Bush Withdraws Miers Nomination

[shemp]

LINK (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/27/supremecourt/main984933.shtml)

(CBS/AP) In a sudden and unexpected development, President Bush announced Thursday the he was "reluctantly" withdrawing the Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers, CBS News White House correspondent Mark Knoller reports.

In a written statement released by the White House, Mr. Bush said his action came at Miers' request. In a letter to Mr. Bush, Miers said, "I am concerned that the confirmation process presents a burden for the White House and our staff that is not in the best interests of the country."

Mr. Bush said he understands and shares Miers' concern. He blamed her withdrawal on calls in the Senate for the release of internal White House documents that the administration has insisted were protected by executive privilege.

"It is clear that senators would not be satisfied until they gained access to internal documents concerning advice provided during her tenure at the White House disclosures that would undermine a president's ability to receive candid counsel," Mr. Bush said.

[Hutch]

CNN has it to: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/27/miers.nominations/index.html

Wow. Only conclusion I can come too is that the Senators who have been interviewing her (she's been making the rounds) have been so unimpressed that enough Republicans have gone to Bush and said (to borrow a Southern US idiom) "This dog don't hunt".

Doubt Bush would have withdrawn this because of the Demos. No, this came about because she couldn't sell the Republicans.

Now who? Wish Brown was feeling better.

[HarryKeogh]

I've never been a judge and my knowledge of constitutional law is sketchy at best.

maybe I'll get nominated next!

[Zep]

At the rate things are going, I'll be a reasonable candidate!

[clk]

Brilliant timing. If Rove or Libby is indicted, then Bush can quickly nominate someone else to take some of the attention off of the indictment. Brilliant.

[Mark]

Brilliant timing. If Rove or Libby is indicted, then Bush can quickly nominate someone else to take some of the attention off of the indictment. Brilliant.

After giving them the Medal of Freedom, of course.

[zakur]

Officially, Bush did not withdraw the nomination - he "reluctantly accepted" Miers' withdrawal.

Once again he does not publicly accept responsibility for a bad decision. In his official statement (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/27/bush.statement/index.html) he puts the the blame on the "confirmation process" and hides behind executive privilege.

[Manny]

Man, that guy who said, "(P)laying "principled" on releasing her papers is perfect -- the President is in the right to refuse to do it, but since the papers represent about, oh, 99 44/100% of her known work product it's also reasonable to demand the stuff" (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1240022&postcount=9) sure was smart. I'm gonna listen to him from now on! :D

[Luke T.]

LINK (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/27/supremecourt/main984933.shtml)

In a sudden and unexpected development...

Um. Unexpected?

[Orwell]

Well, I guess this will make way for the nomination of some nut case that has the support of the religious right...

[Luke T.]

Well, I guess this will make way for the nomination of some nut case that has the support of the religious right...

Like John Roberts?

[Mark]

Like John Roberts?

I think you missed the point. Because of John Roberts, many of the religious extremists in the Republican Party feel that Bush "owes" them a fierce anti-abortion rights nominee.

[Ed]

Officially, Bush did not withdraw the nomination - he "reluctantly accepted" Miers' withdrawal.

Once again he does not publicly accept responsibility for a bad decision. In his official statement (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/27/bush.statement/index.html) he puts the the blame on the "confirmation process" and hides behind executive privilege.

Out of curiosity, suppose you were POTUS. How would you handle it? Clearly, you would like to see him do penance and walk barefoot in a sackcloth to the Senate there to be whipped. That ain't gonna happen, nor should it, regardless of my feelings about the man. What would you do, taking off the I hate bush no matter what glasses.

[zakur]

Out of curiosity, suppose you were POTUS. How would you handle it? Clearly, you would like to see him do penance and walk barefoot in a sackcloth to the Senate there to be whipped. That ain't gonna happen, nor should it, regardless of my feelings about the man. What would you do, taking off the I hate bush no matter what glasses.I would have nominated a qualified candidate in the first place.

[Ed]

I think you missed the point. Because of John Roberts, many of the religious extremists in the Republican Party feel that Bush "owes" them a fierce anti-abortion rights nominee.

