Miers Told to Try Again

Miers Is Asked to Redo Reply to Questions

[quote]The Supreme Court nomination of Harriet E. Miers suffered another setback on Wednesday when the Republican and Democratic leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee asked her to resubmit parts of her judicial questionnaire, saying various members had found her responses “inadequate,” “insufficient” and “insulting.”


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.[/quote]

Some of the answers are simply bizarre:

[quote]The first part of the question asked if she had made any statement to anyone about how she might rule from the bench, and a second part requested information about “all communications by the Bush administration or individuals acting on behalf of the administration to any individuals or interest groups with respect to how you would rule.”

Ms. Miers’s one-word answer to both was “No.”[/quote]

Do you want to go out or stay in? No.

So the executive AND the legislature get to appoint the judiciary? You might as well have the executive and the judiciary appoint the legisla… Ah. Now I get it. Penny’s dropped. They do. :noway:

You would that even when applying for a mundane, run-of-the-mill job like, say, at Burger King, one of the first measures of an employee would be whether they can fill out a job application. However, when faced with the opportunity of a lifetime, Miers responds with this?

Hope she shows up with shined shoes and clean fingernails, because she ain’t going to get it on intellect.

Seems quite clear to me.

“No,” she explained.

Having said that, it was a noddy pick. She may be a friggin’ jeenus, but it was a politically naive (niaive? neive? nayve? neyev?) move by GW.

It’s also pretty dumb to lie on an application … or to simply put “no” without any further explanation. There’s right to lifers running about crowing to the media about how they have the inside scoop on Miers’ abortion stance, and Miers thinks she’s going to slip by?

I can she her future ruling on the bench now.

Roe vs. Wade … No

Brown vs. Board of Ed … No

Ham and Cheese on Rye … No

John Scope (Monkey) … No, er, Maybe.

The court needs a decisive person on the bench. Words and sentences are overrated anyways.

Q: Do you want to say yes or no?

Miers: No.

Q: Do you mean you want to say no? Or that you don’t want to say whether your answer would be yes or no?

Miers: No.

Q: Which is it?

Miers: No.

Oh well. Hopefully this means that it will not be necessary for the Senate to waste a lot of time giving her a long and detailed explanation for why she is being rejected. As she appears to be fond of one-word answers, I think the following should be quite sufficient:

Do the American people, or their Senators, have any intention of letting Ms. Miers anywhere near the Supreme Court without a visitor’s pass?

No.

Anyone here still holding out “for the hearings” before you make up your mind about this nominee’s qualifications?
:slight_smile:

I think bush made a good choice for the Fed Chairman. I was afraid he would use it as an opportunity to reward someone for past support.

Bush has a lot of good old-fashioned horse sense. It seems to come and go though. I think a lot of his problems stem from the fact that the power of the presidency allows him to create a pleasant bubble around himself that reality has difficulty penetrating, depriving him of critical feedback.

The other residents of that bubble are a motley bunch of zealots and sycophants and even horse sense has little chance of asserting its righting effect in such a closed environment.

Is Miers within that bubble?

I think they should have a Supreme Court Judge Lottery. That’d be fun. You’d get to do a year a time, then time for the next guy/girl/whatever.

[quote=“spook”]Anyone here still holding out “for the hearings” before you make up your mind about this nominee’s qualifications?
:slight_smile:[/quote]

Not me. I tried to do so, and have failed.

Perhaps this speaks ill of my patience and open-mindedness, shrug but there it is. Who knows, perhaps the hearings will change my mind, but at this point I have found it impossible to view the Miers nomination as anything other than a colossal mistake by Bush, and indeed a very good example of what is wrong with his administration.

At this point, I hope that her nomination is withdrawn or defeated, and that a better nominee is confirmed in her place.

H

Miers withdraws Supreme Court nomination

BREAKING NEWS
NBC News and news services
Updated: 9:16 a.m. ET Oct. 27, 2005

“WASHINGTON - Confronted with criticism from both liberals and conservatives, Harriet Miers on Thursday withdrew her nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.”

