Light at the End of the Miers Tunnel?:
Here's another sign of a Miers tipping point — hints that the White House is at least pondering the scenario of withdrawing the nomination:
The White House has begun making contingency plans for the withdrawal of Harriet Miers as President Bush's choice to fill a seat on the Supreme Court, conservative sources said yesterday.If these "conservative sources" are right, this is very big news. Thanks to Howard for the link.
"White House senior staff are starting to ask outside people, saying, 'We're not discussing pulling out her nomination, but if we were to, do you have any advice as to how we should do it?' " a conservative Republican with ties to the White House told The Washington Times yesterday.
Would some knowledgeable Kremlinologist out there care to explain it?
It's a shame the Senate can only vote up or down, rather than giving her a grade. She would fail, as opposed to getting the "gentlemen's C" or whatever other grade she supposedly earned in Con Law at SMU.
Krauthammer was on FOX today suggesting that one possible strategy had already been put into play. The letter from Specter and Leahy, citing the lack of her written record and her response to the question of her constitutional experience being primarily in her advisory capacity to Bush, specifically requests (almost 'requires') that she submit the briefs, memoranda, et al. that she has generated in 'advising the President on constitutional issues.' Krauthammer maintains, quite correctly, that it is highly unlikely that the White House would release this information. Thus, the strategy for withdrawal is born.
His suggestion is that Miers withdraw herself on the following basis:
Krauthammer feels this would be an 'honorable' way for the White House to withdraw her nomination in that it would be a 'legitimate' reason for the White House and would save face for the Senate Judiciary Committee in that they would have been fulfilling their mandate. The result, he feels, would be that no one, with the possible exception of Miers in that she wouldn't be seated on the Court, would come out the 'loser.'
I suspect that this is a case where those opposed to Miers are trying to send a 'gentle' reminder to 'Bush &Friends' that they do have a perceptual "no harm, no foul" opportunity to change their mind. Without more information and more specifics as to sources, I would hesitate to read any "importance" into this report.
Losing as little face as possible could still be quite a bit of face. It might be premature, but I wonder what a withdrawal would mean for the replacement nomination. As close to a Roberts clone as possible to get this out of the public eye as quickly as possible? A red meat conservative to rally the base? A compromise candidate who is actually qualified for the job?
I wonder if a positive outcome of all this is that the next time an unqualified person is offered the nomination, that person might have to think seriously about whether to accept, rather than assuming they'll sail through to confirmation just because the Senate is controlled by the President's party.
If Dubya can muster the courage and the will and get over his pig-headed stubborness long enough to do the other 3 things Henninger counsels, or at least one of them, Life will be good again (except for liberals).
Bush can nominate whoever he wants after this debacle, because he can say, "I'm weak, if I strike out a second time, 2006 is a loser for us all" and conservatives will line up to support a nominee better than Miers and the media will focus on how much better is the new nominee.
Most of the judges appointed to the federal judiciary by Republican Presidents have been discovered by C. Boyden Gray, and all have been pro-business and pro-deregulation. Even Miers, whom some conservatives hate, has support from the Chamber of Commerce.
The legal revolution is already here. The question is how much further will it go.
Those gentlemen were known quantities. Miers spent a career remaining an unknown quantity. The president broke his pledge with her nomination. A pledge that already drew the base further to the center than it would have preferred in voting for him.
Social Security reform??? I am still laughing. You couldn't even get a majority of Republicans to sign up for that giveaway to big business.
put a proven Thomas clone on the bench
And now my laughter stopped. The last thing anyone needs is a Thomas clone -- go read his dissent in Hamdi where he (and he alone) asserted that the President has the power to detain American citizens indefinitely without any process whatsoever. Then go read Justice Scalia's opinion in the case (joined by Justice Stevens ie the two smartest Justices in one opinion) explaining exactly why Thomas was dead wrong and his "opinion" was contrary to one thousand years of law, and was dare I say an activist opinion. Now tell me what is so great about
JusticeThomas again??????His view of the Commerce Clause.
This is the problem with having these cute catch phrases. They get applied to a situations the phrase facially applies to, but is in fact completely different. The "X deserves an up or down vote" meme was in opposition to a minority of senators blocking the appointment process via filibuster. This is an almost incomparable situation to an executive, or the nominee herself, withdrawing the nomination.
Another way of thinking about it might be, “if the vote is going to be ‘no,’ doesn’t a nominee, or the appointing executive, have a right to avoid the humiliation of the rejection process by withdrawling?”
Refuse to overturn Roe? Check.
I'm conservative, but I think that overturning Roe could be the worst thing to happen to the conservative movement or Republicans in decades. The backlush would be enormous - I would imagine there would be very few Repubs left in office after the following election.
Reminds me of an old episode of All in the Family:
"What the Supreme Court says ain't got nothin' to do with the law!"
-Archie
And of course it must be true. Or maybe not.
Maybe those "conservative sources" are doing a little wishful thinking, or just trying to generate pressure on the White House.
I don't think Bush will cave on this. Grumbling aside, will six Republican senators really oppose a Bush nominee?
This is an old link but I'm not if some of you read it.
Granted, Miers is not a top choice but is she worth the time the Senate will take to grasp her real philosophy of jurisprudence? If she withdrawls, we see her as a blunder of not only President Bush, but the Administration too. She does deserve the right to prove her ability which will be made apparent during the Senate hearings. Plus, if she testifies and messes up, we can criticize her more. So it could be a win/win for the critics.
Even if she proves herself able I doubt that she is confirmed since their is such widespread disapproval across the board...It would take a miracle for this "Evangelical Christian."
I get involuntary hives every time I hear the words Sotomayor and SCOTUS in the same sentence. Thanks, pal.
I think Krauthammer is very creative; we have the Ginsburg rule and hopefully next to come is the Krauthammer excuse!
I'm amazed at some of these comments. Even if the Republicans actually pass decent conservative legislation, it will be challanged in court and unless we fix the judiciary, none of it will matter. The judiciary has become "the super-super-duper legislative body". When I worked and gave money for Bush, I was'nt thinking Roe vs Wade, I was thinking "give us honorable constitutionalist judges.
I believe that if Miers is withdrawn, Bush should nominate Owens, Brown, Luttig, O'Connell , or Alice Batch......something. I heard this woman on C-Span and she's a conservative with constitutional brains and the guts to face off with the Bidens and the press.
If he nominates another lightweight, he will be all alone for the next few years. The Judiciary along with the War on Terror was why he won. He betrayed the conservatives with Harriet and hopefully he is man enough to fix it.
Interesting slip.
If Republicans want the Somme of the culture war, they'll get it.
I believe there is constitutional protections for the unborn.