Maybe but it is unclear if such a one would be approved. I think GW and the folks around him know their politics better than that. They also are looking to the mid-terms.

I am of the firm belief that any politition will sell who ever and whatever to maintain their death grip on power. I don't think RvW is something that they would loose over. I mean, of course, those from a mixed electorate. A loon conservative would be a bloodbath.

[Jocko]

I would have nominated a qualified candidate in the first place.

The whole thing was a debacle, to be sure. It was clear weeks ago that it could only end this way. I'm just wondering if this was some sort of cynical ploy get the Dems to blow their rhetorical load on a decoy (what we in advertising call a "blue duck" - a ringer of an option provided specifically for the client to shoot down, making them happier with the other options).

Of course, it seemed to work equally well on the GOP. Go figure. So at least that should calm the hysteria of those who imagine a fascist-style unity behind Bush. It's not there, never was. That's gonna become a lot more evident getting into the 2006 election cycle, too, just watch.

Grevious error, or diabolical scheme? I'm not happy at the prospect of either. I'd love to hear a plausible third theory.

[Ed]

I would have nominated a qualified candidate in the first place.

Good answer but not to my question. Are you in politics?

[DavidJames]

Good answer but not to my question. Are you in politics?I would have answered the same way. Perhaps you should rephrase your question.

[Luke T.]

I think you missed the point. Because of John Roberts, many of the religious extremists in the Republican Party feel that Bush "owes" them a fierce anti-abortion rights nominee.

So why did Bush nominate Miers after Roberts?

Why is Bush "reluctantly" withdrawing Miers? Is it because of criticism from the Right, or from the Left?

I believe it was because she was outed as hardcore pro-life. That was the death knell. She would never survive a confirmation hearing after that. That's all the hearing would have been about. Those memos/letters she signed avowing her undying support for an anti-abortion amendment, and so forth.

So do you really believe Bush will find someone even more hardcore pro-life?

[zakur]

So why did Bush nominate Miers after Roberts?

Why is Bush "reluctantly" withdrawing Miers? Is it because of criticism from the Right, or from the Left?

I believe it was because she was outed as hardcore pro-life. That was the death knell. She would never survive a confirmation hearing after that. That's all the hearing would have been about. Those memos/letters she signed avowing her undying support for an anti-abortion amendment, and so forth.

So do you really believe Bush will find someone even more hardcore pro-life?I believe it was the Far Right, and that this (http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2005/10/miers_1993_spee.php) was the death knell.

[Mark]

So why did Bush nominate Miers after Roberts?

Why is Bush "reluctantly" withdrawing Miers? Is it because of criticism from the Right, or from the Left?

I believe it was because she was outed as hardcore pro-life. That was the death knell. She would never survive a confirmation hearing after that. That's all the hearing would have been about. Those memos/letters she signed avowing her undying support for an anti-abortion amendment, and so forth.

So do you really believe Bush will find someone even more hardcore pro-life?

Are you serious? I would say the evidence is that Miers is a definite religious extremist. I think Bush was just surprised that those people weren't willing to take his word for it.

With his support crumbling form everyone but the hardcore Republican faithful, I suspect he will have to throw a bone to the religious extremists. Besides, by his own words, he is one of them.

[zakur]

Man, that guy who said, "(P)laying "principled" on releasing her papers is perfect -- the President is in the right to refuse to do it, but since the papers represent about, oh, 99 44/100% of her known work product it's also reasonable to demand the stuff" (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1240022&postcount=9) sure was smart. I'm gonna listen to him from now on! :DYeah...that Krauthammer guy (http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/charleskrauthammer/2005/10/21/172176.html) really hit the nail on the head. But nice try passing his idea off as your own. ;)

[Luke T.]

Are you serious? I would say the evidence is that Miers is a definite religious extremist. I think Bush was just surprised that those people weren't willing to take his word for it.

With his support crumbling form everyone but the hardcore Republican faithful, I suspect he will have to throw a bone to the religious extremists. Besides, by his own words, he is one of them.

I would like to see where Bush says he is a "religious extremist".

[Luke T.]

We have a prediction Bush will nominate a religious nut job next. So I will predict he will nominate a moderate.

