So Harriet Miers has withdrawn her nomination, rather than going down in flames and scorching the Bush Administration has a result.
The thing is, I don't know how to feel about it. I mean, my instinct is to figure that if this is someone whom conservatives feel isn't conservative enough, that's good enough to gain my full support. Because Bush's alternative is to...what? Nominate someone aggressive and openly conservative who's a guaranteed lock to overturn Roe V. Wade? How is that better?
On the other hand, I bridle at the naked cronyism and the fact that I have an old-fashioned notion that a SC judge should have a demonstrably high-quality legal mind experienced in complex judicial matters, and there's no indication that Miers is qualified as being anything other than a Bush pal...and we saw how well that worked out with Bush's head of FEMA.
PAD
Posted by Peter David at October 27, 2005 02:59 PM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingHey, maybe this time W will actually conduct a search that involves more than asking Karl Rove who he should pick, or simply sticking his head out of the Oval Office and yelling, "Hey! Who wants to be a Supreme Court Justice?"
Paul
I am of the opinion that this has been the plan all along. W and the Busheviks sent her up to be shot down (c'mon, Trent Lott opposes? please). Now they will put their REAL nominee forward who will sail through confirmation when the Democrats fail to join together to oppose the nomination (as usual).
No, I am not paranoid, why do you ask?
-Nick
Regardless of how she may or may not have ruled, Miers was clearly not a good choice for the highest court of the land. At best, she was a mediocre lawyer who held a string of bureaucratic and mangerial jobs that said nothing about her actual knowledge of the law. Her statements about Bush being the smartest man she knew were chilling. This isn't surprising. Bush has always valued loyalty (to him) over competence and it's clear he saw the second opening on the SCOTUS as a opportunity to move another crony into a long-term position of political power. Miers was just the biggest kiss-ass with a law degree he could find.
As who he'll send up next, I don't think he has the "political capital" left to try and force through a rabid ideologue. That many social conservatives didn't buy Bush's "I know her heart" signals wasn't the only reason her nomination was sunk. Small government conservatives like George Will were dismayed by her lack of real qualifications.
I'm optimistic that we'll see another Roberts: Conservative, but not of the "foaming of the mouth" vein. Hopefully, this time, Bush will consider relevant qualifications instead of what church they attend.
Nick, the problem with that theory is that I don't think Bush clever enough to pull a scam like that off. Not with Rove distracted and his poll numbers down. If anything, the democrats are going to look even harder at the next name sent up precisely because of fears that it'll be a blinkered ideologue. They were content to let the GOP eat its own with Miers and let Roberts sail through with only token opposition, so they have plenty of room now to put up a huge fight and not look like obstructionists.
I thought the GOP said everyone deserved an up or down vote?
LOL!
actually payl i heard the opposite view
former clinton white house adviser
dick myers
said on the radio today that miers wouldnt have been nominated if rove hadnt been distracted
by the leak case
he said its roves job to keep the base happy
and this didnt do that
i think miers was bushs mistake
and until we find out
who he picks next
i think her withdrawl was a good thing
sorry paul didnt mean to misspell your name
type too fast
Aloha Nick!
I think you're probably as close to "on target" on the reality of the situation as anyone has been.
As for the notion that Bush isn't clever enough (or too dumb/stupid/inept/whatever)... I find it continually amusing that dumb ol' W is able to pull one over on the left... over and over again.
The left needs to stop working towards the notion of "let's destroy Bush," and start working towards the next election. The left is still stuck on stupid. That is to say, they're still stuck in the past, trying to win elections that have already come and gone. They need to move on.
RLR
Well I'm glad she took herself out. Whether or not she would have ruled the way I like is irrelevent--I think it set a bad precedent to nominate someone of such unknown qualifications.
Glad to see that Republicans don't just follow the leaders of their party, right or wrong. Hopefully if some future Democratic president makes the same mistake his own people will be as insistent that he correct it. Actually, one hopes that this will make such an error less likely altogether.
Between crony and ideologue, I'll take the crony.
This does not bode well.
As a White Sox fan, I like to think of it as just another part of a really bad day for Texas.
This resignation is a good thing for the Conservative side. It was an act of weakness that Harriet Myers was nominated in the first place. That has now been rectified.
"I thought the GOP said everyone deserved an up or down vote?"
Sheah, right. When was the last time the GOP said something they truly believed in? The party is guided by one principle these days -- IOKIARDI (It's OK If A Republican Does It).
