Skip to main content

View Diary: What The Media Said About A Miers Withdrawal: Bush Weakness (339 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Let's be even more frank. (none)
    1. There are no qualifications for S.Ct.  She was as "qualified" as prior Justices.

    2. She was nominated because GW tends to want to nominate those he knows because that the way things work in his world.  Reward those you know.  Not based on some tin foil hat theory that GW thinks that he needs a "friend" on the Court because he's going to be impeached.  Give me a frigging break.

    3. GW is MOMENTARILY weakened by this do-over.  But the movement conservatives are STRENGTHENED.  And if GW nominates a Federalist Society darling all talk of him being "weakened" will disappear.

    4. We've traded someone who might well have been good for liberal causes for ?????  The Dems barely Bork'd Bork back when we controlled the Senate.  I try to be reality based.  Whoever is nominated will likely get on the Court.
    •  On 3 (none)
      only if we follow your advice.

      He will remained WEAKENED of we properly say the Wingnuts are dictating to the Presidentof the United States.

      What is it about this you do not get?

      The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

      by Armando on Thu Oct 27, 2005 at 08:33:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What advice? (none)
        Have I been giving advice?  No. And, in fact, I'm not sure what we'er arguing about as we both think that the right wing dictated this result.

        So go ahead and do your best to advance the correct notion that GW bowed to the right wing.  Do your best to embarass the President into nominating someone who's not a darling of the right wing.  It's a valuable effort.

        And nothing I'm saying is contrary to that.  My point is simple: I see no need to celebrate that GW bowed to the right wing.  

      •  I'm as joyous as anyone to see Bush get mangled (none)
        by his own pets but there is a downside to the fact that Bush's legacy (whatever remains of it, particularly post-Fitzmas) is now pretty much contingent on the support of the party's nutjob base.  

        I'm optimistic by nature but I'm not sure how much meat is left on the carcass of pointing out that Bush shamelessly panders to the wingnuts (constitutional ban on gay marriage, anyone?).

        If this weakening does drive Bush to take shelter in the arms of the right for the remaining three years of his term then I guess it's possible that the general population will be turned off enough to vote anti-Republican in the next few elections but I've gotta tell you,  I've lost faith that Joe Sixpack is really paying attention anymore.

        I'm not sayin'... I'm just sayin'.

        by AriesMoon on Thu Oct 27, 2005 at 09:08:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Nonsense (none)
      The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

      Bush lost.  End of story.  There is no victory for "movement conservatives" in this.  It was the wingnuts who opposed Miers on the abortion issue.  The movement conservatives refused to support her because she is a crony, but it was the right-wing base that really can take credit for Miers' defeat.

      Is this another victory for the religious right?  Possibly, but Dobson et al can't take any credit.  The religious right is a minority.  They can claim to have momentum, but I think that they are very close to cementing their minority status by revealing their extremism.  

      The Democrats are in a great position right now.  The schism in the Republican party is obvious.  Bush is divorced from his religious base.  Ideology carries the day as a reasonable justification for opposition to a Supreme Court nominee.  Movement conservatives are confused and scattered by the sheer incompetence of their main man in the White House.

      And Fitzmas is tomorrow...

      Now if they can only keep the indictments in the news for a few days before the next nominee is picked...

    •  Qualifications (none)
      Well, there are and there aren't "qualifications."  No, there's no need to have held any particular position to be qualified.  But a certain clarity of thought, reasoning ability, and familiarity with constitutional issues IS a qualification to serve on SCOTUS.  Someone bright, capable, and competent.  

      Say what you like about Scalia, he's evil, but he's clever.  He makes an argument - one you don't buy, but one with some persuasive force behind it.  He can assemble support for his position in history and precedent.  He has the mind for his position.  

      All indications were that Miers didn't.  I read her speeches and was struck that she sounds just like I imagine Bush would if he wrote his own stuff - incoherent and ungrammatical.  Not a good indication of a sound and agile mind, which is the preeminent qualification for service on the Court.

      Bush clearly doesn't respect the institution of the Court.  Lawyers and "court watchers" were struck that Miers was unqualified because they revere the idea of the court, and think that only the best legal minds should (and do) serve there.  Bush has no concept of the gravity of a role on the Court, or of the kind of brainpower needed for the job.

      Can money pay for all the days I lived awake/ But half asleep?

      by milton333 on Thu Oct 27, 2005 at 10:57:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site