WWW.RIDESIDE.NET

Posted by tgl on 2005-10-27 13:56:21 +0000

I edged out rladew. I called it for the Tribune since they were the first link in the Miers listings on news.google.com, not "above the fold", with a bunch of other headlines still chewing over the nomination process.

Posted by rladew on 2005-10-27 18:42:47 +0000

* I think Miers might have been the Dems best option, I wonder what horror will be put forth next.* the WSJ actually said the same thing today: James Taranto writes" "Those liberals who are rubbing their hands in glee over the withdrawal of Herriet Miers probably ought to be a lot more circumspect. This is a victory for competence, to be sure, but only by happenstance. The real winners here are those on the Christian conservative right. My prediction: Bush is going to appoint a doctrinaire but highly qualified conservative now. Oddly, if no indictments come down [in the Plame kerfuffle], this might go down as one of the unexpectedly victorious days for this teflon presidency, the day when he starts to turn the corner." I know its weird for me to be speculating on conspiracy theories, which I usually think are a bunch of bunk, but I'm trying to find some (any?) reason that Miers would have been considered for this position in the first place. Was it premeditated all along to nominate Miers, knowing she was unqualified, so bush could ultimately get someone more qualified? (as far as qualifications are concerned:oh god, Please I hope so - maybe it'll be the guy (paid by the town of Monson) who sometimes picks up my trash) and conservative (if "conservative" here is being defined as something in the religous right a la Ralph reed or Pat Robertson - I'll take a permanent pass) _______________________________

Posted by tgl on 2005-10-27 19:10:28 +0000

Why is anyone chosen to do anything by Bush? Fealty to the family. If you think it's possible that you'll be brought before the Supreme Court for policies that you've directed: (suspension of habeas corpus for American citizens, suspension of the Geneva Conventions for POWs, permitting torture, willfully revealing a CIA operative), then maybe you'd want a friend on the High Court. My problems with Miers: A) stunningly unqualified B) came across as a cheerleader, not an independent thinker What might have been good about her: C) seems to value self-determination (aka, right to privacy) (aka, baby killing) Democrats who opposed Roberts couldn't really vote for Miers. It'd be hypocritical. I agree with G. Will on that one. I think the Bushies were generally surprised by the backlash; this was Andrew Card's choice, not Karl Rove's, that might explain it. Taranto is really throwing the spin on this: _IF_ no indictments, and _IF_ the second nominee is more qualified (and just as devoted to protecting the Bushies) this will be the bend in the road. Who is pulling the wool over whose eyes here? Is Bush suddenly going to slash entitlement spending/tighten up immigration law/create private accounts in lieu of social security/clean up Iraq/do something about Islamic terrorism? No.

Posted by rladew on 2005-10-27 19:25:10 +0000

Lets leave all other areas of Bush and his administration alone except the Supreme court stuff for just a sec: I wasn't really trying to upset you with Taranto's rhetoric (ummm ok maybe a little good natured poke for fun). The main idea of the post that I wrote (couldnt tell you what Taranto's m. operandi was)goes something like this: I agree with you in that a) Miers is a bad choice and b) it is truly stupefying / mysterious to wonder who the next nominee might be. Seacrest out. _______________________________

Posted by tgl on 2005-10-27 19:49:15 +0000

I was going keep my comments focused on just the S.C., then I did a double take when re-reading Taranto's claim that this might be a watershed moment for the administration. I guess time will tell. I truly do believe that Miers was picked because her loyalty to Bush might proove youself regarding future judicial jeopardy for Bush.

Posted by frame609 on 2005-10-27 21:02:13 +0000

No Supreme Court post is complete (to me) without mention of David Souter.

Posted by tgl on 2005-10-27 21:20:51 +0000

The circle is not broken.

Posted by tgl on 2005-10-27 21:21:34 +0000

"proove youself" should be "prove useful"

Posted by tgl on 2005-10-28 12:51:25 +0000

Apart from "Why was she nominated?", you have to ask, "Who decision was the withdrawal?" Next time I hear someone urging that a nominee should not be pre-judged, that they deserve a hearing and a up or down vote, I'll be chortling.