Patterico's Pontifications

For once, and please God let it be the only time in my life, I hope Charles Schumer is right.

The Pathetic Earthling (08c01e) — 10/23/2005 @ 2:18 pm

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Christopher Cross (6da03a) — 10/23/2005 @ 3:04 pm

Unless its a 24 hour clock.

Angry Clam (a7c6b1) — 10/23/2005 @ 3:18 pm

Can Chuckie count to 51?

Flap (cc77c4) — 10/23/2005 @ 4:03 pm

Well, then it’s right at least once a day. (unless it’s saying it’s 2700)

Christopher Cross (6da03a) — 10/23/2005 @ 4:23 pm

Hey, what else can we do to get you in off the ledge, ask Specter to say the same thing?

Attila (Pillage Idiot) (471b7c) — 10/23/2005 @ 4:58 pm

If Harriet Miers supported diversity/set-asides, it was part of an effort at least 50 years old in the American Bar Association and state bar assoications to bring geographic, politcal, gender and minority members into their membership as active members and leaders and to foster doing the same with state and local bar associations, judgeship elections and appointments and law firm hiring. She was, perhaps, a leader in these efforts, which spread from the northeast to the southwest across the country by a variety of of mechanisms (1) rotating geographic, political, gender and minority members into leadership positions, (2) indentifying and recruiting female and minority members and encouraging their membership and leadership activities, (3) isolating and insulating female and minority candidates from resistance was faciltiated because election processes were made by elite groups, i.e.. ABA State Delegates, state bar bard of directors, and appointments/elections/campaign funding recognized diversity/set-aside goals, i,e., certain seats were “skirt seats” or “minority seats.” These means of opening up the bar associations to all of its members found favor in the election and appointment of judges at the national, state and local level and in the hiring at law firms. What Harriet Miers was doing as Texas bar president represented what other national, state and local bar associations were doing already.

Neil J. Lehto (77bed1) — 10/23/2005 @ 5:15 pm

Thank goodness the ABA isn’t a “politically charged” organization like the Federalist Society . . .

Patterico (4e4b70) — 10/23/2005 @ 5:32 pm

The political message here is: “settled law” i.e. Brownback is only one vote–we have 45.

Paul Deignan (993808) — 10/23/2005 @ 5:56 pm

How well the American Bar Association defuses political matters among its members is up for debate, as may be suggested by the campaign Harriett Mier joined to subject its pro-Roe v. Wade position to member referendum. Some pro-life lawyers figured that, having been substantively defeated in the ABA House of Delegates, that they might persuade the ABA membership to disavow the action by seeking a referendum. There may have been two camps among the leadership — those who worried that the ABA posture supporting Roe v. Wade as settled law would cost membership and those who thought the ABA should not support Roe v. Wade on principle. Most opponents of the ABA position, including Ms. Miers, probably, thought Roe. v. Wade was wrongly decided and aligned themselves with arguments that the ABA should not have taken a position on what they viewed as a political matter with a membership vote — providing each of them with political cover for their personal views. That is the way of bar politics — when you go back home to the law firm and diverse clients you make a principled argued for avoiding issues which the public and your clients may disagree. Ms. Miers explicitly supported not pro-life but the secrecy of her vote in an ABA referendum on the matter. Most lawyers recognize that as the position of person offended by the ruling in Roe v. Wade.

Neil J. Lehto (77bed1) — 10/23/2005 @ 6:22 pm

Neil,

No need to guess on this–we have Mier’s own statements–she wanted the support for Roe to be meaningful.

Paul Deignan (993808) — 10/23/2005 @ 6:46 pm

Oh, and remember that as the head of the texas bar, it was her members that were in revolt–not Miers.

After the vote, a couple hundred members left the Texas ABA–Miers wasn’t one of them.