As for Miers, my ideal scenario would be for Bush to keep nominating safe "moderates", and having the religious right pressure Republican Senators to shoot them down. Because that'd show the rest of the nation how we've been hijacked by a bunch of fundamentalists, and vote those guys out of office and out of power.
--R.J.
"Sheah, right. When was the last time the GOP said something they truly believed in? The party is guided by one principle these days -- IOKIARDI (It's OK If A Republican Does It)."
I don't like the Republican party much, but I have to disagree a little bit with that statement. If they believed IOKIARDI then they would have been okay with Bush nominating Myers in the first place.
"As for Miers, my ideal scenario would be for Bush to keep nominating safe "moderates", and having the religious right pressure Republican Senators to shoot them down. Because that'd show the rest of the nation how we've been hijacked by a bunch of fundamentalists, and vote those guys out of office and out of power."
Again, I want them out of power as well, but my ideal, pie-in-the-sky scenario is that Bush nominates a qualified cadidate who will defend our rights and that the senators will do their job and
comfirm said person.
I know, I know. It's so highly unlikely that I shouldn't even mention it, but Bush and various GOP senators have to know that if they fail to find someone appointable, it won't look good for the party in general come election time. (A few senators may be benefit from saying to highly biased supporters "Look how principled/loyal *I* am, I wouldn't let them confirm anyone lukewarm/not on 'our side.'" Still, it doesn't say "My party is competent.")
Somtimes I wonder if we'd be better off if Presidents and Senators had a shorter term, increasing turnover. (Yeah, we'd have more election-related scandals and hyperbole, but it might be worth it.)
the name i hear being mentioned a lot is michael mconnel
a judge of the 10th district in denver
he has a conservative record
but he was opposed to bush v gore and opposed the impeachment of president clinton
we could do worse
Bill wrote:
"Glad to see that Republicans don't just follow the leaders of their party, right or wrong. Hopefully if some future Democratic president makes the same mistake his own people will be as insistent that he correct it. Actually, one hopes that this will make such an error less likely altogether."
Isn't it nifty that the Republicans have given themselves an example of how they're really looking at the qualifications of these candidates now, effectively nullifying one of the primary arguments Democrats may have had in a fight over a more pronounced and sternly ideological candidate?
The left needs to stop working towards the notion of "let's destroy Bush," and start working towards the next election. The left is still stuck on stupid
That's because Bush keeps finding new ways of redefining the word.
It really comes down to the fact that Bush has the best propoganda money can buy.
I can only imagine what the next three years will be like if his propoganda mouthpiece, Rove, gets indicted. Although we might not have to imagine for much longer.
Isn't it nifty that the Republicans have given themselves an example of how they're really looking at the qualifications of these candidates now, effectively nullifying one of the primary arguments Democrats may have had in a fight over a more pronounced and sternly ideological candidate?
I only WISH republicans were all as smart as some of you think they are. This was a botched nomination, nothing more. If any good comes out of it, all well and good, but only the most crazed Bush lover (or equally nutty liberal paranoid) could possibly believe that this was all some grand plan.
Mr. Finn: That's the funniest thing I've read all day. Thank you for that.
"The left needs to stop working towards the notion of "let's destroy Bush," and start working towards the next election. The left is still stuck on stupid. That is to say, they're still stuck in the past, trying to win elections that have already come and gone. They need to move on."
To paraphrase from the Simpsons, "It's easier to critize Bush. Fun too."
i doubt if bush has a masterplan
that it includes shooting himself in the foot
was the nomination a grand design? no
was it a mistake that may have weakened bush ?yes
only time will tell
how bad a mess this really is
Funny thing is, taking her name out of the running was the most virtuous, patriotic thing Meirs could have done. I respect her now, and wish her well, and I didn't before.
This is a welcome relief. Sorry, she might be a nice lady and relatively smart, but there is no way, any objective person could say she was the "most qualified" person Bush could choose. Yes, Bush was wrong on that one. But, after nominating her, what was he supposed to say?
As George Will and many others have stated: A Supreme Court position should involve more assurances, for either side, than "trust me". It doesn't matter if she would have "voted the right way" on Roe v. Wade or not. Because the traditional conservative position has been that you do not rule based on ideology, but based on a strict interpretation of the Constitution. Even conservatives who are absolute libertarians and feel government should "stay out of the bedroom" simply feel that Roe v. Wade was a poorly reasoned decision and simply bad law.