"In a statement, President Bush said he

Hopefully he’ll pick someone a little better qualified the next time around. Although I can’t say that I agree with some of the views of the new chief justice, John Roberts, it’s hard to say that he’s not very highly qualified. However, I hope that Bush doesn’t try to kiss up to the Christian right with his next nomination.

Needless to say, this is yet another thing in a long list that is turning Bush into a weaker president by the day. God, I hope John McCain runs for president again!!! sigh

[quote=“LittleBuddhaTW”]… However, I hope that Bush doesn’t try to kiss up to the Christian right with his next nomination.

Needless to say, this is yet another thing in a long list that is turning Bush into a weaker president by the day. God, I hope John McCain runs for president again!!! sigh[/quote]

See, this just demonstrates the folly of half-hearted or qualified support for Bush and today’s GOP. If you disagree with even one aspect of the GOP’s plank, then you have to reject the entire platform. The GOP is all of a piece, and party discipline is strictly enforced. That’s because the GOP leadership hopes to leverage such discipline into wins that both sharpen the message and attracts new voters (as a friend of mine notes, Bush wins and thus attracts winners). If you think the christian right is wrong yet you find yourself agreeing with Bush in some other area, even strongly, then you are, imo, a fool not to realize that the GOP will court the wacky right’s agenda as aggressively as it pursued Saddam.

Under Bush’s GOP, you take it all or reject it all. There is no middle ground, although in a runup to a general election it may appear so.

Watching the Dems operate may be like watching a cat herder at work, but wishywashy-ness can be a strength, too. I know lots of conservatives who privately play down the effect of the far right on the GOP. Some even snicker at how the GOP has profited from the far right’s considerable energy while at the same time denying them any real say. Some day soon moderate Republicans will be forced to realize that the others really mean it when they denounce moderation.

For instance, Miers’ withdrawal paves the way for Bush to nominate a real knuckle-dragger. His base demands it, a base that he’ll need utterly to survive if the Plame affair breaches the oval office. Note also how Bush framed his acceptance of Miers’ withdrawal: the Dems were going to demand all her notes, including anything related to advice and counsel, and so reluctantly he was forced to…

It was the Dems who made him do it. :laughing:

Of course there is absolutely no sense in spraying fire indiscriminately when one is retreating. Better to shoot Dems than his supporters, although I imagine Bush had second thoughts.

To appease his far right, christian base, Bush may have to turn the nomination over to them. Doing so would make the Dems fight (I couldn’t believe they were finally smart enough not to over Miers), which in turn solidifies his base, brings out the kind of philosophical debate that conservatives find bracing, prophylactic, even necessary, and very well may save his presidency. Or at least present him the opportunity to shore up a collapse in American confidence in his leadership…“skills” (sorry, if not negated then skills has to be set off so in any sentence also containing the words Bush and leadership).

I imagine the next nominee will be far less palatable to Dems - or moderate Republicans - than John Roberts.

[quote=“Danimal”]Miers withdraws Supreme Court nomination

BREAKING NEWS
NBC News and news services
Updated: 9:16 a.m. ET Oct. 27, 2005

“WASHINGTON - Confronted with criticism from both liberals and conservatives, Harriet Miers on Thursday withdrew her nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.”

"In a statement, President Bush said he

I’d say the problem with Miers was that she couldn’t satisfy the conservatives or the liberals. Had she been satisfactory to conservatives they could have gotten her through confirmation, or at least forced the liberals to filibuster and paved a clear way for Bush’s next nomination. Had she really been satisfactory to liberals she still would have had problems, but Bush might have convinced the conservatives it was for the best. As it stands now, Bush almost has to find someone who’s more “qualified” and that person is most likely going to have a track record, which probably makes it even more difficult to get them through.

Bush pick someone’s who’s qualified. Now there’s a novel idea. :wink: