Miers Withdraws Bid For Supreme Court

[TXSTYLE]

Well...... The pressure finally got to her or Dubya one.

Bush Abandons Push for Miers Nomination

Originally Posted by AP - 9 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Under withering attack from conservatives, President Bush abandoned his push to put loyalist Harriet Miers on the Supreme Court and promised a quick replacement Thursday. Democrats accused him of bowing to the "radical right wing of the Republican Party."

And that ladies and gentlemen is EXACTLY why she won't make it: Not CONSERVATIVE enough for the hardline Reps. She actually had a good chance of winning over the Dems support. Now I hope the overly conservative hard azzez get stalled indefinitely on a successor!

[drink300]

Originally Posted by TXSTYLE

Well...... The pressure finally got to her or Dubya one.

And that ladies and gentlemen is EXACTLY why she won't make it: Not CONSERVATIVE enough for the hardline Reps. She actually had a good chance of winning over the Dems support. Now I hope the overly conservative hard azzez get stalled indefinitely on a successor!

I agree with part of your statement. When the Repub Senators started holding Miers to the fire because they didn't think she was conservative enough was a day I was embarrased to vote Republican. I mean, what the heck did they think? Bush nominates 234 Federal Justices that are hardcore conservatives but he's going to pick a closet liberal for the Supreme Court?? They were FOOLS and they ruined a golden opportunity to install a very conservative person to fill a moderate seat. But, then again, I can someonewhat understand after David Souter and Sandra Day O'Connor turned out to be so moderate.

I, however, hope another conservative gets picked and that they make it through confirmation. If we can install Ruth Ginsburg, an ultra-leftist activist judge who supports things like a child's right to have legal sexual relations at 12 years old and loosening of already loose abortion laws, then we can stand to have a conservative make it through the process. But Democrats won't be as nice to Bush's next nominee as Repubs were to Ginsburg in 1993 for one simple reason: They have lost complete control of the presidency, the house, the senate and state governments everywhere. Now that they cannot get votes nad have no pwer, they are left with only one option to push their liberal ideologies on all of us: LEGISLATION FROM THE BENCH.

It will be interesting to see who Bush picks...
drink300

[LB Lex]

Good, I didn't know what Bush was thinking when he nominated her. I wanted someone who either had experience on the bench or at least was an appellate lawyer. To me it seemed like he chose her because they were very close, it just didn't seem right to do that when you are nominating someone who will sit on the court and create legal precedent for decades. I wanted someone with a lot of appellate experience and a sharp legal mind. Miers is probably is a very smart attorney, but appellate and judicial work is different.

I'm anxious to see who Bush chooses next.

[bitkahuna]

He couldn't possibly have had an agenda right? I bet that's the last time Bush tries to appease Reid!

Monday, Oct. 3, 2005 11:05 a.m. EDT
Reid Urged Miers Selection

The expected political brawl over President Bush’s second Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers might not ever take place – because it was a powerful Democrat, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, who had urged her selection.

The senator from Nevada first hinted that he thought highly of Miers shortly before Bush announced the nomination of John Roberts for a seat on the Court.

Bush phoned Reid to tout Roberts, and Reid took the opportunity to tell the president that had had enjoyed working with Miers, the White House legal counsel, during the search for a nominee.

A few days earlier, Reid had met with Miers and suggested ways to avoid a divisive confirmation process, according to a report published in August in The New Yorker magazine.

Now the Associated Press is reporting: "Democratic and Republican special interests groups had been braced for a political brawl over the (second) pick, but they may not get it.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., had urged the president to consider Miers, according to several officials familiar with Bush’s consultations with Congress.

After the nomination was announced, Sen. Reid issued this statement:

"I like Harriet Miers. As White House Counsel, she has worked with me in a courteous and professional manner. I am also impressed with the fact that she was a trailblazer for women as managing partner of a major Dallas law firm and as the first woman president of the Texas Bar Association.

"In my view, the Supreme Court would benefit from the addition of a justice who has real experience as a practicing lawyer. The current justices have all been chosen from the lower federal courts. A nominee with relevant non-judicial experience would bring a different and useful perspective to the Court.

"I look forward to the Judiciary Committee process which will help the American people learn more about Harriet Miers, and help the Senate determine whether she deserves a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court.”

[stckyfngz]

Miers wasn't the only one on that list you know

[bawlexus94]

honestly, the withdrawal of Miers' nomination from the Supreme Court is kind of two-fold.....as someone mentioned ealier, her conservative credentials weren't strong enough to carry her for the right wing of the GOP, ie., Sam Brownback, Trent Lott, Demint, Vitter, ect..., She made too many lectures, or public speeches, which seemed to contradict one another.....one day she's pro choice, the next she's pro life....one day she's an evangelical baptist, the next she's catholic...one day she's vouching for the "moral majority", the other's she's arguing the virtues of seperation of church and state.....in other words, the Right was let down.

