More on Why Neocoms Reaction on Miers is a Hoax

David Broder of The Washington Post interviewed Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society. Important read on why we should all be opposing Miers' confirmation.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/05/AR2005100501940.html


The first thing Leo said was that Miers's statement accepting the nomination from Bush was significant to him. "It is the responsibility of every generation to be true to the Founders' vision of the proper role of courts in our society . . . and to help ensure that the courts meet their obligations to strictly apply the laws and the Constitution," she said. "When she talked about 'the Founders' vision' and used the word 'strictly,' " Leo said, "I thought, 'Robert Bork,' " Ronald Reagan's Supreme Court pick, who was rejected by the Senate after a bitter fight. "She didn't have to go there. She could simply have said, 'Judges should not legislate from the bench.' But she chose those words."

I asked if he was surprised that she did -- or whether it was consistent with what he knew of her judicial philosophy. He replied: "I'm not surprised that's what she believes. I'm surprised her handlers let her say it."

As for the fight within the bar association, Leo said that he and Miers and their allies argued that it was "inappropriate" for the organization to endorse Roe "when there are doubts about the legitimacy of the underlying legal doctrine."

Was she opposed to the Roe decision? I asked. "That was not the issue. The only way to fight this within the ABA was to talk about the process" by which the endorsement was made. "It took a lot of courage to be out front on that issue" within the bar association, "especially for a woman."

that she was on the "short list" the Dems presented to GWB?

Frankly, I don't think she has a chance of being confirmed.

I mean, the righties are all sounding alike, just like any other time they get their talking points handed to them . . .

"Let's pull a fast one on the left - let's look like we HATE her! That will convince those STOOOPID liberals to root FOR her!"

I ain't buyin', I ain't drinkin' . . .

They wanted a known quantity, not a question mark. They are really PO'd.

just magically appeared in the masses' minds coincidentally at the exact same moment . . .

and the "unorchestrated" attack on a comment comparing Abu Ghraib & Gitmo tactics to what you might expect from reports of Russia or Germany . . . yeah, those all just occurred spontaneously . . .

.... who are rooting for her. But after listening to Richard Vigurie and some other folks in a taped interview yesterday, I no longer think this is a charade.

They are really pissed, and they are not criticising Miers so much as they are criticising Bush. If it were a charade, they'd be dissing Miers and leave Bush some cover.

My belief is this: the right wing has been working towards this day for 30 years. They assumed that Bush would appoint a slam-dunk anti-RvW person whom they'd have no doubts about. They cannot fathom why Bush would appoint someone they basically know nothing about, and they have not forgotten how Souter turned out.

They feel betrayed and they are pissed. All I can say to them is "welcome to my world".

was not bloody likely to ever allow abortions. As he put it, ask any Evangelical minister to counsel you "now that you want to have an abortion." You would be extremely hard pressed to find one to say "If you feel that's your only option, then yes."

Schultz also played a clip from Bush's speech the other day, saying that he's "pro-life" and that he knows Miers' heart.

This stinks to high heaven (pun intended) like a setup . . . Bre'r Rabbit shouting "Oh, please, don't throw me in that there briar patch . . ."

Would you rather have Janice Rogers Brown or Roy Moore? Tell us, who did you think that this corrupt pResident would pick?

be better than Brown or Moore when there are no legal opinions out there to review?

Think about it...

I doubt there is any difference.

And if it isn't jumping out at you, I can't help you.

My problem with this theory is that in order to criticize Meirs, they have to criticize the person who nominated her...Bush...which they have done quite viciously. He is already getting so much criticism over other things, his approval lower then ever...so how does it benefit them to weaken him even more. Up until now they defended his every move. Not only would they be risking Bush, but they are risking losing their base. These are people, their base, are not deep thinkers, they can't even spell...certainly they aren't going to notice the subtle nuance in wording and language that supposedly means "she's okay".