[toddjh]

So why did Bush nominate Miers after Roberts?

Why is Bush "reluctantly" withdrawing Miers? Is it because of criticism from the Right, or from the Left?

I believe it was because she was outed as hardcore pro-life. That was the death knell. She would never survive a confirmation hearing after that. That's all the hearing would have been about. Those memos/letters she signed avowing her undying support for an anti-abortion amendment, and so forth.

At risk of coming across as some kind of non-cynical person, I'd suggest that she really, honestly faced opposition from both Democrat and Republican senators because they really, honestly thought she just wasn't qualified. There was immediate skepticism from both sides almost immediately after her nomination was announced. The abortion issue might have become a deal breaker if it got to that point, but I think that was still on the back burner.

ETA: And Bush isn't withdrawing Miers, he's accepting her withdrawal. I feel pretty bad for her, actually...she knew she wasn't qualified going in, and then she had to sit there and have her career criticized in front of the whole nation because Bush wouldn't take no for an answer (she initially told him she didn't want the job).

Jeremy

[Manny]

Yeah...that Krauthammer guy (http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/charleskrauthammer/2005/10/21/172176.html) really hit the nail on the head. But nice try passing his idea off as your own. ;)Hey, he was prescribing; I was predicting. :D


We have a prediction Bush will nominate a religious nut job next. So I will predict he will nominate a moderate.Janice! Janice! Janice!

[Upchurch]

So I will predict he will nominate a moderate.I was going to make a joke, but I don't know if Miers counts as moderate or just a blank slate.

[Mark]

I would like to see where Bush says he is a "religious extremist".

Who gets to decide the definitions of "moderate" and "extremist?" Perhaps we should agree on those definitions before we go charging after the JREF Prize?

[Kerberos]

We have a prediction Bush will nominate a religious nut job next. So I will predict he will nominate a moderate.
In that case I'd like to predict that whoever Bush nominates you'll argue that (s)he's a moderate ehile Mark will contend that (s)he's an extremist. :D

[Jocko]

Who gets to decide the definitions of "moderate" and "extremist?" Perhaps we should agree on those definitions before we go charging after the JREF Prize?

He didn't ask your definition, he asked you to back up a claim that Bush is an admitted religious extremist.

[Luke T.]

Who gets to decide the definitions of "moderate" and "extremist?" Perhaps we should agree on those definitions before we go charging after the JREF Prize?

You mean you didn't know what you were talking about when you said "he will have to throw a bone to the religious extremists"?

And "by his own words, he is one of them"?

[Mark]

I would like to see where Bush says he is a "religious extremist".

No religious extremsits ever say that's what they are.

Hmmmm...

Catholic schools carry out a great mission, to serve God by building knowledge and character.... By teaching the word of God, you prepare your students to follow a path of virtue.
-- George W. Bush, helping to soften the blows of justice in asking (requiring, really) taxpayers to bail out Roman Catholic schools through a publicly funded voucher program after numerous Roman Catholic parishes and dioceses being held financially accountable for clerics who terrorized and molested young boys and girls over a period of decades in the pedophile priest scandal, at a White House ceremony whose audience included more over 200 Roman Catholic officials; quoted from American Atheists Press Reelease, "Bush off Key in Singing Praises of Parochial Schools" (January 12, 2004: source citation based in part upon American Atheists' president Ellen Johnson's written response to this incident) ††

Tyrants and dictators will accept no other gods before them. They require disobedience to the First Commandment. They seek absolute control and are threatened by faith in God. They fear only the power they cannot possess -- the power of truth. So they resent the living example of the devout, especially the devotion of a unique people chosen by God.
-- George W. Bush, blaming the Holocaust on godlessness, rather than on Christian anti-Semitism of Martin Luther, St. Paul, and the Jesus of Matthew's and John's Gospels, and ignoring the fact that Adolf Hitler repeatedly called himself a Christian, pretended to be obeying Christ, and cannot be shown to have been an atheist, at the National Commemoration of the Days of Remembrance at the U.S. Capitol on April 19, 2001, quoted from Freedom From Religion Foundation, "Bush's Holocaust Remarks Distort History, Scapegoat Freethinkers" April 25, 2001

