goodbye to “the church lady” from SMU. God has saved us yet again???</p>
<p>The letter that was read on NPR didn’t sound like Bush was reluctant to accept a way out… You can find copies of both letters at this link: <a href=“http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4933926[/url]”>Harriet Miers Withdraws as High Court Nominee : NPR;
<p>This is what I wrote on the day of Miers’ announcement:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would expect the next nominee to be an easy choice for ultra-conservatives and be seen as a true nemesis by the dems. There should be fireworks during the hearings, which may grab the attention away from the other thorny issues bothering the President’s inner circle. </p>
<p>FWIW, you have to wonder about these comments:</p>
<p>Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., one of 14 women in the Senate, had challenged Miers’ nomination yet criticized Republicans for derailing it: “I don’t believe they would have attacked a man the way she was attacked.”</p>
<p>“The radical right wing of the Republican Party killed the Harriet Miers nomination,” said Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who had recommended Miers to the president. “They want a nominee with a proven record of supporting their skewed goals.”</p>
<p>Only Pelosi could make more moronic comments than the Dumb and Dumber duo quoted above.</p>
<p>I guess she wasn’t “activist” enough for the right wing of the party.</p>
<p>BUT they have NO litmus test and do not like activist judges? Yet they want to go against current laws. Oh yeah…</p>
<p>The conservative right wing was dismayed by the Miers choice from the start - dismayed because she didn’t quite fit their bill and especially dismayed that the president nominated her at all. They thought that THEY got to make the choice. Perhaps this time they will.</p>
<p>Even Ann Coulter, staunch Bush defender, has been up in arms about this:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi[/url]”>http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi</a> </p>
<p>(Note that the link will work through Thursday, 02 November- after that, find it in the archives.)</p>
<p>Lots of snarling on the right about Miers. I don’t think it has to do with credentials so much as a lack of a track record for advancing the conservative agenda. IMO, that’s a poor way to find a SJC candidate. Finding one who respects the other two branches of gov’t - that’s fine. One who is thoughtful - great. Agenda - completely wrong on either side of the political aisle. </p>
<p>Does seem as if Miers was really put through the wringer. The Lottery Commission thing was touted about to mock her, as if it were her greatest achievement, instead of focusing on her achievements in the legal field (one does not become a high-ranking female in Texas’s top law firm in that era without being one hell of a woman). Both sides are acting like Bush pulled her from some West Virginia back woods, where she was renowned in a town of 700 for sitting on the Board of Selectment. Hello - she’s achieved more than most of us ever will. </p>
<p>Fine - point out that she has 18 months less of judical experience than Roberts (yeah, 18 months - count it!) - but don’t make her out to be an idiot. Grrr.</p>
<p>Not “dumb” and “dumber” at all. The Dems know that it is politically in their best interest to paint the Republican’s as lunatic fringe conservatives beholden to the the Evangelical right wing. Thus, watching Bush’s conservative base derail the Meirs nomination on litmus test grounds was ideal for the Dems politically.</p>
<p>Why do you think Sen Schumer said yesterday that it would be wrong to withdraw the nomination before a single Republican had called for Meirs to step down? He wasn’t being nice. He was licking his chops at the prospect of the Republican bloodletting continuing as long as possible.</p>
<p>The Democrats don’t have Meirs’ blood on their hands and are innoculated at charges of “partisanship” on this one, especially with their support of the Roberts nomination. They never had to get down in the gutter because Bush’s “allies” did the dirty work. Her undoing has come at the hands of the Republican base. The message to the electorate is clear. The Republicans are owned, lock, stock, and barrel, by the extremist factions of the party.</p>
<p>The Evangelical Mullahs…like the ones we are fighting in foreign lands.</p>
<p>"Both sides are acting like Bush pulled her from some West Virginia back woods, where she was renowned in a town of 700 for sitting on the Board of Selectment. Hello - she’s achieved more than most of us ever will. </p>
<p>Fine - point out that she has 18 months less of judical experience than Roberts (yeah, 18 months - count it!) - but don’t make her out to be an idiot. Grrr."</p>
<p>Best qualified person in the entire country, according to the Prez. Now we are going to have settle for second best, or even worse. ;)</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>A few days ago one of her defenders was in press saying that her legal credentials were just fine because she had graduated from “the second-best law school in Texas.” Which caused local morning dejays here to joke (warning:Texas joke coming) that this was like saying someone was the second-fastest panda or the second-cutest water buffalo.</p>
<p>actually, I would have liked her to stay in the race longer…it could have fractured the conservative right.</p>
<p>“A few days ago one of her defenders was in press saying that her legal credentials were just fine because she had graduated from “the second-best law school in Texas.” Which caused local morning dejays here to joke (warning:Texas joke coming) that this was like saying someone was the second-fastest panda or the second-cutest water buffalo.”</p>
<p>Guess that means that whomever is nominated now, we will have to assume is third best, behind the cute water buffalo. (I think he’s working in the Treasury Department.)</p>
<p>Nawww they have GOD on their side. I agree having her hang out a litttle longer, the whiff of fresh blood, the fear in the eyes, the press in a feeding frenzie, Senate sharpening their claws…I love political drama. Poor “church lady” I wonder how it feels to be “the pawn”…when the game is all about being The Queen.</p>
<p>y aknow I hadn’t said anything about the latest appt
All I want is for the justices to rule on the law- although I think to get the most accurate intrpration you need to have people who come at it from differing viewpoints.
I was a little ( a lot) worried about Roberts, because he is so young for a justice and his impact will be felt for generations
But Miers I beleive should have been able to go through the process - of establishing her suitability rather than withdrawing once she was nominated.
Nobody Bush nominates I am going to be thrilled with
I am pro choice- pro right to marry whomever you wish- pro public land remaining in public hands- the whole ball of wax- but I am dismayed at the Democrats who didn’t like Miers ( and wouldn’t love anyone he appointed) are now saying that he caved to pressure from the right wing.
Make up your friggin mind!</p>
<p>You mean like making up a bed that has no sheets?? Not gonna happen in the Oval Office during this adm.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Politics is a contact sport.</p>
<p>I love the way Schumer put the knife in and twisted it this week. Man, I’d hate to meet up with him in a dark alley. A back-street brawler in the $2000 suit.</p>
<p>That’s the beauty of such a mindless nomination. Of course, the Democrats were never going to support the woman – she had no background to sit on the Court. But, they didn’t have to do the dirty work. Just sit back and watch the Republicans self-destruct.</p>
<p>Some commentator or politician was right on point recently when he said, “This is what happens when you get one-party control of the whole enchilada.” There’s nobody accountability. No forcing the President to make considered serious choices.</p>
<p>The Federalist Papers talk about he the precise reason for having Senate confirmation of Court nominees. It isn’t because the Senate is somehow more qualified. It’s that you need some mechanism for holding the President’s feet to the fire. To force him to make a serious appointment or risk an embarrassing loss.</p>