Breaking: Miers Withdraws October 27, 2005 Jill Yup. UPDATE: Harriet responds. She has a great point: “Its better to have been nominated and withdrawn then never to have been nominated at all.” That’s deep.
I don’t think it’s good news, although on one level it certainly is, since I don’t think she’s qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice. But we had nothing to do with this: this was the far right, which has power, deciding that she wasn’t right-wing enough. The left and the center are irrelevent, and neither will have any say in who the next nominee will be. I think we can expect a real yahoo to be nominated in the next few days.
History shows that second nominees are beaten. The administration is in disarray, the leadership of both houses is weakened by scandal, and the moderate Republicans are looking to distance themselves in the run up to the midterms. The next nominee will be a nutcase with a clear anti-Roe record, and will be defeated by a coalition of Dems and moderate Republicans who now have little incentive to play ball. Harry Reid’s bankshot worked like a charm: he got Bush to piss himself in public with the least qualified lackey in recent memory, then got the flat earth society to kill her bid. This morning, he’s already saying that the flat earth society is not entitled to a wingnut — he’s set up the attack on a far-right nominee. Bush’s own imperatives, though, require him to nominate someone with a clear anti-Roe record, which means he’ll have to walk right into Reid’s trap. There are times I grimmace at the gutlessness, or at the naivite, of the Dems. Today is not one of those days. Bush’s third nominee will be a consensus moderate, to stop the bleeding.
Although some tried to convince me that Miers was our best chance of getting a Supreme who might support Gris and Roe, I couldn’t stomach her. To me, she didn’t have a demonstrated accumen for the job. This is the Supreme Court and we shouldn’t fuck with that. I hope the next nominee has a clear judicial philosophy. At least then everyone will know what we’re getting. But, I thought this nominee was a head fake from the start.
The flat earth society killed her bid? Are you joking, Thomas? A little advice: you might want to look closely at who was actually opposing Miers. And who on the right was supporting her. For what it’s worth, I encourage you and Harry Reid and Barbara Boxer and Eleanor Clift to keep suggesting that those who opposed Miers are slackjawed Jesushumping “extremists” — that these “flat earthers” want somebody on the bench who will send women back the kitchen and put Jesus back in charge of the country. Because while you are battling conservative cartoons, we are working to return judiciary restraint to the courts.
This’ll be a pyrrhic victory; the jesus have made clear what they want and tugged their leash on Bush. With the corruption scandals, I think the R’s strategy will clearly be playing to the base and damn the rest of the country. On the bright side, I think overturning Roe v Wade will be good for the Democrats in the long term. Overturning Griswold, too. The central problem with a liberal / living constitution IMO is that what one supreme court reads into the constitution another can read out. What we need are amendments and a right to privacy in black and white text in the 28th amendment.
History shows that second nominees are beaten. History has nothing to say about the current situation. Harrold Carswell, who was Nixon’s second nominee in 1969, not only was mediocre in the Miers mold but had supported segregation. Douglas Ginsburg, whom Reagan nominated after Bork was rejected, got tripped up by his admission that he had smoked pot. He never even made it to the hearings. In both those cases, a Republican president was facing a Senate with a Democratic majority. Bush is looking at a Republican majority and a base that’s been focused on the Court for weeks. If he nominates a hardliner who’s as eminently qualified as, say, Roberts was, the pressure on moderate Republicans (especially those, like McCain, who are thinking of running in ’08) to vote yes and nuke the filibuster will be enormous. I’m usually pessimistic when it comes to my side, if for no other reason than that they so often disappoint. But I’d say you guys are in a bit of trouble right now.
JeffG, this is the kind of opposition I’m talking about. She is a cartoon. The word you’re looking for is “judicial.”
since I don’t think she’s qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice Certainly she’s qualified. I’m qualified. Probably a much more accurate way to put this is she wasn’t even in the top quartile of potential candidates, so nominating her ahead of hundreds of other better choices was…ungood.
Allah, the administration is on the balls of its ass — Bush just had to bail out on the Davis-Bacon suspension. They’re in no position to put the boots to legislators. Frist has other problems, Specter doesn’t like wingnuts, Delay’s out of commission, and the moderates in your party are desperate to distance themselves from the right before the midterms. This morning, no less a figure than Jack Danforth said: I think that the Republican Party fairly recently has been taken over by the Christian conservatives, by the Christian right. I don’t think that this is a permanent condition, but I think this has happened, and that it’s divisive for the country. Wingnut=failed nomination No.2, a political hit Bush will have to take to appease the base.
Thomas, if you’re thinking that this was a serious article, remember that Coulter’s a bomb-thrower. Taking anything she says at face value is a mistake.