Take the life issue. This issue requires a president and an administration leading our nation to understand the importance of life. This whole faith-based initiative really ties into a larger cultural issue that we're working on. It begins to affect the life issue, as well as the human dignity issue, because when you're talking about welcoming people of faith to help people who are disadvantaged and are unable to defend themselves, the logical step is also those babies.
-- George W. Bush, unaware that a press microphone was on, telling Roman Catholic "faith-based" subsidy supporters that they are "vital allies" because they won't "be eroded by political correctness or whatever," and assuring them that his scheme to give tax money to religious groups will help them promote opposition to legal abortion, at the White House on January 31, 2001, quoted from Margaret Sykes, "Bush Caught on Tape -- Again: Says he'll use tax dollars to help religious groups oppose abortion," About Pro-Choice Views, February 1, 2001

We've got a cultural issue in America. We've got to change the whole way the issue is looked at. That's the mission. Some in the political process don't have enough patience for that, and I probably don't either.
-- George W. Bush, unaware that a press microphone was on, while telling Roman Catholic "faith-based" subsidy supporters that his scheme to give tax money to religious groups will help them promote opposition to legal abortion, at the White House on January 31, 2001, quoted from Margaret Sykes, "Bush Caught on Tape -- Again: Says he'll use tax dollars to help religious groups oppose abortion," About Pro-Choice Views, February 1, 2001

The days of discriminating against religious institutions simply because they are religious must come to an end.
-- George W. Bush, willfully misrepresenting, once again, the whole point of state-church separation, at the annual National Prayer Breakfast, for which organizers refused to release a full list of attendees, February 1, 2001, quoted from Conrad Goeringer, "Bush Promotes Faith at Prayer Breakfast: Bipartisan Support for New White House Office," AANEWS 881, February 2, 2001, from American Atheists

Together, we will reclaim America's schools, before ignorance and apathy claim more young lives.
-- George W. Bush, Inauguration Address, January 20, 2001, preparing us for his already-announced plans to unveil an education plan on Tuesday that will feature taxpayer-funded vouchers for religious schools, in his Inauguration Address, January 20, 2001, quoted from Americans United press release titled, "President Bush Announces Religious Agenda on Inauguration Day: Bush Presents Himself as 'Determined Foe of Church-State Separation,' Says Americans United"

I believe God did create the world. And I think we're finding out more and more and more as to how it actually happened.
-- George W. Bush, interview, U.S. News, "George W. Bush: Running on his faith," December 6, 1999

I've heard the call. I believe God wants me to run for president.
-- George W. Bush, quoted from Aaron Latham, "How George W. Found God," George Magazine, September, 2000

I don't think that witchcraft is a religion. I wish the military would rethink this decision.
-- George W. Bush, earlier remark, June, 1999, to ABC News, regarding Ft. Hood's decision to allow Wiccan rituals just as all military bases allow rituals of the Christian faith (in a letter to Cliff Walker, the Bush Campaign HQ backpedaled, calling this Bush's personal opinion; later, however, it becomes an integral part of his campaign)
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/bush.htm

[Mark]

He didn't ask your definition, he asked you to back up a claim that Bush is an admitted religious extremist.

Interesting...you respond to my post regarding Luke making predictions about Bush's next nomination, then imply that post of mine was regarding definitions. Conservatives. Ya gotta love 'em, bless their black, flabby, deceitful little hearts.

But for the record, I did respond to the question about whether or nor Bush is a religious extremist. Just not in the post you quoted.

(Btw, I didn't say "admitted" Religious Extremist. Conservatives.)

[Mark]

You mean you didn't know what you were talking about when you said "he will have to throw a bone to the religious extremists"?

And "by his own words, he is one of them"?

When you ask me for evidence, it would be polite to wait until I have a chance to respond before you start accusing me of things that aren't true. See the above post.

[Just thinking]

At risk of coming across as some kind of non-cynical person, I'd suggest that she really, honestly faced opposition from both Democrat and Republican senators because they really, honestly thought she just wasn't qualified. There was immediate skepticism from both sides almost immediately after her nomination was announced. The abortion issue might have become a deal breaker if it got to that point, but I think that was still on the back burner.