Throwing pro-lifers a bone on Miers did not work. Bringing up her religion was a mistake, and saying anyone who opposed her were elitist sexists was a joke..Because when it comes down to it, Clinton can nominate someone like Ginsburg. The Democrats don't provide stealth candidates. Why should conservatives do so? Put someone forth like Janice Rogers Brown or Edith Jones and let the debate begin. It is one the country needs and deserves.
i like gary's style
i think more posts should be like this
blank verse reminiscent
of "archy & mehitabel"
that way even when you disagree
you can still admire the artistry of the post
and who knows
maybe some of these posts
really are being written by a cockroach
:)
My personal opinion is that this isn't a grand scheme on Bush's part, he had a crony and decided to award her. I believe the fact he has never lost a fight really and has had a congress doing nothing but rubber stamping him was their miscalculation. Rowe is distracted, poll numbers are down and since the guy can't be bothered to read a newpaper for a look at the real world he was moving along on the status quo.
If he throws out a religious wingnut, we aren't going to see what power the white house has left, it will be a demostration of the power of the religious wingnuts in the congress that we will witness if the person gets through or not.
My hope right now is that Rowe gets nailed, my gut feeling is that with Rowe gone, this White House will then go down the same path as Nixon or at least become completly ineffectual. Rowe is definently the architect of the coverup, with him gone and the party broken in congress, I don't believe the puppet has enough ability to maintain the course.
I have to admit, I was positively impressed by how people like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, who usually appear to me to do nothing more than march in lockstep with whatever the right-wing or conservative party line is, actually criticized Miers' nomination, something I don't ever recall seeing before from them. Almost makes you wonder if the Apocalypse is coming.
Dear President Bush,
If the money is right, I'm available.
Best wishes,
Tom
The problem with any debate over a SCOTUS nominee is that, in three seconds, it becomes all about Roe v. Wade. I think it's a huge mistake for both sides to distill an entire nomination down to how they will rule on this one case. I think there were other reasons why Bush wanted a crony in on the SCOTUS that has nothing to do with abortion.
One of the hallmarks of this administration has been a quest for expanding the power of the executive branch at the expense of the other two. What they have wanted more than anything else was the freedom to do whatever they want without the courts or Congress second guessing them.
Put another way: Is a coincedence that Miers withdraws her nomination as soon as Specter indicated that he wanted to question her about about the kind of legal advice she gave Bush regarding the treatment of prisoners at GITMO?
He should nominate Judge Roy Moore. Judge Moore won't even have to have his monument of the Ten Commandments hauled to the SCOTUS...they already have them on display. God Bless America!!
I don't think this was part of a fiendish plot, either. To paraphrase the old phrase, I'm not going to attribute this to malice when it can easily be explained by whomping huge incompetence.
And unlike PAD, I'm definitely happy about this. I'll take a conservative who is clearly very qualified over a liberal who very clearly isn't. Just as an example, while I expect to disagree with most of Roberts' opinions on the court, I fully accept that he should be on the court instead of me. :-)
(And hey, if this whole incident helps to reveal Bush as the small-minded dolt that he is when it comes to appointments, I'm not losing any sleep over THAT, either.)
TWL
Because the traditional conservative position has been that you do not rule based on ideology,
Which should tell you right there that the Bush Administration is made up of individuals who are not of the "traditional conservative position".
This Administration is all about ideology: from the Patriot Act, to the war in Iraq, to how they treat detainees (up to and including Padilla) and more.
It's another reason why I cannot understand the mindless support for Bush by your average, every day conservative and/or Republican: the people involved in the Bush Administration (and those who brought this Administration to power) are called 'neocons' for good reason - they are not the type of conservatives from years past.
Bringing up her religion was a mistake
Well, it was a mistake, imo, mostly because he said Roberts religious views should NOT be part of the discussion.
So what's the first thing he does with Miers? Brings up her religion.
But otherwise, I agree with the thought that abortion should not be the single defining measuring stick of a SCJ nominee.
Whether they think "intelligent design" is science or theology should certainly rank up there as well. ;)
Moses and the 10 commandments in the Supreme Court are part of a mural displaying other lawgivers including Hammurabi and Muhammed. It would be difficult for anyone to take the mural as a whole as validating one religion over others.
Funny thing is, taking her name out of the running was the most virtuous, patriotic thing Meirs could have done. I respect her now, and wish her well, and I didn't before.
I wonder if the individual she thought was so smart asked her to.
Whether they think "intelligent design" is science or theology should certainly rank up there as well. ;)
We're talking about lawyers here. The only group that I expect to miss use and misrepresent science more than journalists is lawyers.
"I have to admit, I was positively impressed by how people like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, who usually appear to me to do nothing more than march in lockstep with whatever the right-wing or conservative party line is, actually criticized Miers' nomination, something I don't ever recall seeing before from them."
