Skip to main content

Update [2005-10-17 1:28:15 by Armando]: Well now. I think Mr. Dobson's subpoena now is mandatory. Judges Hecht and Kinkeade too.

John Fund has just dropped James Dobson's other shoe--squarely on Harriet Miers.

And size 6 this one isn't.

In a column posted early Monday in the WSJ Opinion Journal, John Fund quotes from notes from a conference call Dobson participated in in which two judges close to Miers assured him that they had spoken with her about Roe v. Wade and that she had indicated she would vote to overturn it.

So that's what the guy was talking about when he assured his supporters that he knew things "that I probably shouldn't know" about Miers's conservative judicial bona fides.

(Did he lie last week in saying Karl Rove hadn't told him inside info after all?  Technically, maybe not: this wasn't a conversation with Rove himself, but it was one that Rove instigated.  Wink, wink; nudge, nudge: Mr. Dobson is lucky he wasn't under oath in court the other day.  But isn't this the kind of too-clever evasion for which his crowd cheered the impeachment of Bill Clinton?)

What did happen was this:

On Oct. 3, the day the Miers nomination was announced, Mr. Dobson and other religious conservatives held a conference call to discuss the nomination.  . . .  According to the notes, two of Ms. Miers's close friends--both sitting judges--said during the call that she would vote to overturn Roe. . . . on the call were Justice Nathan Hecht of the Texas Supreme Court and Judge Ed Kinkeade, a Dallas-based federal trial judge. . . .  [Kinkeade] has been a friend of Ms. Miers's for decades. . . .  Mr. Dobson introduced them by saying, "Karl Rove suggested that we talk with these gentlemen because they can confirm specific reasons why Harriet Miers might be a better candidate than some of us think."

In the course of  "a free-wheeling discussion about many topics," the notes Fund has indicate,

. . . an unidentified voice asked the two men, "Based on your personal knowledge of her, if she had the opportunity, do you believe she would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade?"

"Absolutely," said Judge Kinkeade.

"I agree with that," said Justice Hecht. "I concur."

Fund goes on to quote an unnamed Senate Judiciary staffer as saying, "If the call is as you describe it, an effort will be made to subpoena everyone on it."

Will this reassure the Religious Right?   After all they've invested in righteous rage?  Will it be the tipping point for pro-choice Democratic Senators?   Do you have to ask?

My friends, let us have a moment of silence.  The good lady is toast.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 10:28 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  The other shoe... (4.00)
    Yeah,...I have been following this crafty pricks words on the Internet all day...Posted the same story on my Blog but you got way more depth than I did....
    Kudos to you....
    •  Thanks for being gracious-- (4.00)
      --I checked before writing to see if anyone else had gotten this, and no one had--you posted while I was writing.  Apologies for the bad timing, and congrats on the scoop!

      New York, 9/11. New Orleans, 8/29. Feel safer now?

      by Leaves on the Current on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 10:21:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  actually it is a duplicate (none)
        Els has a diary already going on this.
        Nice catch though

        With Reagan we got an actor who co-stared with a chimp. With Bush we got the chimp.

        by YetiMonk on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 10:27:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  For a diary about misplaced shoes-- (4.00)
          --this one's stepping all over other people's feet, I'm afraid, then.  Apologies, and let's hear it for the virtues of community blogging and collective conversation!

          New York, 9/11. New Orleans, 8/29. Feel safer now?

          by Leaves on the Current on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 10:37:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  And now you're fp'd! (n/t) (none)

            With Reagan we got an actor who co-stared with a chimp. With Bush we got the chimp.

            by YetiMonk on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 10:42:58 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  i'd like mine xtra toasted, golden brown please (4.00)
            any wacko that overturns roevwade=history, bad news, toast and very dangerous for this country. how bad does it have to get. where are our ethical heroes to stand up for women's rights, privacy and our civil liberties. we have unalienable rights that should neither be taken for granted nor overruled and thrown out every time we a judge retires and we get a new appointee to the high court. we cannot stand for this undoing of our democracy by these corrupt, illegal lying crooks. it is unacceotable. period.
      •  Apologies for the compliment.... (4.00)
        Iapologize ifyou took mycommentas snark ...I was being sincere and I did not post it here ,I posted it at My Blog.... on Blogger.... And I did'nt mean Anything except you made a much more in-depth dig on the the story.....So.
      •  There is a third Shoe here too (4.00)
        For want of a better term, there is a third shoe here waiting to drop that could hit both Texas and Karl Rove if we kick up sufficent fuss about it.  Forget Meirs for a second, What the hell were two sitting judges doing, particpating in a Republican Political strategy conference call between a Fundamentalist preacher and the WH?!

        THAT by itself should be a HUGE scandal, in TX particularly.  Judges by the very nature of the office they hold are supposed to take huge pains to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, favortism or partisanship.  

        To act in so nakedly partisan a fashion, on a matter involving the Supreme Court no less, is a ptoentially impeachable violation of the Texas Code of Judical Conduct


        Canon 1

        Upholding the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary

        An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society.  A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining and enforcing high standards of conduct, and should personally observe those standards so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary is preserved.  The provisions of this Code are to be construed and applied to further that objective.

        Canon 2

        Avoiding Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All of the Judge's Activities

        B.    A judge shall not allow any relationship to influence judicial conduct or judgment.  A judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others; nor shall a judge convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge.  A judge shall not testify voluntarily as a character witness.

        (10)    A judge shall abstain from public comment about a pending or impending proceeding which may come before the judge's court in a manner which suggests to a reasonable person the judge's probable decision on any particular case.

        and to me this one's the Show Stopper:


        (11)    A judge shall not disclose or use, for any purpose unrelated to judicial duties, nonpublic information acquired in a judicial capacity.   The discussions, votes, positions taken, and writings of appellate judges and court personnel about causes are confidences of the court and shall be revealed only through a court's judgment, a written opinion or in accordance with Supreme Court guidelines for a court approved history project.

        Knowledge is power Power Corrupts Study Hard Be Evil

        by Magorn on Mon Oct 17, 2005 at 09:29:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Judges in Texas (none)
          are elected as members of a political party, so the idea that they would be involved in partisan political speech (of any sort) wouldn't ruffle too many feathers in the Lone Star State.

          Also, from the standards you quote above, I doubt that either of these judges came by their information or opinions in their "judicial capacity."

          •  yes but (none)
            even in Texas they are expected to refrain from openly partidan activity while on the bench (and one of the two was a Federal Judge).  Furthermore, Only the Federal judge knew her socially at all so how else would a TX supreme court justice have become familiar with her legal opinions?

            Knowledge is power Power Corrupts Study Hard Be Evil

            by Magorn on Mon Oct 17, 2005 at 10:39:52 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  I wouldn't be celebrating if I were you (3.61)
      Do you really think we will EVER get a pro-choice candidate out of this administration? Do you, really?

      Torpedo Meirs, and they stand up a far-right lunatic in her place. And another, and another. If a Democratic senate confirmed Clarence Thomas, do you really think they won't get one through THIS senate, eventually?

      Reid recommended her for a reason. He knows she's the best of a bad, bad lot.

      Roe is toast, folks. Better to prepare for a post-Roe world than to fight futile rear-guard actions against an unending series of wingnut nominations.

      Some of you will probably troll-rate me for shining this harsh light of reality on the situation, but there it is.

      Real soldiers are dying in their Hummers, so that Republicans can play soldier in theirs

      by coldeye on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 11:11:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  or (4.00)
        just filibuster every candidate until 2006.  why not?  he is demonstrably incapable of appointing anyone to any position.
        •  every nominee (4.00)
          Bush has proposed has been inadequate...I agree we should filibuster until an appropriate candidate is nominated...or until we take back the House and Senate in 2006. At this rate...by not holding hearings till Dec....we can drag out the Miers nomination for a bit..at least till mid-january...and then we've only got to hold out till November. The most he could do is nominate 2 more people after Miers...and if they are crazy wing-nuts like Bork or Thomas, or Scalia...we'll have every reason to filibuster. The crazier the nominees get...and the more laws Republicans break...the more the American people will be on our side.
        •  O'Connor Says She Won't Retire Till She's Replaced (4.00)
          So the pressure's pretty much off.

          Especially given O'Connor's famous Y2K election night comment that she wanted to retire when a Republican was in the White House (and her subsequent behavior in Bush v. Gore) my sympathy for her is close to zero.  

          I view the fact that she's likely marginally less heinous than anyone who this President will nominate as a happy accident.

          Sit your ass down on the bench, Sandra. For the moment you're not going anywhere.

          GreenSooner is the Rufus T. Firefly Chair in Freedonian Studies at the Poorman Institute for Freedom and Democracy and a Pony

          by GreenSooner on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 11:36:27 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Google "Gang of fourteen" (none)
          and get back to me. And while you're at it Google "Michael Luttig".

          Fun is fun but lets bring some hard headed political thinking in. There is not a prayer in the world that we could sustain a filibuster against Luttig or Wilkinson. The Gang of Fourteen will stop that in its tracks and the Democrats will come off as exactly what the Republicans claim we are: simple obstructionists.

