Think Miers might be moderate? No chance.

When it comes to nominating a SC justice, what do you think are the prerequisites for the White House? Obviously they want someone with a low profile, with little or no judicial record.

And they want someone on the bench who belongs to them completely. Do you suppose the administration would EVER nominate a moderate without having tight control over that person? No, it’s not how they operate. I feel certain that the White House has pictures of Roberts with boys and documentation on Miers’ embezzlement from the Texas lottery.

Those are, of course, hypotheticals. But the administration almost certainly has information similar to my examples. Normally, there would be nothing to stop Miers or Roberts from becoming flaming liberals once they get on the bench with lifetime appointments. That’s why they have to hedge their bets with compromised candidates. There will come a day when the admin needs a vote to go this way or that. They need to know that their justices will vote the way they’re told, no matter what the personal opinions of said justices on any given case.

It may well be that Miers and Roberts will come right out of the gate as rabid right-wingers; they probably will. But if they one day have a change of heart, I'm sure there are provisions to cover such an occurrence.

This is the sort of thing the Mafia does, and the Bush family is much more lowbrow than the Mafia, and just as thuggish. Their nominees are bought and paid for.

for two days now. They know these people personally and professionally and with Miers for decades. There are no surprises here. This is about POWER and about BUSH* and his ilk maintaining power.

Agree.

When I saw James Dobson singing her praises on FOX News...

So is Roberts.

The Senate Dems have fallen for the oldest trick in the book. TWICE!

How do you fight something on the grounds of "I just KNOW they're an extremist! I can't prove it for sure, but I just KNOW it"? You can't. It doesn't work.

Or, you do what the Repugs do, you make something up to keep the fillibuster going.

If the Repugs play rough and do the nuclear option, you up the ante.
Let them play rough. Try to get that funding bill through Congress without any Dem help, or Dem votes. Don't ever ask for something that needs a 2/3 majority; you won't get it. And since the Repugs are so insistent on following proper procedures, don't bother asking for any acclamation votes.

Now, let's see how you like it.

You may or may not remember this, but 62 million people voted for Bush, meaning 62 million people are more than willing to side with Bush on the nomination. A blanket "no" without a damn good explanation is not going to help sway some of those people over to our side. A blanket "no" without a damn good explanation would be justification in the eyes of most for using the nuclear option. Sorry, but that ain't gonna work at all.

But other than that, I know that my scenerio was a bit far fetched. It was as much rant as it was strategy.

You can't use any other those suppositions in actually fighting her nomination. The plain truth is we've got almost nothing on her so far. Until that changes, we don't have a fight.

I never made any claims that this notion would keep her from being confirmed.

that maybe...just maybe...we won one for a change? There was a choice to make; appoint a woman (and we all know it was going to be a woman I think) with solid, provable conservitave credentials such as Janice Rogers Brown or Priscilla Owens and setup a Senate showdown, or appoint someone that the opposition wouldn't oppose so much, and may even outright support, as in Miers.

For once, perhaps Bush took note of pathetic polling numbers for his own popularity, for the hurricane non-response, for the Iraq quagmire, and didn't want to risk the slightest chance of having a nomination Borked. Rather than risk a fight...which in the cold reality of this all, he probably would've won...Bush blinked, and pandered.

It would be quite naive to think that maybe we won one. They've never, ever, ever, ever given an inch until just after the last moment when they absolutely had to.

Why would this be any different?

Naive is thinking that there's conspiracy around every corner.

conservative. He would make sure of that in their interviews. I can't imagine Roberts taking the same approach with Bush that he took stonewalling the Senate.

The only qualifications that Bush cares about is that they are RW ideologs and that they have very little paper trail to let the Senate know what they are rally like. And Rove is coaching them well on how to say nothing during the Senate confirmation hearings.

Bush Sr. nominating Clarence Thomas was a huge game - where he selected someone in order to "stick it" to the Dems.

Jr. nominated two people with no records in order to "play" with the Dems. It's so pitiful that they have to play games with important appointments. Other Presidents seem to have chosen people who they think are quality people and have taken it seriously with concern for the future of the country.

It just shows what type of egocentric character the two Bush's have. Running this country is just one big game to them. It's an "ego" thing - where the world just revolves around them. They could care less about anyone else.

That's the big difference between them and Clinton. You could tell that Bill Clinton truly cared about people.

no bid contracts, Tom Delay, Abramoff, Karl Rove, Rash Limabugh, Sean Hannity, Fox network, wars by lies.....on and on.

I doubt this bunch would have nominated anything but one of their own.