And Bush isn't withdrawing Miers, he's accepting her withdrawal. I feel pretty bad for her, actually...she knew she wasn't qualified going in, and then she had to sit there and have her career criticized in front of the whole nation because Bush wouldn't take no for an answer (she initially told him she didn't want the job).

And what's wrong with being non-cynical?

Anyway, I pretty much agree with your initial critique -- she simply wasn't qualified. But I'll just add that this lack of qualification was more in the eyes of others than perhaps what is objectively true. Which is why I believe Bush felt more strongly towards her -- he knew her better.

[toddjh]

And what's wrong with being non-cynical?

Anyway, I pretty much agree with your initial critique -- she simply wasn't qualified. But I'll just add that this lack of qualification was more in the eyes of others than perhaps what is objectively true. Which is why I believe Bush felt more strongly towards her -- he knew her better.

I would give that argument more weight if Bush's previous appointments to federal office had been better picks...

Jeremy

[Luke T.]

Interesting...you respond to my post regarding Luke making predictions about Bush's next nomination, then imply that post of mine was regarding definitions. Conservatives. Ya gotta love 'em, bless their black, flabby, deceitful little hearts.

Okay, kids, let's review.

Mark said: With his support crumbling form everyone but the hardcore Republican faithful, I suspect he will have to throw a bone to the religious extremists. Besides, by his own words, he is one of them.

I quoted that and responded: I would like to see where Bush says he is a "religious extremist".

Which Mark quoted and responded: Who gets to decide the definitions of "moderate" and "extremist?" Perhaps we should agree on those definitions before we go charging after the JREF Prize?

Exactly how was Jocko's or my response to that reply out of line, Mark? You throw out the term "religious extremists" and claim Bush says he is one of them. I ask for evidence, and you want to know who decides who is a moderate and an extremist. But you obviously had already decided and were being asked to provide evidence.

Now who is being deceitful here?

[Luke T.]

When you ask me for evidence, it would be polite to wait until I have a chance to respond before you start accusing me of things that aren't true. See the above post.

Huh? You DID respond! You asked who gets to decide who is an extremist!

[Jocko]

Interesting...you respond to my post regarding Luke making predictions about Bush's next nomination, then imply that post of mine was regarding definitions. Conservatives. Ya gotta love 'em, bless their black, flabby, deceitful little hearts.

Yes, yes, yes, you must be rolling in Randi's millions by now, what with your gift to peer in to the mind of everyone who disagrees with your methods (moreso than your conclusions, believe it or not). You know Bush's mind, you know my mind... yet you never seem prepared to back up anything you say. Here's a good case in point:

But for the record, I did respond to the question about whether or nor Bush is a religious extremist. Just not in the post you quoted.

No, you provided your actual response AFTERWARD. Please keep in mind that I'm not clairvoyant like you. But as to your "response"... none of it really rises to your claim that, and I quote because you can be a little slippery on such things, that:

I suspect he will have to throw a bone to the religious extremists. Besides, by his own words, he is one of them.

I don't see anything there to suggest anything more than that, by his own words, he appears TO YOU to be a religious extremist, so it really doesn't back your claim any more than the editorials from Bushsucks.com that you so often represent as fact. Besides, I don't think your standard of "religious extremist" is in line with the commonly accepted term.

But then again, we've bumped against this problem before, haven't we? Like that "AP article" you quoted as proof of something, then recalled (after being pressed on it) that it was an editorial from Immolatebushwithnapalm.com or something?

Funny how the same issues keep arising time and again. And still, you can't back up your opinions with anything more than more opinion.

[Just thinking]

I would give that argument more weight if Bush's previous appointments to federal office had been better picks...

This may have been a case that was truely an independent event. Besides, I don't disagree that she was not qualified, just that she was not as bad as others may have seen it.

[Jocko]

No religious extremsits ever say that's what they are.

By that reasoning, you are a religious extremist as well.

[TragicMonkey]

My theory is that it was actually all about those papers. Perhaps they had some sort of dirt about Bush that would get him in serious trouble.

[Jocko]

My theory is that it was actually all about those papers. Perhaps they had some sort of dirt about Bush that would get him in serious trouble.

