2008 Woodie Awards
Nominate Robbie George for SCOTUS. I dare Bush to do it.
David Souter happens to be the Court’s smartest justice. You conservatives stop attacking him!
For god sakes, withdraw this nominee. She’s an embarrasment to the process.
And while we’re talking about withdrawals, how about an exit strategy for Iraq?
She should just withdraw; this is getting just ridiculous. It’s like turning in a bad homework assignment and then getting it back with a lot of red ink, no grade, and a note from your teacher asking you to redo it. I love this:
Veteran senators and aides said they could not recall another occasion when the committee had sent back a nominee’s answers to a questionnaire because they were incomplete. Former Senator Daniel R. Coats of Indiana, the administration’s appointed guide for Ms. Miers on Capitol Hill, defended her answers in the Senate questionnaire as a work in progress.
Folks, this is the Supreme Court we’re talking about. Highest court in the land. A thousand conservative lawyers and judges would kill to be in Miers’ place. And she can’t even fill out a survey right. Good lord.
Michelle Cottle’s TNR Online column today taking on Laura Bush’s charges of sexism against Harriet Miers’ detractors reminds me of the fact that there are female conservative legal types much more qualified for a seat on the Court who Bush could have picked. If he wanted a non-judge, for example, he could have gone with Harvard Law Professor Mary Ann Glendon, who would have gotten through the Senate easily because (like John Roberts) she is very well-qualified.
NYT:
Even if the timing is politically opportune, it is still refreshing to hear Republican senators talk about the importance of judges’ being highly qualified, and about their own obligation to question the president’s nominees closely, including about their views on specific legal issues. That is how judicial confirmations are supposed to work, no matter which party is doing the nominating.
A tad bit naive, don’t you think? All the chatter on the right about “qualifications” seems to me to be a mask for their concerns that Miers isn’t conservative enough for their tastes. Sure, she is unqualified. But a judicial nominee’s lack of qualifications hasn’t stopped Republicans and their punditocratic apologists from zealously pushing them onto courts- think Janice Rogers Brown, who was a very undistinguished (if not plainly disappointing in terms of her resume) California Supreme Court justice when Bush nominated her to the DC Circuit. The significant difference is that Brown was demonstrably conservative; Miers isn’t, or at least not to the liking of many ‘wingers, if we’re to take them at their word.
JPod says:
Anybody who assumes this nomination is going to sail through–for whatever reason you can come up with, from the notion that the Dems understand she’s the best they’ll get and will be easy on her to the idea that the president will successfully enforce party discipline on GOP members on behalf of a nominee nobody but Lindsey Graham and John Cornyn seems enthusiastic about–is kidding himself.
I’m certainly inclined to agree; at the same time, I don’t think Miers is going to be withdrawn, even though that’s the wish of some prominent conservative voices. Think about it: junking this nominee before the Senate’s hearings would be massively embarrasing to the Bush administration, because doing so calls into question the judgement and decision-making ability of the administration. Bush and Rove (assuming he’s still around) are going to fight tooth and nail against doing something like this. Having their nominee rejected by the Senate (which some people who know more about this than I do think is a distinct possibility) would be less embarrasing than preemptive withdrawal. Picking Miers was undoubtedly a political mistake, but pulling her would be an even bigger one.
From Ed Kilgore: “I think we should just sit back and watch the spectacle on the other side for a while.”
RedState: “Mr. President, you’ve got some explaining to do. And please remember - we’ve been defending you these five years because of this moment.”
Malkin: “If this is President Bush’s bright idea to buck up his sagging popularity–among conservatives as well as the nation at large–one wonders whom he would have picked in rosier times. Shudder.”
Levin: “Miers was chosen for two reasons and two reasons alone: 1. she’s a she; 2. she’s a long-time Bush friend. Otherwise, there’s nothing to distinguish her from thousands of other lawyers . . . Even David Souter had a more compelling resume that Miers . . . If people are disappointed, they have every reason to be.”
Ponnuru: “It’s an inspiring testament to the diversity of the president’s cronies. Wearing heels is not an impediment to being a presidential crony in this administration! I can only assume that the president felt that his support was slipping in this important bloc, and he had to do something to shore it up.”
Lowry: After the Roberts pick conservatives swooned and said Bush doesn’t care about “diversity”; it’s only high qualifications that matter to this bold, let-the-chips-fall-where-they-may leader, etc., etc. Don’t we have to take all that back now?
Sullivan: “Her qualification is primarily personal proximity to the president. . . Cronyism, anyone?”
As unscientific as it is, Townhall.com readers don’t seem to like her.
John Hawkins: “This is undoubtedly the worst decision of Bush’s entire presidency so far.”
Reynolds: “Bush may have managed a Perfect Storm here. Democrats will still want to beat him on Miers, because they always want to beat him. Republicans may be happy to see her go down, too. So who, exactly, is going to get her confirmed? Harry Reid?”
Yes, they’re really not happy with her:
Bush lied to us. Let Kos cheer.
The post below should not get lost, that her name was on a list of acceptables supplied by the Democrats.
Bush is a gutless, abortionist liar. I spit on him. Seriously.
Worst day to be a conservative since Bader Ginsburg was confirmed.
The apocalypse is upon us! It’s like ‘93 all over again!
ThinkProgress has more.
Oh well. Looks like we still won’t have a Harlanian restoration of Princetonians on the Court. I know nothing about Harriet Miers. Balkin has more, as does Todd.
Over at NRO, David Frum seems unhappy, and York points out that Miers has made campaign contributions to (gasp!) Al Gore (in 1988, mind you). Bill Kristol says he’s “disappointed, depressed and demoralized.” See Ezra for more.
More interesting than all of this is John Fleming’s discussion of lavatories this morning in the Prince.
Just another WordPress weblog
RSS 2.0
