Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Miers WithdrawsFollow

#1 Oct 27 2005 at 8:46 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Chicago Tribune wrote:
Embattled Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, criticized far more harshly from the conservative right than from Democrats as unqualified for the nation's highest court, withdrew her nomination, President Bush announced on Thursday.

"Today, I have reluctantly accepted Harriet Miers' decision to withdraw her nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States," the president said in a statement.

The announcement comes just as the White House is also bracing for possible indictments in the long-running investigation of the CIA leak case. With the president's approval ratings near all-time lows, it had become clear that the Bush Administration simply did not have enough strength to fight so many battles at once.

"I nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court because of her extraordinary legal experience, her character, and her conservative judicial philosophy," Bush said. "Throughout her career, she has gained the respect and admiration of her fellow attorneys. She has earned a reputation for fairness and total integrity. She has been a leader and a pioneer in the American legal profession. She has worked in important positions in state and local government and in the bar. And for the last five years, she has served with distinction and honor in critical positions in the Executive Branch."

Those words of praise belied a growing feeling on Capitol Hill, fueled by an extraordinary backlash from conservatives, that Miers' nomination was doomed. "I understand and share her concern, however, about the current state of the Supreme Court confirmation process," Bush said. "It is clear that Senators would not be satisfied until they gained access to internal documents concerning advice provided during her tenure at the White House - disclosures that would undermine a President's ability to receive candid counsel. Harriet Miers' decision demonstrates her deep respect for this essential aspect of the Constitutional separation of powers - and confirms my deep respect and admiration for her."
[...]
Word of Miers' withdrawal spread swiftly across Capitol Hill today as staff members passed around their Blackberry devices containing an e-mail bulletin of the announcement. As Sen. **** Durbin (D-Ill.) was speaking to the weekly breakfast for Illinois constituents, an aide whispered the news into his ear.

"Harriet Miers has just withdrawn," Durbin told to the crowd. "She was supposed to turn in her questionnaire last night, but it didn't show up."

"Folks," he added, "this is an interesting town."

Durbin, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, had met with Miers and expressed concern about her nomination to the Supreme Court.

While some of those gathered in the audience applauded, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) cautioned Democrats to be careful what they wished for.

"For those who were concerned that Harriet Miers was too conservative, you should not be too sanguine about this," Obama said.

Among those who have been known to be under consideration are federal appeals court judges Michael Luttig and Samuel Alito, and Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales.


Edited, Thu Oct 27 10:00:24 2005 by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2 Oct 27 2005 at 8:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Figured that was coming. Watch him nominate Ashcroft now.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#3 Oct 27 2005 at 9:27 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
644 posts
I think she was a patsy, honestly. Designed from the start to take heat and drop out before the real nominee gets nominated.
____________________________
I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked, dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix, angelheaded hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection to the starry dynamo in the machin ery of night.
#4 Oct 27 2005 at 9:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Grady wrote:
I think she was a patsy, honestly. Designed from the start to take heat and drop out before the real nominee gets nominated.
Now when Ashcroft is nominated and the Democrats balk, the Pubbies will blame the Miers withdraw on the Left and say the Left is obstructing the process by refusing to confirm anyone!

[/Gbaji Conspiracy Theory Mode OFF]
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#5 Oct 27 2005 at 9:30 AM Rating: Decent
*****
10,755 posts
Cut and paste an entire article and no commentary?


You feeling ok Joph?
#6 Oct 27 2005 at 9:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
It was a long article and I know you guys don't have enough attention span for both.

Did you even read the entire article? Even my cropped versions?

Didn't think so Smiley: grin
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#7 Oct 27 2005 at 9:35 AM Rating: Decent
*****
10,755 posts
If it was written correctly the introduction and the conclusion should summarize all of the important facts.

