Miers withdraws herself

October 27, 2005 6:07 AM

Newsfilter: Miers withdraws herself
posted by cillit bang (157 comments total)

'bout time. So, who's next?
posted by qwip at 6:09 AM on October 27, 2005

Good.
posted by Balisong at 6:10 AM on October 27, 2005

Yep.
posted by Tullius at 6:11 AM on October 27, 2005

Let me just say, in a "fair and balanced" way.


Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeehaaaaaaaaaaaaaaw!

What other f*cknozzle awaits us for re-nomination
posted by lalochezia at 6:11 AM on October 27, 2005

Who's next?

Crony or wingnut? Place your bets!
posted by jpburns at 6:11 AM on October 27, 2005

She was clearly inviable three days into this escapade. I'm sure this has been very emotionally draining for her but I just can't find pity, she was obviously unqualified and she should have been the first person to realize that.
posted by baphomet at 6:12 AM on October 27, 2005

Now she can pull a Bork and hit the lecture circuit, write books explaining why the system's broke, and generally keep herself in Steak'ums after the Bush administration leaves the White House.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 6:12 AM on October 27, 2005

I don't know what you all are getting exicted about. You know the next nominee is somehow going to be worse.
posted by Mr_Zero at 6:13 AM on October 27, 2005

wow.
posted by Busithoth at 6:13 AM on October 27, 2005

I don't see anyone lining up to give her big fees to speak... about what?!?
posted by clevershark at 6:13 AM on October 27, 2005

Definately not Oil of Olay's new eye cream!
posted by robocop is bleeding at 6:15 AM on October 27, 2005

There is no way I would withdraw my nomination for a guaranteed lifetime position of high pay, much respect, and incredible power. It's like having the first few numbers of the lottery right and giving up your ticket because you can't bear to stick around and see the rest of the numbers read. I would have to guess that she was forced to step down.
posted by flarbuse at 6:15 AM on October 27, 2005

I don't know why everyone is so excited? Do you really think the next candidate will be better now that Bush has had to bow to ultra-conservative pressure?

I do think that it is interesting that the monster of the religious right with political power has come back to bite him in the ass though.
posted by Pollomacho at 6:15 AM on October 27, 2005

I'm going to guess that she never got around to handing in the second draft of the questionnaire (due today). What a loser.
posted by rxrfrx at 6:16 AM on October 27, 2005

Are they trying to overshadow Fitzmas?
posted by cillit bang at 6:17 AM on October 27, 2005

flarbuse writes "I would have to guess that she was forced to step down."

Well duh... only Dubya couldn't withdraw the nomination himself because "he's loyal". Just like "he's a rancher" (since 1999).
posted by clevershark at 6:18 AM on October 27, 2005

Yeah, I have a hard time seeing this as good news. I think everyone left of Attila the Fundamentalist Hun is going to be wishing we had Miers by the end of this.
posted by OmieWise at 6:18 AM on October 27, 2005

If this isn't good news, what would have been? Do you have clinical depression?
posted by smackfu at 6:19 AM on October 27, 2005

The next nominee will have far more impeccably scary social conservative credentials. I don't see that we've made much progress here except in keeping incompetence off the high bench..
posted by killdevil at 6:19 AM on October 27, 2005

You know, the White Sox really have to wonder what the hell they have to do to get a little attention :-)
posted by clevershark at 6:19 AM on October 27, 2005

If this isn't good news, what would have been?

Stick around for today's indictment post if you want to see happy. When Jerry Fallwell is Bush's next choice you may want to retract your question.
posted by Pollomacho at 6:20 AM on October 27, 2005

Bright side: An obviously unqualified tool of the President has been bounced.

Dark side: Bush now realises that the tiger he's been riding is hungry.

You'll be pleased to hear that Meiers won't starve in any case - she's going to carry on as White House counsel. Hopefully not picking the next SCOTUS nomination, though.
posted by athenian at 6:21 AM on October 27, 2005

i really have to wonder if rxrfrx has it ... i think it may have dawned on her that she was playing out of her league
posted by pyramid termite at 6:22 AM on October 27, 2005

This is amusing. I just got a CNN alert email about it:

President Bush "reluctantly" accepts Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers's request to withdraw her nomination.

Watch CNN or log on to http://CNN.com and watch FREE video. More Americans watch CNN. More Americans trust CNN.

Is it just me, or are those quote marks editorializing a breaking news tidbit? This is totally out of character for these alerts -- they're usually the equivalent of a telegram (EARTHQUAKE ROCKS THAILAND -- STOP.)
posted by mathowie at 6:22 AM on October 27, 2005

My neighbor's republican cat has been vetted by the WH. Fristlesticks likes to watch Judge Judy.
posted by moonbird at 6:23 AM on October 27, 2005

you can read the documents she failed to fill out correctly here, and honestly i bet she was forced to back down because she was being asked about her interactions with bush. She had also been linked with potential irs tax fraud in her past.
posted by stilgar at 6:25 AM on October 27, 2005

Vhu veell Boosh peeck next, Bork Bork Bork?
posted by eriko at 6:27 AM on October 27, 2005

I wonder if sohcahtoa is going to have to think of a new Halloween costume idea.
posted by zsazsa at 6:28 AM on October 27, 2005

Damn. I was really hoping she'd get to confirmation hearings. I was looking forward to watching her fumble through questions about constitutional law, Dobson squirming under oath, and the whole lottery/GTECH/National Guard debacle. We'll just have to hope that this fiasco has given enough senators the backbone to stand up to the White House.
posted by EarBucket at 6:28 AM on October 27, 2005

I wonder if eventually the American Empire will go the way of past empires when picking lifetime appointments. We'll get less and less qualified people who are younger and younger until we are appointing the 14 year old illegitimate children of a modern day Medici?
posted by Pollomacho at 6:30 AM on October 27, 2005

I still can't stop thinking this is some grand plan that Rove's got his fingers in.
posted by sugarfish at 6:30 AM on October 27, 2005

Do you really think the next candidate will be better now that Bush has had to bow to ultra-conservative pressure?

