From CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/27/miers.nominations/index.html
and now a collective sigh of relief from the right, and a disappointed, pouting “Aw, man!” from the left…
As one who originally defended the Miers nomination, I am very relieved that she withdrew. Afer reading some of the speeches she gave in the past, I am convinced that she was not the conservative constructionist that we need on the court.
Maybe them dems will have a chance to filibuster an SC niminee after all.
You should have checked the original Miers thread.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
As one who originally defended the Miers nomination, I am very relieved that she withdrew. Afer reading some of the speeches she gave in the past, I am convinced that she was not the conservative constructionist that we need on the court.
Maybe them dems will have a chance to filibuster an SC niminee after all. [/quote]
This takes away the GOP’s arguement of an ‘up or down vote’ unfortunately. Rumor is Bush picked Miers without Rove’s guidance and by the time Rove found out the process was too far along.
Fitzgerald has been a distraction for Rove and the WH.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
You should have checked the original Miers thread.[/quote]
I assume this was directed at me. I did check the original thread, and YOUR POST wasn’t there yet. I’m assuming that’s why you’re bringing it up… to claim some sort of credit.
I thought that a separate thread would be appropriate, especially considering how long (and how tangential) the original had become.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
This takes away the GOP’s arguement of an ‘up or down vote’ unfortunately. Rumor is Bush picked Miers without Rove’s guidance and by the time Rove found out the process was too far along.
Fitzgerald has been a distraction for Rove and the WH.[/quote]
I don’t see the connection between an up or down vote, and a nominee withdrawing before they even get in front of the judicial committee.
Up or down is referring to the actual vote AFTER they have held confirmation hearings.
[quote]
rainjack wrote:
As one who originally defended the Miers nomination, I am very relieved that she withdrew. Afer reading some of the speeches she gave in the past, I am convinced that she was not the conservative constructionist that we need on the court.
Maybe them dems will have a chance to filibuster an SC niminee after all.
Marmadogg wrote:
This takes away the GOP’s arguement of an ‘up or down vote’ unfortunately. Rumor is Bush picked Miers without Rove’s guidance and by the time Rove found out the process was too far along.
Fitzgerald has been a distraction for Rove and the WH.[/quote]
I disagree with your first assertion, though surely not your second.
She hadn’t even begun her hearings yet, which necessarily come before a vote, so it’s hard to make an argument that she was denied the opportunity for an up-or-down vote when she pulled the plug on her own nomination (whether encouraged to do so or not) prior to the point at which it would have been possible to have a vote.
BB,
You don’t have to agree with me regarding the ‘up or down vote’ issue.
The Democrats already have that set as their primary talking point to justify filabustering the next nominee. The next nominee will most likely be a right wingnut like Owens (or will be Owens).
This will make it difficult for the Republicans to successfully demonize the Democrats when they do filabuster. The Democrats have a gift wrapped talking point to frame the issue. Many of my right wingnut friends and family are frustrated Bush even bothered with Miers.
I find it very interesting the Reed supported her nomination from the very beginning. I found it odd at the time and in retrospect it was ‘brilliant’ as a political move. It caught me off guard as Democrats have been inept at best for a very long time.
Popcorn - Check!
Let the games begin.
As long as people are going to approach politics like NFL Sunday (or Justice Sunday) I am going to enjoy the entertainment.
Cheers!
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
The Democrats already have that set as their primary talking point to justify filabustering the next nominee. The next nominee will most likely be a right wingnut like Owens (or will be Owens).
This will make it difficult for the Republicans to successfully demonize the Democrats when they do filabuster. The Democrats have a gift wrapped talking point to frame the issue. Many of my right wingnut friends and family are frustrated Bush even bothered with Miers.[/quote]
I think it’s a pretty stupid leap to go from a nominee withdrawing to using it as some sort of justification for a filibuster. But let them try and justify it, I’m sure that the nuclear option is still in Frist’s hip pocket.
[quote]I find it very interesting the Reed supported her nomination from the very beginning. I found it odd at the time and in retrospect it was ‘brilliant’ as a political move. It caught me off guard as Democrats have been inept at best for a very long time.
Cheers! [/quote]
If you are referring to Dirty Harry Reid, the illustrious Minority Leader - I said that there was something fishy about the nomination from the get-go, particularly because of Miers’ support from the left.
I guess one should never underestimate the lengths people will go to politicize non-issues, but I am certainly hopng you popped a bunch of popcorn for naught.
Oh come on, you can claim that the up or down vote does not apply here… but the whole point of that campaign was to force the democrats into a vote.
Here, when there is a chance the republicans will get major egg on their faces, a vote is not required. It is simply best if the republicans aren’t forced to risk voting against the candidate of their own choosing.
What a farce. However, at least whether or not there is a vote this is an incredible blunder by republicans – possibly proving that Rove is very distracted, which to me would indicate he knows that he has committed indictable actions, otherwise he wouldn’t be so damned worried.
Innocent people don’t worry that much.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Oh come on, you can claim that the up or down vote does not apply here… but the whole point of that campaign was to force the democrats into a vote.