Don't blame me for not reading it. Blame those liberal bastards at the Chicago Tribune for not writing well. Smiley: mad
#8 Oct 27 2005 at 10:15 AM Rating: Good
*****
14,454 posts
Funny that she withdrew today after being asked to be more specific in her questionarre. I actually wondered when I heard that tidbit on the news yesterday if she would indeed redo it or withdraw.
#9 Oct 27 2005 at 10:18 AM Rating: Excellent
The man who started it all!
***
1,635 posts
"Failed 1987 Supreme Court nominee Judge Robert Bork said: "I think it was appropriate. She was not -- I didn't think, a lot of people didn't think -- really qualified. I think we all have to have some sympathy for her because she was thrust into a position as a nominee she shouldn't have been put in, and as a result, got rather beaten up in the press and elsewhere."

Wow Borked by Bork himself.
____________________________
[wowsig]1855[/wowsig]
#10 Oct 27 2005 at 10:19 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I doubted she was going to make it to the hearings unless she started to get some solid support from the Right. I guess it was more graceful to bow out now and place bi-partisan blame for the Senate potentially wanting her records than it would have been to watch her crash and burn in the hearings when she didn't get Republican backing.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#11 Oct 27 2005 at 10:22 AM Rating: Good
I thought maybe her withdrawal was designed to take news time away from the indictments that were schedule to handed down today.

Just a thought.
#12 Oct 27 2005 at 10:24 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
More likely the indictments (if any) will blow over the news of her withdrawl. My opinion anyway but I think more people will see indictments against administration officals as more interesting news than some old lady they'd never heard of until three weeks ago leaving the spotlight.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#13 Oct 27 2005 at 10:33 AM Rating: Good
Drama Nerdvana
******
20,674 posts
Newsbytes from Tomorrow wrote:
On Monday President George Bush named the new head of FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency), Harriet Miers. When questioned about her lack of experience in the the field of emergency planning or disaster relief President Bush frowned and after a prolonged silenced period of questioningly looking at the sky responded "heh heh, no experience with disaster? She has plenty of experience why just look at her failed bid to be on SCOTUS". Despite further grilling George Bush stood behind his nomination for head of FEMA citing her long track record in for "liberty" "peace" and equality~ness".

In other news shortly after the press conference the terror level was raised to ultra super bright red, the newest and highest terror threat level.
____________________________
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
#14 Oct 27 2005 at 10:36 AM Rating: Good
****
4,596 posts
Well maybe now he can nominate his gardener or possibly whoever does his hair
____________________________
Nicroll 65 Assassin
Teltorid 52 Druid
Aude Sapere

Oh hell camp me all you want f**kers. I own this site and thus I own you. - Allakhazam
#15 Oct 27 2005 at 11:11 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I doubted she was going to make it to the hearings unless she started to get some solid support from the Right. I guess it was more graceful to bow out now and place bi-partisan blame for the Senate potentially wanting her records than it would have been to watch her crash and burn in the hearings when she didn't get Republican backing.


Dubya's in an interesting spot now. He proposed Miers because 1) he likes and trusts her; 2) she's female; and 3) he calculated, wrongly, that she would be acceptable to both sides. Now the right has let him know, in no uncertain terms, that only an ironclad conservative is going to be acceptable to them.

There are candidates who are eminently qualified and possibly could garner bipartisan support, but they're all white males as far as I know. So now he's in the unenviable position of looking like a chauvinist, or having his next candidate wrangled like a crippled steer.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#16 Oct 27 2005 at 2:11 PM Rating: Good
Guess I need a new lame avatar.
#17 Oct 27 2005 at 2:17 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,784 posts
Obviously she was too 'Miered' in her own controversy.




#18 Oct 27 2005 at 2:18 PM Rating: Good
RedjedBlue wrote:
Obviously she was too 'Miered' in her own controversy. Wokka wokka wokka.




ftfy
#19 Oct 27 2005 at 3:49 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
Tribune wrote:
"I understand and share her concern, however, about the current state of the Supreme Court confirmation process," Bush said. "It is clear that Senators would not be satisfied until they gained access to internal documents concerning advice provided during her tenure at the White House - disclosures that would undermine a President's ability to receive candid counsel.