They wanted someone who had "TOOL OF THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT" tattooed on her forehead. Instead, Bush gave them someone who had "TOOL OF GEORGE W. BUSH" tattooed on her forehead.
Hardly a surprise, as the modern-day GOP has shown that they will turn on anyone the moment he (or she) ceases to toe their line (look at Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neil, or General Eric Shinseki, just to name three high-profile examples). Their feality to Bush lasts only as long as he hews to their agenda; the party is the first thing -- and often the only thing -- they truly care about.
And if that sounds like an echo of previous groups in recent history, well...
--R.J.
As an aside: I read a lot of you calling Bush an idiot, but how many of you have actually met him and spent some time with him?
I haven't, but I know several people who have and every one of them says he is a very intelligent man. Not all of them are Republicans, either. Two didn't vote for him. One has changed his mind on that, the other hasn't, but they agree he is far from stupid.
I would just like to point out that as a "true" conservative instead of a "moral" conservative, that i have more to complain about Bush and any liberal out there. Bush since elected has done nothing but two things, move away from fiscal conservative viewpoints and turn the republican party from a conservative political movement to an attempt to allow religious views to dictate policy. While i think that the religious views that a person have are very important to their decision making ability (religion establishes a basic moral code of ethics no matter what religion you are, they just might not be the same code of ethics) , i do not think that attempting to make religious doctorine law is a good step. History and current world situations prove that theocracy does not work. If the Republican party does not turn away from a moral viewpoint and move back to a conservative viewpoint, i might have to find a new party to affiliate myself with.
I think that the Republican congressmens refusal to except her has a supreme court justice is a movement away from the Bush attempt to change the party to perhaps the party moving back to the right wing of politics and out of the realm of religion.
As an aside: I read a lot of you calling Bush an idiot, but how many of you have actually met him and spent some time with him?
Do I need to?
You scold us for basing our opinions of Bush based on what we read and see, yet you're doing the exact same thing - basing your opinion based on what others have said.
I've never seen anybody that carries the same smug look that Bush always has, whether he's talking about something good or bad. It's like it's permanently fixed on his face (until somebody gets a snapshot of one of his many funny faces).
Some talk about his 'electability' because he comes off as a charming man. I completely fail to see it - he completely puts me off every time I look at him.
He could be talking about how we've discovered the meaning to Life, the Universe, and Everything, and I wouldn't care because I can't stand the man at all.
Well, except for the debates last year: that really showed how incapable he is, when he didn't have Rove around to spoon-feed him stuff to say.
he should just do what the wingsnuts want, nominate James Dobson and be done with it. I mean, it's totally ridiculous for the Democrats to expect he's going to nominate anyone who MIGHT NOT overturn Roe v. Wade at the first opportunity (although, if Roe V. Wade is, as Roberts said, the "settled law of the land," wouldn't overturning it be considered activist?). The GOP controls the House, Senate and White House, and can revoke the Democrats ability to filibuster any time they want to. They can pretty much run the table. It's time for the Dems to figure out how to get their act together (and no, waiting for the GOP to implode doesn't constitute a plan). By this point after the 1996 election, the GOP and already settled on GWB as their horse, and had raised umpty-ump million dollars on his behalf. Dems need to get behind someone fast and start making it happen.
As an aside: I read a lot of you calling Bush an idiot, but how many of you have actually met him and spent some time with him?
My wife's aunt has met him several times. She ran the White House travel office for the first few months of his presidency.
I'm sticking with "idiot", thanks.
TWL
As an aside: I read a lot of you calling Bush an idiot, but how many of you have actually met him and spent some time with him?
I'd be more inclined to believe that he was intelligent if he actually began speaking in complete sentences for a change.
As an aside: I read a lot of you calling Bush an idiot, but how many of you have actually met him and spent some time with him?
He's the President of the United States; we judge him on his words and actions. Why SHOULDN'T we be judging him on that?
There have been other President who have had trouble with public speaking, they just didn't have the media there to critize them like we have today.
"When a great many people are unable to find work, unemployment results." -- Calvin Coolidge, ex-president, discussing the United States economic situation in 1931.
"President Carter speaks loudly and carries a fly spotter, a fly swasher -- it's been a long day." -- Gerald Ford
"Things are more like they are now than they have ever been." -- Gerald Ford
"I love sports. Whenever I can, I always watch the Detroit Tigers on the radio." -- Gerald Ford
"That is what has made America last these past 200 centuries." -- Gerald Ford
Ford actually has alot more great ones, i just can't remember them all. FDR had a few aswell, I did a paper in college over public speaking folies of presidents, but i can't find it to give them all. The only two presidents who didn't have public speaking folies were George Washington (never gave a live speach for people to report on) and William Henry Harrision (died 28 days into office).