On the other hand, the Left didn't know what the hell to think.....they expect one thing, and when they didn't get it, they sucked their thumbs.....they think, "well, is she pro-choice, is she on the side of the little man, the working man?" and the second that something slightly resembles something other than a right-wing darth vader, they don't know how to react...they were happy about her possible lack of "conservative credentials", but were unhappy with her apparent lack of "breadth of knowledge".....basically, they didn't know if she had the intellectual muster to stand on the supreme court and uphold, or potentially overturn well established stare decisis, despite whether or not she would tack to the Right or the Left once on the court.

As down and out as the White House looks right now, i still think that some genius is behind the scenes running things...This withdrawal seems to resemble some incredibly calculated political posturing.....Rove might not be around as much as he once was (ie, he's testifying before a grand jury damn near evey day), but someone knows what the hell they're doing....The White House has rationalized Miers' withdrawal by pleading the principled high ground.....they refuse to release documents about Miers' counsel to the White House back when she was one of their attorneys, arguing that it would compromise the ability of the White House to receive advice .....blah blah blah.....

in other words, neither Republicans, nor Democrats, were willing to back the nomination of Harriet Miers.....requests for documents didn't have a thing to do with it, it just all appears to be a big attempt to save face and look principled......

Bush will not make the same mistake twice.....some could argue that he was pushing it with the nomination of Roberts, whom on his face, doesn't appear to be the ideologue that Scalia and Thomas are....But mark my word, the next nomination will not be a Harriet Miers Part II.....it will be a conservative stalwart, maybe Priscilla Owens, or someone in the same mold......and this time, Democrats will be putting up a fight....and as a result, most Americans will blame the Democrats for the withdrawn nomination of Miers (despite the fact that the Right was the most vocal opponent of her nomination) and will be less willing to put up with Democratic opposition to the next nominee.....WHILE AT THE SAME TIME, DIVERTING ATTENTION AWAY from the recent indictment of Scooter Libby...in other words, as bleak as it looks for the White House right now, I don't think they're down and out.........they have always been very clever, and nothing is changing in that department....

[RobSoVIP]

whats scary is that this shows just how much controll the "theocrats" have in this current administration.

They want somebody who will come right out and say, "I will over turn Roe V. Wade." Bush nominated Roberts, who didnt say that, he got by, then he nominated Miers, the radical right couldn't get a yes or no answer, so they started a media blitz against her. It was kind of fun watching this "machine" turn against its leader, and party for a little while.

The best part is that it sets a further precedent that all judges DO NOT deserve an up or down vote like many of these theocrats screamed just months ago during the confirmation hearings/ nuclear option vs filibuster debacle.

If the Theocrats can end a nomination, then the democrats have every right to follow in their footsteps.

[bitkahuna]

sc400texas - I don't think it's just a theocrat revolt but that certainly didn't help. It seems she flunked every interview with Senators (couldn't articulate, weak experience, unclear philosophy, etc.). They basically thought she just wasn't up to the job.

[RobSoVIP]

Originally Posted by bitkahuna

sc400texas - I don't think it's just a theocrat revolt but that certainly didn't help. It seems she flunked every interview with Senators (couldn't articulate, weak experience, unclear philosophy, etc.). They basically thought she just wasn't up to the job.

Your right, but the main pressure (publicly) came from the theocrats who launched an all out asault on her and Bush. It scary... I honestly fear for this country when I think of some of the nut balls that represent those groups and how people believe in them. They preach love but practice hate so often.

[bitkahuna]

Originally Posted by sc400texas

Your right, but the main pressure (publicly) came from the theocrats who launched an all out asault on her and Bush. It scary... I honestly fear for this country when I think of some of the nut balls that represent those groups and how people believe in them. They preach love but practice hate so often.

Well they're pro-life which isn't hate I'd say but their anti-gay views are repugnant to any (including me) who think people should be able to live the lives they want even if those values are different than others hold as long as they're not actually hurting others.

What other ways do they practice hate in your view?

[drink300]

Originally Posted by sc400texas

whats scary is that this shows just how much controll the "theocrats" have in this current administration.

They want somebody who will come right out and say, "I will over turn Roe V. Wade." Bush nominated Roberts, who didnt say that, he got by, then he nominated Miers, the radical right couldn't get a yes or no answer, so they started a media blitz against her. It was kind of fun watching this "machine" turn against its leader, and party for a little while.

