pageok
pageok
pageok
What Sank The Miers Nomination?:
My guess is that this theory is mostly right and this theory is mostly wrong. Hat tip: Howard.
Jam (mail):
The probability of reopening the Texas Lottery scandal is what did it.
10.27.2005 10:43pm
AKB (mail):
Professors, I wonder if there is a thought that this so-called victory by the Right (of Miers Withdrawl) shows that the Right is more determined THAN the Ultra-Left of the Democratic Party (e.g., Kossacks)?

That is, Professors, do you think Ultra-left could get a Democratic President to withdraw?

Does this show that the Right is in fact the reason why Republicans (sadly or notsadly) control three-branches of the government?

That is, the Right is more Determined, more Passionate, more powerful, than the ultra-left like nation magazine?

Any ideas? How come no one is think of the parallel concept?

AKB
10.27.2005 11:39pm
AKB (mail):
Oops, I just read the story about theory of senators reactions being right. Disregard my thought in previous note. Professors, you are correct as usual.

AKB
10.27.2005 11:43pm
Attila (Pillage Idiot) (mail) (www):
I haven't been speaking English much lately, but has the past tense of "sink" become "sunk" while I was gone?
10.28.2005 12:07am
Randy R. (mail):
Most likely, it was a combination of factors from all areas. I don't think even Meir's herself would be able to point to one factor that caused the withdrawal. it's also likely that there would have been no withdrawal if there were NOT calls from everywhere in the conservative spectrum.
If there WAS one cause or faction that cause this, then we will see it in the next selection --Bush will appoint a person who will appease that faction.

BUt it really matters little the actual reason. Let's see who takes credit for it. it is the interests of every group and faction within the conservatives to take credit for it, hoping that Bush will pander to them in the next selection. That is what really matters now.
10.28.2005 12:39am
CharleyCarp (mail):
Two final straws that must've weighed heavy on the camel: (a) the 1993 speech has to have lost the Ultras and (b) Specter's Guantanamo questions have to have made everyone think about how commitments to recuse (and there would've been no way around them, in the weak state the nomination was already in) were going to ruin the real reason for the whole nomination.

Now, where can the Pres find someone who will satisfy the business base, not draw the same horrified reaction from the religious base, not draw a filibuster, and, most importantly, agree with the President's outsized notions of Executive power? This last is what makes nearly all those people currently on the bench too dangerous.

Bush barely cares about Casey/Roe -- at least there's no real reason to think he cares much. On Hamdan/Al-Odah, though, the stakes are high, real, and personal: if the S. Ct. finds that the prisoners have rights, they will then have trials, and what will come out in those trials will blacken Bush's name for all eternity.
10.28.2005 1:41am
CharleyCarp (mail):
Some of you might think that the Supreme Court already settled that question in Rasul, especially in footnote 15. The government does not agree, and don't expect the D.C. Circuit to so hold in Al Odah.
10.28.2005 9:00am
Jam (mail):
Texas Gov. Bush, Ben Barnes, National Guard, not-for bid contracts, "... Larry Littwin -- the controversial former lottery director under Miers -- had been released from a gag order, freeing him to appear at the confirmation hearings to give "potentially explosive" testimony damaging both to Bush and Miers."

WND Article
10.28.2005 11:03am
Okie:
I disagree. I think both are valid. She could have survived her 'personality' or survived the 'give them all a vote, except her' ideologues to get to the hearings. It was going to be difficult to survive both. She would still have to do well at the hearings and we don't know if anything would have come out of the possible Texas Lottery 'scandal'.
10.29.2005 8:30am