That is really funny, because just 3 days ago I read this Op-Ed in the Tribune by Charles Krauthammer:

Quote:
We need an exit strategy from this debacle. I have it.

U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has been a staunch and public supporter of this nominee. Yet on Wednesday he joined Brownback in demanding privileged documents from Miers' White House tenure.

For a nominee who, unlike John Roberts Jr., has practically no previous record on constitutional issues, such documentation is essential for the Senate to judge her thinking and legal acumen. But there is no way that any president would release this kind of information--"policy documents" and "legal analysis"--from such a close confidante. It would forever undermine the ability of any president to get unguarded advice.

Which creates a classic conflict, not of personality, not of competence, not of ideology, but of simple constitutional prerogatives: The Senate cannot confirm her unless it has this information, and the White House cannot allow release of this information lest it jeopardize executive privilege.

Hence the perfectly honorable way to solve the conundrum: Miers withdraws out of respect for both the Senate and the executive's prerogatives, the Senate expresses appreciation for this gracious acknowledgment of its needs and responsibilities and the White House accepts her decision with the deepest regret and with gratitude for Miers' putting preservation of executive prerogative above personal ambition.

Faces saved. And we start again.


#20 Oct 27 2005 at 5:04 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Prince pickleprince wrote:
I thought maybe her withdrawal was designed to take news time away from the indictments that were schedule to handed down today.

Just a thought.


Yeah. I'm leaning this way as well. I don't think Bush knew for sure what was going to be going on specifically, but when he began the appointment we already could clearly see the DeLay case heating up, and the investigation into the Plame outting coming as well. Not to mention he'd just been thrashed over Katrina.

I kinda think she was a media "floater". Just tosses her out there and lets her soak up media cycles. While I agree with Joph that other issues will overshadow her, if her controversial nomination hadn't been out there, there would have been *more* media focus on those other things. Let's face it. I don't think there are too many people approaching this as a "failed nomination" in the traditional sense. I think the biggest response on both sides right now is relief that she withdrew. The timing of the withdrawal was pretty good in that Bush doesn't really lose anything as a result of the process, which futher bolsters the idea that her nomination was about media distraction.

It'll be a few days before the media switches from "Oh thank god!" mode into questioning why he nominated her in the first place, and *that* will get overridded by the Plame investigation report.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#21 Oct 27 2005 at 8:36 PM Rating: Decent
The Glorious Lubriderm wrote:
Guess I need a new lame avatar.


Well, you can await the next nominee. Let's just see when the next major contraversay strikes or any of the simmering ones heat up.

Anyone else recall the talk about Bush nominating Roberts to deflect the heat - perhaps the most serious heat I've ever seen from the white house press corps - when they decided to stop anserwing questions about the Rove thing, the first time?
#22 Oct 27 2005 at 10:50 PM Rating: Decent


Edited, Fri Oct 28 00:05:29 2005 by fishermanbmr
#23 Oct 28 2005 at 8:59 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
I kinda think she was a media "floater". Just tosses her out there and lets her soak up media cycles.
Republican or Democrat, I'd hope to God that the president would treat the Supreme Court with more care than to toss out unqualified people just to see what happens.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#24 Oct 28 2005 at 9:04 AM Rating: Excellent
Nexa
*****
12,065 posts
Quote:
Republican or Democrat, I'd hope to God that the president would treat the Supreme Court with more care than to toss out unqualified people just to see what happens.


Well it's not like it would have been his idea...I'm pretty sure he doesn't have any.

Ok, I'm kidding, I don't think he's an idiot. I'm just frequently reminded of the Manchurian Candidate when I look at him.

Nexa
____________________________
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.”
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
#25 Oct 28 2005 at 4:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
I kinda think she was a media "floater". Just tosses her out there and lets her soak up media cycles.
Republican or Democrat, I'd hope to God that the president would treat the Supreme Court with more care than to toss out unqualified people just to see what happens.


I agree completely. I don't think that a Supreme Court nomination should be used like that. But given the volume of dirty pool going on right now, this one seems positively mild...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 222 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (222)