Miers WITHDREW !!!

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

Not Conservative enough I guess.

[ 10-27-2005, 09:02 AM: Message edited by: Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ) ]

[Norman Bernstein]

30 seconds ago, I was watching a video clip on MSNBC, listening to Tucker Carlson suggesting that this was inevitable.... amazing.

[ishmael]

Snickety snick, blatta, blatta boom bang. No big deal. You'll likely like the next one even less. Snickety, snickety, boom, sigh. Whoomph.

[RichKrough]

Is this what Bush means by "cut and run" ?

[ljb5]

I guess this means there will be an extension in the Rove-Libby investigation, for surely they would have tried to use this news to quiet the announcement of indictments.

[ljb5]

Originally posted by ishmael:
You'll likely like the next one even less.Probably, but Supreme Court nominations aren't supposed to be about who we like.

They're supposed to be about who can best serve the country. It's not about ideology, it's about accomplishment.

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid177/p1a90600b96285035df34e37426e2c1ec/f33d7c1c.jpg

[ishmael]

We elect people, and then the opposition sets out to investigate. It happens with both sides. And wrong doing should be brought to light. But all the repubs got on Clinton could be put in a thimble: he pejured himself about illicit sex. And it took up two years of valuable time.

The Plame deal is no Watergate, as much as the "progessives" are slavering.

How the hell is someone going to govern in this climate?

[ 10-27-2005, 09:31 AM: Message edited by: ishmael ]

[Norman Bernstein]

Snickety snick, blatta, blatta boom bang. No big deal. You'll likely like the next one even less. Snickety, snickety, boom, sigh. Whoomph. Aha... so THAT's how you dispose of inconvenient issues... you just toss them aside like yesterday's newspaper!

Tell me, what's the summary of all of this? Is it really 'no big deal'? Or is it a case of a President indulging in cronyism by nominating an eminently unqualified individual to the highest court in the land, on a lifetime appointment... and she can't even get basic questions on Constitutional law right... on the questionaire?

Sorry, I DO think it is a big deal. I think we have a right to expect one hell of a lot more from a President.... and any conservative or Republican with any decency and self respect would be acknowledging this unmitigated disaster. Thankfully, many nationally prominent Republicans with some decency and self respect have already done so, instead of mouthing worthless talking-point spin about Harriet Miers.

You can't spin this.... it's a BIG setback, in terms of confidence, to Bush.

[ishmael]

The President, barring something terribly untoward, nominates whomever he wants. The Senate, finding nothing untoward, ought to confirm them. It's called republican government. Elect someone else, if you don't like the ideas of the one in power. But Jeez Louise, this constant harangue and investigation of trivia can't be healthy.

Herbert was wrong, TV not fear is the great mind kiler.

[Norman Bernstein]

The President, barring something terribly untoward, nominates whomever he wants.
Absolutely, including nominating (at times) the mediocre, uninspired, partisan, and generally unsuited and unqualified.


The Senate, finding nothing untoward, ought to confirm them. Says who? The Constitution merely says that the Senate provide 'advice and consent', meaning they can approve or reject any nominee, on any grounds whatsoever, even if they just don't like the nominee's haircut. There is absolutely NOTHING in the constitution that sets for any set of criteria or threshold for approval. The President indeed gets to make the nomination... but has absolutely on right or expectation of confirmation.


It's called republican government. Elect someone else, if you don't like the ideas of the one in power. That will indeed happen in 2008.


But Jeez Louise, this constant harangue and investigation of trivia can't be healthy. One man's trivia is another man's sustenence. Maybe YOU don't see the Miers nomination as a simply awful thing, symbolic of a lot of awful things about this presidency... but I certainly do!

[ishmael]

Go for it Norm. Me, I'm going to waste my vote again, in '06 and '08 and vote for the candidate that can most lucidly explain their LSD usage.

I'm not sure the cycle, but one of our senators from Maine, Susan Collins, ought to go. I can't listen anymore.

[ 10-28-2005, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: ishmael ]

[Gary E]

Originally posted by ishmael:
Snickety snick, blatta, blatta boom bang. No big deal. You'll likely like the next one even less. Snickety, snickety, boom, sigh. Whoomph.Are you not taking your med's?...

Or maybe you are on Drugs???

[BrianW]

It must be a big deal. After all, this is the first time ever, that a Presidents nomination has been withdrawn or beeen rejected by Congress.