This is the standard lefty line right now, but I'm not buying it. Miers' withdrawal is a good thing. No nominee from this president is going to be a joyous surprise, but as a gay man I'd *definitely* rather take another Roberts or Rehnquist over a person whose major qualification for the job was that she regularly attended a diehard fundie church. Hell, if the moron Harry Reid hadn't suggested her, it's doubtful Bush would have chosen her at all, and Reid later admitted he didn't know jack shit about the woman.

Screw that. Conservative justices like Rehnquist are capable of nuanced thought about the Constitution (cf. the medical marijuana decision) in ways that Miers clearly wasn't. Good riddance.
posted by mediareport at 6:30 AM on October 27, 2005

Now thing should get really interesting. Who does Bush put up next? A moderate likable like Roberts? A hard right firebrand?
posted by BeerGrin at 6:30 AM on October 27, 2005

Is it just me, or are those quote marks editorializing a breaking news tidbit?

No; I think it's just a quote, to give a sense of how Bush took it. IWAJO.
posted by mcwetboy at 6:32 AM on October 27, 2005

She'd make a better judge than I thought :-)
posted by furtive at 6:32 AM on October 27, 2005

definitely not Oil of Olay's new eye cream!

That's harsh, robocop. I laughed.

Although it's a relief, I find myself wondering who'll be the next nominee.
What's great about this isn't that Miers is now NOT going to wind up on the Supreme Court. I never thought she had much of a chance anyway considering the outcry against her nomination. What's relieving is that they threw in the towel with a minimum of kicking and screaming about it.

But I get the feeling that Mier's nomination was a kind of testing of the waters, to see which constituency or interest group needs the most appeasement. Whoever, in the republican camp, made the most noise about Miers is who this next nominee will be picked for. I'm worried that we mind wind up with some sort of ultrafundimentalist in that typical "compassionate conservative" disguise.
posted by Jon-o at 6:32 AM on October 27, 2005

Oh, and wow. A one-sentence Reuters story? Congrats, cillit bang, for winning the laziest post of the year award.
posted by mediareport at 6:33 AM on October 27, 2005

cillit bang, that's exactly what I was thinking.

This news just annoys me. Stop taking up the valuable CNN.com space I want reserved for pictures of Rove looking disgruntled!

MERRY FITZMAS
GOD BLESS US, EVERY ONE
posted by dougunderscorenelso at 6:33 AM on October 27, 2005

i'm not convinced the next pick will be so far right. it'll be someone very easily confirmable. i expect that'll mean rock solid legal credentials, but it may also mean moderate--the less likely to roil congress.

and to those who think the next nominee will be worse, i can't imagine how. miers was a knee-jerk evangelical conservative. anyone who actually uses the law to think through problems will be an improvement.
posted by 1-2punch at 6:33 AM on October 27, 2005

Mediareport, look at Miers's opposition though, it wasn't from the happy middle. He's got to appease the religious extremes if he wants to get through them, they are not known for their ability to compromise.
posted by Pollomacho at 6:34 AM on October 27, 2005

As probable as it is that the next nominee will be someone who I am even less likely to agree with, I have to say that Miers withdrawing is good for the country.

Hell, I think that even *I* am more qualified to sit on the Supreme Court then she.
posted by afroblanca at 6:36 AM on October 27, 2005

The resignation letter.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 6:37 AM on October 27, 2005

Americablog (where I first heard the Miers story) says No Fitzmas today.
posted by cillit bang at 6:37 AM on October 27, 2005

Pollomacho, she was an unpredictable mess who was criticized by folks across the spectrum. Again, good riddance. Others have pointed out that this nomination was a clear sign of Bush weakness/idiocy, and that the withdrawal an empowering move for many on the left. If Bush nominates another Scalia, there'll be a fight, don't worry.
posted by mediareport at 6:38 AM on October 27, 2005

There's a sales technique, I forget what it's called, where you offer a crappy product in order to make another, consecutive product look good. It's what kids do, as in:

"Mom, can I spend the night at Harriet's? She's having a party."
"No way!"
"Oh, okay. Then can I go to the Goblin Cock concert tonight?"
"Well, okay, but be back by midnight."
posted by swift at 6:39 AM on October 27, 2005

"I have steadfastly maintained that the independence of the Executive Branch be preserved and its confidential documents and information not be released to further a confirmation process"

Anyone know what documents this refers to?
posted by cillit bang at 6:41 AM on October 27, 2005

Maybe there was a lot more riding on the Astros last night than we realized.


With Rove potentially 'on vacation' I bet we'll see some wackiness, like re-appointing Scalia so that he gets 2 votes.
posted by arialblack at 6:41 AM on October 27, 2005

It's certainly good that she's not gonna be confirmed, but I just cannot imagine she was gonna get confirmed anyway, and it would have been kind of fun to watch it all fall apart... But I guess that's not nice. This is a more proper way for things to go
posted by mdn at 6:43 AM on October 27, 2005

Wow, I was totally wrong about this one.
posted by three blind mice at 6:43 AM on October 27, 2005

The resignation letter.

"...this great Nation"

Brrr. Who capitalizes "Nation" like that?
posted by mediareport at 6:43 AM on October 27, 2005

i really have to wonder if rxrfrx has it ... i think it may have dawned on her that she was playing out of her league
posted by pyramid termite at 9:22 AM EST on October 27

I was thinking about her yesterday-- agonizing for her as she was attempting to prep herself for the Senate hearings. I was trying to imagine how one goes about prepping for a job that is far beyond one's capabilities-- at age 60! Was she just memorizing stuff. Was she writing little crib notes on 3 by 5s?

And when it came to redoing the initial questionaire, the one that a Senator found "insulting" did she cry over it a little bit? Did she ask herself what in hell she was going to do? I assume she would have help from others in completing her task, but how humiliating. How sad to have reached the pinnacle of her life and be told her answers were insulting.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:46 AM on October 27, 2005

"...this great Nation"

Shouldn't that be "... this great Homeland."
posted by three blind mice at 6:49 AM on October 27, 2005

I don't disagree that Miers was a train wreck, but I think Bush has too much riding on the support of the far right and they were the most vocal critics of the Miers nomination. He has shown time and again that he couldn't give a shit about the left side of the aisle, so it only makes sense that he will try and stack the Court to the right.

Oh, and swift, Wal-Mart calls it price point.
posted by Pollomacho at 6:49 AM on October 27, 2005

Bush should suffer.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 6:49 AM on October 27, 2005

Her excuse, according to the resignation letter, is the exposure of 'Executive branch materials'. Could that be a good reason?
posted by gsb at 6:50 AM on October 27, 2005

Who capitalizes "Nation" like that?

She was talking about the paper
posted by srboisvert at 6:52 AM on October 27, 2005

No more public scatology!
posted by the_bone at 6:54 AM on October 27, 2005

What the hell does poor Sandra Day O'Connor have to do to get some rest? All she wants to do is go home, spend some time with her dogs and do a little gardening but NOOOOOO people keep dying and withdrawing nominations on her. Won't someone please think of poor, tired Sandy?
posted by m@ at 6:57 AM on October 27, 2005

My Tivo is disappointed. It looked forward to capturing hours and hours of scorn, humiliation, and the occasional bits of intrigue during the nomination hearings.

Oh well... more room for FoodTV.
posted by deCadmus at 6:57 AM on October 27, 2005

If this isn't good news, what would have been? Do you have clinical depression?
posted by smackfu at 9:19 AM EST on October 27 [!]

I would have loved to watch Bush and Co. twist in the wind at her non-confirmation hearings. The next candidate will probably be somewhere to the right of Robert Bork. Why should Bush even bother with a moderate after this debacle?
posted by caddis at 6:58 AM on October 27, 2005

This really exposes Bush as nothing more than a wimpy little tool of the fundamentalist right wing. Our country has taken one more step (leap?) towards theocracy and I don't see anything that can stem this tide. He might as well name James Dobson to be the new VP when Cheney gets indicted. Actually it wouldn't surprise me at all if that were to happen, what surprises me is how incredibly hateful, shortsighted and ignorant this country has become.
posted by any major dude at 7:02 AM on October 27, 2005

If this isn't good news, what would have been?

I'll answer that rhetorical question: Confirmation hearings where embarrassing details about what she knew about what was going on in the White House during the leaking of Plame's identity, along with plenty of other sticky issues, would have been brought out and hung on the laundry line, where Democrats could have Played Nice while Republicans struggled to balance doing their actual jobs with appeasing their wacked-out fundie base (possibly even having to filibuster) - thus laying the groundwork for her inevitable failure as a nominee AND a position of strength for the Democrats in facing down the next, obviously more right-wing and more qualified, nominee. That would've been good news. (on preview: Yeah, like caddis said.)

As it is, this not only robs us of all that fun and strategic advantage, but it gives Bush a pre-formatted "News Event" to toss out there as soon as the indictments hit the press - namely, the naming of another nominee - which as we've all seen Bush uses in exactly this way, and the press slavers after it as reliably as Pavlov's dogs.

I don't see that we've made much progress here except in keeping incompetence off the high bench.

I believe you meant to say "more incompetence."
posted by soyjoy at 7:02 AM on October 27, 2005

One of the pundits on Mclaughlin this weekend predicted that Harriet would be forced to withdraw, and in a fit of Presidential angst, Bush would nominate Attorney General Gonzales instead.
posted by crunchland at 7:05 AM on October 27, 2005

I have a great idea. Let's round up a bunch of corporate crooks, war criminals, and moralizing hypocrites. Then let's put them on a sinking ship.

Then, just as the boat is about to go under, let's let them pack the Supreme Court.
posted by digaman at 7:06 AM on October 27, 2005

I know this may sound extremist to some, but I am hoping that the next nominee as having some track record of believing that the Constitution means what it actually says, not what they think it should say.

To many well meaning justices have "interpreted" our Constitution in ways that would have been unfathomable to our founding fathers.

The best example of this I can think of is the second amendment. The amendment states simply: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Simple enough.

Eugene Volokh has a great post here
titled:The Second Amendment and the Living Constitution.
posted by Polarisman at 7:06 AM on October 27, 2005

You people are missing the obvious...

Clearly the Miers nomination was a ruse to clear the way for their *real* nominee. Someone with impeccible qualifications but also serious, hardcore conservative leanings.

The Miers nomination shocks the base, and gets them geared up for a hard fight with the real, stealth nominee.

It's just Rovian enough to be true. Deploy the foil hats.
posted by dsquid at 7:07 AM on October 27, 2005

Pollomacho: The election of one George W. Bush in November of the year prior to this one kinda made a conservative justice inevitable. The Democrats (unlike, say, the Republicans) rarely block Presidential nominees who are at least of good standing -- they were very content to let the damage take place without their intervention whatsoever.

