|
Miers withdraws
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Shakka |
| Who didn't see this coming? |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
| I tend to side with the Bush Administration more than most on this board, but I have to admit she was a horrible candidate. A potential Supreme Court judge with virually no previous judiciary experience? Yeah, nice try GW. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| Wall Street won't like this..:( |
|
|
| NYCTrancefan |
| Let the spin begin. What does it say about Bush when he puts forth a candidate like this who has no basis to be on the Supreme Court and they just figured executive privilege could be in conflict with her hearings. :wtf: Duh! Those little radiowave groups had nothing to do with this. I sit hear laughing at this administration wallowing in its own actions. If the Democrats can't win in the next election term then good griefs. |
|
|
| Renegade |
Well she was a weird choice to begin with, but having said that I'm quite suprised that she was withdrawn. It's not like the Bush administration to admit fault and take a backwards step - or to not stubbornly see their original plan through until the end, regardless of how bad an idea it may have been initially - but based on her resignation letter, that seems to have been what happened:
| quote: | In a letter confirming her decision to withdraw from the nomination process, Ms Miers wrote that continuing to seek Senate approval would prove to be a burden on the White House.
It would not be in the interests of the US to reveal details of her work within the White House, she added.
Mr Bush praised Ms Miers for her decision, which he said was motivated by a desire not to allow Senators access to confidential White House documents.
"Harriet Miers' decision demonstrates her deep respect for this essential aspect of the constitutional separation of powers - and confirms my deep respect and admiration for her," Mr Bush said.
The president said he would fill the Supreme Court seat, due to be vacated by Sandra Day O'Connor, in "a timely manner". |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/4382370.stm
No doubting the fact that she was "pushed" into withdrawing, and based on this it sounds like she withdrew to mainly just to help the White House save face (by not having to go through any more committee hearings or having to potentially damaging details about her time in the White House).
Oh well, it sets a precedent at least: Bush can admit fault from time to time. Let's hope it happens more often. |
|
|
| NYCTrancefan |
Oh well, it sets a precedent at least: Bush can admit fault from time to time. Let's hope it happens more often. [/QUOTE]
Trust me Renegade "fault he is not admitting" He knew where his bread is buttered and they didn't like her, even more than Democrats. Among conservatives she wasn't appealing and now they get to tell him who to put up to their liking. I just wish people would stop calling this administration Republican, I was a Republican "was" and little they have done since coming to office has appealed to me. I don't like extremism on any side of the fence, be it liberal or conservative, it tends to be very blinding in one's beliefs and actions, when society is more than that. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
I must say that it's interesting how the Dems. didn't have to lift a finger on this issue to see this self-implosion. And I do have to say that I don't buy the bull stated in her resignation letter one ing bit. This wasn't about disclosure of notes between her and the Administration. I think there were primarily two reasons from which her withdrawal was mandated. The first reason is the only one I could possibly side with the far-right Conservatives on:
1. She was an incompetent boob.
Her answers to the Senate questionaire were horrible, and Specter himself was seemingly coming down on her for her spotty, irrelevant statements on some questions. It was clear that she was essentially talking out of her ass on some things and that her knowledge of Constitutional law was a bit shoddy.
But I don't think this reason was pressed very hard by the ultra Conservatives at all. Indeed, listening to your choice of right wing radio pundits, or even listening to the majority of far-right Conservative Senators (like my Senator Brownback this morning on NPR), it was clear that a litmus test was being created, which brings me to rationale #2:
2. She was not a choice given by the far-right Conservatives, and they did not have a feel for where exactly she stood on their issues of choice.
This seems a bit more obvious to me. You had far right groups starting up commercials and ads opposing the choice from their own President. Her views on abortion were seemingly conflicting from what Dobson and other friends from the Texas courts were saying about her, versus what was just released on what she's stated before on abortion in 1993:
| quote: | The ongoing debate continues surrounding the attempt to once again criminalize abortions or to once and for all guarantee the freedom of the individual women's [sic] right to decide for herself whether she will have an abortion.
http://www.nationalreview.com/whela...00510261633.asp |
When you make enemies in your own party from people at National Review, Fox News, Weekly Standard, Limbaugh, etc., your days within your own party are numbered. Indeed, that was probably why the far-right group, Concerned Women of America came out opposing Miers as well:
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/9259/MEDIA/misc/index.htm
Harry Reid is right on the money:
They are the ones in power. They pull the strings. They hold the $. What they say is what goes.
