Today’s Miers News
There is now a 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to opposing Harriet Miers. When you click on the link, you see Ann Coulter staring back at you, talking about Harriet Miers and sumo wrestlers. [UPDATE: It actually turns out there is a rotation of quotes in that spot. Also, I have fixed the link. Thanks to a commenter.] (Via Todd Zywicki.)
Meanwhile, John Fund says: “I believe it is almost inevitable that Ms. Miers will withdraw or be defeated.” That’s great — but can anyone name me a single Republican Senator who plans to oppose her?
UPDATE: The site has now included Patterico as a recommended blog. I think they should add Protein Wisdom as well.
More news you’ll be interested in. A NY Times reporter seems baffled about why Miers is facing Republican opposition, when Lewis Powell, whose qualifications were similar, did not.
My question: Are these people for real?
Attila (Pillage Idiot) (dfa1f1) — 10/24/2005 @ 6:47 amI believe that Ms Miers is a throw away candidate who was never intended to be confirmed. She will sit in front of that gang of blow hard senators and set a few records straight. I hope she has a mandate from the white house to blow the lid off that bunch of phonies. Call a spade a spade and you will never get confirmed. If she were to pull this off the amecrican public would elect her to any office she wants.
Ray (75a3b5) — 10/24/2005 @ 7:11 amRay, never in Harriet Miers sixty years has she taken a public controversial stand. Nice fantasy though.
Kathy (59cee4) — 10/24/2005 @ 8:30 amI don’t know of any Rep Senators who are on the record as opposing Miers’s confirmation, true, but if George Allen’s appearance on Face the Nation on Sunday is any indication, even the most pro-Bush Republicans in the Senate are distancing themselves from her.
Sean P (256007) — 10/24/2005 @ 10:22 amKathy,
Yesterday our White Sox, Bears and Blackhawks all won so I figure the stars are aligned for great and wonderful things. Stick it to Biden, Kennedy, etc etc. Oh well
Ray
Ray (75a3b5) — 10/24/2005 @ 10:43 amthe top link is wrong. please link to http://www.betterjustice.com thanks.
fry (850895) — 10/24/2005 @ 1:26 pmI’m not sure how Virginia Postrel would take to the GAY P*RN C*CK OF LIES! that is Jeff G’s usual fare. [Asterisks by Patterico.]
Though I have no complaints.
Christopher Cross (ee574f) — 10/24/2005 @ 4:05 pm.
.
.
.
What?
Yeah, I wondered about that. In fact, I think I’m bleeping out even your reference to it.
Patterico (f94290) — 10/24/2005 @ 4:08 pmWHY DO YOU FEAR THE DIALOGUE?!
Christopher Cross (ee574f) — 10/24/2005 @ 4:09 pmYou want a name? I’ll give you a name.
Jim Sensenbrenner. He will oppose Miers. I will bet you $100.
[Unfortunately, his vote counts the same as mine — not at all. — Patterico]
Jack John (5f37cb) — 10/24/2005 @ 4:36 pmIf Miers is voted down, so be it; the Senate can make their choice for any reason they see fit. But she should NOT be withdrawn beforehand based on political pressure – very bad precedent and optics there, both.
I see 3 scenarios, if she makes it to the hearings, that are the most likely:
1. the D’s fb, which they’d lose. This is more likely than you think; at the very least, they will start threatening as much very soon now.
OR
2. HM is confirmed, which’d mean she performed well and impressed the Senate after all.
OR
3. HM is defeated, which’d mean Bush’d prob have to give up on stealth. Given the response to HM as an unknown who it was perceived even just might have been a squish, he’d be under a lot of pressure to pick an un-Miers for Round II, someone who: 1. is an obvious conservative, no stealth; and 2. comes with more of the typical credentials for a potential Justice; and 3. is not already connected to the WH.