There have been other President who have had trouble with public speaking
No president in recent memory compares to Bush.
Clinton and Reagan were good/great public speakers (although Reagan certainly had the advantage of being a former actor) and it doesn't seem like Bush Sr or Carter were half bad either.
Bush is outright horrible. I present, Exhibit A: DubyaSpeak.com
Ok, not sure what happened to the link on that one. Just tack on a www. and it'll work though. :)
Coolidge was using a term, "unemployment" that was still relatively new, so I don't see this as a moronic statement given the historical context.... and Ford's awkwardness has been lampooned since day 1.
Sure, almost every president has made a few gaffes in public.
None have come close to Bush in terms of the shear number of stupid, incoherent things that have come out of his cakehole, though.
Also, there is his long history of rewarding incompetence: Rice, Tenet, Wolfowitz, Bolten, Miers, Rumsfeld. Then there's the fact that he says with pride that he never reads the newspaper, preferring to get all his news from his sycophants, I mean, "unbiased filters."
After five years of seeing him in office, I feel very comfortable calling him the most intellectually lazy president in my lifetime.
And exactly who, besides Harriet Miers, has described him as intelligent?
Robbnn: As an aside: I read a lot of you calling Bush an idiot, but how many of you have actually met him and spent some time with him?
Luigi Novi: A potentially valid point when you're talking about someone obscure who true personality and personal life are unknown and the subject to gossip and speculation, like actors and singers, but here, wer'e talking about the most public figure in the country, and possibly the world, about whom a great deal is known. This is fundamental to U.S. Presidents nowadways, from their early lives, to their professional credentials, and the public personas they craft.
From this, it is reasonable to opine that Bush is profoundly unqualified for his job, misinformed and ignorant, lacking in the objectivity, worldliness and perspective needed for holding hte highest office in the land, openly contemptous of intellectual pursuits and considerations.
To apply the question you ask not merely to people about whom necessary information is not present, but to someone like the President, is to misapply it. To pretend that this principle applies to the President, you might as well take the nihilistic attittude that all the opinions that we form of our elected officials (something to which we have both a right and an obligation to form), and for that matter, all people period, is null and void. You could argue, for example, that I can't conlcude that Charles Manson is crazy, that I can't conclude that O.J. Simpson is a double murderer, or that Einstein was intelligent, that Ben Affleck chooses his scripts poorly, that Britney Spears is of questionable talent, etc.
No thanks.
Curtis Rose:
Ford was and is made fun of for his many gaffs and fumbles. Hell, he bacame Homer Simpson's new best buddy once.
Robbnn:
Any man who makes a major speech declaring global warming is a good thing because it will give us longer harvests (while ignoring the disastrous effects on the coastline communities, increased power in land based storms and warmer coastal waters to increase the destructive force of hurricanes) and other no-thought warm fuzzy sentiments is an idiot.
Any man who wants to lead a nation but brags that he doesn't watch the news or read the paper is an idiot.
Any man who puts buddies and yes men in major positions around him because he fears the truth and/or criticism and also places those people into major positions in major government offices is a fool, an egotist and an idiot.
Any man that does all that and more is the King of all Idiots.
I don't need to hang out with the man. Bush is an idiot.
>"President Carter speaks loudly and carries a fly spotter, a fly swasher -- it's been a long day." -- Gerald Ford"
At least he was aware of his screwups and admitted them sometimes. When was the last time Shrub did so as he stumbled?
I have three thoughts:
I don't think this was just "cronyism." I think Bush really did think she was right for the job for a variety of reasons. This was someone I think he knew and deeply respected.
If true, it is still a weak reason to nominate her. The "just trust me" really does not work in this situation. While I think a little too much emphasis is put on someone being a judge, clearly there is a need for some exprience before the Supreme Court.
The vicious attack by some of those on my "side" is disappointing. While I would prefer a stronger candidate (like Roberts), the issue became a little too personal.
Bottom line, I would agree with the evalutation that Bush made a poor choice in nominating Meirs. I don't think she necessarily would have been a bad judge, but there was no reasonable evidence to show she would have been a good judge.
Side note: Ever since the unfounded attack on Judge Bork, this process has become vicious. It would be hard to find a reaonable person who would be willing to say yes to the job. I don't think the person has a guaranteed appointment just because a president (from either side) nominates the candidate. But there should be a lot more room given to allow a president the opportunity to pick a qualified candidate.