          From time to time a whiff of "lets advance the Progressive cause by putting on black bandanas, spray painting red "A"s, chanting "property is theft" and breaking every plate glass window we can!" floats through dKos comment threads. Well you don't get from here to there using those tactics. We could call it the "Street Fighting Fallacy". We are going to win this one at the ballot box, not by lighting newspaper boxes.

          •  Tea in China? (none)
            I was highly entertained by your "Street Fighting Falacy" rant, but how do you get from an Obstructionist Senate minority to WTO protests?

            "How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!" -- Samuel Clemens

            by nepolon on Mon Oct 17, 2005 at 12:13:02 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  try (none)
            reading their memorandum of understanding.  nothing in that documents stipulates they cannot participate in a filibuster.  and the SCOTUS, by the way, is, as Armando's signature line states, "extraordinary."  and only in extraordinary circumstances can they engage in a filibuster of a judicial nominee.  "extraordinary" is a mighty ambiguous word.  and i believe the supreme court's importance can make any questionable candidate for a bench in that august court an "extraordinary" circumstance.

            read the memorandum of understanding before belittling my position.  

            thank you.

            •  Will the "Gang of 14" block Miers (none)
              If not then all this talk is piffle. Miers was chosen to appeal to the Gang of 14 and anyone who looks at the Senate and doesn't think she will draw 38 or more votes from Bush loyalists on the one hand and 13 or more votes from "could be much worse" Dems on the other hand just isn't paying attention.

              Find me 41 combined pissed off conservatives and down the line NARAL supporters to sustain a vote against Cloture given that all their interests on every other candidate would split other ways and we can talk.

              You don't have to like Miers but you are going to get her anyways. And she is better than Luttig if only by being ten years older. Keep up the good fight, because oppoisng Miers is right on the merits, but geez keep your reality hat on.

      •  george's days are numbered (4.00)
        Karl and Scooter are toast, and the WhiteHouse Iraq Group is square in the sights of a special prosecutor

        george doesn't have many bullets left in his terror gun, and he doesn't have enough troops to survive an attack on Iran

        we're gonna have a big nationwide discussion of george's competence soon

        Nancey Pelosi may just end up filling that seat, so don't give up the fight just yet

      •  Leaves is actually not pro-choice (4.00)
        although she is very liberal / progressive on just about every other issue.

        She was so excited when this got elevated to the front page that she woke me up.

        For those who care, she strongly opposed capital punishment, being pro-life in every sense of the word -she once went down to Jarratt VA to stand in vigil during an execution at the Greenville Correctional Facility.

        She is totally committed on environmental issues, and thus has problems with Miers as a corporatist.

        She is a strong supporter of Federal support of the Arts.

        And living with a committed (or one who should be committed - pun intended) public school teacher, she has come to value public schools even though she hereself never attended one.

        Those who can, do. Those who can do more, TEACH!

        by teacherken on Mon Oct 17, 2005 at 03:09:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Good lord! (none)
        Why would you get a troll rating for expressing you opinion?

        Have a 4 to even things out.

        The Christian Right is neither Witness Every Day

        by TXsharon on Mon Oct 17, 2005 at 07:57:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Gang o'14 (none)
        Roe is toast, folks. Better to prepare for a post-Roe world than to fight futile rear-guard actions against an unending series of wingnut nominations.

        You're forgetting something here: the bipartisan group of 14 moderate senators.  They will not take kindly to an unending stream of ideological nominees, particularly if they perceive that Bush is become less responsive to their concerns.

        A Miers defeat will cause the congress to gain clout vis-a-vis the presidency.

        •  But Miers isn't ideological (none)
          At least publically. Bush is trying to sell 'competence' to one camp and 'faith' to the other but the last thing he wants to do is to frame this fight as 'ideological'. I doubt that a single member of the Gang of 14 doesn't understand that any Bush nominee would be at a minimum a leaner against Roe v Wade. Because they know as I do that his search committee didn't spend a bunch of time trolling amongst the staff attorneys at NARAL or the ACLU. I just don't see them drawing a line in the sand here.

          "Moderate" is a relative term. It certainly doesn't equate to "bleeding heart" when it comes to this particular list of Senators.

      •  The issue shouldn't be pro-choice anyway. (none)
        The issue should be whether it is appropriate for the government to make medical care decisions about any kind, beyond insuring that those who do so are professionally qualified.
        Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided because it effectively upheld the right of the state to interpose itself into the relationship between a patient and his/her physician.  The decision should have been that reproductive services are none of the states' business and any legislation to regulate them, for or against, is unconstitutional.

        3-D Republicans=deception, disservice and debt

        by hannah on Mon Oct 17, 2005 at 12:12:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Roe v Wade was based on Griswold (none)
          Which fundamentally was based on the right to privacy. Which is right in line with what you are arguing here. Where is the contradiction?

          Before Roe v Wade most states insisted that they had every right to "interpose itself into the relationship between a patient and his/her physician". It seems to me that you are turning Roe v Wade on its head here.

  •  Clintonesque.... (4.00)
    "I did not have direct conversations with Rove about that woman's (Ms. Miers) intentions about Roe."

    Did you talk to someone else about it?  Depends on what the meanin of "someone, it, and talk" are?

    "For the Mardi Gras
    Neo-con domestic shock and awe.."--Rep. Major Owens

    by Cathy on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 10:31:00 PM PDT

  •  Judge Hecht, Justice Kinkeade.... (none)
    meet the klieg lights.

    "For the Mardi Gras
    Neo-con domestic shock and awe.."--Rep. Major Owens

    by Cathy on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 10:33:25 PM PDT

    •  And A Federal Judge At That. (4.00)
      Those guys are usually petty tyrants. They're on the bench for life. No one outside of an appeals court in a decision can criticize them, let alone give them the 5th degree.

      Just Doing My Small Part In Pissing Off The Religious Right.

      by chuco35 on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 10:45:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Kinkeade? (none)
        Cuz Hecht is a state court judge.

        The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

        by Armando on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 10:46:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Just Kinkeade (none)

        The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

        by Armando on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 10:48:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Congress can grill them any day of the week (none)
        congressional oversight, don't ya know

        if these asshats are supbpeoned, they have to appear

        disregarding a subpeona is considered an impeachable act

        •  Trouble is unless the judge is a judicial liberal (none)
          the Republicans won't grill the guy.

          It's going to be a charade, a funny face contest, and a big kerfluffle that goes nowhere.

          I know that is not a happy outlook nor opitmistic, but we are dealing with a Republican Senate, and very spineless Republicans who jump on command from the White House and the party.

          On MacLaughlin Group, Elenor Clift I think it was made a prediction that Miers' nomination would be withdrawn.  This is looking more and more like a liklihood.

          Not to be blunt, but if anyone thinks a pubbie controlled Senate is going to "demand" answers from Commander Bunnypants Bush, or any Pubbie friendly judge, they're losing it.  

          "same old fears, same old crimes-we haven't changed since ancient times.." "Iron Hand" Dire Straits

          by boilerman10 on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 11:59:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  You Don't Know My Thing (none)
          Of course even a federal judge would have to appear. That was the point of my post. The juicy irony of having a federal judge, a petty tyrant, grilled. And he will be grilled, even if only by Ds. Spector and Leahy have both stated in public that back door deals must be looked into. If this doesn't smell of a back-door deal, nothing does.

          Just Doing My Small Part In Pissing Off The Religious Right.

          by chuco35 on Mon Oct 17, 2005 at 12:06:52 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Huge (none)
    It's amazing what they will when they think they are amongst their own. We really need to have people with recordingd devices infiltrating everyone one of these rabid righty groups, to report to the masses their true evil self serving agendas.

    "Bush is driving this country like it's stolen." -Mark Crispen Miller
    LJ's Blogorific

    by The 1n Only Leoni on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 10:34:33 PM PDT

    •  and I'll provide tech support... (none)

      Any professional journalist who is serious about recording these creeps, whether live in-person or on conference calls or whatever, feel free to get in touch with me for "how-to" technical information.  I'll need to verify who you work for, and then we're on.  

      You'll also need to get legal advice before implementing any technical strategy; I'm not a lawyer so that part is out of my hands.  

    •  If only... (none)
      we controlled a government organization with the ability to mark them as potential enemies of the state...

      Oh patriot act, how missused and missguided you are.

  •  The open cry of the right, as aways (none)
    "Illegalize it"

    Is it just me, or does the name Hecht seem very familiar? Didn't we hear about another Hecht during the campaign? (Not that there is a connection)

    "Our country right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right" - Carl Schurz

    by RBH on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 10:35:35 PM PDT

    •  as always (none)
      Either way.. I expect a lot of awkward seatshifting from the right.

      As they pick between "She's a hack" and "She'll ban abortions"

      What ever happened to judges of the law?

      We've got a nominee who is guaranteed to put the Bush agenda first

      "Our country right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right" - Carl Schurz

      by RBH on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 10:42:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Cue the Bob Marley riddim ... (none)
      "Illegalize it"

      Don't cri-ti-cize it.

      (Doubt there are many Ras-publicans out there.)
      .

      Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. - Denis Diderot

      by Peanut on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 11:02:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Say it ain't so! (none)
    Who'd a thunk it? Bushco packing the courts with extremist, activist judges.

    Of course, the facts are the news here, I understand. It will be interesting to see how the fundies react to this. Sounds to me like they were over-reacting on purpose (playing a role) in order to sneak her through.

    So, if true, was Reid just a willing dupe, or was he thinking sacrifice Roe v. Wade for another reason? Afterall, everything I've seen on how she may vote leads me to believe she wouldn't be any better than the rest of Bush's picks, or was Reid just hoping she would have to spend most of the next three years recused from the court because of Bush cases before them? Or was it simply her lack of experience would be seen as a problem, regardless of her views?

  •  Do it. (3.40)
    Overturn it.

    And sign the GOP's death warrant.

    •  And that of thousands of women (4.00)
      No thanks, some things come at too high a cost.

      I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

      by eugene on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 10:59:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  For Political Animals (none)
        who don't care about principles, just conjure up the image of Dobson testifying and tell me that is not gold politcallly for Dems.

        The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

        by Armando on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 11:01:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  yes, it is (none)
          and i believe he needs to testify before the judiciary committee under oath.  the more theatrical this becomes, the more capital gained by the dems, as the american people are frankly disgusted with our already tragicomic political system.  subpeona him.
        •  Oh I dunno (none)
          I might just be worn down from 5 years of appeasement but I'm not convinced the Dems could find gold if they were on a tour of Fort Knox.

          I won't argue that Dobson should absolutely be made to testify and that if played right it could be a huge boost to our efforts. "If played right."

          In any case my point was that there is no good reason to overturn Roe. The deaths of thousands of women is not an acceptable cost for any political victory (and I know that wasn't you saying it was, Armando).

          I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

          by eugene on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 11:07:13 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  testify in front of the clown college ??? (none)
          what would that accomplish ???

          the repuglicans on the committe would kiss Dobson's ass, and the democrats would congratulate the repuglicans on their technique

          I bet Biden asks if Dobson wants to rife in the funny little car

          I want to see Dobson testify before a questioner with some teeth, and some balls

          or am I missing a bulldog on the committee ???

          sorry, Patrick fitgerald has spoiled me lately

          •  Kiss Dobson's Ass? (4.00)
            FANTASTIC.

            From your keyboard to God's ears.

            The Party of Dobson in every campaign!

            Please let it be so.

            The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

            by Armando on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 11:42:42 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  probably be a "Pants On" kinda thing (none)
              I don't think dobson is actually gonna drop his trousers and bend over waiting for the lips to hit his cheecks

              why would this excite you so much ???

              You welcome a chance for the repuglicans to smear their phony christian values into the public record ???

              the repuglicans will probably hold a corronation for this crooked bastard

              any reson to expect our "Loyal" opposition would fuck up such a proceeding ???

        •  I honestly... (none)
          don't think it is.  (Roughly) equal proportions  of the country alreaady view Dobson as Satan or view Dobson as God.  The ones who view Dobson as Satan will (pretty much invariably) vote Democratic.  Those who view Dobson as God will (pretty much invariably) vote Republican.  The rest, probably even the majority of the country, neither know or care who James Dobson is, and this buys us nothing with them unless you push it hard, playing into and reinforcing the "Democrats hate the family and religion" frame that Republicans have created successfully.

          I don't like Dobson any more than you do, but IMHO, he's not a useful thing to burn in effigy to get the masses' support.

      •  If you believe (none)
        If you believe that I was stating that it should be overturned, or that Democrats should not fight for it being upheld, you have drastically misinterpreted me.

        -- E pur si muove.

        by asdfasdf on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 11:17:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Sometimes ya don't know what (none)
        you got till it's gone
      •  I'm just not convinced that would be true (none)
        First, I think the majority of states would still choose to keep some form of abortion legal.  Even most on the right agree this is the likely result of overturning Roe. And women would be able to cross state lines to obtain an abortion, if their state doesn't allow it.  Just like you can cross state lines for lottery tickets and guns.

        Second, I think you'd see a huge uptick in attentiveness to contraception - which is not a bad thing.  Contraception was not so easy cheap and socially acceptable pre-Roe as it is now.

        It's an apples and oranges thing.

        Roe is horribly distorting the political landscape in this country and it needs to stop; there are truly more important things for both sides to focus on, despite the number of lives each side claims is involved.  Single issue voting is destroying this country.

        If you want something other than the obvious to happen, you've got to do something other than the obvious...

        by trillian on Mon Oct 17, 2005 at 08:49:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yup (none)
          I def. agree. It allows bad people (on both sides of the aisle) to skate into office, and it distracts from so many other issues. Even progressive liberal scholars agree it was a crappily-decided case, from a legal standpoint...
    •  Heh (4.00)
      I almost think that myself. Let them overturn it, watch as low level civil chaos ensues, tie it directly to the decision to overturn Roe as thousands of babies that no one is able to care for flood the adoption agencies and foster programs, and sit back while the GOP is rendered politically irrelevant for decades. Then reinstate is in a couple of years' time.

      It'd be worth considering except for the fact that it would destroy thousands of lives in the process, and leave multitudes of children without any opportunity in life.

      They try to hide the poverty, but the poverty can't be hidden

      by spelunking defenestrator on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 11:00:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  There are ALREADY (4.00)
        ...tons of kids no one wants in foster care in this country. There are ALREADY legions of kids living below the poverty level, in negligent homes, in bad situations or homeless. There are ALREADY many kids being raised by grandmas, aunts, other extended family.
        •  They won't stop at overturning Roe (none)
          until there is some punishment for the 41 million abortions already done. Upon hearing this on so-called Christian radio my first thought was this is an entire Country of the aborted and where would we put them?

          Christians are nothing if not punitive.

          What is so precious about straining our already overpopulated planet with millions of the unwanted? There's a real need for confronting this overbreeding and a real taboo against doing that.

          A society of sheep must beget in time a government of wolves. Bertrand de Jouvenel

          by Little Red Hen on Mon Oct 17, 2005 at 09:54:44 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Roe v Wade (none)
      I agree, but the Republicans really don't want to overturn Roe because they would not have the social agenda to campaign on any longer.  I say triangulate their ass and give them Roe and dare them to overturn.  The far right will hold the Rep. party hostage to overturning it and if they don't they'll revolt or the party does overturn Roe the rest of the country will revolt.  Abortion rights is supported by more than the majority of the country even alot of those red states.  Either way Roe will go back to the individual states for passage or defeat. Issue becomes a non-issue.  
      When Bush talked about her religion that was a clear wink to the conservatives that she would overturn Roe.  But the conservatives have been spoiling for a fight.  Liberals should not take the bait.  They should let the conservatives have at it on their own.  Give him the vote or don't vote at all. Let the conservatives decide the issue regardless of clear violations of quid pro quo. The senate will never get a better candidate from this president.  It NOT possible.
      •  They will still have an agenda. (none)
        Overturning Roe v. Wade would simply change the goals of the Religious Right.  They would immediately move from attempting to overturn Roe to getting the Supreme Court to ban abortion altogether.
    •  Sean Leckey: (none)
      What was that 1 for? I don't see how that comment deserved a 1. That is called ratings abuse.
  •  How is she toast? (none)
    Won't the Republicans simply employ the nuclear option to override any filibuster attempt? This information is, after all, what the conservatives wanted to hear.
    •  Sure (none)
      The GOP is full of political capital these days.

      The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

      by Armando on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 10:38:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  this is the predicament their clever.... (4.00)
      leader put them in, trying to be too clever, stubborn, W.-esque by half, he picked stealth, and expected to be trusted.  They didn't trust him so now he has to tell all about her.  Her religion, whisper about what she'll do on Roe, only they can't keep it to a whisper it has to get out to placate his base.

      Stupid, stupid, stupid.

      Now, Dems can say "we have a right to know everything that was said".  Specter is already on record saying that he agrees with that line of thinking.

      It's going to look like the worst.nomination.ever

      "For the Mardi Gras
      Neo-con domestic shock and awe.."--Rep. Major Owens

      by Cathy on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 10:56:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yep, and it's the stubborn part (none)
        that's gonna make this the gift that keeps on giving.  He'll drag his own naked party through broken glass to get what he wants.  Petulance.

        Armando is right.  I'll expound.  Bush ramrods her into a nomination hearing.  Dobson, and others, are subpoenaed.  This means that his very reason for stealthing her in, in the first place, will be laid bare for the entire NATION to gawk at.

        The 65% or so that believe in Roe, get to see the looney-tune religicos that the Right keeps hidden under their skirt.  Dobson's lied.  And now he'll be under oath in front of millions, to prove it.

        Remember, WE'RE the freaks that keep up with all this stuff.  Joe and Mary Householder are too busy and/or apathetic to keep up.  Let's let the Right give them a show!!!

        "Pharisees on parade"

        If Jesus Christ came back today and saw what was being done in his name, he'd never stop throwing up... - Hannah and Her Sisters

        by AlyoshaKaramazov on Mon Oct 17, 2005 at 08:07:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The Gang of Fourteen senators (none)
      have already weighed in on this one. The filibuster, if there is one, will stand. Even if they didn't honor their agreement, I'd wager there are enough Repub senators who would allow a filabuster just so they wouldn't have to go on record as voting against Miers. It's quite the chess match. One hundred Masters and one board.