The best play right now for conservatives is still the same: get HM to the Senate floor. Calls for her withdrawal beforehand are as ill-conceived as they ever were. The best results all come from an up or down vote, just like conservatives have always said they wanted the president’s nominees to get.
btw, if Bush does have replace a defeated HM, the fb fight may just be more winnable as a result of all this. The RINOs’ll be under more pressure and spotlight, and the no vote itself will have further undermined the rationale/excuse the D’s have for justifying a fb; after all, HM’s defeat would make it clear that the R Senate was not at all a mere rubberstamp for Bush’s extremists.
Get her to the floor guys, After that, it’s between the nominee and the Senate, as it should be.
ras (f9de13) — 10/24/2005 @ 5:57 pmRas said:
if Bush does have replace a defeated HM, the fb fight may just be more winnable as a result of all this. The RINOs’ll be under more pressure and spotlight, and the no vote itself will have further undermined the rationale/excuse the D’s have for justifying a fb; after all, HM’s defeat would make it clear that the R Senate was not at all a mere rubberstamp for Bush’s extremists.
But our esteemed host said, in another thread, that a nomination of Michael Luttig to replace Harriet Miers would be a harder confirmation fight than had Judge Luttig been nominated in the first place.
The real answer is: we have no flaming way to know!
Of course, this has been a good thing for my blog: fully one quarter of my hits today came from the fact that I was in the decided minority that listed “I support the Miers nomination” on TTLB. I’ve got a long way to go to catch up to Patterico’s two million, and every hit counts.
Dana R. Pico (8d0335) — 10/24/2005 @ 6:06 pmDana,
But our esteemed host said, in another thread, that a nomination of Michael Luttig to replace Harriet Miers would be a harder confirmation…
Easy to resolve: I’m right, he’s wrong.
🙂
ras (f9de13) — 10/24/2005 @ 6:14 pmEvidence for my position: Schumer’s comment that a Miers withdrawal/defeat would represent Bush caving to the forces of the right. This is exactly the argument I warned would be used.
Patterico (4e4b70) — 10/24/2005 @ 6:26 pmWell, even mule headed Dubya can’t withstand this wave of criticism. Miers will have to withdraw or suffer more indignity at the hands of her own party. It’s unbelievable that Swaggerless is so bold as to nominate such a crony post Brownie – especially when Miers is sadly ill-equipped for the position.
Now the question becomes; “Who’s the next nominee?” Will Dubya go for revenge on his disloyal minions and advocate a more liberal nominee? Or will he tuck his tail between his bowl-legs and make the rad right all giddy again?
Tillman (1cf529) — 10/24/2005 @ 6:48 pmSchumer’s comment that a Miers withdrawal/defeat would represent Bush caving to the forces of the right.
Evidence that position is wrong: Schumer said it. 😉
Ya can’t claim he’s the barometer of all things false and then rely on him to support an argument.
Christopher Cross (77eaf3) — 10/24/2005 @ 6:53 pmYou’re like Xrlq, finding contradictions where there are none.
1) Schumer says: she doesn’t have the votes.
He’s wrong. I don’t believe it.
2) Schumer says: a Miers withdrawal is a sign that he is controlled by the radical out-of-the-mainstream extreme right wing.
He’s wrong. I don’t believe it.
But that will be the argument, and some Americans will see it that way.
No contradiction.
Patterico (4e4b70) — 10/24/2005 @ 7:03 pmPatterico, here is a site listing a number of “Deeply Concerned” senators: http://www.withdrawmiers.org/the_advocates.php
Tillman (1cf529) — 10/24/2005 @ 7:21 pmBut you’re inflating “some Americans will see it that way” into “enough Americans to make confirming Luttig more difficult will see it that way.”
You’re relying on the validity (or at least the perceived validity) of Schumer’s argument to support your argument re: Luttig.
Christopher Cross (77eaf3) — 10/24/2005 @ 7:25 pmYou’re relying on the validity (or at least the perceived validity) of Schumer’s argument to support your argument re: Luttig.
Not validity at all. Perceived validity, among some, yes.
Am I saying that not everyone can see through Chuckie like I can? Yes.
He got elected Senator by someone.