Iowa Jim
Luigi:
Rush helped get Clinton elected by bashing George the Better during that campaign, so this is not the first time Rush has bashed a Republican.
-----------------
If Bush were left to his own thoughts and allowed to speak freely, he would not have been elected in the first place, let alone re-elected. He has not the brain cells (remaining) to speak coherently.
-----------------
Has it struck anybody else that Bush surrounds himself mostly with incompetent people, perhaps so as to make himself look better?
Or is it just that he wants incompetent women around him so he can feel better about his masculinity?
Ever since the unfounded attack on Judge Bork, this process has become vicious.
If everything listed about Robert Bork on Wikipedia is true, then I can't say I'm sad to read his confirmation failed.
This guy comes across as somebody who wants to go back to "the good ol' days" of pre-Civil War America.
I've been a little busy lately (more on that later) so let me try to catch up:
SCOTUS justice approval has become so viscious that Bush's top candidates refused him when he asked them to accept a nomination. Or so it's been reported.
I respedt Miers' withdrawal, but what else could she do? Short of mind control, there's no way she would have been confirmed, and I don't think Bush is the kind to let himself lose.
As for those that don't think the GOP has an "IOKIIAR" or however that goes, take a listen to some of the comments from GOP member trying to deflect Libby indictment: they essentially say that, since there was no crime actually commited, to indict someone just for lying about something that's not illegal seems rather technical and unimportant. The implication being, why bother with an indictment when there's no other crime? I think Chris Webber, Martha Stewart, and countless others might have thing or two to say about that.
As to what I've been up to: My wife gave birth to our first child wednesday night...baby boy, Xavier Paul, 8lbs, 4 oz, 22 in., and doing just swell. Mom's still a little sore, but we're all doing well.
So, every once in a while, just insert some long-winded centrist/liberal comment for me. Oh, and the occasional comic comment, too.
If everything listed about Robert Bork on Wikipedia is true, then I can't say I'm sad to read his confirmation failed.
Well, I won't say that there wasn't unjustified attacls on Bork...but based on what I've read, I don't think Bork was a good choice for the Court, being insufficiently respectful of precedents and being inclined for...judicial activism.
Ya know, women are always moaning about that whole giving birth process. ;)
Wow Bobb, CONGRATS!!! That is beautiful news!! I'm glad to hear that both mom and baby are healthy and that you have come through the experience with sanity intake. I hope that your first weekend as a family of three!!
Best,
Fred
Congrats, Bobb -- and, more importantly, to Mrs. Bobb! Brings back memories of 14 months ago for me. Wonderful, wonderful news. Enjoy these first weeks, 'cause trust me, your memories of them are going to be foggy at best. :-)
TWL
Bobb said -
I think Chris Webber, Martha Stewart, and countless others might have thing or two to say about that.
You'd think Bill Clinton would as well.
Bobb said -
My wife gave birth to our first child wednesday night
Congrats!
You're in for many long but worthwhile days ahead (while I don't have kids, I've had my fair share of diaper changing due to younger siblings and cousins).
roger said -
judicial activism
Well, this is just the latest in a series of phrases the right has come up with in an attempt to vilify anybody who doesn't agree with them.
I caught a few minutes of that Tom Brokaw special earlier this evening, where he was talking about the Evangelical movement.
One of the pastors (or whatever) basically summarized their whole movement as: anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, getting religion back in government and schools, and against the so-called "judicial activism".
No, nothing to be worried about.
But hey, nobody cares about a little "Congressional activism", "governor activism", or "Presidential activism" when it came to Terri Schiavo, eh?
I also found it amusing that the guy said that people came to America to escape religious persecution. Last I checked, the heavy-majority Christians aren't being persecuted.
I think it's the rest of us that need to be worried.
Starwolf comparing President Ford to President Bush: At least he was aware of his screwups and admitted them sometimes. When was the last time Shrub did so as he stumbled?
I dunno about when was the last time, but the incident that leaps to mind was pretty darn 1) funny and 2) public. At the 2001 Gridiron Club, he said the following after quoting Garrison Keillor's comment that his "mouth is where words go to die:"
"Those stories about my intellectual capacity do get under my skin. You know for a while I even thought my staff believed it. There on my schedule the first thing every morning it said 'Intelligence briefing.'"
"Nobody realizes that as a hobby I enjoy mapping the human genome. My idea is to clone another Dick Cheney -- then I won't have to do anything."
And in further reference to people who thought Cheney was running the show: "To those people, I say ... Dick, what do I say?"