;)

[Don Olney]

Rumor is that later today Bush is going to appoint Miers as the new head of FEMA.

[John of Phoenix]

Originally posted by Don Olney:
Rumor is that later today Bush is going to appoint Miers as the new head of FEMA.:D Man there are some GOOD zingers on the forum today :D

I'm literally laughing out loud at some of the Republican babble on TV today. (Jack, yours is waaay too obvious to qualify.) Tucker Carlson (and his ridiculous bow tie) is tops on my list so far, but the day is young.

“Blah, blah, blah for the good of the country blah, blah, blah…”

Right wing conservatives won't so much as LEND her a key to the women’s restroom in the Supreme Court Building so she’s going to “withdraw" her nomination. “Reluctantly”, it’s been accepted.

:D Howling laughter :D

[N. Scheuer]

Now for the frosting on the cake (hope, hope hope) Grand Jury Indictments for White House Insiders tomorrow.

(Proof for the Intelligent Design folks that, indeed, there IS a God)

Moby Nick

[Norman Bernstein]

It must be a big deal. After all, this is the first time ever, that a Presidents nomination has been withdrawn or beeen rejected by Congress. smile.gif
Sure, this is not exactly new. However, it doesn't alter the fact that a withdrawn nomination doesn't do much for the Presidents ability to influence and promote his agenda.

Considering that Bush is already squirming from Plamegate, the WMD lies, various scandals such as Frist and Delay, etc.... the Miers withdrawal is just one more load on the wagon whose wheels have fallen off.

[Blackbeard]

I imagine he was just testing the waters with miers look for the next one to be a dyed in the wool conservative in an attempt to please his party

[ljb5]

Originally posted by Blackbeard:
I imagine he was just testing the waters with miers look for the next one to be a dyed in the wool conservative in an attempt to please his partyBlackbeard starts discussing poltics!

He came here to flame, but ended up discussing issues.

A triumph for the concept of the forum as a place to exchange ideas!

[Blackbeard]

could'nt resist ya see bush took way too much flack from his own party for this nomination now he gets his chance to make it right at least in their eyes

[Peter Kalshoven]

Originally posted by BrianW:
It must be a big deal. After all, this is the first time ever, that a Presidents nomination has been withdrawn or beeen rejected by Congress.

;) How quickly we forget.
Robert Heron Bork (born March 1, 1927 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) is a conservative American legal scholar and former judge who advocates the judicial philosophy of originalism. Bork is a former Solicitor General, acting Attorney General and circuit judge for United States Court of Appeals. In 1987 he was nominated for the position of Associate Justice on the Supreme Court by President Ronald Reagan, but his nomination was rejected by the Senate in a 58-42 vote.

[High C]

Brian didn't forget, he winked.

;)

[Osborne Russel]

I don't get it. The Reds want someone with more "paper trail". Who would that be -- a judge that overruled Roe v. Wade? Or wrote an article, memo, or something, that said Roe v. Wade is dumb and should be overruled? Does such a person exist? If not, then what? A non-judge, obviously. For the Supreme Court. How about a lawyer who has argued dozens of times that Roe v. Wade should be overruled, and lost every time, but keeps getting money to try again? Dees such a person exist?

Has to be either a crank, or a scholar. Who are the anti-abortion legal scholars, and which of them is qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice? Or is "qualified" the wrong word here?

[ljb5]

Originally posted by Osborne Russel:
I don't get it. The Reds want someone with more "paper trail".That's just a red herring.

The cons couldn't care less about her 'paper trail.' They just wanted a convenient excuse to dump her.

Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer proposed this exit strategy a week ago and said that it was a way to 'save face,' and has nothing to do with the issue of documentation.

[Osborne Russel]

But why dump her? Aren't they the ones who nominated her in the first place?

Is this like the deal where you put your hat on a stick, and poke it up above the ramparts, and bring it down full of arrows? Was Harriet Miers the hat?

[John of Phoenix]

Probably not, though she is full of arrows. The plan was give the dems nothing but a blank slate and watch them sputter while the base would buy the "Trust me" line.

Neither happened. Bush is hurtin' fer certain!

[ljb5]

Originally posted by Osborne Russel:
But why dump her? Aren't they the ones who nominated her in the first place?That depends on who is "they."

Bush is starting to find out that he is not in control of the party like he thought.