I heard from a reliable source that Meiers keeps a certain blue dress with a certain stain on it in her closet. I mean, she's no Janet Reno but I'd tap that. :D

[TragicMonkey]

I heard from a reliable source that Meiers keeps a certain blue dress with a certain stain on it in her closet. I mean, she's no Janet Reno but I'd tap that. :D

Anyone know how to clean vomit stains off a keyboard?

[Kerberos]

By that reasoning, you are a religious extremist as well.
*BEEEB* Affirmation of the consequent is a fallacy.

[Mark]

By that reasoning, you are a religious extremist as well.

Socrates must be spinning in his grave. By that reasoning, I could be a religious extremist. Big difference.

[Jocko]

Socrates must be spinning in his grave. By that reasoning, I could be a religious extremist. Big difference.

Fair enough. Mea culpa for overstating the point.

[Mark]

Fair enough. Mea culpa for overstating the point.

If we are going to start being reasonable with each other, how will everyone else be entertained? ;)

[Cain]

This was not surprising. Miers' "withdrawal" was not nearly as unexpected as her nomination (seeing as how she didn't even manage to make anyone's top 1000 list for potential candidates). People speculated for awhile that this would be the White House's exit strategy to save face. However, I would have thought the President would do this on a Friday, presumably in the late afternoon (that's when embarrassing news gets dumped). It also would have taken attention off of indictments. Or maybe they thought indictments were coming down today. Or maybe they're HOPING this will diminish attention on tomorrow's indictments.

I am curious what kind of right-wing freak he will nominate to placate the base. It would be awesome if Bush directed his "**** you" attitude to the religious right and nominated a superbly qualified moderate. I won't hold my breath.

[punchdrunk]

I've never been a judge and my knowledge of constitutional law is sketchy at best.

maybe I'll get nominated next!

Depends; do you think President Bush is the smartest man you ever met?

If so, you're in.

[Regnad Kcin]

If we are going to start being reasonable with each other, how will everyone else be entertained? ;):D

[Regnad Kcin]

Depends; do you think President Bush is the smartest man you ever met?"Brilliant man," you fool, brilliant!

[nightwind]

Well, Miers seemed to be some kind of religious nut, and I am sure she would have overturned "Roe-Wade".

But maybe they were worried she might give rights to gays, etc.

She was definitely canned by the "extreme portion of the religious right".

Bush will probably now appoint someone who has good history of being against women's rights, gay rights, etc., and who the religious right wants.

What is really scary, is the right wing extremist etc.can dictate all of this before she really had a chance at the hearings.

Well, now candidates can either be "Borked" , "Miered" or both.

[a_unique_person]

We have a prediction Bush will nominate a religious nut job next. So I will predict he will nominate a moderate.

I'll predict someone acceptable to the ultra-conservative right. Winner gets the million dollars.

[Supercharts]

Listen up!

Miers was well planned to be the sacifice.

Consider....

All Democrats said - before Roberts...
* We should consider someone who represents not the legal profession but who - Like Earl Warren [can we talk about Brown vs. The Board of Education?] may well turn out to be like Ginsberg.

* This is like Mario Cuomo...

* "A woman!".
S Day O'Conner said this loud and clear.

" Liberal! [Unmarried. Lives with Mother... What's not to like?]

So George W. trots out this nominee who's also a Crony and Conservative!

Dems by their silence do squat. Can't attack a single woman with no judical experience...

But the Liberal Press attacks her.
Who runs the media?

NOW - GH Bush can nominate a woman of Color, a Conservative, and Refer to Mier as an attempt to bring what the Demoncrats want into the SCOTUS!

Crazy like a fox.

GW nominates a Hispanic, a Woman, A Conservative and says "You rejected my 1st. Nominee - are you going to do it again? This is a woman, conservative, Hispanic etc. etc.!]

"W" is smater than the average Bear.

It's all Politics.

Let the Dems try to attack a Hispanic, Woman, Conservative!!!

I love it...

Let's wait for "Teddy" to try and "Bork" her. [If he's ever sober enough...but I digress...]

Crazy like a fox!

[Cain]

Listen up!