      I'm a devout believer in irreverence. - JW -

      by John West on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 11:02:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Employing the 'Nuclear option' (none)
      - never heard of before in the history of the USA - would be grounds for impeachment. The Democratic Party should make that clear. And no, I don't expect any impeachments from this Republican Congress, but sooner or later - if the US is still a democracy - the Ds will be back in power.

      Restore Democracy! Denounce the GOP (George Orwell's Party)!

      by high5 on Mon Oct 17, 2005 at 03:34:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I would prefer to keep the nuk-u-lar option (none)

        Now that the GOP has brought out their illegitimate nuclear option, the war is ON.  They have directly threatened to use it to ramrod through any and all judicial nominees, including SCOTUS mispicks a number of times.  I think they should be seen as having given a free nuke to the Dems on this.  The Dems take the Senate in '06, perhaps the Presidency in '08, and they let it be known that they WILL install a liberal judge to replace any of Ginsberg, Kennedy, or anyone else that retires over the span of Dem control.  They declare that if the GOP attempts to filibuster, then the Dems will use the GOP nuke on them.  They made their bed and they MUST be forced to lie in it.


        It should be seen as a Dem requirement to properly counterbalance all damage done to the courts by the GOP picks.  To do so, they need to install as many YOUNG liberal judges as possible and do so, if necessary, by using the GOP's own weapon against them.  When they finally cry "UNCLE!" then we can dispense with the "nuclear option" forevermore by making it impossible to use it again according to unchangeable Senate rules.  The anti-nuclear option Parliamentary Rule for the Senate should be made outside the bounds of being able to be changed at any point henceforth.  But ONLY after the Dems have used it against the GOP that birthed it and forced the GOP to wail and gnash their teeth in torment.


        "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." --9th Amendment

        by praedor on Mon Oct 17, 2005 at 06:45:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I beg to differ somewhat (none)
          I think they should be seen as having given a free nuke to the Dems on this.
          _ They declare that if the GOP attempts to filibuster, then the Dems will use the GOP nuke on them.  They made their bed and they MUST be forced to lie in it._

          This won't discourage from anything. Rather it's a premature acceptance of the nuke option as a viable instrument.

          Better to say, loud and clearly, that the nuke option violates the Constitution, and as such employing the nuke option is a major breach of the oath taken by those in Congress. And a breach of that oath constitutes grounds for impeachment and removal from office.

          Let's play by established law. It will trump tit-for-tat anytime if you want to keep your integrity and worthiness of commanding office.

          Restore Democracy! Denounce the GOP (George Orwell's Party)!

          by high5 on Mon Oct 17, 2005 at 07:32:20 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I disagree (none)

            The GOP is claiming it IS "Constitutional" and, right now, who is going to argue against that for the Dems?  Scalia?  Roberts?  Thomas?  Miers?  One of the Admin cheerleaders for the "nuke option"?  No.  The GOP can also illegitimately claim that they are merely using their right to change the rules of the new Senate...just a couple years too late but they have all the cards here at the moment.


            If you'd like, if it would make you feel better, the Dems can declare at the START of their next Congress that the nuclear option IS the new rule.  Rather than waiting until the middle of the Congress, the way the GOP did, the Dems do it right off the bat.  They then go ahead and pass through any and every Dem judicial pick over any and all screams of the GOP.  Then, near the end of the Congress, they can ask the GOP Senate members, in the spirit of "comity", if they'd like to see the nuclear option go away.  "Hell yes!" they'll yell, having been hoisted again and again on THEIR petard, and so the Dems go with it but in a manner that leaves the nuclear option as never again legitimate no matter what.  They place it outside the rules that a new Senate can alter.  Make it hard/fast forever more that the nuclear option is out of reach.  Period. The GOP will bite off because they will have been screwed royally and rightfully by their Dem counterparts.  Use it until the people that thought it up cannot tolerate to live in a world wherein it exists anymore and then eliminate it in a manner that precludes it EVER coming back.  They cannot bring it back next time they take control, if ever.

            "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." --9th Amendment

            by praedor on Mon Oct 17, 2005 at 11:19:28 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Oh, yes they can. (none)
              They cannot bring it back next time they take control, if ever.

              They'll find a one way or another just as they did this time to work around the rules.

              Under Clinton they put "holds" on Clinton's nominees to stifle them. This time they're playing with a "nuclear option" to get through theirs.

              Who knows what comes next?

              If the repubs are allowed to invent new rules outside of the established framework every time they want to you're screwed.

              The best way to stop such in it's track is to promise to impeach it's promoters.

              Restore Democracy! Denounce the GOP (George Orwell's Party)!

              by high5 on Mon Oct 17, 2005 at 12:20:13 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Long before Miers gets through the judiciary cmte. (none)

      Fitz will have served up his indictments.  That will put the GOP into full melt-down mode.  Top that with more naughty dealings from Frist coming to light and the pending destruction of DeLay and I don't think the Rethugs have any capital at all come December.  Tack to all the pre-hearings indictments the forcing of Dobson and the two criminal, now-impeachable, judges to testify under oath and I don't see any silver lining for the Rethugs in this at all.

      "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." --9th Amendment

      by praedor on Mon Oct 17, 2005 at 05:14:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Rove never told Dobson anything . . . (none)
    . . . just like he never told anyone about Valerie Plame.

    [The Administration] has just proved that it cannot save its citizens from a biological weapon called standing water. ~Olberman

    by GOTV on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 10:39:38 PM PDT

  •  Don't Forget Rove's Subpoena... (none)
    ...Although he might be a tad busy with other legal issues at that point.
    •  Actually this looks like Rove... (none)
      ... I suspect Rove leaked this to get rid of Miers.  He knew once the pro-Roe majority heard there were assurances given, the nomination would be shot down in committee.

      Or maybe he's just getting even with Dobson by forcing him to get subpoenaed?  

      Or this yet another case where they truly believed they'd never get caught?

      Chaos, fear, dread. My work here is done.

      by madhaus on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 11:19:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Two words: Subpoena Dobson (4.00)
    10 words: "What did he know and when did [Dobson] know it?"

    Damn it, Democrats, act like an opposition party?

    •  SpongeDob and WH advisor Pat Robertson (none)
      Both need to testify under oath.

      (Not testify that Jesus is their Personal Meal Ticket -- that, we already know and fully believe.)
      .

      Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. - Denis Diderot

      by Peanut on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 11:43:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Sent before this Dobson transcript link pasted (4.00)
      Here's a transcript of a 10/11/05 Dobson radio appearance explaining his position on judges, and why this utter fucking loon and this other fucking loon Robertson have demolished the Senate's constitutional advice and consent duty to ensure SCOTUS nominees are qualified and impartial.
      .

      Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. - Denis Diderot

      by Peanut on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 11:45:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Oh brother! (4.00)
    When asked about his comments in the notes I have, Mr. Dobson confirmed some of them and said it was "very possible" he made the others. He said he did not specifically recall the comments of the two judges on Roe v. Wade.

    Yeah, that would slip his mind.  My eyes are rolling so much that I'm in pain.  

    Arrogant lips are unsuited to a fool-- how much worse lying lips to a ruler - Proverbs 17:7

    by Barbara Morrill on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 10:46:16 PM PDT

    •  My dad used to say, (4.00)
      "You can go to Hell for lying just as easily as you can for stealing," and it's a lesson he taught me well. Perhaps Dobson had the wrong father.

      I'm a devout believer in irreverence. - JW -

      by John West on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 11:06:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Dobson, Miller & Reagan (4.00)
      Dobson cannot recall if Roe v. Wade was brought up.  And Judith Miller cannot recall just who she was talking to when she wrote "Valerie Flame" in her notebook, the same notebook she used when interviewing Scooter Libby.

      And the Gipper?  "I cannot recall."

      Uh huh.

      Chaos, fear, dread. My work here is done.

      by madhaus on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 11:07:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  how Rove works (none)

    Interesting to see the Rove MO at work here.  He just gives a little nudge, gets the right people hooked up with each other, and then stands back and watches the gears turn.  And he has plausible deniability all the way.  

    Seems applicable to the Plame case as well.  

    •  Does it really give him deniability? (none)
      The point is that no one is supposed to know.  If they do know does that change the dynamic, or can she still bat her eyes and play coy when her judiciary friends are all insisting they know exacly how she will vote?

      How does that really play on the senate floor?  What happens with the gang of 16?

      •  14. Gang of 14 (none)
        Too late.  Should go to bed.  Can't stop surfing.
      •  Depends (none)
        Couldn't Miers just respond with the same bland 'no one can claim to know how I would vote, not even I will prejudge how I would vote upcoming cases' rhetoric we've been hearing to date?

        It just seems like there is wiggle room for Miers to say these men can't speak for her and Rove to say 'I just suggested talking to some of her friends and colleagues to get to know more about her -- I didn't know what would be asked/said.'