They want a litmus test, the very thing they supposedly oppose from the Democrats. |
|
|
| NYCTrancefan |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
But I don't think this reason was pressed very hard by the ultra Conservatives at all. Indeed, listening to your choice of right wing radio pundits, or even listening to the majority of far-right Conservative Senators (like my Senator Brownback this morning on NPR), it was clear that a litmus test was being created, which brings me to rationale #2:
2. She was not a choice given by the far-right Conservatives, and they did not have a feel for where exactly she stood on their issues of choice.
This seems a bit more obvious to me. You had far right groups starting up commercials and ads opposing the choice from their own President. Her views on abortion were seemingly conflicting from what Dobson and other friends from the Texas courts were saying about her, versus what was just released on what she's stated before on abortion in 1993:
When you make enemies in your own party from people at National Review, Fox News, Weekly Standard, Limbaugh, etc., your days within your own party are numbered. Indeed, that was probably why the far-right group, Concerned Women of America came out opposing Miers as well:
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/9259/MEDIA/misc/index.htm
Harry Reid is right on the money:
They are the ones in power. They pull the strings. They hold the $. What they say is what goes.
They want a litmus test, the very thing they supposedly oppose from the Democrats. |
But, but its strict constuctionism and original intent Opus, :stongue: :stongue: What a bunch of hypocrites, no litmus test my fanny. Who the hell is being kidded, it is a crock of horse manure being fed about documents. Pure B.S. I'll just sit back and watch this one, they torpedoed their own party leader nomination:stongue: We'll see who's next, I hope he or she would be willing to overturn Roe V. Wade based on their judicial history and beliefs. This is too good of a soap opera for me and I love it. No litmus test, funny how they have stopped using that term everytime a senator from the Conservatives are speaking to CNN, or their favorite network Faux News, etc. Newsflash, there was a litmust test. |
|
|
| occrider |
I was kinda hoping she would have been appointed. She's a complete boob and I'm sure her opinions would have been entertaining. We're talking about the towering intellect who corresponds with people by writing stuff like:
Dear George, you are the best governor ever!!!!!
I hope your kids realise how cool you are!!!
Reading her opinions would have been a blast. |
|
|
| NYCTrancefan |
| I'm tired of laughing at this administration and its gaffes, ah, who'm I kidding no I don't. Its true what they say about too much political power, They control the House, Senate, Presidency, possibly the Supreme Court by time its all over, this only provides more impetus for those deeply conservative groups that think they represent all of America's views to continue smelling themselves as the arbiters of power in this nation. Go ahead George appeal to your base, because we know they vote Democratic come election time, oh that's right, its called moderates that go either way at the ballot box. Next up the Libby and Rove show, don't be surprised if those two walk away scotch free with no accountablity. How can people still have faith in this current administration and the words they profess. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
And one other point to consider -
Doesn't every Bush nominee deserve an up or down vote in the Senate? Why didn't she get one, dear Conservatives?
And let's remember something - if Bush wanted a wingnut confirmed, he would have nominated a wingnut in the first place, not his special #1 fan instead. If any Bush apologist feels that it's a good thing for him to NOW nominate a wingnut, I say let him. The Dems. are more than happy to go to the mat over a Janice Brown. Wingnuts like Brown have records that speak much more louder to the public, and will be much more easier to dissect on where they stand. It will be more than worth the fight. The uberconservative groups that pull the strings of this Administration will not be happy with a semi-moderate pick like Gonzales. They've made their mark in the sand, and they will not budge on who they want on the court.
It's a beautiful implosion to watch. Bush is literally damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't. It's tough to have been re-elected primarily by a bunch of religious wingnuts who know they made the difference in the election. This payback is the ultimate bitch for Bush. I'm actually feelin' a little sorry for the little fella.
Damnit, why can't Fitzgerald throw anything down today? Why does he have to be so damn thorough? That's the only thing that would have been the ultimate icing on the cake! |
|
|
|
|