The joy here is that this is a further sign of the weakening of the Bush presidency, and at a crucial time -- Iraq constitution, troop deaths, imminent indictments -- the WH will have to come up with another Bernanke slam-dunk at a time of great disarray and preoccupation of principal advisers.

The win isn't on the Supreme Court. It's all the other shit.
posted by dhartung at 7:10 AM on October 27, 2005

Is it bad when the first thing I thought of when I heard of Mires' withdrawing the nomination is that the indictments cant be too far behind?
posted by SirOmega at 7:11 AM on October 27, 2005

Prez made the face again:

posted by brownpau at 7:12 AM on October 27, 2005

Planned from the start. Absolutely not a surprise at all.
posted by halcyon_daze at 7:13 AM on October 27, 2005

Who's she going to pick next?
posted by kirkaracha at 7:13 AM on October 27, 2005

It's just Rovian enough to be true.

Oh please. Every examination of the origins of the Miers mess I've seen mentions that Bush went against his advisors on this one.

Anyway, there's no reason to take any nominee lying down. And keep in mind Bush is at the weakest point in his presidency; it's just as likely he'll choose to avoid a major fight with the Senate as he is to throw a bone to his rabid conservative base - the base he's always been comfortable taking for granted in the past. Where are they going to go again?

Let's just wait and see who it is before the excessive weeping and moaning, shall we? But Miers gone is still undeniably good.
posted by mediareport at 7:13 AM on October 27, 2005

The joy here is that this is a further sign of the weakening of the Bush presidency

It strikes me in this way too. When was the last time you saw anyone from the Bush camp back down on anything?
posted by orange swan at 7:13 AM on October 27, 2005

Pretty_Generic: Bush should suffer.

living up to that nickname eh?
posted by splatta at 7:17 AM on October 27, 2005

Planned from the start. Absolutely not a surprise at all.

That theory - to me - doesn't stand up to much scrutiny.

In order to believe that Bush nominated Miers specifically for the purpose of having the nomination defeated, I must also believe one of the following:

a: Miers knowingly and willingly took part in the charade, exposing herself to blistering media scrutiny and devastating personal attacks simply so her boss could nominate someone else. Miers' record shows her to be a strong and determined woman; first female head of her law firm, and the first female head of the Dallas Bar Association. Now, we're supposed to believe that she would throw herself (and quite possibly her career) under the bus just so her boss could nominate someone else? That hardly passes the laugh test.

b: Bush threw Miers to the wolves, nominating her with the knowledge that she would be subjected to that media scrutiny and personal attacks. In order to believe this, one must be willing to believe that Bush lied to the face of a woman who has served him loyally for years. There's no evidence on record that points to Bush treating his close associates in this manner. Quite the contrary, the biggest criticism of this nomination has been one of "crony-ism"; that Bush was rewarding Miers for her loyalty by nominating her to SCOTUS.

This idea that the whole Miers affair was a scripted charade is a product of the mindset that has Karl Rove tenting his fingers while he sits in his orbiting space station muttering "eeeexcellent".

Furthermore, Bush already got someone more conservative nominated - Chief Justice Roberts. That nomination, despite a lot of hair-pulling and jumping about, was never really in any danger.

I think there's a very simple explanation for this.

After the relative ease with which Roberts was confirmed, I believe that Bush felt that Miers - clearly less conservative than Roberts - would have a similarly easy time. I believe that Bush nominated Miers both because he thought she would be good at her job AND as reward for her service and loyalty.

We're heading into a mid-term election year. Democrats win with their constituencies when they oppose the President. Republicans who are looking at the election - or have aspirations for 2008 - are looking for opportunities to establish themselves as something other than a "Bush man". Opposing the Miers nomination loudly gave them a low-risk chance to do so, and they seized on it.

Bush simply miscalculated. He didn't expect so much resistance from his own side of the aisle. It's hardly the first time that a President has locked horns with a Congress controlled by his own party. Jimmy Carter came to power with a Senate and House quite firmly under his party's thumb, but his own party rebelled against him left and right.
posted by DWRoelands at 7:18 AM on October 27, 2005

Miers' withdrawal letter is pathetic and disgusting, a transparent attempt to shift the blame for her withdrawal from her own patent lack of qualifications to the Senate's request for documents, thus furthering a concentration of power in the executive branch even as she skitters offstage to well-deserved obscurity. Adieu, but not au revoir, little raccoon lady.
posted by digaman at 7:18 AM on October 27, 2005

I think it's hard to predict what kind of nominee Bush will predict because he's being pulled in three seperate directions. The first are the Christian Conservatives who are only concerned with RvW. The second is his current political troubles, which argues for a moderate nominee that will sail through like Roberts did. The third is Bush's vindictiveness. His personality is such that he must be pissed that Miers was forced to withdraw. Who will he blame? If he blames the left, then he'll nominate an extreme conservative. If he blames the people on the right who betrayed, he'll nominate a moderate similar to Roberts.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:22 AM on October 27, 2005

Presuming for a moment that this was not a Rovian bait and switch tactic, where then might Dubyah turn for his next nominee?

Sure, he wants another crony on the bench... but would he once again nominate someone so close to the White House that the confirmation process becomes a dirty-laundry liability?

Who's deeply his pocket, and suitably far afield from the oval office (and its paper-trails?)
posted by deCadmus at 7:22 AM on October 27, 2005

mediareport, apparently Andy Card was the advisor behind the Miers nom since Rove has been otherwise occupied.

If Miers is withdrawing to proctect the sanctity of Executive papers, you can bet there will be no other internal nominee. My tinfoil sense tingles when I think of Gonzales, too, but considering the sheer amount of contact he's had with Dubya, I can't imagine he'd be willing to face the scrutiny either.