        I doubt it will reassure the conservative base at this point -- they've been left to stew on this too long, and I doubt they are willing to trust third parties if they won't trust the administration.  

        •  They claimed to know (none)
          based on personal knowledge after saying they did not know how she would vote on gay marriage.

          I want to hear from the judges, and her on this as well.

          Sopmeone is lying. Let's start a GOP fight.

          The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

          by Armando on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 11:23:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Just Don't Leave Out Dobson. (none)
            I want to see how articulate he is under some pissed off D questioning. Not to mention the pissed off Rs who fear he is selling their so-called principles down the river.

            Just Doing My Small Part In Pissing Off The Religious Right.

            by chuco35 on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 11:44:55 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The PArty of Dobson (none)
              He's the star always!

              The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

              by Armando on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 11:48:05 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  What about Reid? (none)
                Do you think he is going to get burned over all this, due to his support for Miers, or is it going to be seen as some great Machiavellian plan to get the GOP to eat its own young?  I don't doubt his smiling support of her helped jumpstart their nerves.

                However, that would be a little riskier than I tend to expect from Reid, both in the SCOTUS results and in public perception of his loyalties.

                Is it better for him to be seen as clueless as to Miers' true philosophies by the left, or manipulative and cynical by the right?

    •  where is Rove's plausabile deniability on Plame (none)
      I don't see it ???

      Cooper's notes confirm Cooper's testimony that Cooper learned about Valerie Plame from Karl Rove

      that doesn't look very deniable to me

      check Standard Form - 312, that is a criminal act, and karl can't deny it

  •  filibuster (none)
    plain and simple.  after all, no one, according to Republicans, should have a litmus test for judicial nominations.  and the Republicans apparently do.

    FILIBUSTER

    •  She'll have to get out of committee first (none)
      Which is by no means a safe assumption.

      I am an ILL State Assassin. Legalize Qualo. Those in or around Chicago - listen to Boers and Bernstein on 670 AM The Score 2-6, M-F. You'll be glad you did.

      by Larry Horse on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 10:57:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  but (none)
        i would prepare for one nonetheless.

        FILIBUSTER

        FILIBUSTER

      •  Eh. (4.00)
        If Bolton is any indication, grown men will publically cry while stating that the thought of this nomination succeeding makes them fear for their grandchildren.

        But they'll do so as they cast their "yes" vote to allow her out of committee and into the Senate.

        -- E pur si muove.

        by asdfasdf on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 11:03:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The Play (none)
        I think, is to get Miers to withdraw.  That the WSJ seems to be behind such a position is truly interesting.  Will GWB blink?  Doesn't seem in his nature, but if Rove and others are indicted, he might have to cut his loses.
        •  Sticking point (none)
          George W. Bush has already shown a severe propensity to defend his decisions to the last drop of blood spilled by people who aren't him.

          And if I recall right, he gave a statement to the effect that Miers's nomination would be withdrawn over his dead body.

          Oh, how I wish he'd used those last four words...

          •  Yes, he's like (none)
            the attorney who will fight to your last dollar.

            But I am sure Miers will discover a sick aunt she must care for long before it comes to Bush having to withdraw her nomination.

            He is clearly pathologically incapble of admitting any degree of error.  He is sinless perfection.  How could he be otherwise?  He's already made it clear he has no responsibility to explain himself (that's the funny thing about being president, he said) and that he is directed by the Almighty.

  •  We all know this already, but... (4.00)
    I've mentioned before that I'm (unwittingly) subscribed to Dobson's email list.  I got an email from them today with a transcript of his Wednesday radio broadcast in which he tried to explain this all away.  

    First, the transcript corroborates that these judges were on the conference call (or at least talked with Dobson that same morning):  

    JCD: Well, let me go back through the sequence of events and . . . and explain what happened. The President announced his decision on Monday morning, October 3rd, that Harriet Miers was his selection and the debate was on. And a few hours after that, many conservative Christian leaders were involved in a conference call, wherein some of those men and women were expressing great disillusionment with President Bush's decision and there was a lot of anger over his failure to select someone with a proven track record in the courts. And I came in a little bit late and I caught just a bit of that angst and then I shared my opinion, that Harriet Miers might well be more in keeping with our views than they might think and that I did believe that she was a far better choice than many of my colleagues were saying and that they obviously believed.

    Well, my reasons for supporting her were twofold, John.

    First, because Karl Rove had shared with me her judicial philosophy which was consistent with the promises that President Bush had made when he was campaigning. <snip>

    Then he [Rove] suggested that I might want to validate that opinion by talking to people in Texas who knew Miers personally and he gave me the names of some individuals that I could call. And I quickly followed up on that conversation and got glowing reports from a federal judge in Texas, Ed Kinkeade and a Texas Supreme Court justice, Nathan Hecht, who is highly respected and has known Harriet Miers for more than 25 years. And so, we talked to him and we talked to some others who are acquainted with Ms. Miers.

    (emphasis added)

    Later on, it also confirms that Dobson is liar:

    (Dobson is speaking here.) Senator Leahy was speaking on George Stephanopoulos's program, "This Week" on Sunday, just past. And this is what he said and I quote. This is word for word: "James Dobson has said that he knew privately; he had private assurances of how she would vote." Well, Leahy is either lying or he's given to his own delusions or he's got some problem somewhere, because that's flat out not true.

    Nowhere have I been quoted making such a statement, because it's not true.

    Perhaps Rove didn't tell Dobson directly, but he put him into contact with two conservative judges who it sure seems like did give him "personal assurances of how she would vote"!

    Care to take another stab at it "doctor"?

    Life is like this analogy...

    by shock on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 10:55:53 PM PDT

  •  I'm convinced (none)
    that the "opposition" to Miers (is that really how she spells her...never mind) is just cloak and dagger BS. They're doing the ol' Statue of Liberty play, to mix metaphors. Here's advice to the Democrats straight from your pals at the Rush Limbaugh show:

    "The best advice for the Democrats is just shut up. When the Miers hearings start, be very friendly, be very warm, be very encouraging, don't ask her any controversial questions."

    Yeah, uh huh, so the Republicans can pretend to give her a hard time and then- POW!- all vote to confirm.

    I agree though, be warm and friendly. I'm sure she's a very nice lady, there's no reason not to be. Business is business though- you can be warm and friendly and still hammer away at the fact that she's an ideologically driven crony appointment.

    They try to hide the poverty, but the poverty can't be hidden

    by spelunking defenestrator on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 10:56:09 PM PDT

  •  Hacks! (none)
    All of em!

     I wonder how they really feel about liberating a non-Christian country like Iraq?

    inspire change...don't back down

    by missliberties on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 10:56:18 PM PDT

    •  You have to wonder (none)
      how the other justices on the SCOTUS feel about Miers' nomination.  Here's a lawyer who has no experience in constitutional law (in either adjudication or education), whose most responsible professional responsibilities have been administrative in nature and who is being shilled by a bunch of religious zealots.

      They must be wondering about the credibility of the court by now....

  •  If the agenda for theocratic appointments ... (4.00)
    ... wasn't clear then, what makes anyone think it'll register on our trusty Dems now?

    PRESIDENT BUSH: Yesterday a court in America made a ruling that I want to comment on. America is a nation that is -- a nation that values our relationship with an Almighty. Declaration of God in the Pledge of Allegiance doesn't violate rights. As a matter of fact, it's a confirmation of the fact that we received our rights from God, as proclaimed in our Declaration of Independence.
    .
    I -- I believe that it points up the fact that we need common-sense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God. And those are the kind of judges I intend to put on the bench. [...] (GWB - 06/27/02 Press Appearance with VPutin, G8)

    Are you listening, Patrick Leahy (D-Powder and Puff Still Very Much Dry)?
    .

    Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. - Denis Diderot

    by Peanut on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 10:57:23 PM PDT

  •  What's to be happy about? (none)
    Who's going to be nominated to replace her?

    In troubling times, it's good to read true stories about real people doing good things. HeroicStories, free

    by AllisonInSeattle on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 10:59:39 PM PDT

    •  Oh, and nice diary, thanks (none)
      And I mean it.

      In troubling times, it's good to read true stories about real people doing good things. HeroicStories, free

      by AllisonInSeattle on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 11:00:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Who's Happy? (none)

      The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

      by Armando on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 11:00:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  We can't worry about that now (none)
      We have to fight this fight first.  That fight is another day.  With another nominee.  Who will hopefully be as inarticulate and squinty eyed on camera.
    •  Doesn't matter (none)
      All we can do is find a way to fight it. If this is true there was never anything remotely good or even palatable about Miers.

      The only way we'll get an acceptable nominee from Bush is if we force it.

      I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

      by eugene on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 11:02:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And that's why we fail (4.00)
        We get so gung-ho with LET'S FIGHT NOW! we forget what the next move could be.  Politics is chess, we need to think 3 nominees ahead.  How do we defeat Meyers?  How do we defeat her replacement?  And the person afterwards?

        And how do we learn to defeat them before the person is announced?

