Quag-Miers … Bush faces prospect of a humiliating defeat

[kskiska]

As conservative opposition to his Supreme Court nominee stiffens, Bush faces the prospect of a humiliating defeat.

By Michael Scherer

WASHINGTON -- At a Rose Garden news conference last week, President George W. Bush displayed little understanding of the political storm facing his second Supreme Court nominee, White House counsel Harriet Miers. "The decision as to whether or not there will be a fight is up to the Democrats," Bush told reporters. "They get to decide whether or not the special interests will decide the tone of the debate."

The president had it exactly backward. With only 44 seats in the Senate, Democrats have the ability to carp and grandstand, but they have no real power to defeat a nominee, barring the nomination of an ideological zealot who would rally support for a filibuster. Rather, it is the Republican senators and the right-wing special interests who have the power to defeat the president's nominee. And the early signs do not look good for the White House.

(snip)

Republican pundits -- from George Will to William Kristol -- are united in calling for the nomination's withdrawal. Republican senators who recently tried to discourage substantive questioning of Justice John G. Roberts Jr. are now demanding answers from Miers. Leading conservative activists, who said last week that they were resigned to Miers' confirmation, now call her nomination doomed. They are privately sending the message to Republican Senate staff that much of the GOP grass roots will stay home from the polls in 2006 if she reaches the bench.

(snip)

Democrats in the Senate, meanwhile, are patting themselves on the back for their good fortune. Not only did they get a nominee who may turn out to be more moderate than some of the candidates they had feared, but they are now watching the GOP base, which usually marches in lockstep with the party leadership, splinter into acrimonious factions. "I can't find enough popcorn," said one Democratic staffer who works on judicial selection.

more…
http://salon.com/news/feature/2005/10/12/harriet_miers/index.html

[JDPriestly]

1. Don't be fooled.

Miers will be seated, and Democrats will rue the day.

[DefenseLawyer]

2. You may be right

but who can you name that realistically could have been nominated by Bush that you can with certainty say would be better? Not better qualified (I think the judges on American Idol have more experience), but better ideologically. Gonzales, maybe, but he would have faced 10x the heat that Miers is facing. To me, while she is a joke of a nominee, Luttig, Brown, Alito, Garza, Owen, McConnell, pretty much every name I have seen mentioned, are all far more dangerous.

[KC21304]

3. I agree with everything you said.

But wouldn't it be funny if every Republican would vote against and every Democrat would vote for and the Dems would filibuster for and the Republicans would not have enough votes to stop the filibuster ?:rofl:


And the Republicans would use the NUCLEAR OPTION against the nominee of their own President ? It just gets better and better.

[KC21304]

5. I guess I'm getting carried away.

Can you filibuster FOR someone if they are voted down ?

[IntravenousDemilo]

6. "I think the judges on American Idol have more experience", you say...

Come to think of it, yeah, I'd rather see Paula Abdul on the bench. At least she's not a homophobic battle-axe like Harriet Miers.

[JDPriestly]

7. True, True, how right you are. It still makes me sad.

[Vox_Reason]

4. It could be worse...

But any wingnut the chimperor nominates is going to be a reprehensible individual. That's just a given.