The best part is that it sets a further precedent that all judges DO NOT deserve an up or down vote like many of these theocrats screamed just months ago during the confirmation hearings/ nuclear option vs filibuster debacle.

If the Theocrats can end a nomination, then the democrats have every right to follow in their footsteps.

And the Dems just want someone who will come out and say "I will not overturn Roe v. Wade". It's sad that the killing of unborn babies has become THE issue for choosing a justice. There are so many other important issues facing us...the thought of this is inconceivable to me.

drink300

[drink300]

Originally Posted by bitkahuna

Well they're pro-life which isn't hate I'd say but their anti-gay views are repugnant to any (including me) who think people should be able to live the lives they want even if those values are different than others hold as long as they're not actually hurting others.

What other ways do they practice hate in your view?

Let me set the records straight for myself and people like me. Yes, I agree, there are many anti-gay Christians out there. I am not "anti-gay". I have gay friends and they are very good people, overall good citizens, and they are excellent workers. But, I am "anti-sin" and "anti-removing social standards that have been in place for thousands of years" (i.e. marriage as an institution between man and woman).

I don't hate gays...I hate their sin. And frankly, I really dont care about their sin either, but I am SICK and TIRED of having it flaunted in my face all the time. They have parades and scream out "we're here, we're queer, so accept it". But I don't see theives and murderers running up and down the street saying "we're here, we're theives and murderers, so accept it". Go sin in private, but keep it away from me, because I DON'T want to hear about it.

drink300

[Lil4X]

Originally Posted by drink300

Let me set the records straight for myself and people like me. Yes, I agree, there are many anti-gay Christians out there. I am not "anti-gay". I have gay friends and they are very good people, overall good citizens, and they are excellent workers. But, I am "anti-sin" and "anti-removing social standards that have been in place for thousands of years" (i.e. marriage as an institution between man and woman).

Well said! Shooting an arrow into the air and painting a target around it wherever it lands does not make you a marksman. Redefining our fundamental law to conincide with whatever the shifting winds of politics may consider convenient and popular is not only intellectually dishonest, it is extremely dangerous.

As a Christian, I believe the premeditated murder of children is wrong. Life is precious and the slaughter of innocents is wrong. I am not anti-gay, but like drink, I oppose those things that our Lord has called "an abomination". In my business I have worked for years with a number of “gay” individuals, several of whom I still consider my friends. Their choice of lifestyle deeply saddens me because I care for them. It is not my mission to punish homosexuals and others who willfully violate the Law - that responsibility is WAY above my pay grade. I will however, do my best to show them the eternal danger they risk by their conduct, and because I love them, try to change their behavior by telling them the Truth. I do this because I recognize that I am in no way superior to them, but have fallen far short of God's standard myself and can rely only on His grace in Jesus Christ to save me from the fate I richly deserve.

When a nation, founded on God's Word begins to chip away at her very foundation in the name of "inclusiveness" or "diversity", we are in extremely deep moral trouble. When we abandon the anchor of our society, we drift into dangerous waters indeed. When our nation is ruled, not by our constitutionally elected representatives but by an appointed oligarchy, when our legislature is reduced to uselessness in a petty power struggle, and the executive branch contends with the press for control of both the government and the nation - we are in immediate danger of losing our liberty.

If I as a Christian remain silent, I am guilty of participation in these seditious acts, as much as those who promote them. My faith plays a large part in my life primarily because I spent the far greater part of it as a poster child for sin. I have an immediate and horrible example of how not to live that travels with me. I only have to look in a mirror. If that makes me a “theocrat”, I’m proud to be one.

[bitkahuna]

Originally Posted by drink300

I don't hate gays...I hate their sin. And frankly, I really dont care about their sin either, but I am SICK and TIRED of having it flaunted in my face all the time.

'all the time'? From my vantage point I'm barely aware of any gay activism. Sure you can see a gay parade shown on TV, but what else? Yes, the 'mainstream networks' (ABC,CBS,NBC) decided it would be 'hip' to have gay characters on their sitcoms, but that has quickly become cliche and boring.

They have parades and scream out "we're here, we're queer, so accept it". But I don't see theives and murderers running up and down the street saying "we're here, we're theives and murderers, so accept it".

Comparing people who are gay with thieves and murders is a bit much.

Go sin in private, but keep it away from me, because I DON'T want to hear about it.

On that we agree. I suspect everyone sins in private anyway.

[bitkahuna]

Originally Posted by Lil4X

I will however, do my best to show them the eternal danger they risk by their conduct, and because I love them, try to change their behavior by telling them the Truth. I do this because I recognize that I am in no way superior to them, but have fallen far short of God's standard myself and can rely only on His grace in Jesus Christ to save me from the fate I richly deserve.

But since we're all sinners why single out gay people?