    •  Happy? This is almost irrelevant. (none)
      After 215 yeas of secular education in this country - and a devotion to reality on the part of our government that lasted over 150 of them - we get this:

      Museums - museums, mind you:  not educators or politicians or librarians or even unions - are fighting a rearguard, last ditch battle for the truth.  See Yahoo, here:

      http://tinyurl.com/9rzw8

      And what do we get, for the beacon to the world, for the shining example of freedom that will live forever as the moment of perfection that every scholar, every philosopher, every fucking scientist in history has FUCKING DREAMED OF, FOREVER?

      We get this:

      "In a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released last week, 53 percent of adults surveyed said "God created humans in their present form exactly the way the Bible describes it.""

      Oh.  Good morning.

      JF

      Invest in your future - VOTE DIEBOLD!

      by Jaime Frontero on Mon Oct 17, 2005 at 04:13:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Your last line is correct (none)
    My friends, let us have a moment of silence.  The good lady is toast.

    They will force Miers to withdraw if only to avoid the spectacle of puppy-beater Dobson testifying under oath on Capitol Hill on live TV.

    ModestNeeds.org Response For Hurricane Evacuees

    by socal on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 11:02:20 PM PDT

  •  I need more explanation (none)
    In your introduction, you write "judges close to Miers assured him that they had spoken with her about Roe v. Wade "

    Nowhere do you quote from the newspaper article where it says this specific discussion occurred. All the article says is that they knew her personally very well and that they believed that she would overturn Roe v Wade

    To some reading this comment, the difference may be small or non-existent. It is in fact enormous to the real import of what was said in that conversation and the implications of this diary.

    Do you have a quote from the article that confirms your statement? Of course, I very much hope you do.

    New International Times, the place where Kossacks and the world meet.

    by Welshman on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 11:02:38 PM PDT

    •  Here (none)
      Then an unidentified voice asked the two men, "Based on your personal knowledge of her, if she had the opportunity, do you believe she would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade?"

      "Absolutely," said Judge Kinkeade.

      "I agree with that," said Justice Hecht. "I concur."

      On gay marriage they expressly said they never spoke to her about it. On this they were POSITIVE she would overturn Roe.

      The contextual evidence strongly supports the view that they spoke to her personally on the issue.

      The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

      by Armando on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 11:08:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Armando (none)
        You and I might agree that there is every grounds for taking this as being that she will overturn Roe v Wade and that there was no doubt in the minds of the judges based on discussions with her.

        As a lawyer, however, I am sure that you will agree that this is not the same as the judges having said that they have asked her that specific question and she has given that specific response. All that they have said is, in response to a question about what they believe, is that they do believe she will overturn Roe v Wade but make no comment on what grounds they base that belief.

        I am still at a loss to understand how this validates your statement, although fully accept the interest and value of this newspaper report in furthering our knowledge of who is saying what out there.

        New International Times, the place where Kossacks and the world meet.

        by Welshman on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 11:16:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  As a lawyer (none)
          I don't agree with your statement.

          When asked on the same call about gay marriage, these judges demurred, saying they had not discussed it with her.

          On Roe, they did not, unreservedly saying that, based on their personal knowledge, she would vote to overturn.

          I think the evidence quite strong to infer that they had heard her discuss it and say things that led them to believe she would vote to overturn.

          So I completely disagree with you.

          The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

          by Armando on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 11:21:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Why Didn't They Use "Absolutely"... (none)
          when asked about her position on gay marriage? If they were inferring that she would vote to overturn Roe based on their knowledge of her principles, rather than on an explicit statement from her, why not use this same general knowledge of her principles to set out what they understand about her position on gay marriage? Mando's right on this one, IMHO.

          Besides, what's the harm with dragging the Texans and Dobson before the committee to watch them squirm? It'll make for great sport -- a fundie, a federal judge, and Harriet's former squeeze.

          Just Doing My Small Part In Pissing Off The Religious Right.

          by chuco35 on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 11:56:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Excellent point-- (none)
      --and in fact you are quite right; I drew an inference that may not be warranted, based on the vehemence of the judges' words and their evident effect on Dobson: he rushed to the phones to get the implicit word out.  

      It may be suggested, however, that the distinction between "I've talked with her about it and she'll overturn" and "I know her extremely well and have talked with her many times on many subjects and I'm certain she'll overturn" is the sort that is rightly critical in a court of law--but rather less so when it is a question of senatorial judgement.

      I doubt if the Democrats will bet on such nuances--or the Republicans either.  Hence the warming aroma of the toaster.

      New York, 9/11. New Orleans, 8/29. Feel safer now?

      by Leaves on the Current on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 11:11:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I Disagree (none)
        I think your inference well drawn.

        I explain why in my comment in response to Welshman.

        The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

        by Armando on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 11:13:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Armando. we are cross posting (none)
          I fully accept that inferences can be drawn, and without great difficulty.

          I do not accept that it is confirmation that she has been asked her view directly on Roe v Wade and has given a specific answer. Sadly.

          New International Times, the place where Kossacks and the world meet.

          by Welshman on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 11:19:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I think Fund would agree-- (none)
          --since this is how he presents matters in the column:

          Shortly thereafter [after the judges' comments, that is], according to the notes, Mr. Dobson apologized and said he had to leave the discussion: "That's all I need to know and I will get off and make some calls." . . .  The benign interpretation of the comments is that the two judges were speaking on behalf of themselves, not Ms. Miers or the White House, and they were therefore offering a prediction, not an assurance, about how she would come down on Roe v. Wade. But the people I interviewed who were on the call took the comments as an assurance, and at least one based his support for Ms. Miers on them.

          New York, 9/11. New Orleans, 8/29. Feel safer now?

          by Leaves on the Current on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 11:21:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I guess that what I am hoping to hear from Armando (none)
            ..is that a reasonable inference carries as much weight as a direct confirmation on her voting intentions regarding Roe v Wade.

            It may be different in the US compared to the UK.

            If it does carry as much weight, I believe that some Republicans will see this as a serious breach of the "Ginsburg precedent" and a denial of their oft made statements that such a revelation would compromise the ability of a nominee to undertake future work as a Supreme Court judge.

            New International Times, the place where Kossacks and the world meet.

            by Welshman on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 11:33:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Dobson in congress, could be fun (none)
    As for us, I say stick, for now, the sit back and watch a bit longer.  When the hearings are about 2-3 weeks off then we can start judging.  Until then, we can just keep taking notes on everything spilling out of the mouths of angry wingnuts.

    Just hold on a bit longer guys, the time to pounce will be soon.

    P.S.  There are other cases we need to consider beside Roe v. Wade.    Remember those?

  •  Democrats will be wise ... (4.00)
    ... to remain silent on this new "evidence" about Miers. There is a monumental struggle going on among Republicans right now, and it is tearing the conservative base apart. Bush needs Democratic opposition to attack and use to rally conservatives. We need to not give it to him. There is plenty of time for Democrats to weigh in on Miers once the confirmation hearings begin and we know the lay of the Republican land. For now, Democrats need to be patient and stay silent as the Republican factions grab headlines with their infighting and backstabbing, making them look disorganized and sound shrill. Another month of having rightwing pundits bash Bush and Miers is better than anything we can add to the discourse at present.
    •  Are you nuts?? (3.75)
      Dems would be wise to subpoeana every m-fer on that call.

      The GOP war won't stop because of this.

      The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

      by Armando on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 11:04:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think he was talking (none)
        about the general media storm, not the proceedings. Yeah, subpoena everything in sight if it's relevant.

        They try to hide the poverty, but the poverty can't be hidden

        by spelunking defenestrator on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 11:10:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  No, not nuts, clever ... (none)
        Read what I said. Democrats should sit tight UNTIL the hearings, with no comments at all except to say that they are looking forward to the hearings. There will be time to weigh for real and subpoena people as part of the confirmation process. For now, let the Dobsons and Buchanans and whomever rant and rave and wink and nod all they want. The more the public hears them rip each other apart, the better. The more the public sees them winking and nodding, the better.  
        •  Well (none)
          You can't just sit tight. You have to ask for the subpoenas.

          As for the public show, I agree with you. The hearings for the show.

          The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

          by Armando on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 11:18:52 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, (none)
            I believe subpeonas should be issued, and I believe Dems should not articulate any opinions until the hearings.  At that point ample evidence will be available for a voilent and vociferous filibuster.  And I want it to be the filibuster of all filibusters.
        •  Your scenario won't play out (none)
          The only way that the Republicans will tear each other apart is if the Democrats keep the pressure on them.  If we remain silent and respectful of the process until the hearing -- sorta like the way we've been for the last five years (or more) -- it will give the GOP spinners the chance to control their the narrative.  No, we have to charge ahead and keep the pressure on.

          Too clever by half, I think.

          The New York Times: All the news that's fixed to print

          by GOTV on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 11:22:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's the thing though (none)
            They can't control the narrative if one hand doesn't know what the other is doing. Here you have Ann Coulter sniffing at the law school she graduated from and Rush saying "but you guys don't understand...SHE'S A CHICK!", and there you have the social conservatives identifying with her because she's a born-again. And they defend their own, as we all know.

            I don't know, I said earlier that the opposition to her is a dog-and-pony show, but a lot of it seems to be sincere. Bork, for instance, ripped her up.