Paul Deignan (993808) — 10/23/2005 @ 6:49 pm

Neither Ms. Miers nor you are so naive. Her position was viewed then and now as pro-life because the American Bar Association can be so bogged down in procedure. By urging a membership referendum — which everybody knew was futile — she was urging a pro-life position, knowing it would never come to a vote. It was the only procedural maneuver left to pro-life opponents of the ABA House of Delegates at the time. Anybody who argues otherwise knows nothing about ABA politics, rules, procedures or good politics. If anything, what she did suggests that Harriett Miers is good at politics. It created tracks, which are easily recognizable without leaving a public up or down vote. Superb for Texas politics in the early 1990s.

Neil J. Lehto (77bed1) — 10/23/2005 @ 7:08 pm

Neil,

It is her particular rationale that is pivotal in understanding the reason for her role in the argument.

She wanted the position to be meaningful. That is not an appeal to democracy, it is an appeal to ideology. So, is she a A+ salewoman or is she a like-minded thinker? In Texas, the road up was pro-life. So maybe she is a savvy politician in that regard.

Paul Deignan (993808) — 10/23/2005 @ 8:51 pm

I heard Schumer on Imus saying Roberts was smarter than the entire judiciary committee put together. So he isn’t always wrong.

James B. Shearer (ba7716) — 10/23/2005 @ 9:26 pm

Schumer isn’t stupid either.

Paul Deignan (993808) — 10/23/2005 @ 9:28 pm

Even if there are enough votes in the Senate to confirm Miers, what’s decisive is whether the GOP is willing to ignite the enduring wrath of conservatives. If they’re not, the Miers nomination will never get to the floor – especially if it would be approved.

Lastango (f91a59) — 10/23/2005 @ 11:27 pm

That depends on Bush putting the party ahead of his ego or personal political machinations

Paul Deignan (993808) — 10/24/2005 @ 2:21 am

Paul,

“That depends on Bush putting the party ahead of his ego or personal political machinations”

That is a droll and subtle piece of wit, I must say! (G)

Ernest Brown (645009) — 10/24/2005 @ 6:54 am

I think this is actually the relevant Schumer quote:

I will say this, if he were to withdraw the nomination, it would be a stunning defeat for George Bush, and here’s what I think it would show. I think it would show that a small group way over at the extreme had power over the White House. After all, not a single Republican senator has at this point called for Harriet Miers’ resignation. And so if President Bush is going to march to the drum of a group that I think most Americans would consider out of the mainstream, it’s going to be a real revelation to the American people and that’s why I think he can’t do it.

Chuck is already spinning Miers’ withdrawal.

Crank (5f5694) — 10/24/2005 @ 8:19 am

Well, if it does happen, I will not be dancing with joy. This whole situation has been a terrible wake up call–even after things seemed as bad as they could get with this administration.

The only question remaining for me is what to do about the GOP. For that I will need to see whether it gets to committee and whether it makes it out.

Paul Deignan (993808) — 10/24/2005 @ 8:24 am

Chuck is already spinning Miers’ withdrawal.

Right, and this is why I have previously argued that Bush has already soured the prospects for a Luttig.

Patterico (e7f3ba) — 10/24/2005 @ 8:28 am

I hate to sound a contrary note, but Luttig would be seen as a return to normalcy after Miers–a competent responsible choice.

If the Dems aren’t screaming about Miers’ closeness to Bush and whatever the media protrays her religious ideology to be, they can say little about Luttig other than, “I think he would look better in a dress–black, strapless, with ….”

Oooooops, that last part was me. I must be getting tired of the late night blogging.

Paul Deignan (993808) — 10/24/2005 @ 9:44 am

Despite the enthusiasm of many people about Luttig et al., an appointment like that is the very last thing the President will do. The President has twice now indicated that he wants to avoid a fight with the Dems in the Senate.

The obvious way he will go is to eliminate the more obvious “defects”. She will not be a “crony”. She will be a sitting judge. She will be acceptable to some Senate Dems. She will be known to the President only by reputation.

She will not be a man. She will not be one of the people on the conservative wish list.

Bob (e4f8f7) — 10/24/2005 @ 9:51 am

Then he is a unprincipled, feckless, coward and the GOP deserves the fate it is about to suffer.

