WP: Conservative Split Could Give Democrats Key to Miers Vote

[Pirate Smile]

Conservative Split Could Give Democrats Key to Miers Vote

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 16, 2005; Page A01

The conservatives' noisy split over the Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination has largely obscured the fact that Senate Democrats could control her fate in a way that was never possible in the confirmation battle over Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

While the turmoil on the right offers Democrats a tantalizing opportunity, party strategists said, it also will confront them with a difficult choice: Confirm a conservative with close ties to President Bush, or oppose her and join ranks with hard-right activists who historically are their arch enemies.

For now, Democrats and liberal groups have been content to stay mostly quiet and watch Bush tangle with a restless corps of usually supportive conservatives who oppose Miers's nomination. But with Senate Judiciary Committee hearings beginning next month, Democrats acknowledge they will eventually have to move off the sidelines and begin making a case for or against the president's personal lawyer and White House counsel.

That decision will be far more difficult -- and decisive -- if the conservative schism persists and prompts a handful of Republicans ultimately to oppose Miers's confirmation. If six of the Senate's 55 Republicans do so, the nomination would fail if all 44 Democrats and the chamber's Democratic-leaning independent also voted nay.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/15/AR2005101500910.html

[napi21]

1. If ONE Pub votes against her in the committee, she won't

get out of committee! Wouldn't Shrub be pissed about that!

[Goldeneye]

10. They can't do that...

she deserves an "up or down vote" just like Bolton. It's only fair.

[napi21]

17. That's an up or down vote....

it's just on wether to vote her out of committee or not!

I think that would be the funniest outcome of any possible!

Then again...WHO would Shrub come up with next? :scared:

[illflem]

2. Then again...

could the next bush appointment if Hairy is rejected be even worse but acceptable to the reps?
Should the dems accept Miers knowing that it's best we might get?
I personally really don't know.

[spindrifter]

3. That tips it to us

We absolutely must make our Democratic Senators and Reps. understand that we do not want Miers and why we don't want her. They need to know absolutely that we cannot support a Supreme Court nominee who is a crony with questionable competence. It really does not make any difference what your personal belief about Roe v. Wade is. Miers has mediocrity--or worse--written all over her. The people deserve a Supreme Court justice who knows the Constitution and someone who is free from the taint of the Executive Branch.

[babylonsister]

5. Well said, and I agree! nt

[VegasWolf]

7. Don't agree. Bush will be nominating the next one too. If he names one

next time that the bible whackers all agree on, we could be totally hosed. This simply reverts to the question of whether we are better off with an unknown or the next choice which will undoubtedly be much better known. Do you want door #1 or door #2?

[expatriot]

9. agreed. we can't give Bush the chance to "correct" his mistake. nt

[spindrifter]

11. It's not a "you get one-I get one proposition.

The next appointee gets the same scrutiny and the same negative vote if he or she is found wanting. I must say--of the known possibilities out there, at least it would be somewhat easier to predict what they will be like on the bench. The troubling thing about Harri is that we don't know what she will do when B*sh is gone. Who rings her bells then?

[JerseygirlCT]

14. It also allows us to flex a few muscles

while doing the right thing. I have a feeling once we do that, it would be more difficult for him to get a far-right nut through.

[VegasWolf]

15. So, who will ring door #2's bell? Bush won't make the same mistake

twice, he will pick one that the bible whackers LOVE and SUPPORT.My guess anyway!

[mom cat]

24. Well, we know who rings her chimes.

[JerseygirlCT]

13. That's it exactly. If we can step away from the politics

(and I know it's hard -- the idea kills me) and start with basic qualifications, she fails the test. And ultimately, the job of those we've sent to WDC is to at the very least insure qualified people are appointed to these positions.

We don't have to get into Roe or anything else -- before that part of the conversation comes up, she fails the first and most basic test of competency. And refusing to appoint incompetents will resonate quite nicely with the American people right now, I'd guess.

[mamalone]

28. ABSOLUTELY!

It is all about competency and independence of thought...not ideology.

[Demoiselle]

4. If it comes out of committee, All Dems should vote no.

Enough of this "maybe she's not so bad" nonsense. The Bushies should be soundly trounced and embarrassed.