Whoever the next nom is it'll be interesting to watch. I'm sure they won't ask Harry Reid's opinion next time!
posted by Biblio at 7:23 AM on October 27, 2005

Where are they going to go again?

they'll stay home, and let the GOP try to win without them (not always easy, look at how close it was in 2004 when all the fundys were behind Bush, 51-49. and let's not even talk about 2000). as somebody pointed out already, Bush -- who's not nearly as dumb as some of his opponents think he is -- this time made a very dumb move. he got cocky and didn't realize that the tiger's hungry, and they want Roe, now. Miers wasn't good enough. they want another Thomas.

the next few months, indictments and all, are going to be interesting

my idea? when in doubt, put out a TERRAR ALERT. it always works like a charm
posted by matteo at 7:23 AM on October 27, 2005

zsazsa: Yeah, I think I'll have to change my costume.

I first learned of this through the CNN alert, and I thought the quote marks were pretty harsh. I noticed the CNN front page later moved the quotes on word back to "reluctantly accepted", which seems better for some reason.

My very Democratic coworker is jubilant, but I don't get it -- I'm sure the next one will be worse.
posted by sohcahtoa at 7:24 AM on October 27, 2005

The next nominee will almost certainly be a sitting Circuit Court judge. If the administration is smart, they'll turn the Miers debacle around by doing exactly what they did with Chief Justice Roberts--nominate someone with impeccable credentials. Only this time, they'll go for a more outspoken conservative to send a message: if the debate is going to be about credentials, then nominating a hardcore conservative is perfectly fair as long as they're qualified. Judges Michael McConnell, Priscilla Owen, Janice Rodgers Brown, and Edith Jones all probably fit this bill.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 7:29 AM on October 27, 2005

As to how bad Miers was, I think she definitely would have overturned RvW and Bush knew it. It's weird that there were some Christian conservatives who were against Miers—but I think it's because this was supposed to be their pick. They wanted someone for whom it is unambiguous that he/she is against RvW. But I think they screwed up.

So if your primary Constitutional concern is Roe v. Wade, then you should be very happy that Miers withdrew. However, this means that the replacement nominee be unambiguous against RvW.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:32 AM on October 27, 2005

man, "raccoon lady" is fitting but nasty
posted by matteo at 7:34 AM on October 27, 2005

"Only this time, they'll go for a more outspoken conservative to send a message: if the debate is going to be about credentials, then nominating a hardcore conservative is perfectly fair as long as they're qualified."

That doesn't make sense to me in this context. The group that Bush will be sending a message to will be the GOP that betrayed him. That's the Christians conservatives to a small extent, conservative intellectuals to a greater extent. Those groups have always thought it was fair to nominate an extreme conservative with good credentials.

Obviously, you and other are seeing this as the product of liberal opposition. I think that's very, very wrong. This was about conservative opposition.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:36 AM on October 27, 2005

You might be right EB. He is known to have quite the temper.
posted by caddis at 7:40 AM on October 27, 2005

You heard it here first, the new nominee will be Robert Bork.
posted by dial-tone at 7:42 AM on October 27, 2005

I'll second mediareport's comment. I'd rather have a thoughtful, intelligent conservative on the bench than an unqualified person of any political persuasion.

I know this may sound extremist to some, but I am hoping that the next nominee as having some track record of believing that the Constitution means what it actually says, not what they think it should say.

I doubt it will happen. Conservatives want "activist judges" on the court just as much as liberals do, they just want them activist in a different way. There's little chance of a Robert Bork (in the sense of "constitutional literalist," not in the sense of "extreme conservative") being nominated.

That said, there's still room for a variety of philosphies even within "the Constitution means what it says." Are the words of the Constitution interpreted by what those words mean today, or what they meant when they were written? Does a prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment" prohibit only those punishments which were considered cruel and unusual when the eigth amendment was adopted in 1791, or does it outlaw punishments which are considered cruel and unusual today? Does the first amendment apply to the internet, given that the internet is conceivably neither "speech" nor "press" as those terms were understood by the founders?

Her excuse, according to the resignation letter, is the exposure of 'Executive branch materials'. Could that be a good reason?

"But Democratic and Republican senators told CNN's Ed Henry that they hadn't asked for privileged documents."

There's a sales technique, I forget what it's called, where you offer a crappy product in order to make another, consecutive product look good.

New Coke?
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 7:48 AM on October 27, 2005

If this isn't good news, what would have been?

The Left has nothing to celebrate. The Right ditched Miers to their benefit. If both sides are happy with it somebody's confused no?

What would have been: Miers not withdrawing and the ensuing mess and further embarassment to Mr. Bush. The Coulter was just on CNN agreeing the Right wants a leader on the court and one known to be conservative on more issues than just RvW. Miers was not seen to be a leader, and was an unknown quantity on just about everything except RvW.
posted by scheptech at 7:51 AM on October 27, 2005

I agree, EB, but I think the credentials go both ways. The administration needs to be sending a message to both movement conservatives and the potential democratic opposition. Movement conservatives will see a nominee with an established conservative track record, and the administration will be able to hold up the nominee's credentials as a bulwark against democratic opposition. I don't see the Miers withdrawal as a product of liberal opposition; it's quite obviously not. I'm viewing the next nomination with an eye to potential liberal opposition.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 7:51 AM on October 27, 2005

Now, we're supposed to believe that she would throw herself (and quite possibly her career) under the bus just so her boss could nominate someone else?