Also, I already predicted this argument before he made it. His statement is just evidence of the utterly predictable point that the Dems will indeed make this argument. And I think it will stick with some.
That I disagree is irrelevant. I thought Congress acted properly in the Schiavo situation, but it *looked* like Congress caving to the extreme right wing. That’s how this will look too. But Schiavo was a matter of principle. This simply results from Bush’s extremely poor choice for a Supreme Court nominee.
Patterico (4e4b70) — 10/24/2005 @ 7:43 pmPatterico,
I question your Venn!
Evidence for my position: Schumer’s comment that a Miers withdrawal/defeat would represent Bush caving to the forces of the right.
Your implied Venn diagram has put “withdrawal” and “defeat” into the same grouping. But the first is under Bush’s control, the 2nd is not.
In terms of representing a choice being made by Bush, in this case, “caving,” they do not belong in the same category at all; they are complete opposites.
Therefore, a withdrawal does indeed have the effect that you fear. A defeat does not.
To the contrary, a defeat confirms the Senate’s independence, and underscores – to whatever extent anyone still needs it – that the Senate does not merely rubberstamp whatever nominee Bush sends their way, but votes them up or down with discretion, lessening the justification for a fb.
ras (f9de13) — 10/24/2005 @ 8:16 pmI very much doubt either Mona Charen or Linda Chavez is itching to hitch her conservative wagon to a horse who likes to describe mustache battles between Geraldo Rivera and John Bolton. Hell, Bainbridge has never even linked me that I can remember.
A shame, too, as I tend to reach a pretty smart classically liberal crowd who likes their news mixed with a little whimsy.
And of course, by “whimsy” I mean hardcore porn.
Jeff G (302dff) — 10/24/2005 @ 8:28 pmBut thanks for the thought, Patterico. Seriously. Much appreciated.
Jeff G (302dff) — 10/24/2005 @ 8:30 pmTo the contrary, a defeat confirms the Senate’s independence, and underscores – to whatever extent anyone still needs it – that the Senate does not merely rubberstamp whatever nominee Bush sends their way, but votes them up or down with discretion, lessening the justification for a fb.
Because they follow the radical right.
I don’t agree, but that will be the argument.
Patterico (4e4b70) — 10/24/2005 @ 8:42 pmNot validity at all. Perceived validity, among some, yes. Am I saying that not everyone can see through Chuckie like I can? Yes.
Yes, but the point is that you’re trying to argue that Schumer’s impending statements will cause MORE people than would normally listen to him to do so. Thereby making your own argument re Luttig more plausible.
Schumer would make Schumer-esque arguments regardless of whom the nomiee is–and he would convince X number of people simply because there are people in the world that actually listen to Chuck Schumer.
You are trying to validate your own Luttig argument by trying to impute some INCREASED influence (i.e. perceived validity) on the utterly predicitable Schumer arguments. That you predicted his arguments doesn’t make them any more influential.
Christopher Cross (77eaf3) — 10/24/2005 @ 9:02 pmYes, but the point is that you’re trying to argue that Schumer’s impending statements will cause MORE people than would normally listen to him to do so.
You’re reading too much into my statement. I was just saying: remember how I said that the left would make this argument? Well, it’s happening.
And I think some people will buy it. Regardless of who makes the argument.
Patterico (4e4b70) — 10/24/2005 @ 9:16 pmHere is another person making the same exact point.
Patterico (4e4b70) — 10/24/2005 @ 10:30 pmOur esteemed host is right: if the nomination is withdrawn, President Bush will pay a political price, regardless of whether the arguments have merit; some people will believe any bogus argument, as long as it comes from Chuck Schumer and the Usual Suspects.
And a lot of people think that he’ll pay a political price if he continues with the nomination.
There are only three possibilities:
Serious question: of those three possibilities, in which one is the President the biggest loser, and in which does he lose the least? My answer is that he loses the least if the nomination proceeds and she is confirmed.
Dana R. Pico (a9eb8b) — 10/25/2005 @ 6:12 pm