Miers was well planned to be the sacifice.

Consider....

All Democrats said - before Roberts...
* We should consider someone who represents not the legal profession but who - Like Earl Warren [can we talk about Brown vs. The Board of Education?] may well turn out to be like Ginsberg.

* This is like Mario Cuomo...

* "A woman!".
S Day O'Conner said this loud and clear.

" Liberal! [Unmarried. Lives with Mother... What's not to like?]

So George W. trots out this nominee who's also a Crony and Conservative!

Dems by their silence do squat. Can't attack a single woman with no judical experience...

But the Liberal Press attacks her.
Who runs the media?

NOW - GH Bush can nominate a woman of Color, a Conservative, and Refer to Mier as an attempt to bring what the Demoncrats want into the SCOTUS!

Crazy like a fox.

GW nominates a Hispanic, a Woman, A Conservative and says "You rejected my 1st. Nominee - are you going to do it again? This is a woman, conservative, Hispanic etc. etc.!]

"W" is smater than the average Bear.

It's all Politics.

Let the Dems try to attack a Hispanic, Woman, Conservative!!!

I love it...

Let's wait for "Teddy" to try and "Bork" her. [If he's ever sober enough...but I digress...]

Crazy like a fox!


Are you a goddamn alcoholic?

[Regnad Kcin]

Are you a goddamn alcoholic?No, alcoholics are for the most part mildly coherent.

[Kopji]

Rove vetting her with James Dobson could probably classify him as a religious extremist.

With Bush, he's just a fool caught in his folly. -ho hum-

Up next... Bush has a petty vindictive streak in him and this just might bring it out. I would guess that instead of an extreme right wing conservative we might get someone even more moderate than his friend Harriet but harder for Republicans to oppose.

[joe1347]

Here's another thought. Is it possible that Meirs did something for Bush that he felt was worthy enough to reward with a supreme court nomination - even though her qualifications were sketchy at best?

[Orwell]

Here's another thought. Is it possible that Meirs did something for Bush that he felt was worthy enough to reward with a supreme court nomination - even though her qualifications were sketchy at best?

You mean something naughty (wink wink nudge nudge say no more say no more)?

[toddjh]

Exactly how was Jocko's or my response to that reply out of line, Mark? You throw out the term "religious extremists" and claim Bush says he is one of them. I ask for evidence, and you want to know who decides who is a moderate and an extremist. But you obviously had already decided and were being asked to provide evidence.

At risk of throwing kindling on this subthread, I think this thing has been a simple misunderstanding.

Mark's original words were "By his own words, he is one of them [a religious extremist]," or something to that effect. By that, I believe he meant, "His own words have revealed that he is one of them," while you took it to mean, "He has admitted that he is one of them."

Jeremy

[Luke T.]

Does opposition to abortion make one a "religious extremist"?

Is it okay for the government to give money to Planned Parenthood, which performs abortions, but not to pro-life organizations which oppose abortion?

[toddjh]

Does opposition to abortion make one a "religious extremist"?

Nearly all religious extremists are opposed to abortion, but not all people who are opposed to abortion are religious extremists. I would say that nearly all are religious, though.

Is it okay for the government to give money to Planned Parenthood, which performs abortions, but not to pro-life organizations which oppose abortion?

Why are they giving money to either? And what is this in response to?

Jeremy

[Mark]

At risk of throwing kindling on this subthread, I think this thing has been a simple misunderstanding.

Mark's original words were "By his own words, he is one of them [a religious extremist]," or something to that effect. By that, I believe he meant, "His own words have revealed that he is one of them," while you took it to mean, "He has admitted that he is one of them."

Jeremy

Exactly right. I did try to explain it in a later post, but that was ignored.

[joe1347]

You mean something naughty (wink wink nudge nudge say no more say no more)?

No, I was thinking that Meirs did "something" that was key to Bush getting elected in 2000. Whatever that something was - we'll certainly never know.

[a_unique_person]

I'll predict someone acceptable to the ultra-conservative right. Winner gets the million dollars.

I win.

[punchdrunk]

I win.

Just like the lottery, you have to split it with the people who thought the same as you. Your share does not cover the cost of postage.