You remember back in the campaign when they delayed Air Force One so Rove could descend to the tarmac and lie under the wheel of the plane? What do you think he was saying by doing that?
posted by Pollomacho at 7:51 AM on October 27, 2005

We're heading into a mid-term election year. Democrats win with their constituencies when they oppose the President. Republicans who are looking at the election - or have aspirations for 2008 - are looking for opportunities to establish themselves as something other than a "Bush man". Opposing the Miers nomination loudly gave them a low-risk chance to do so, and they seized on it.

Precisely! Like I said--planned from the start and not a surprise at all.

Far from some Rovian "Master Plan," half of politics is just clumsy theater like this.

Republicans in Congress need a little maneuvering room, the President needs a little more time, the country needs a distraction: "Harriet, I need someone to take a fall for me."
posted by halcyon_daze at 7:54 AM on October 27, 2005

With Rove immobilized by the pending indictment, the White House cabal is flailing around. It's like a zombie with the head cut off, but the limbs are still moving. Without Ubersturmbahnfueher Karl keeping everybody in line, they're all trying to take up the slack. The result is chaos and disorder.

And what EB said. The Dems get no credit for this. This is a power struggle among right-wing power elites to pick up the pieces after Bush is gone.

The D-men are still waiting for the opportunity to demonstrate the strong spines, fearless leadership and principled integrity we all know they are capable of. /sarcasm
posted by warbaby at 7:56 AM on October 27, 2005

ps. Can anybody spare a cup of umlauts? I seem to be out.
posted by warbaby at 7:58 AM on October 27, 2005

There's a sales technique, I forget what it's called, where you offer a crappy product in order to make another, consecutive product look good.

The phrase you're looking for is 'bait and switch'.
posted by anastasiav at 8:01 AM on October 27, 2005

i suspected that it was a fake nomination as a setup for making us grateful for whatever he pulls out of his ass next...and not only would miers have gone along with it--her role in the process supports that it might have been her idea...
posted by troybob at 8:01 AM on October 27, 2005

I predict the nomination will go to Judge Alito.
posted by Captaintripps at 8:06 AM on October 27, 2005

At least she's taking it well: "Its better to have been nominated and withdrawn then never to have been nominated at all"
- Unknown, adapted (obv)
posted by soyjoy at 8:11 AM on October 27, 2005

You know, you can call Harry Reid an idiot, but if so he idiotically caused a major rift in the Republican party at a crucial time by putting Miers out there. We could use some more idiots like that. I think he's been laughing his ass off the whole time, frankly. It's nearly...Rovian.

And I don't understand why the Dems had to "do something" during this mess more than what they have. When your enemy is punching himself in the face, why interfere?

Now what they do about the next nominee...that's a different story.
posted by emjaybee at 8:12 AM on October 27, 2005

If both sides are happy with it somebody's confused no?

No. Politics is just a bit more complex than that.
posted by mediareport at 8:14 AM on October 27, 2005

Its great news, because I thought Bush could get a ham sandwich on the court if he wanted.
posted by xammerboy at 8:15 AM on October 27, 2005

With Rove immobilized by the pending indictment

in what way is rove immobilized? do you really suppose he is somehow frozen in place, struck deaf, dumb, blind, and unable to act as a result of possible legal action?

It's like a zombie with the head cut off, but the limbs are still moving.

in what way? i appreciate the vivid prose and the political sentiment, but this is just wishful thinking.

The result is chaos and disorder.

based on the miers withdrawal, i'd say things are rolling along according to plan given the entire scenario is playing out precisely as predicted a week ago on all the lefty blogs. right down to the document access excuse.
posted by quonsar at 8:17 AM on October 27, 2005

ps. Can anybody spare a cup of umlauts? I seem to be out.

bitte schön warbaby

¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨
posted by three blind mice at 8:17 AM on October 27, 2005

It's nearly...Rovian.

Tell yourself that if you like, but were you actually *watching* Harry Reid throughout this mess? Idiot fits much better; the idea that he somehow *predicted* the conservative outrage doesn't fit the evidence of his backpedaling, stuttering responses. Giving him credit for the conservative blow-up is just silly.
posted by mediareport at 8:18 AM on October 27, 2005

So there are 19 umlauts to a cup? I always get confused on the conversion.
posted by sohcahtoa at 8:19 AM on October 27, 2005

Oh please. Every examination of the origins of the Miers mess I've seen mentions that Bush went against his advisors on this one.

That's what they want you to think...

Muah!
posted by dsquid at 8:21 AM on October 27, 2005

And I don't understand why the Dems had to "do something" during this mess more than what they have. When your enemy is punching himself in the face, why interfere?

Never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake. - Napoleon
posted by Pollomacho at 8:21 AM on October 27, 2005

i'd say things are rolling along according to plan given the entire scenario is playing out precisely as predicted a week ago on all the lefty blogs.

That lefty blogs predicted Miers' withdrawal a week ago doesn't quite count as evidence that the entire thing was a Rovian plot from the start. If that's what you're saying, I mean.
posted by mediareport at 8:22 AM on October 27, 2005

i don't see why people would say this was a fake nomination ... a review of the record

bush tries to get osama bin laden ... screws it up

bush tries to get world to go along with him on iraq invasion ... screws it up

bush invades iraq ... screws it up

bush tries to get a smaller more conservatively financed government ... screws it up

bush tries to reform social security ... screws it up

bush slightly reforms medicare ... screws it up

bush deals with the national disaster that was hurricane katrina ... screws it up

bush after managing one successful supreme court nomination, tries a second ... and screws it up

i don't like his politics or policies, but the most damning thing about him is becoming appearent ... for the most part, he sucks at getting the things he wants done
posted by pyramid termite at 8:34 AM on October 27, 2005

a Rovian plot from the start. If that's what you're saying

no, i'm not saying that. i'm saying warbaby's characterization of the miers withdrawal as symptomatic of rove immobilized, the admin a headless zombie and chaos reigning, is wishful thinking.
posted by quonsar at 8:34 AM on October 27, 2005

i don't like his politics or policies, but the most damning thing about him is becoming appearent ... for the most part, he sucks at getting the things he wants done

ahh pyramid termite if only that was true. Bush invaded a country that posed no threat to the United States and got re-elected after doing that. I'd rather that he suceeded at everything else and failed at that.
posted by three blind mice at 8:37 AM on October 27, 2005