Here, when there is a chance the republicans will get major egg on their faces, a vote is not required. It is simply best if the republicans aren’t forced to risk voting against the candidate of their own choosing.
What a farce. However, at least whether or not there is a vote this is an incredible blunder by republicans – possibly proving that Rove is very distracted, which to me would indicate he knows that he has committed indictable actions, otherwise he wouldn’t be so damned worried.
Innocent people don’t worry that much.[/quote]
Do you remember the point of the “vote is required” tag line, or just the tag line?
The point of saying a vote was required was to say that the Senate couldn’t usurp the President’s appointment power by allowing less-than-a-majority of Senators to deny the President’s nominees a vote.
That principle is not in any way, shape or form implicated here.
I hardly think one could view that argument as turning in to some principle stating that a nominee was not allowed to withdraw from consideration before the Senate had a chance to vote.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
I’m sure that the nuclear option is still in Frist’s hip pocket.
[/quote]
I disagree. It would’ve been a costly move several months ago, but I just don’t see it happening as things stand today. Until the GOP political situation stabilizes I think it is off table. With numbers low, the justification of standing up for the people’s will against an intransigent minority looks suspect and risks further erosion of suport. More importantly perhaps is that until things have settled enough to make reliable estimates for the future, the risks of destroying this parliamentary procedure outweigh the benefits of doing so. You may care more about an agenda, but they are concerned with their careers. Delay (not Tom) at this point may be their best approach if they are deadset on ramrodding a difficult nominy through. Of course that carries the risk that the skies don’t clear ahead.
My thoughts anyway…
[quote]vroom wrote:
What a farce. However, at least whether or not there is a vote this is an incredible blunder by republicans – possibly proving that Rove is very distracted, which to me would indicate he knows that he has committed indictable actions, otherwise he wouldn’t be so damned worried.
Innocent people don’t worry that much.[/quote]
This is absolutely ridiculous.
You are using the fact that Harriet Meirs’ withdrawal from being nominated to the USSC as some sort of proof that Rove did something wrong?
I think you need to get some help. The Thinking Tree has dropped some more nuts on your head and caused even more brain damage.
Seriously - that is the stupidest thing I have ever heard anyone say. The scary part is that you probably actually believe that.
Logic like yours is the very reason that the left will continue to lose elelctions.
[quote]etaco wrote:
I disagree. It would’ve been a costly move several months ago, but I just don’t see it happening as things stand today. Until the GOP political situation stabilizes I think it is off table. With numbers low, the justification of standing up for the people’s will against an intransigent minority looks suspect and risks further erosion of suport. More importantly perhaps is that until things have settled enough to make reliable estimates for the future, the risks of destroying this parliamentary procedure outweigh the benefits of doing so. You may care more about an agenda, but they are concerned with their careers. Delay (not Tom) at this point may be their best approach if they are deadset on ramrodding a difficult nominy through. Of course that carries the risk that the skies don’t clear ahead.
[/quote]
When the Republican base is demanding a originalist for the court, I think the nuclear option is still very much on the table. At least it should be.
The seats are safe for the most part. There is no lefty revolution in the near future. Their jobs would be in more jeopardy by ignoring the conservative base.
But younever know with the panty-wasted estro-queens we have trying to pass themselves off as Republican leadership.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Seriously - that is the stupidest thing I have ever heard anyone say. The scary part is that you probably actually believe that.
[/quote]
Have you not been reading Marmadogg’s posts, lately?
[quote]nephorm wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Seriously - that is the stupidest thing I have ever heard anyone say. The scary part is that you probably actually believe that.
Have you not been reading Marmadogg’s posts, lately?[/quote]
I can almost excuse his lunacy: He learned some new phrases from the DU and is just trying them out. Idiotic though they may be - I can’t help but laugh at his stuff.
But vroom - the venerable old thinkmeister - is actually trying to connect the dots from the Miers’ withdrawal to proof of Rove’s guilt - or at the very least Rove committing an “indictable offense”.
I think vroom is a thinktard.
And that is just plain stupid.
So her withdrawl makes it clear that Bush made a serious error of judgement even nominating her in the first place. Don’t you agree, RJ?
[quote]deanosumo wrote:
So her withdrawl makes it clear that Bush made a serious error of judgement even nominating her in the first place. Don’t you agree, RJ?[/quote]
Yeah - I pretty much said that on the other Harriet Miers’ thread.
And your point is?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
deanosumo wrote:
So her withdrawl makes it clear that Bush made a serious error of judgement even nominating her in the first place. Don’t you agree, RJ?
Yeah - I pretty much said that on the other Harriet Miers’ thread.
And your point is?[/quote]
It’s just so rare for you to criticize your glorious leader and fellow Texan, that I had to draw it out, and savor it.
[quote]This is absolutely ridiculous.
You are using the fact that Harriet Meirs’ withdrawal from being nominated to the USSC as some sort of proof that Rove did something wrong?[/quote]
Rainjack, is it an absolute requirement that you be an asshole every day?
If you weren’t such a right wing cheerleader you’d see that what I had said was pretty obviously raw speculation meant to tweak morons like yourself.
Hook line and sinker…