Jude 2

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/27/D8DGDFR00.html

Harriet Miers withdrew her nomination to be a Supreme Court justice Thursday in the face of stiff opposition and mounting criticism about her qualifications.

President Bush said he reluctantly accepted her decision to withdraw, after weeks of insisting that he did not want her to step down. He blamed her withdrawal on calls in the Senate for the release of internal White House documents that the administration has insisted were protected by executive privilege.

"It is clear that senators would not be satisfied until they gained access to internal documents concerning advice provided during her tenure at the White House _ disclosures that would undermine a president's ability to receive candid counsel," Bush said. "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."

Miers' surprise withdrawal stunned Washington on a day when the capital was awaiting news on another front _ the possible indictment of senior White House aides in the CIA leak case.


******

ooooooo!

She wasn't qualified. Plain and simple, no matter what her philosophy would've been.

It does give the administration another chance to satisfy their base now. It seemed the President misunderstood his base in that he though could pick anyone tell his base to trust him and his base support would do just that, trust him. It will be interesting who he picks now. If he does not pick someone that his base supports, the Republicans could easily lose control of the Senate and maybe even the House next year.

I guess this gives him an opportunity to redeem himself.

It was Gilbert Godfrey's playing her on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno last night that REALLY made the difference.

they should nominate me, I am qualified: Bull was my favoite character on night court, and I always made the same choices as judge judy.
(course I was hoping the cardinals were going to vote me as pope too)

Mole_J wrote:President misunderstood his base in that he though could pick anyone tell his base to trust him and his base support would do just that, trust him.

I voted for him proudly - look back at his competition.. did we want that? I do trust the President. People like Cheney, Rice, Roberts etc. But his base just wants the assurances with a record and not another Suter. This uncovered speech revealed last week concerning Miers views on abortion in the early 90's just broke the camels back.

Mole_J wrote:If he does not pick someone that his base supports, the Republicans could easily lose control of the Senate and maybe even the House next year.

Again, look at the alternative if you don't get out and vote. I personally will not abandon everything else that easy over a Supreme pick. I don't think we're all that shallow. Regardless.. the Bush Administration best supports my overall view and I will support them where principles count and not vice versa.

I would love to see another filibuster over a staunchly conservative nomination and show the American people where individual elected officials stand. I look forward to the fight.

Now that Scooter Libby is under indictment, I wonder which direction the president will go with the new nominee. Will he feel pressure to satisfy the base? Or, will he go to someone without a litmus-test paper trail that might not cause a catfight? Or, does he divert attention from the Libby (and, by extension, Cheney) problem with a deliberate polarizing, conservative-itching-for-a-fight nominee? Would he be pitching his last fast ball as president by doing so? Or, would he -- in fact -- juice the base so much with that kind of nominee that a groundswell of support comes back to him again?

I don't know. Should be interesting, like watching sausage get made.

I posted a response to this thread this morning and for some reason, it's gone. Anyway, MacUser, I think you and I are very similar politcally. You voice some of the same opinions I have expressed myself over this whole fiasco.

dolfan wrote: I wonder which direction the president will go with the new nominee. Will he feel pressure to satisfy the base? .

I sure hope he continues to align himself with the people that put him there. Why not support your base? What is so wrong with that? Absolutely nothing! Clinton didn't hide anything (literally).

Personally, just me, I'd like to see him nominate Bill Pryor from Alabama. I know it'll never happen since he was one of the controversial 11th Circuit nominees that got confirmed on the bargain-with-the-devil deal a few months ago.

But, Bill Pryor is what every reasonable person should want in a Supreme Court justice. Experience, temperament, and treats the constitution in a way that is faithful to its text. He's been on the wrong side, in my opinion and -- for different reasons -- in the opinion of more than one court (including the U.S. Supreme Court) on some issues concerning religion in school, but just barely 'wrong' in my view. My problems have been the reasons he's used for his cases and not so much the bottom line stand he's taken.

He was Alabama's youngest Attorney General, succeeding Jeff Sessions after he was elected to the U.S. Senate. He's served with distinction and moderation as a judge on the 11th Circuit. And, when I say moderation, I mean it simply that he doesn't judge as a prosecutor, which is his practice background.

Of course, I'm biased. I'd love to see an Alabamian on the Court. The last one was Hugo Black. While a liberal, he was not one to toy with stretching the text of the Constitution. In the Griswold v. Connecticut case that paved the way for Roe v. Wade, he jumped all over Justice Douglas for finding in the Constitution a "right to privacy" as being an "emanation" from a "penumbra" of specifically stated rights. (I can tell you we spent a week in Con Law talking about Griswold's "penumbra". Our teacher was a socialist feminist -- no kidding -- and she got laid low by one of the brightest students in our class. Long story, won't go there, you had to see it, but it was sweet.)

Anyway, you had to love what Black said in his dissent in Griswold:

“One of the most effective ways of diluting or expanding a constitutionally guaranteed right is to substitute for the crucial word or words of a constitutional guarantee another word or words, more or less flexible and more or less restricted in meaning.... ‘Privacy’ is a broad, abstract and ambiguous concept which can easily be shrunken in meaning but which can also, on the other hand, easily be interpreted as a constitutional ban against many things other than searches and seizures.... I like my privacy as well as the next one, but I am nevertheless compelled to admit that government has a right to invade it unless prohibited by some specific constitutional provision.”**[Disclosure!]

I like the Black opinions, on the whole. (See disclosure below for the can of worms one of his opinions opened that is not quite so popular with conservatives.) Pryor, I think, would be a text-faithful justice like Black was. (One of my favorite quotes by Hugo Black --- our black poodle's name by the way --- is "The layman's constitutional view is that what he likes is constitutional and that which he doesn't like is unconstitutional."


**On the other hand, Black wrote the case that killed public prayer in schools (Engel v. Vitale) in 1962, saying, " it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government." In that case, the prayer at issue was actually composed by the government for recital.

Another Alabama born to consider..

http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/brownresume.htm

Although I can't argue this on specific merits as well as you can.. I can ponder the political fallout the democrats would have going against a nomination such as this. She's already been recently confirmed by the same group and opposing this now.. would be very telling.

they should nominate me, I am qualified: Bull was my favoite character on night court, and I always made the same choices as judge judy. Smile
(course I was hoping the cardinals were going to vote me as pope too)

Don't know much about Sam Alito. I saw one news blurb that he's been nicknames "Scalito" for being so much like Scalia. Personally, that sounds like a racist jab to me, but maybe my sensitivity antenna are up too high after a week of Rosa Parks tributes.

Yep.. Judge Samuel Alito gets the nod. View the Reactions..

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/31/D8DJ25TO2.html

Finally no praise from the left -

If Harry Reid and Chucky Schumer are agin him, I'm fer him.

Seriously, everything I've read about the man points to the fact that he is an excellent choice. Seems to have a strong conservative record, and nobody can claim he isn't qualified, with 15 years on the Court of Appeals bench.