Even though I opposed the Miers nomination, I can't help but feel sorry for her. I can't imagine what it would be like to have so many people think that you're unqualified for a potential job, and the pressure to withdrawl must have been awful. My hope is that Bush will nominate independent thinkers like Posner or Kozinski but I think he'll stick to conservative minorities like a Janice Rogers Brown.
posted by gyc at 8:39 AM on October 27, 2005

ps. Can anybody spare a cup of umlauts? I seem to be out.


Röve
posted by matteo at 8:49 AM on October 27, 2005

Some links on Alito:
Washington Post
US News
Scantily-clad Wikipedia entry.
posted by Captaintripps at 8:51 AM on October 27, 2005

... screws it up

See, PT, I think the problem with your examples there is that you are not going by what Bush actually set out to do, you are going by what he said he was setting out to do. I'd say Bush is pretty close to right on track for the agenda he went into the White House with in January of 2001.

Unilateral action in the Middle East ... check

Unilateral action seen as "decisive" and the UN as "ineffective" ... check

Government spending stripping out social programs ... check

Ossama bin Laden as boogie man in the closet for use whenever needed ... check

Except for Katrina fuck ups coming home to roost in the White House, I'd say he's pretty much right where he wanted things 5 years ago.
posted by Pollomacho at 8:53 AM on October 27, 2005

Next Supreme Court nominee will be Kathleen Harris. She's got the background, and Bush Co. owes her big time.
posted by grateful at 8:57 AM on October 27, 2005

it'll be someone very easily confirmable.

Oh I don't think so, not at all. The White House, beset with GOP unhappiness about spending and Iraq and about to be hit with indictments, desperately needs a big fight to unite the base. Bush will nominate the biggest wingnut he can find to launch an apocalyptic confirmation battle - ideally, for him, with the Democrats filibustering - and the right will happily climb onto the barricades for him and jettison their many other concerns.
posted by CunningLinguist at 8:57 AM on October 27, 2005

I wish I could agree PT, but, um...

i don't like his politics or policies, but the most damning thing about him is becoming appearent ... for the most part, he sucks at getting the things he wants done
posted by pyramid termite at 8:34 AM PST on October 27 [!]

Wants to become President of the United States....2000..

Wants to remain President of the United States...2004...


Whilewe may attribute it to skilled people, good timing and an awfully self absorbed American public, he's managed to do something very few men have ever successfully done..

*dons foil and waits for the Rovian nominee*

posted by cavalier at 8:57 AM on October 27, 2005

getting elected takes a different skill set than actually governing ... he just hasn't succeeded as a president ... give the conservatives some time and even they will eventually admit it ... he hasn't delivered the "goods" and he won't
posted by pyramid termite at 9:08 AM on October 27, 2005

Holy hell this is some good material. Even in victory the hard lefties still think they are being duped via some grand Rovian conspiracy. Must boost the rights confidence.

Bush sucks at getting things done he SHOULD get done, not the other way around. Try to put your tin foil hats aside for a minute and consider that the Miers nomination was probably the FIRST truly, independant decision Bush ever made as President. Faced with is sheer idiocy, the Republican majority simply could not go with him on it.

Miers was a shitty choice; elections are coming; no one is overturning Roe V Wade and Bush is essentially a lame duck President who wanted to look back on his Presidency and know he at least made one decision - which failed miserably. This all played out just the way it should have frankly.
posted by j.p. Hung at 9:25 AM on October 27, 2005

Perhaps j.p. Hung except a Supreme Court nomination is a pretty important decision for Cheney (not Rove) to let W make by all by himself. George gets to decide whether or not to invade Syria or Iran next, but the SCOTUS is too important to leave to shrub's simplistic brain.

What might be true is that he appointed her in frustration after all of the nominess on Cheney's list turned him down. Everything about her nomination reeked of sloppy seconds.
posted by three blind mice at 9:35 AM on October 27, 2005

Apparently Judge Jones was in D.C. last night.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 9:39 AM on October 27, 2005

I'm going to guess that she never got around to handing in the second draft of the questionnaire (due today).

Oddly enough, she did [pdf]. As reported by SCOTUSblog. SCOTUSblog also has some interesting commentary on what sort of person Bush might be looking for next.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 10:06 AM on October 27, 2005

Miers still is the one who gets to vet her replacement, btw. (with to-be-indicted Rove, of course)
posted by amberglow at 10:14 AM on October 27, 2005

In case anyone wants to read the (interesting) subscribers-only TNR articlelinked upthread, it's in here.
posted by Kwantsar at 10:30 AM on October 27, 2005

Tim Grieve at Salon nailed it on monday. it's worth watching the ad.
posted by Hat Maui at 10:40 AM on October 27, 2005

Why does Bush care about unifying the base? He doesn't need to ever run for re-election again, and it seems clear he is a cynical opportunist who uses whomever he can while they are useful -- so he probably doesn't care about the Republican Party, per se. The only thing that I thnk he plausibly might care about is his own "legacy", and to that extent he may need co-operation with the Senate and House - but where he gets that from, he probably doesn't care either.
posted by Rumple at 10:44 AM on October 27, 2005

Even though I opposed the Miers nomination, I can't help but feel sorry for her.

really? evangelicals love persecution! she's going to make a fortune and be a fallen hero to her people. (the reason i think she went along with this mess in the first place)...
posted by troybob at 10:47 AM on October 27, 2005

Roy Moore for SCOTUS! All hail Roy Moore!
posted by xmutex at 10:50 AM on October 27, 2005

Do not overestimate these people, this is not some Rovian ploy: '"This is something that Andy and the President cooked up," the adviser told TIME.'