            They try to hide the poverty, but the poverty can't be hidden

            by spelunking defenestrator on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 11:27:53 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Dems should be saying what a GOOD nom is (none)
            Let the Repugs fight it out but put out their own reminder that judicial impartiality means restoring a clear separation of church and state -- esp. the Republican Nat'l Faith that's being jammed into every nook and cranny of govt.

            I'm sick of hearing how the Big Republican in the Sky put his Idiot Son in the WHite House and told him to invade Iraq and then gun for Iran.

            It's bad enough we news media pump this on high rotation -- do we have to have SCOTUS and other judicial nominees believe that too?
            .

            Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. - Denis Diderot

            by Peanut on Mon Oct 17, 2005 at 12:11:06 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Agreed (4.00)
      This is the part in the movie where the Don listens to Bach's "Cantata No. 140", quietly slurping spaghetti while his enemies tommygun each other down outside his window.

      They try to hide the poverty, but the poverty can't be hidden

      by spelunking defenestrator on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 11:07:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I disagree. (none)
      No.  I know that a lot of the progressive left likes to characterize the current debate on the right as "tearing themselves apart" and "eating their own" and other colorful terms (infighting? backstabbing?), but in many ways what you are seeing is a principled, legal discussion of Miers, from perspectives ranging from legal and judicial philosophy to ideology.  Of course some of the extreme right is agitating due to the extreme issues such as overruling Roe, marginalizing gays, etc., but qualifications and judicial philosophy are the main talking points for most.  This, to the average listener, does not sound like right-wing insanity. It sounds principled. Therefore, for Democrats to stand silent now sends the message that they attack (and groups such as HRC oppose) highly-qualified and experienced judicial candidates such as Roberts but are not particularly perturbed when a crony, unqualified, best friend of the President gets nominated. How is this good?
  •  I'm not so sure the fat lady has sung (none)
    The wingnuts were never happy going against Bush on this, so this might just give them the reason to close ranks that they've been seeking.

    One has to wonder if that could be why John Fund was allowed to get a hold of this little tidbit.

    I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

    by eugene on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 11:04:00 PM PDT

    •  Sure (none)
      But they have drawn their line in the sand on qualifications.

      Now she's qualified?

      Not so easy.

      The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

      by Armando on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 11:05:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh, they change the goalposts all the f'ing time (none)
        You are right that a shift like that would look awkward, but they have done it before.

        On the whole, I'd say the odds now are greater than 50% that Miers' nomination won't survive, but those odds aren't at 100% yet either. Maybe 60.

        I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

        by eugene on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 11:08:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  they still won't like it that he.... (none)
      tried to get it on the cheap.  They wanted swagger and flexing of muscle.  They wanted to be proud.  They wanted to say that Dems are obsessed with special interests.  He left a lot open to Dems if they want to reject her.  She's going to probably get the deer in headlights look more than once.  Then add that it's his White House Counsel, imagine what the pugs would have done to Hillary's former law partner?

      "For the Mardi Gras
      Neo-con domestic shock and awe.."--Rep. Major Owens

      by Cathy on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 11:09:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Good points (none)
        And I think Armando would agree - this confirmation hearing will be fraught with peril for Miers and Bush. One thing the wingnuts might consider, if they've got the brains for it, is just how risky the hearings are going to be.

        I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

        by eugene on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 11:11:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  What's remarkable to me (none)
    is that the WSJ broke this story in such a powerful way.  It shows that there are strong forces on the Right that want to put maximum pressure on GWB to withdraw the nomination.  It'll be interesting to see what happens.
    •  You think it's to pressure them to drop her? (none)
      Or to fall in behind her?  Who leaked it and why?
    •  yeah... (none)
      This all stinks.  Why would this be published by Fund and the WSJ?  I think the right wants her gone and they don't want to be the ones to do it.  This really puts the ball in the court of the Dems.  There will be tremendous pressure from the left to reject her now.  I was much more comfortable when they were eating their own.  Also, my hunch is that the next nominee will be much worse (see Owens, Priscilla).
  •  Let's assume that she's toast. (none)
    Does that mean we are clear or that we have some breathing room?

    I'm not breathing easy because there is nothing in the past to indicate that Bush will work with Democrats to nominate a more acceptable choice the next time.

    Think about it for a moment - the next one may not vote to overturn Roe v Wade but may be more conservative in other areas. We could get Janice Brown who's to the right of Scalia and Thomas.

    Is this what we want?

    Someday, after the forest fire of the Right has died we'll say "Whew, I'm happy that's over."

    by CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 11:08:18 PM PDT

  •  Miers will overturn Roe (4.00)
    . . . and Rove knew



    I'm shocked.

    The New York Times: All the news that's fixed to print

    by GOTV on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 11:13:04 PM PDT

  •  Four letters: H-O-L-D (none)
    No defensible reason for Dobson not to talk now--and unless he does, someone should place a hold on this nomination.
  •  I really hope we can stop her... (none)
    this court seat will really be life or death for a lot of women...
  •  The indictments ... (none)
    ... will insure that the Miers nomination is confirmed. If there are indictments by Fitzgerald that involve Rove and Libby (and perhaps a few others) in the next two weeks, the movement conservatives will understand that the credibility of the entire conservative movement, which is equated with the persona of GWB in the public mind, is in danger of being discredited by corruption at the top, so they will circle the wagons and grudgingly fall in line behind Bush, using the "promise by proxy" to overturn Roe vs. Wade as their face saver for caving in. The movement conservatives cannot be seen as disloyal if the entire conservative movement is threatened.
    •  Unless you believe (none)
      that the indictments will mean that Miers will not be confirmed, because once GWB loses his hold on power the remaining few moderates break rank knowing that their days on the gravy train are over back home unless they vote no.

      This has the wiff of a last minute Hail Mary, and I'm not sure that anyone is certain what the end game is.  

    •  That makes no sense (none)
      IMO.

      The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

      by Armando on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 11:39:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's not about Miers anymore ... (none)
        ... it's quickly becoming a referendum about Bush within the Republican Party. Elected Republicans cannot afford to let Bush go down the drain. If his administration is seriously weakened by indictments, elected Republicans will quickly move to stop the bleeding and rally around the president. In the process of defending Bush, there will be no battle over Miers from Senate Republicans.
        •  Bush Referendum (none)
          and he's gonna win? When the GOP Senators need to get away from in 2006? When he has a job approval of 38?

          As I said, your comment makes no sense IMO.

          The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

          by Armando on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 11:53:08 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Before this is over ... (none)
            ... Senate Republicans will be portrayed as voting for or against God in the Miers confirmation vote, with Bush as his earthly stand in. That's the way the White House is setting this up. That's why we are focused on Dobson right now. That's where the WH wants the focus. When the indictments are handed up, Bush will disavow any wrongdoing and play the righteous victim, with Dobson and Falwell standing by his side, so to speak, and the fundamentalists will buy it. Not too many Republican Senators will dare to take on that combination to vote against a nominee who everyone thinks will overturn Roe vs. Wade.  
    •  I doubt it (none)
      If the indictments come, the conservatives are just as likely to reorganise around a new 2008 poster boy. That they are already tossing their toys out the cot about Miers suggests they are already thinking of Bush as a sinking ship.
  •  So, Chimpy lied some more. (none)
    Hmmm, what a surprise.

    And Rove, oh man what a piece of work.

    "same old fears, same old crimes-we haven't changed since ancient times.." "Iron Hand" Dire Straits

    by boilerman10 on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 11:42:01 PM PDT

  •  either she's toast (none)
    Or every single fucking uterus in this country is toast.  NOT that I am surprised.  I think we all knew what the stakes were last November.
  •  Who'da thunk (none)
    that I would ever thank Dobson for something?  It almost shot circuited  my last synapse.

    The future ain't what it used to be. Yogi Berra

    by x on Mon Oct 17, 2005 at 12:17:42 AM PDT

  •  What the heck has gotten into the Wall Street rag? (none)
    In the same issue, they tear into Judith Miller and reveal graphic details about Dobson's conversations about Miers that could torpedo her nomination. That is the first time they have ever done our side these kinds of favors.

    Its pretty amazing that right now, the WSJ can look more reasonable than the NYT sometimes.

    •  Not Exactly True (none)
      The Wall Street Journal news hole runs some powerful work.  Generally, the editorial page is very pro-Bush and very pro-Republican, but the news section has some great sources, breaks some big news stories, and is much more even handed.
  •  The light of day (none)
    I'm delighted to hear this! One of the best things that could happen to this country is for Dobson to be dragged out from under his rock to testify in daylight - along with his crony Rev's and those sleazy judges. I would love to see them squirm. Specter and Leahy were talking about a subpoena for Dobson even before this new development and this should tip them over.

    I wouldn't jump to any conclusions about how Miers would vote on Roe v Wade on the basis of Fund's column. No one (maybe including her) knows how she would vote and there is no way for these guys to read her mind or predict the future. Hecht is her old friend/boyfriend who has been blabbing wherever he can find an audience, to gain his 15 minutes of fame and support the administration. When confronted, the most he'll say is that she's pro-life but he doesn't know how she'd vote.

