Skip to main content

View Diary: On Miers (168 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  GSTEFF (none)
    Serious question for you, I know that you must feel pretty anxious and that perhaps that's why you want to advocate caution and give a "pass" -- my words -- to this nominee.  However, I think that that's rather short-sighted and too focused on the minutia of trying to outmaneuver our opponents.  I recommend that you read LiberaOaisis's take on this, his analysis and advise is has always been pretty sound and grounded on principles, rather than just on tactical short term maneuvering. He advises:

    [S]ome liberals are already assuming that anything that right-wingers whine about must be good for us.

    Without leadership at the top, and without energy from the grassroots, we will likely have the same floundering, ineffectual opposition that we saw in the Roberts process - if we have any opposition at all.

    Some may say, so what? Miers is probably the best we can do. If we defeat Miers, whoever comes next would have to be worse.

    This is faulty, short-sighted logic.

    If there's enough criticism coming from the left and right to sink the nominee (a coalition David Corn suggests putting together), Bush ends up in his weakest political position ever.

    If he then feels compelled to pick an overt right-winger to rehab his base, then that pick can be beat with a unified Democratic party backed by public opinion, completely boxing Bush in - unable to get a stealth pick or a overt right-wing pick.

    Dems then would have the political leverage to force a real moderate pick.

    Of course, it is highly doubtful that there will be enough conservative opposition in the Senate, despite the whining from parts of the base, to block Miers in the first place.

    The point is simply that a Miers defeat does not strengthen Bush's ability to confirm an overt right-winger, so it is not dangerous to make that an ideal goal.

    And there is a larger strategic goal as well.

    To articulate to the public why this nomination is so important; how our workplaces, our environment and our privacy will be impacted by this one vote; and how Democrats and liberals would do a better job in shaping our judiciary and protecting our rights.

    To stand down on Miers, as was done on Roberts, is to fail in explaining to the public what Democrats and liberals stand for.


    bedobe (at) gmail (.) com

    by bedobe on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 10:41:28 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Korn said that? (4.00)
      I have the same idea here.

      The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

      by Armando on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 10:44:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Just Read Your Post (none)
        Intriguing proposal, and one that should be attractive to the "gang-of-14" and to any Dem or Republi-can't wanting to cloth themselves as a "moderate" and "centrist."  Of course, there's the issue of trust... would such a coalition survive the mistrust and pressure coming from the respective bases?  

        Clearly you and David Corn are on the same page:

        So here's an idea. Perhaps right and left can join forces in a campaign called Harriet, Give It Up! The point would be to demand that she and the White House provide enough details so that senators--and all Americans--have sufficient information to evaluate her "judicial philosophy." If this means answering questions related to Roe v. Wade, so be it. Let's have it all out in the open--and then a real fight. Unlike John Roberts Jr., Miers would replace a swing-vote justice. And many rightists do not want to take a chance. They want a champion upon whom they can count to undo Roe and advance other conservative notions. Prior to the Miers appointment, Senator Sam Brownback, a social conservative Republican from Kansas, said he would want to know much about the next Supreme Court nominee's views before casting a vote. (He is, of course, looking for a Justice who will undermine, if not eliminate, abortion rights.) Brownback should get his wish.

        And here's a thought: the pressure for such an across the isle coalition would need to come from the grassroots, perhaps this is an opportunity to mount an affirmative campaign -- headed by you, launched from this platform -- to reach out to RedState, FreeRepublic, PowerLine... and any wingnut blogger to join forces, calling elected officials to mount a joint campaign demanding that the nominee and the White House disclose her record and make her ideological position clear.  This could spread like a wildfire... a unified campaign across Left and right blogspheres.

        bedobe (at) gmail (.) com

        by bedobe on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 11:01:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Interesting (none)
      Cool- convincing argument.  I guess whether mounting large opposition is good for the Dems depends on whether having a national debate on the constitution is good for the dems.  And after reading that, I'm more inclined to think that it is.  Moderates, as near as I can tell, support separation of church and state, don't want to force a national crisis over Roe v. Wade... flag burning is the only major constitutional issue we lose on, as far as I remember.  There's something to be said for the argument that forcing Americans to worry about the court can only work to our advantage.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site