SO MIERS WITHDREW... SO WHAT's NEXT?
I think the fact that Harriet Miers has withdrawn herself from consideration for the open Supreme Court positions raises about as many questions as it answers. I simultaneously feel relieved and maybe more afraid about the next nomination that I was about Miers...
I believe that choosing Miers in the first place was a pretty dumb move on Dubya's part. He picked someone who was unqualified for the job, and this quickly became painfully obvious to all who watched the fiasco unfold. I think it got to the point where something had to be done, or the administration and the Republican party would have had to suffer the embarrassment of the president's nominee not getting enough votes. The administration did not need a defeat like that, not when they are down as low as they are due to the Katrina aftermath, the unpopularity of the Iraq war, and potential indictments for some of the administration's top bottom-feeders.
Was Miers asked to withdraw by Bush, Rove, etc. in order to try and "fix a mistake", or did she do so on her own accord after receiving a communication from Senator Arlen Specter that pretty much told her she would have to answer all kinds of questions he knew she wouldn't be able to answer?
For the sake of the United States of America and for her own sake, I am glad Harriet Miers withdrew her nomination. I believe we need someone with some actual qualifications as the next nominee.
On the other hand, I see her withdrawal as something that will help the GOP to re-unify itself. I think Bush will now nominate someone like Priscilla Owen or Karen Williams, or at least someone with a well-established anti-abortion record.
Why? The "Religious Right" (which is neither), of course! They were terribly upset by the Miers nomination, because they could not be certain of her moral purity or whatever. So in order to continue his shameless kissing of the arses of the Dobsons, Falwells and Robertsons of the world (and their followers), Dubya will pick a real doozer this time. It will be someone who is about as far to the right as can be, and unless moderate Republicans stand up and vote "No", not making a "party uber alles" thing out of it, we could get a genuine kookball as our next Supreme Court justice.
Which would be worse? An unknown commodity (but probably a right-wing whacko) with no judicial experience, or... a certified (certifiable) right-wing whacko?
This is from an MSNBC article:
“Let’s move on,” said Republican Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi. “In a month, who will remember the name Harriet Miers?”
Sorry, Trent. The Democrats won't forget, and the Republicans will be trying to forget.
I can't wait to hear the GOP folks start saying "We're not talking about Harriet Miers anymore, we're talking about __________" (insert name of right-wing whackjob here).
Our Democrat response should be "Yes, we are still talking about Harriet Miers, because her nomination illustrates a larger problem. In nominating her, Dubya made one more bad decision in a series of many. How are we supposed to trust that this nominee is better than the last one?"
How are we to trust Dubya when it comes to matters which involve making intelligent decisions based on the analysis of facts? If we can't trust him to do that, how can we trust him at all?
My opinion? We can't, plain and simple.
I believe that choosing Miers in the first place was a pretty dumb move on Dubya's part. He picked someone who was unqualified for the job, and this quickly became painfully obvious to all who watched the fiasco unfold. I think it got to the point where something had to be done, or the administration and the Republican party would have had to suffer the embarrassment of the president's nominee not getting enough votes. The administration did not need a defeat like that, not when they are down as low as they are due to the Katrina aftermath, the unpopularity of the Iraq war, and potential indictments for some of the administration's top bottom-feeders.
Was Miers asked to withdraw by Bush, Rove, etc. in order to try and "fix a mistake", or did she do so on her own accord after receiving a communication from Senator Arlen Specter that pretty much told her she would have to answer all kinds of questions he knew she wouldn't be able to answer?
For the sake of the United States of America and for her own sake, I am glad Harriet Miers withdrew her nomination. I believe we need someone with some actual qualifications as the next nominee.
On the other hand, I see her withdrawal as something that will help the GOP to re-unify itself. I think Bush will now nominate someone like Priscilla Owen or Karen Williams, or at least someone with a well-established anti-abortion record.
Why? The "Religious Right" (which is neither), of course! They were terribly upset by the Miers nomination, because they could not be certain of her moral purity or whatever. So in order to continue his shameless kissing of the arses of the Dobsons, Falwells and Robertsons of the world (and their followers), Dubya will pick a real doozer this time. It will be someone who is about as far to the right as can be, and unless moderate Republicans stand up and vote "No", not making a "party uber alles" thing out of it, we could get a genuine kookball as our next Supreme Court justice.