Paul Deignan (993808) — 10/24/2005 @ 10:12 am

President is bold and firm.. Here is a news item I picked up..
President refuses to release Miers documents
Bush: ‘It’s a red line I’m not willing to cross’

Monday, October 24, 2005; Posted: 1:20 p.m. EDT (17:20 GMT)

story.miers.ap.jpg
Harriet Miers will continue her Capitol Hill visits this week to win support for her Supreme Court nomination.

Study Political Science Online
Online degree program focuses on political parties, special interest groups,…
apu.apus.edu
Political Science Book – Israel’s Future
In “The Future of Israel”, Devin Sper offers a timely examination of Israel’s…
http://www.devinsper.com
53,000 Term Papers
Over 53,000 reports are available at $6.00 per page. We also assist with custom…
http://www.speedyresearch.net
Graduate Schools for Political Science
Gradschools.com is a comprehensive and informative directory of graduate and…
http://www.gradschools.com
RELATED
Interactive: Miers profile
• Miers’ responses to questions
• Miers backed abortion ban
• Miers’ views on privacy
• Time.com: Why they can’t hit the right note
SPECIAL REPORT
• Gallery: Current justices
• Who is Harriet Miers?
• Profile of John Roberts
• Gallery: Confirmation explainer
• Special Report
YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS
Supreme Court
Senate
Supreme Court
White House
or Create Your Own
Manage Alerts | What Is This?

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush said Monday that he will not release any records of his conversations with Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers that could threaten the confidentiality of the advice that presidents get from their lawyers.

“It’s a red line I’m not willing to cross,” Bush said.

Both Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee are demanding more documents on Miers, including from her work at Bush’s counsel.

“People can learn about Harriet Miers through hearings, but we are not going to destroy this business about people being able to walk into the Oval Office to say, Mr. President, this is my advice,” Bush said after a meeting with his Cabinet.

YA HE DAMN WELL DOESNT WANT YOU RINOS WALKING INTO HIS OFFICE AND GIVING HIM ADVICE!!! THIS IS A FAITH BASED ADMINISTRATION..FORGET THE FACTS!!! HAVE FAITH IN YOUR SUPREME LEADER!!

Charlie (8ea405) — 10/24/2005 @ 12:49 pm

paterno.. i screwed up the last posting.. I should have checked and now learned my lesson!! can you delete the garbage in the middle of my post.. I cut and pasted something I thought would be interesting but should have checked…..the one just above this…Sorry…

Charlie (8ea405) — 10/24/2005 @ 12:53 pm

Defeat of the nomination in committee would be the best outcome. Can anyone here imagine that the already damaged confirmation process wouldn’t be completely and for all time wrecked if W pushes Miers onto the Court? At least now, there is some notion, at least among Republicans and maybe even some Dems (you know, at least some of the ones who voted for Roberts) that the President is entitled to a rebuttable presumption that his nominee is qualified. But . . . has any President in the memory of those now living put someone as close to him as his own WH counsel on the Court, directly challenging Hamilton’s admonition in Federalist 76? The fact that there’s a founder who’s telling us not to give the President the benefit of the doubt should be a big red flag for both the President and the Senators — of both parties. I’m afraid that if the Miers nomination makes it out of committee, regardless of whether she’s confirmed, every subsequent confirmation for the Court would be a Borking times 10.

TNugent (6128b4) — 10/24/2005 @ 1:04 pm

Charlie, this might be what sinks this pick. In light of the fact that everything Miers has written that tells us about her judicial philosophy is likely to be a privileged communication or work-product, shouldn’t we just end this nonsense now? If W is concerned about the confidentiality of his communications with his lawyer, as he should be, then he should just withdraw this one and pick someone else.

TNugent (6128b4) — 10/24/2005 @ 1:09 pm

10/23/2005

If Chuckie Says It, It Must Be False

29 Responses to “If Chuckie Says It, It Must Be False”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out