They’re in no position to put the boots to legislators. The administration isn’t, but the base, and the conservative intelligentsia, are. As I say, there’s enormous pressure within the party right now to seize the day and remake the Court, whatever the political price to be paid. There’s also the little matter of what another defeat would mean for the Republicans’ prospects in the midterm election. Specter might not like the idea of cozying up to hardliners, but I bet he likes the idea of losing his chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee even less. The key, as always, is for Bush to nominate someone with impeccable credentials. A Clarence Thomas, who had the right ideology but no particular professional distinction, simply won’t do. They need to give Specter and McCain someone whose qualifications are so overwhelming that they can vote yes while distancing themselves from the more conservative aspects of the nominee’s philosophy. E.g., “I don’t agree with Judge X’s stance on Y, but in light of her impressive intellectual accomplishments, I felt I owed it to the American people to yadda yadda yadda.” We’ll see.
Allah, we will see, but remember that the moderates know that the end of Roe would move fifteen or so state legislatures to the blue column and create a drumbeat of horror stories from Mississippi, possibly lost both houses to the Dems for a generation and generally do to the Republicans what the CRA of 1964 and VRA of 1965 did to the Democrats. Parts of the Republican base may want abortion outlawed or left to the states, but in practice, this result would be a political disaster.
I quite agree, Thomas. As, I’m sure, does Rove. Which is part of the reason, I think, that we hear Michael McConnell’s name so often mentioned. From what I understand, McConnell supports an amendment to criminalize abortion but believes Roe should be upheld for reasons of stare decisis. (Which is also my position, FYI.) Frankly, I’m surprised that that line of thinking isn’t more widespread within conservative circles.
Thomas: I think every rational Republican thinker understands that overturning Griswald & Roe would be a political disaster. I also think the vast majority of the base sees Republicans controlling the WH, Senate, and House by good majorities and want what they’ve been promised since Goldwater. Frankly, I don’t think it will be the end of the world — overturning the aforementioned will do wonders for Democrats and a little judicial restraint would be nice sometimes. For example, overruling Wickard v. Filburn, slapping Congress on the hand, and finding something — anything — that isn’t interstate commerce and hence not subject to regulation except by the states. Earl
Thomas’ posts try to show that the whole abortion thing plays into the hands of those who would caricature Republicans as being bought and paid for by the Pat Robertsons of the country. The only problem is that it’s simply not true. Republicans know that most people in this country are for abortion, with restrictions. People don’t want UNFETTERED abortion. They don’t want their 13 year old daughters getting them without knowing about it. They don’t want them happening 5 minutes before birth. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, and Thomas’ warnings about red states turning blue comes to pass, this will only prove that point. States will place some restrictions, and the people will have spoken. There may be certain states that try to make it illegal, but they’ll pay a political price for it. I say let it happen – that’s the American way of legislating, and the bench hasn’t forced the issue. The above is a synopsis of what MOST conservatives want. TV (Harry)
“Its better to have been nominated and withdrawn then never to have been nominated at all.” Normally, I’d agree with this. But considering the circumstances under which she was nominated? Not so much.
Wouldn’t it be absolutely LOVELY if this nomination process (I agree with everyone who said his next one’ll be a nutcase extraordinaire who’ll be rejected for that very reason and Bush’ll have to nominate a third) took past the midterm elections and the Democrats gained a majority in the Senate? Not only would they be in position to reject any far-right moonbats that Bush nominates (and it’d be hilarious to then see the Republicans trying to use the same fillibuster that they tried to abolish), but a more-or-less sane majority that isn’t in Bush’s back pocket might be of the opinion that lying, sheltering a traitor, starting a war on false pretenses and getting people killed thereby, committing war crimes such as torture, etc, just MIGHT be an impeachable offense. Which would probably mean Bush’s removal from office. And if Cheney resigns, as rumors suggest . . . well, Bush or Cheney might get time to appoint a new Vice President, but otherwise I believe it’s the Speaker of the House that is next in line for the White House. Anybody know who that is, and are they wingnut or moderate? I don’t have enough information to continue speculating here. But a moderate might appoint a moderate to replace Sandra Day O’Conner, and Bush might appoint a moderate to replace Cheney on his way out, to get back at the far right for not protecting him from impeachment. Happy thoughts.
“If Roe v. Wade is overturned, and Thomas’ warnings about red states turning blue comes to pass, this will only prove that point. States will place some restrictions, and the people will have spoken. There may be certain states that try to make it illegal, but they’ll pay a political price for it. I say let it happen – that’s the American way of legislating, and the bench hasn’t forced the issue.” Let me guess. You’re not likely to be faced with an unwanted pregnancy whilst stuck in Texas, Michigan, Ohio or South Dakota, are you?