[ticapnews]

6. Reject her, and fight the next one...

If Miers doesn't get confirmed, it will be a body blow to this Administration. It is unlikely Shrub would try to rush through a nominee before Christmas (a vote on Miers might not come until Thanksgiving, or later) which means he is nominating someone in a midterm election year, and without any political capital. If he chooses a fire-breathing Constructionist the moderates MIGHT toe the line with Democrats and defeat the next nominee. If he chooses someone more moderate, the fundies will go nuts again and we'll be right back where we are today.

Of course, that all depends on the fundy nuts in the Senate rejecting Miers. If they are reassured that Griswold is history (it isn't all about Roe, people) they will support Miers.

[ErisFiveFingers]

25. If it's about Griswold...

That's pretty much got the same legal foundation as Lawrence v. Texas, which Rhenquist. Scalia, and Thomas all dissented with... O'connor, as swing role, made it a 6/3 decision, but wouldn't even a raw Constructionist only swing the vote to 5/4?

(I'm still figuring out the swings, my apologies if I'm confused..)

[ticapnews]

26. The ultimate goal is for CJ Roberts to be able to write the phrase...

"There is no inherent right to privacy in the Constitution."

If they can find (or create) a case which will ally Roberts, Thomas, Scalia and O'Connor's replacement they need only one other vote - either from Kennedy or from Stevens' replacement.

Once the right to privacy is removed, Roe is obsolete. With no privacy rights I fear our federal intelligence agencies will make the Stazi and KGB look like rank amateurs.

[ToolTex]

8. Scuttle her. Bush may not be around to select another.

Bush needs her on the court to keep him from swinging for treason. Play for time for the wheels of justice and impeachment to stir the brew.

[VegasWolf]

12. There's no reason to believe the next one won't be in place long

before Bush meets his just rewards.

[gasperc]

16. let him spend a year nominating justices

and the democrats should keep blocking them right up until the 2006 election

[Metta]

18. Vizualize her not coming out of committee.

Hey, whatever works.

[belle]

19. I think they should all abstain. Take the day off.

Let the R's fight it out amongst themselves.

[jefferson_dem]

20. Split on Right a Chance, Choice for Democrats (Miers Vote)

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 16, 2005; Page A04

The conservatives' noisy split over the Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination has largely obscured the fact that Senate Democrats could control her fate in a way that was never possible in the confirmation battle over Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

While the turmoil on the right offers Democrats a tantalizing opportunity, party strategists said, it also will confront them with a difficult choice: Confirm a conservative with close ties to President Bush, or oppose her and join ranks with hard-right activists who historically are their archenemies.

<SNIP>

Jim Jordan, a former presidential campaign manager for Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), agrees that Democrats will have plenty of reasons to oppose Miers, but he said some worry that Bush might replace her with a more forceful and effective conservative. "Even though she's undoubtedly a mediocrity," he said, "philosophically she's probably the best they can do."

Jordan added: "If the Republicans splinter, as looks likely now, the Democratic caucus will be in the bizarre position of having to decide whether to bail Bush out." The choice will not be easy, he said. "From a purely political standpoint, they'll have to decide whether to add to his humiliation," Jordan said. A Miers rejection, however, would allow Bush "a do-over" that could improve his relations with his conservative base.

<SNIP>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/15/AR2005101500910.html

[FloridaPat]

21. Decide to bail * out? Where is the opposition party? This nomination

is a joke. The joke is on the American people. The joke is on the government. Is there no one in Washington with concern about the US and the American people? Just * reputation?

[NashVegas]

22. Doesn't Matter - Dems Must Filibuster

Everyone Bush puts forward between now and the Fitzgerald indictments.

[VegasWolf]

23. One scenario, reject the incompetent Miers, bush nominates Janice

Rogers Brown, the Democrats filibuster, the Republicans invoke the nuclear option, Janice Rodgers Brown is confirmed for the Supreme Court.

[Barrett808]

27. Seems like the Demo's priority should be to drive the wedge

Which decision is more likely to exacerbate the GOP split?

[lakemonster11]

29. I agree that Miers might be better than his next appointment

(the key word being *might*), but I don't see how anyone, Democrat or Republican, could vote for her in good conscience.

She's just not qualified.