Well, the word "persecution," when used by the religious right today, has much the same definition as it did at the time of the first European settlers. (Discounting the Vikings, of course)
That is to say, they call it persecution when we get sick of them trying to shove their own puritanical beliefs down our collective throat and actually have the gall to try and do something about it.
I think it was Greg Proops who said something along the lines of, "Sure, they celebrate Thanksgiving in Europe, but there they call it "Fuck Off, Puritan!" Day."
-Rex Hondo-
If true, it is still a weak reason to nominate her. The "just trust me" really does not work in this situation. While I think a little too much emphasis is put on someone being a judge, clearly there is a need for some exprience before the Supreme Court
I would hope that experience as a judge should be one of the biggest qualifiers of being a SCOTUS! You're only ruling on cases that will affect the entire country for decades, if not longer!
Suggestion for the title of Peter's next blog entry:
SCOOTER IN THE FOOT
;-)
A few thoughts:
First all, congrats, Bobb.
Based on what I've read about Bork, he would have been the quintessential judicial activist. Of course, none of his defenders will admit that, since their definition of judicial activism is "anyone who made a ruling we don't like."
Jim said that he didn't believe Miers' pick was cronyism and that Bush actually thought she was well qualified. Bush has a long history of valuing personal loyalty to him over compentence, so to his mind, he doesn't see any difference between appointing a loyal crony and someone who is qualified. To him, being a toady is the primary qualification for any job.
maybe bush thinks of it as appointing someone he trusts
Well, of course it's matter of trust for Bush. I think he's shown that he values personal interaction and his personal judgement of people he's met in the flesh over paper credentials. And that's why he's so hostile to science he doesn't like and to environmentalism.
Bush's hostility towards science stems from his general anti-intellectualism. He's made it clear time and again, that science and other fact-gathering activities exist only to be used in support of his preconceived beliefs, not in any real pursuit of the truth. He distrusts scientists because scientists believe in going where the evidence leads and not tailoring the evidence to support a decision already made.
All presidents appoint someone they trust to every position, but Miers was such a kiss-ass that I wonder if she had been confirmed, would she base her decisions around, "What would George do?".
Tone doesn't convey well on the internet... It was a serious question. Has anyone met him? It isn't a chastisement. Say what you want. The people I know who have met him say he's very intelligent. I was wondering if anyone here had the ability to disput it based on an actual conversation.
I, personally, couldn't handle Bush the First. I met him once and he had the warmth of a dead tuna and a way of looking at people that made my skin crawl. Jeb is very personable and I hope he does eventually run for President.
GWB's "smirk" really sets my mother off, too, but I've never seen it as a smirk at all. Different eyes, different perceptions.
Bu$Hitler Picks A Non-Womyn For SCOTUS
More evidence of the arrogance of SCOTUS-Selected ChimpFace Smirky Dumbya Bu$Hitler!!! If a Lyberal, I mean, Progressyve, Elected-President were in office, instead of the drunken, coke-head frat boy (who, incidentally, was born the year after Hitler committed suicide, so who knows where Hitler's eternal inner darklight went, hmmm?) there would have been a womyn nominated to replace Judge Sandra Day O'Connor who is, by the way, a womyn hirself. Instead, we get yet another white non-womyn. We must all contact our Senatorial perits to let them know that we will not be happy unless the replacement for Ms O'Connor is a womyn, preferably a minority womyn. After all, what have white non-womyn ever done for all of us?
Man, and I thought that X-Ray was hard to understand after his vowels were taken away...
I'm thinking that IS x-ray, trying some comedy.
At any rate, the new pick is way better than Miers. Very qualified. Which means he may get 53 votes.
Yeah, way better than Miers. However, I do hope he explains why he defers so much to the Executive branch, and expands on his reasoning in last year's decision on strip searches.
Alito is a much better choice than Miers. I'm not suprised that he's a judge that defers a lot to the executive branch. This further fits into my theory about these appointments being more about the expansion of federal power than Roe v. Wade.
This further fits into my theory about these appointments being more about the expansion of federal power than Roe v. Wade.
And here I thought the Republican party was all about small government.
Oh, wait, that's right: neocons like Bush & Co. aren't Republicans.
Makes you wonder why your average Republican defends them so much. Are abortion rights and gay marriage that important to conservatives that as long as the neocons bring them up now and then, people will continue to vote them into office?
And here I thought the Republican party was all about small government.
That ended about 8 seconds after they realized they had control over all three branches.
Makes you wonder why your average Republican defends them so much.
The "It's okay if a Republican does it" mentality?
