Anyone else see the Harriett Miers nomination as a bogus/1st nom?

I was sort of expecting this. Seeing how SCJ O'Connor has said that she will stay until someone new is seated, which, unless she stayed the full term (until May or June), would not necessarily be a good thing, because if she leaves in December/January, it would leave the court with several 4/4 ties.

Plus this might be more baiting for "the Nuclear Option" or the "hey, you gonna' block my nominees? O.K. I will nominate Pracilla Owens then..." type strategy.

What do you think? I mean this "...I don't want to play Politics..." WH is one of the most aggressively political WH I've ever known.

take over Congress. Some serious legal problems. And having a justice on the Supremem Court who once called GW Bush the "most brilliant man I'v eever met" will certainly help Bush when the shit hits the fan.

If Bush were planning on nominating someone we'd reject, he could've found a much more controversial person than Miers. In fact, if Miers gets blocked somehow, it's going to be by Republicans, not Democrats.

I definately see her as a potential sacrificial lamb. Wanted to post something earlier but held off for fear of the "tin foil hat" label.

With Roberts, the Dem refrain was "not enought judicial record", and now we get a nom with exactly zero judicial record. Seems to me like that's trying to bait the hook. As I see the scenario, it can go two ways, none being good for the Dems.

Scenario 1: Dems block the nom with a filibuster. Republicans nuke the 'buster and confirm their nominee.
Republicans get: their nominee on the SCOTUS bench, blank check to appoint any whacko they want to any other seat until '06, possibly beyond if they retain control.
Democrats get: Nothing.

Scenario 2: Dems block the nom with a filibuster. Republicans make the magnanimous gesture of removing their controversial nominee (or possibly have to because a few of their own people in committee are suspicious as well) and not using the nuke. They nominate somebody with a long, VERY conservative record (Atilla the Hun with a gavel), highly qualified. Now the Dems are screwed because they can't filibuster. For one, they'll be seen as holding things up for political purposes. One A, their prior arguments - not enough judicial experience - will not be applicable and they'll have to regroup and respin. Problem is: Two, the public will have tired of the ongoing drama by the time this plays out and won't have the patience to deal with it anymore.
Republicans get: uberConservative nominee.
Dems get: Nothing (or worse).

This nominee makes me worry.

Mostly

too rude to dissent on the next nightmare proposed, such as Gonzales The Torturer

to consider that your scenario is correct.

I see a set-up here.

Bush needs poll raitings since the democrats are pulling a head, so this could work and his whole fake Texas accent thing is coming back. :shrug:

Compare and contrast W's introduction of John Robert's to the one that occurred this morning.

Think about their presentation. If Mier's nomination was the real deal, she would have been spiffed up big-time. Softer suit, less flair, softer hair--and well, you can guess what else I'm thinking.

Either the handlers made an enormous mistake or she isn't worth spending their time on.

Edit: it'll be easy to tell who actually read my post and who just read the SL from the replies...

Bush would've definitley get his image people to work on her too. I haven't seen her or anything but I would guess if they really cared about this nominee they would put a lot more effort into it.

announcement, but it's in very stark contrast to the spit and polish of Roberts' nomination. I'll keep looking; it was posted earlier.

The contrast is startling.

...you can even see it with the sound off. They replay the two clips about every 10 to 15 minutes. She didn't even have her coat buttoned up, like the normal, RW wife's usually do.

She has the look she has, just like Justice Ginsburg has the look she has. Folks criticize Ginsburg for looking like she was separated at birth from Dustin Hoffman as Tootsie. Its the big glasses thing. But the fact that she had that particular look hardly suggested the Clinton WH didn't want her to be confirmed.


Hell, Robert Bork looked like a freakin' alien from another planet. But you can rest assured they wanted him confirmed.

onenote

They just play that bait and switch line to get what they want and they know the democrats worry about their image too much. :eyes: Don't they know the people are on their side?

the "sensible" Republicans join in to vote against her....It's all a front, of course. Because then Bush nominates someone even more creepy and the Repugs are all in lockstep again. Someone like Gonzales...video of screaming boys being raped or no. I wouldn't put it past him to pull something along these lines....

It's all totally despicable.

However, if the Democrats had brains AND balls, very hard for them I know, they could use this as part of a campaign AGAINST BUSH and his cronyism so that the American public saw the GOP as the BAD GUYS, and the Democrats as the people trying to save the public from these monsters. Using Brownie and FEMA is one vivid example, but there are others and there is a pattern. Let's not forget Delay. Plus, if Plame indictments come down, they you can add them to the fire.

But Democrats seem not to see the opportunities when they are there. You go after Bush's judgment and WEAKEN HIM as much as possible--and in the process make any questionning of future appointees seem very reasonable and NECESSARY!!

It would be one of their greatest knuckle draggers like Coburn who is concerned about her conservatism.

Miers is going to get 90+ votes.

Thats my prediction.

It makes you look weak. Chimpy nominated Miers precisely for the reason that he is hoping she sails through with 90 plus votes, which he hopes will slow his descent in the polls and help the repugs recover before the 2006 elections. If he nominated someone and lost, his standing in the polls would drop even more sharply.

onenote