Which would be worse? An unknown commodity (but probably a right-wing whacko) with no judicial experience, or... a certified (certifiable) right-wing whacko?
This is from an MSNBC article:
“Let’s move on,” said Republican Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi. “In a month, who will remember the name Harriet Miers?”
Sorry, Trent. The Democrats won't forget, and the Republicans will be trying to forget.
I can't wait to hear the GOP folks start saying "We're not talking about Harriet Miers anymore, we're talking about __________" (insert name of right-wing whackjob here).
Our Democrat response should be "Yes, we are still talking about Harriet Miers, because her nomination illustrates a larger problem. In nominating her, Dubya made one more bad decision in a series of many. How are we supposed to trust that this nominee is better than the last one?"
How are we to trust Dubya when it comes to matters which involve making intelligent decisions based on the analysis of facts? If we can't trust him to do that, how can we trust him at all?
My opinion? We can't, plain and simple.
8 Comments:
When did you ever trust him on anything?
THe abortion issue could just as easily crack the republican party. There are a lot of Republicans who are pro choice. They have been taking it for granted that Roe v Wade was safe. Some of this may scare them out of the woodwork. If the Supreme Court were not a life time appointment, it might even be good, but alas these things are going to have lasting consequences.
I agree Sheryl, and I am not sure the GOP would really want to dump Roe v. Wade. What would be their big issue to harp on then? Homosexuality? Probably.
Right on, Fred. Dubya should star in a 1930's-style gangster drama called "The Untrustables".
There may be a lot of Republicans who are pro-choice but they don't seem to have much representation in the Senate or House. I think Bush nominated Miers because he thought she was harmless looking and the Dems wouldn't put up much of a fight...however, he misjudged what the conservatives were demanding.
It will be interesting to see what happens with the next nominee's religious views now that the administration has tried to play that question both ways.
There may be a lot of Republicans who are pro-choice but they don't seem to have much representation in the Senate or House.
But unless the voting machines are all rigged, there are still future elections to consider. If they purely appease their base, then they may well lose their seats in the upcoming elections when the moderate republicans show what they can do.
Since Dubya purportedly makes all his decisions on what Karl Rove advises, it might be reasonable to assume that he chose Harriet Miers because Karl has been distracted with other matters.
I think the Bush administration is just not used to playing defense. In the past Bush could maybe have gotten by with this, except that with Katrina and all these indictments, he's losing Republican loyalty.
One question I haven't heard being asked is how Clinton, Bush the Elder, Reagan, or Peanut Farmer would've reacted better to Hurricane Katrina. One thing I believe has been lost in the shuffle is the fact that Katrina caused the first mass-evacuation of a major city since the Civil War. This was simply a disaster on far too large a scale to be handled to everyone's satisfaction. While these may just be pictures on the television or political fodder for many of you, this is the region I call home. I remember friends driving a couple of hours or so to get wasted on Bourbon Street, or take day trips to their Mardi Gras only to fail to come to work the next day because they were completely hammered. And I have friends and family who suffered substantial losses during the storm.
Plenty of mistakes were made, but the initial failures were at the local level. Why wasn't Mayor Nagin ordering the evacuation of New Orleans and the closing of all businesses the day or two before Katrina made landfall? Why didn't Mayor Nagin accept the help that Amtrak and other transportation companies offered him? Why didn't he use his city's school buses when he knew the kind of storm surge that was headed his way? Why didn't Governor Blanco open all lanes to outbound traffic to expedite the evacuation of over a million people? This is not to excuse the failures at the federal level, merely to point out the fact that these failures would not have been as critical if the local and state officials had been doing their job.
Now, back to the original topic: Was Harriet Miers a qualified candidate? I may have to slap anyone who says she was. Ideally, do you want to know who I'd like to have picked to join the Supreme Court? A federal appellate judge who has had no or very few major opinions overturned by the Supreme Court, with most of the overturned opinions later being vindicated by later decisions. Also, if you want a couple of personal litmus test question, I'd have to go with Roe v. Wade and Kelo v. New London, CT.
Post a Comment
<< Home