Are abortion rights and gay marriage that important to conservatives that as long as the neocons bring them up now and then, people will continue to vote them into office?
The GOP has perfected the art of pandering to the religious right while painting the dems are anti-religion in general. However, this is starting to backfire on them. Many social conservatives are fuming that, after campaigning heavily for an anti-gay marriage amendment in 2004, Bush took it off the agenda as soon as his inaugural parade ended. It's probably the main reason why they didn't buy Bush's "trust me, I know her heart" routine on Miers.
Those of us who still value freedom of religion in this country and believe that science class should be used for teaching science should be concerned, because if Bush doesn't start making some concrete steps towards imposing a theocracy on this country, he may face a full-scale revolt from his base.
I was wondering if anyone here had the ability to disput it based on an actual conversation.
No, but I can dispute it on observation of the man in public. He's been in the public eye for decades, first as the governor of Texas, then as the veep's (and then president's) son, then as President himself since 2000. That's long enough to get over stage fright and learn to speak in public without stumbling over himself. He hasn't managed it yet - he can't handle a simple question-and-answer without embarrassing himself unless he has Rove's notes and fake reporters feeding him softball questions. His speeches contain many notable errors of fact, his policies on the sciences are unvetted by a single scientific authority, and he'd rather believe his vice-president's wild guesses about world matters than the information gathered by his own private spy service (yes, the CIA has some notable gaffes of their own to deal with, but they're still going to be a better source of actual data than Cheney).
In short, the President has comported himself as a man overwhelmed by a position he can't really handle. He has not evinced any great level of intellect.
And once again, we don't need a president who's a nice, personable guy - we need a president who's smart enough to handle the immense data-flow of the office, and tough-minded enough to tackle the decisions that have to be made without too much reliance on polling of his supposed "core constituency". Bush the First may have been a slimy, cold-hearted son of a bitch who'd sell his own mother to the Russians for the right price, but you couldn't call him stupid or uninformed...
We need a President who will have the most ethical administration in history: http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/ethical.html
We need a President who will have the most ethical administration in history
Well, it's good to see that some folks will always fall back to Clinton in their defense of Bush.
I especially love that first one about the SBA.
Only $300k? You'd think that Clinton's cronies would do better than that, especially seeing that Cheney's pet project, Halliburton, has defrauded Americans out of billions of dollars.
Thanks, Bob Jones, I needed a good chuckle this morning.
"Well, it's good to see that some folks will always fall back to Clinton in their defense of Bush."
Yeah, that really takes some serious kind of stupid. Especially when one considers that Bush's whole angle in running for the presidency was that he was going to restore respectability and decency to the White House.
PAD
Hey, Bob.
Read your link and it was a great morning giggle. If you kept up better you would know that much of that list was B.S. hyped by talk radio and has been debunked and many of the people involved in making the claims have admitted to telling porky pies.
Oh, and even that hyped up number of crimes still doesn't match what went down under The Gipper's watch.
:)
from http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/faqs/faq_sl.html
Number of Reagan administration era convictions in the Iran-contra scandal: 14 (two overturned on appeal).
Number of Reagan officials convicted for illegal lobbying: 2 (Michael Deaver; Lyn Nofziger, overturned on appeal).
Number of Reagan officials convicted in Housing and Urban Development scandal: 16.
Total number Reagan era convictions: 32 (the number cited in the strip -- 29 -- arrived at by subtracting the 3 overturned cases).
In addition, Bush pardoned Reagan's Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, indicted on 5 charges.
Moreover, the record of actual convictions doesn't tell the whole story. Over 30 additional Reagan appointees resigned or were fired following charges of legal or ethical misconduct, including Secretary of Interior James Watt, Secretary of Interior Raymond Donovan, CIA Director William Casey and EPA Administrator Anne Burford. Many dozens more were investigated.
Contrast this to:
Number of Clinton officials indicted or convicted in Whitewater, Travel Office, FBI files, Monica Lewinsky, Bruce Babbit, Michael Espy investigations: 0
Asst. Attorney-General Webster Hubbell was convicted of embezzlement, a crime he committed before joining Clinton Administration.
NO.No.No. This was not some big mastered plan. You give bush to much credit. He obviously listened to daddy dearest, cheney, the voices in his head, or some other influence. She crashed and burned. Surprise Surprise Bush didnt mean for this to happen. This nomination is very important to my generation. I'm not saying we care now...but when i'm old it will matter who is on the bench. I think that bush was influenced and that this was NOT a master plan of his.
--12yo in the EAST
or 12yodemocratwhowatchesthenews