    There's an interesting comment from the column that hasn't been discussed here:

    The benign interpretation of the comments is that the two judges were speaking on behalf of themselves, not Ms. Miers or the White House, and they were therefore offering a prediction, not an assurance, about how she would come down on Roe v. Wade. But the people I interviewed who were on the call took the comments as an assurance, and at least one based his support for Ms. Miers on them.

    Far from being a "benign interpretation." it's probably the most factual statement in the piece. Don't know how many people read the whole column, but when Fund tried to fact  check with the judges, Kinkeade wasn't available and Hecht couldn't remember what he said. (Shades of Judy Miller). These guys are judges. They know better than to make prejudicial statements (unless they're trying to torpedo the nomination). This was a Rove psyops to give the Taliban leaders cover with their followers to support the nomination.

    One of my biggest concerns about Miers has been her abysmal taste in men (whether presidents or judges/boyfriends). Can she maintain independence and resist a con job on the Court from someone like Scalia (who apparently can be charming) or Bush (who she seems to have a thing for). If she's ready for the Court, she needs to show it by telling these guys to shove it - that she can speak for herself.

    Apologize for the rant but this stuff drives me to distraction!

    The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. Bertrand Russell

    by Psyche on Mon Oct 17, 2005 at 01:06:01 AM PDT

    •  Dobson would probably love the spotlight (none)
      "Testifying" before a Congressional committee would be seen by him and many evangelicals as the equivalent of St. Paul "testifying" to his faith in front of the Roman governor of first century Palestine.

      And I think the outcome is unpredictable.  Somehow a lot of Americans ended up thinking Oliver North was a national hero after he testified  (and he almost got elected to the Senate --if not for a principled Republican who ran against him in order to split the general election vote in Virginia).

      So be careful what you wish for.

      •  The spotlight (none)
        I agree with you that his followers might be impressed and Dobson does enjoy the spotlight - at least when he controls it.

        A big problem is that the majority of Americans have a superficial knowledge/understanding of him at best. They base their impressions on occasional, carefully controlled TV appearances where he comes across as a rather benign counselor/clergyman. He generally avoids the abrasive rhetoric of a Falwell or Robertson (and a lot of people aren't even aware that he's not a clergyman).

        What he is is a slick business man (~$120 million/year) with a religious NFP veneer and considerable political power because of the votes he can deliver. He's dangerous because he operates under the radar, pushing a bigoted, authoritarian agenda that's not shared by the majority of Americans. One way for them to find out who he is and what he represents is to have him examined in a forum that isn't under his control.

        There are now liberal secular and religious groups that are committed to outing the theocratic agenda and preserving church/state separation. They can help by advising around these sticky issues and firming some backbones if necessary. Will communicate with them to insure they're aware. I believe Clarkson already posts to this site on occasion so suspect he's aware of discussion.

        The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. Bertrand Russell

        by Psyche on Mon Oct 17, 2005 at 08:26:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  A Little Late but... (none)
    ...screw her and Dobson.  Not a very good stealth candidate.  Is this true?

    "Sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield." Orwell

    by roo roo on Mon Oct 17, 2005 at 03:02:01 AM PDT

  •  Harriet is toast...but she deserves a hearing (none)
    Harriet is seriously damanged goods...but she deserves the opportunity to make her case in the Senate...

    http://katrinamemo.blogspot.com/2005/10/meet-new-harriet-miers.html

  •  not even close to toast (none)

    we're talking about 2 "friends" who think that she will vote a certain way. how this implies ANYthing to give substance to her values is completely unclear to me.

    this conversation means nothing except to the wingnuts who think it means something

    "You will determine whether rage or reason guides the United States in the struggle to come. You will choose whether we are known for revenge or compassion. Yo

    by AmericanHope on Mon Oct 17, 2005 at 06:26:05 AM PDT

  •  How can anyone be surprised? (none)
    Of course ... isn't this what Bush meant when he said "Trust me".  When will people learn, nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, is done above board and honorably with this gang.  Religion is a cover for their crimes (just look at the Catholic Church!).  
  •  skeptical (none)
    OK, but really now. What are the odds that subpoenas will be issued as a result of this article?

    "This...this is the fault of that Clinton Penis! And that powermongering wife of his!"

    by CaptUnderpants on Mon Oct 17, 2005 at 07:03:41 AM PDT

  •  office poolthe (none)
    Keep in mind that Fund is part of the wing of the Republican party that desperately wants to kill her nomination.  Wonder who leaked out the notes...

    I'm starting up an office pool.  How long after indictments are handed down does Harriet Miers withdraw her nomination as a candidate for the Supreme Court.  My money is on 29 hours.

  •  Confirming the obvious. (none)
    Is anyone really surprised by Miers alleged views on Roe?

    Her pastor has said: "I've never had a personal discussion with Harriet on that.  But I can tell you that, for 26 years, she's been a member of a pro-life church. We consider the dignity of the human being -- from the moment of conception -- to be a biblical principle. And a legal one, too, since we as Americans are promised `life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.' "

    And Nathan Hecht has been going around since the time of the nomination saying she is pro-life.  It's worth noting that the mere fact Miers dates Nathan Hecht is suggestive of her views given his prominence amongst Texas conservatives.  Check out this article: Who is Nathan Hecht

    Anyone GW appoints is anti-Roe.  But that's not the end all be all of the analysis.

  •  That just can't be. There's no litmus test. (none)
    Our dear president said so.
  •  Dems Need to Fight (4.00)
    Okay - so let me get this straight...

    1. she's bush's personal layer
    2. knows nothing about constitutional law...
    3. not the sharpest knife in the drawer (although I'm sure she's no dummy)
    4. evidently been yapping to someone--about "how" she may vote on roe-v-wade--yet denying it.
    5. Conflict of interest because of her work in the white house...

    Dems need to get a CLUE--stop supporting her just because she MAY have been a splash liberal at some point in her career. She's not good enough, not trustworthy--STOP THIS.

    Dems need to stop this.

    "So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause..."

    by CrazyDem on Mon Oct 17, 2005 at 08:09:57 AM PDT

    •  Yapping (none)
      4. Everything I've been able to find about Miers thus far suggests that while she attends church she doesn't wear her religion on her sleeve and is very private about her views, including with friends and business associates.

      These guys are blowing smoke: the judges to get the religious Rights on board for the nomination and Fund to turn the establishment Rights against the nomination.

      The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. Bertrand Russell

      by Psyche on Mon Oct 17, 2005 at 08:49:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Rove's Last Brilliant Stratagem (none)
    Could this be Rove's last stratagem for the President (before he goes to prison over outing a CIA agent)? If he was out of the loop on the selection of Miers, then perhaps he's trying to redress what he perceives as a misstep by the President in nominating her. To do that, he has deftly enlisted Dobson in his scheme, pointing him to the very people who would undermine her credibility in the most damaging way--by implying that she would pre-judge a case!

    What a stroke of genius! Or luck!

    If he torpedoes Miers, he allows the President to go, "Oh, well. I did my best. So, now I'll just have to pick one of these twenty-five judges that the neocons vetted for me. Boy, the religious right (and the Democrats) better go along, because I'm a sympathetic figure, now."

    Then they'll get their fight over values.

    Is this bad for us? No, I think that fight over values might be just the thing. The one ray of light that came out of the hearings on Roberts was that our senators grilled him on central liberal values, like the right to privacy. By doing that, they started to put into the public consciousness that Democrats have values, too, and that those values are critical to the country.

    Liberal Thinking

    Think, liberally.

    by Liberal Thinking on Mon Oct 17, 2005 at 10:23:40 AM PDT

  •  Update: the White House's comments today (none)
    From today's White House press briefing:

    Q John Fund writes an article today saying that several people on a conference call assured religious conservatives that Harriet Miers would overturn Roe versus Wade. You were going to find out if any member of the White House staff was on that conference call.

    MR. McCLELLAN: That was not a call organized by the White House, and as far as I've been able to learn, no one at the White House was involved on that call.

    Q And is it correct that Karl Rove was the person who asked those two people who made the assurances that sh3 would overturn Roe versus Wade -- that Karl Rove asked them to join?

    MR. McCLELLAN: I think it's well-known that Karl and Dr. Dobson spoke about the nomination and about the process. And they had a good discussion. And Karl talked about individuals who know Harriet Miers well, like Justice Hecht, and said that they would be people that probably would be willing to talk about her.

    New York, 9/11. New Orleans, 8/29. Feel safer now?

    by Leaves on the Current on Mon Oct 17, 2005 at 02:47:11 PM PDT

  •  Move over Falwell (none)
    Dobson seems to know a lot more than he should. He has contacts throughout the government and at many levels and is fast becoming one of the most powerful Christian leaders in America. The Young Turks have some good comments on the problems of his influence (beginning a third of the way thorough the clip):

    Click here to check it out.

  •  Miers=toast (none)
      A reasonable person might assume Miers is done...but neither she or her backers are reasonable people...and even if she falls on her sword,who will be the next fanatic they push into the spotlight?What can the Dems do except mount a two and 1/2 year fillibuster?...or maybe the time is finaly right for impeachment?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site