Kyra, much as I dislike him, getting Bush out early is not in the cards. He has so much plausible deniability. OTOH, I suspect that the Fitzgerald investigation with broaden into the source of the forged Niger documents, which went to the neo-Con OSP (the home of Feith-based intelligence) from the Italians (the CIA realized they were forged right away). If either Cheney is named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Plame leak, or the broader investigation sweeps him in, he may have to resign. With neither Rove nor Cheney, Bush with flail helplessly through the end of his term, and might as well pack for Crawford now.
No, Thomas. That’s giving him exactly what he wants! “The Rehnquist definition was in a memo he sent to the White House when he was an Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel and was vetting Judge Clement Haynsworth. It is quite remarkable, but he asserts that a strict constructionist judge is one who favors criminal prosecutors over criminal defendants, and civil rights defendants over civil rights plaintiffs.”
Don’t take this the wrong way, Norbiz, but I can neither tell what you’re responding to nor what you’re trying to say, and I have no idea what you’re quoting from.
Kyra, the current Speaker is wingnut/Tom DeLay plaything J. Dennis Hastert. However, the only coceivable way that Bush would be impeached would be under a Democratic House, and the most likely Speaker would be current minority leader Nancy Pelosi.
Allah, we will see, but remember that the moderates know that the end of Roe would move fifteen or so state legislatures to the blue column and create a drumbeat of horror stories from Mississippi, possibly lost both houses to the Dems for a generation and generally do to the Republicans what the CRA of 1964 and VRA of 1965 did to the Democrats. There’s a truckload of wishful thinking in that scenario.
David, touch the third rail and find out. Women of voting age in this country have had the luxury of complacently assuming that, unless they are poor, abortion will be available to them if they need it since 1973. If Roe goes down, a majority of states have highly restrictive laws on the books that kick in automatically. In each of these states and many others, abortion, which has only been an issue for a few activists at the state level, becomes the issue. You want to see where America really stands, put us all in a position where we can’t assume a certain minimum level of protection. Go ahead, wake the sleeping dog. Poke it with a stick and see if it bites you.
You want to see where America really stands, put us all in a position where we can’t assume a certain minimum level of protection. We’ll find out “where America really stands” soon enough, though America may not give you the answer you were expecting. Go ahead, wake the sleeping dog. Poke it with a stick and see if it bites you. It’s not my dog and it’s not my stick. Your triumphalism is misplaced.
Thomas: I think every rational Republican thinker understands that overturning Griswald & Roe would be a political disaster. I also think the vast majority of the base sees Republicans controlling the WH, Senate, and House by good majorities and want what they’ve been promised since Goldwater. Frankly, I don’t think it will be the end of the world — overturning the aforementioned will do wonders for Democrats Wow. Kinda cavalier about the real-world consequences of overturning Griswold & Roe, aren’t you?
We’ll find out “where America really stands” soon enough, though America may not give you the answer you were expecting. I think you are right to a certain extent. Americans including women support legal abortion but with restrictions right now. If faced with a choice between no abortion and abortion with little or no restrictions however, I think the subtlety will be lost and you’ll see a large mobilization.
EricP, you’ve got it exactly right: most Americans are comfortable with a lot more restriction on reproductive freedom than I am, as long as the core of the right (for adult, middle-class women) is protected. They had that. Since Casey, they’ve been able to restict access through the political process. But the hard core of the Right wasn’t satisfied. In their ideological absolutism, they demand to have the battle; to be able to eliminate abortion absolutely on large pieces of the map. It’s a battle they can’t win.
zuzu: Not cavalier, but I think that, net, it may be good for the country. Letting people who can’t pull out their amex and fly to Mexico/Canada for an abortion see just what they’re voting for can’t hurt. With Roe off the table, I think the differences between the parties are significantly muted, but putting abortion back into play will make the differences much more real for large chunks of the population. Admittedly, this will do awful things to a number of people, but at some point folks deserve the government they vote for. However, it is my hypothesis that may Republican voters do so only in the knowledge that there are some things Republicans can’t touch.
zuzu: Not cavalier, but I think that, net, it may be good for the country. Letting people who can’t pull out their amex and fly to Mexico/Canada for an abortion see just what they’re voting for can’t hurt. Pardon? And what about the people who DIDN’T vote for the fuckers who can’t afford to go to Canada or Mexico? Are you going to throw them under the bus for the greater good, too?
Zuzu, I would really rather keep Roe, but the facts on the ground are so bad for poor, rural women anyway in many parts of the country that the shock of realization that reproductive freedom cannot be taken for granted may actually improve the facts on the ground. People like you and I may start organizing interstate access programs so that poor women in anti-choice states can get free travel and lodging to terminate a pregnancy across state lines, leading to legislative interference and then litigation … Whether the fight is to save Roe, or to save the access it protects even without the protection of the Constitution, the fight is upon us now. If we’re smart, and if we’re tough, this fight will be a net gain for our side. Remember, their side has never been complacent. They’ve been trying as hard as they can for thirty years. Our side has been sleeping, with a few brief interruptions, since 1973.