A week ago I asked for your bets on what would happen with the Miers nomination. Of those that submitted guesses, Steve came the closest (he hoped she would withdraw but thought Bush would make her see this through) and, not surprisingly, Little Cicero was way, way, way, way off.
Harriet, thanks for playing. We have some lovely parting gifts for you. Don't let the door smack your ass on the way out.
He doesn't read my blog and he didn't enter my contest, but the Washington Post's Charles Krauthammer called this one exactly right. In an editorial entitled, "Miers: The Only Exit Strategy," Krauthammer advised the President to create an irreconcilable difference over the release of internal White House documents critical to the proper evaluations of Miers' nomination.
And indeed, the New York Times reports this morning, "President Bush...blamed her withdrawal on calls in the Senate for the release of internal White House documents that the administration has insisted were protected by executive privilege."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Miers cited the White House documents as her reason for withdrawal:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/27/AR2005102700680_pf.html
To Steve: I think he will pick another woman.
Yeah, but it's still a smokescreen. This was the nail in her coffin: "When science determines the facts, and decisions vary based upon religious belief, then government should not act. The more I think about these issues, the more self-determination makes the most sense. Legislating religion or morality we gave up on a long time ago."
I guess people were wrong; she is smart!
Will the next nominee arrive in time for the midterm elections? Will the result of the midterm elections determine whether or not the next nominee will be confirmed.
I think we've finally seen it, Bush has actually bent over and inserted his head into his own hole. What a sight.
Read my post on my true feelings about this
She was not the best candidate, I know, but she should have been put through the process. This is not necessarily good for democracy that the right-wing media has aquired such influence. However, it's for the best. I didn't think I could respect Krauthammer anymore than I do right now, but really, I'm bittersweet on this. She was a good candidate, but an affirmative action candidate, therefore not the best available. Hopefully the next nominee will be easier to defend than Miers, because I'm getting tired on this subject. I've explained the strict constructionist angle 20 times, so I'm ready to defend something easier...like Pat Robertson (Lots of Laughs!)
To Esther, I think he will pick the right man or woman for the job. He has learned a hard lesson about what happens when we apply affirmative action to the highest court in the land (i.e. Ginsberg, O'Connor, Miers). My guess, this will be the most Robertsesque male judge that he can find. Whoever it is, he or she will still be a Constitutionalist...make no mistake!
LC: How dare you imply that nominating a female justice means that it must have been due to affirmative action? Ginsburg was the top of her class in lawschool and is an extremely intelligent justice. Furthermore, there are many women justices who are just as good as Roberts. Miers is excellent at what she does, but it is not constitutional law.
She was chosen because she was a woman.
She was also an excellent attorney, an extremely intelligent woman, and a strict constructionist.
Foremost, however, you must aggree that she was chosen because she was the only female candidate that Bush knew and trusted.
This is affirmative action. Ginsberg would be too partisan by today's standards had she been a man. She was an ACLU lawyer, and perhaps a good one, but her sex gave her credibility. Miers was deficient in many areas, but her age gave her enough credibility to be nominated.
The affirmative action issue is sensitive but interesting and relevant, actually. Poor Miers, I really do sympathize with her. I believe she was in fact selected first because she was a woman, second because she was evangelical, and third because it was anticipated that she would be on the side of the White House in future Constitutional issues regarding executive privilege.
Affirmative action may be the one instance where the end justify the means. If the court were more gender-balanced, then yes, we could look for the best justice out there without regard to gender. But to achieve that balance, we've got to get more women on the court. I don't think we should reject a good male nominee, but I think the short list should be topped by qualified women for now.
I nominate Judge Judy.
The best is if Bush could find himself a God-fearing conservative black female candidate from the South.
Wait, that's Condi. But alas, she's got no judicial background. But hey, if you can put a PhD with a Russian politics background in charge of Middle Eastern issues, why not have her have a go at constitutional law. I know Condi's smart and a quick study.
Somebody asked this morning, did I think because of the uproar W. created with the nomination of Miers, that she was 'pursuaded' to withdraw, and was handed a piece of paper with her withdraw statement on it to release to the public. It sounded plausible to me, and with this administration, anything's possible.
If the ends are to justify the means, we should percieve the most crucial end as being a court with the best of justices, regardless of race or sex. The means, then, would be a colorblind approach. Justice is blind, correct. Does justice know or care whether its purveyor is a black woman or a white man? I think not! Justice cares whether its purveyor is just!
Post a Comment