The cabal has become dysfunctional. Bush is limping along with only one person he can trust and rely on and Andy has been described lately as looking "totally burned out". Look for him to find a sudden desire to 'spend more time with his family'.
posted by Mr T at 10:55 AM on October 27, 2005

Miers still is the one who gets to vet her replacement, btw.

The administration's statement that Miers was "heavily involved" in vetting nominees was apparently an overstatement, although I can't seem to find the article which discussed that claim right now. Especially now, I would expect this nomination to be handled very differently than those in the past.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 10:56 AM on October 27, 2005

And I was really looking forward to the confirmation hearings, too.
posted by bshort at 11:04 AM on October 27, 2005

xmutex: Roy Moore for SCOTUS! All hail Roy Moore!

I was thinking the same thing. He would be perfect except that he seems like he wouldn't be anybody's lapdog.

I think we'll see somebody who is right leaning, a crony of Bush's and business friendly. Their Christian leanings will be minimal.

Hell, as long as they have a history of excellence in jurisprudence, I am going to refrain from whining too much. Maybe keeping far left people like me from whining was Rove's plan.
posted by Joey Michaels at 11:10 AM on October 27, 2005

Q: The indictment story is growing roots?
A: MIERS NOMINATION WITHDRAWN
posted by cl at 11:33 AM on October 27, 2005

I just want to point out that withdrawal in disgust is not the same as apathy.
posted by swift at 11:34 AM on October 27, 2005

"röv" means "ass" in Swedish
posted by mr.marx at 11:36 AM on October 27, 2005

"dick" means penis in English.
posted by Pollomacho at 11:43 AM on October 27, 2005

[some sexual comment relating to her pulling out early before the country was really fucked]
posted by Peter H at 11:50 AM on October 27, 2005

[other comment describing larger rapist thug appointments in waiting, salivating, sharpening their teeth]
posted by Peter H at 11:52 AM on October 27, 2005

Based on what might happen with the next appointment (after all the largest complaint came from Republicans, "she's not Republican enough", oy vay, that's like a gaggle of whores in an STD ward bitching that Miers' herpes isn't more evident, "where's the sores?") - I kind of wonder what a funny sort of Pug she'd have been on the actual court. All these weeks I have seen her as sort of an unopinionated Terrier or some other harmless old-lady's dog. Docile, stupid, smells like moth balls. The next one will absolutely be worse. Echoing and agreeing with all bait and switch comments here.
posted by Peter H at 11:59 AM on October 27, 2005

let's hear it from the Rude One:

Miers is a tragic figure at best, pathetic at worst, so beholden and enamored of her mad leader that she would throw herself on the spears of the confirmation process for him so he wouldn't have to be bothered with all that interviewin' and decidin' that hurts his brain so bad. But the worst thing to come out of this whole debacle is that the ultra-right now sees itself as having even more power.

posted by matteo at 12:53 PM on October 27, 2005

"röv" means "ass" in Swedish

you guys are going to get so invaded
posted by matteo at 12:58 PM on October 27, 2005

If both sides are happy with it somebody's confused no?

No. Politics is just a bit more complex than that.

Anyone happy about this is misreading the situation.

The Far Right didn't like Miers. They will now get someone more to their liking. This person will be on the job far longer than Mr Bush.

But, if you-all figure this bodes well for the Left, go ahead and enjoy but it's gonna be a short party.
posted by scheptech at 1:16 PM on October 27, 2005

Attention. The gruel has been replaced with sewer water. This should improve satisfaction, as the gruel was very unpopular. That is all.
posted by Ynoxas at 1:26 PM on October 27, 2005

You know I was just taking a moment to read back through her letter and the absolute contradiction struck me.

I have steadfastly maintained that the independence of the executive Branch be preserved and its confidential documents and information not be released to further a confirmation process. I feel compelled to adhere to this position, especially related to my own nomination. Protection of the prerogatives of the Executive Branch and continued pursuit of my confirmation are in tension. I have decided that seeking my confirmation should yield.

I share your commitment to appointing judges with a conservative judicial philosophy, and I look forward to continuing to support your efforts to provide the American people judges who will interpret the law, not make it.

So let me just get this strait. She wants "conservative judges" but she doesn't believe in the system of checks and balances. She wants a judiciary that interprets the law without making the law, but an executive that interprets the law without executing it is just fine with her. Did I miss anything?
posted by Pollomacho at 1:28 PM on October 27, 2005

Remember when Republicans lectured Democrats on respect for the President's nominees? How they deserved an up or down vote without the pernicous influence of outside interest groups? What kidders.
posted by crunchland at 1:50 PM on October 27, 2005

Next nominee will be Ashcroft or Gonzales. (I'm kidding. I hope.)
posted by alumshubby at 2:05 PM on October 27, 2005

From Atrios:

This withdrawl was well timed. Thus we have SCOTUS interruptus.
posted by ontic at 2:48 PM on October 27, 2005

Miers would have done a lot better if she'd filled out the questionare better, ah well. A lot of the information out there tends to show her being a lot more moderate...
posted by delmoi at 3:09 PM on October 27, 2005

How they deserved an up or down vote without the pernicous influence of outside interest groups? What kidders.

The 'Up or Down Vote' talking point is dead (with many many quotes)
posted by amberglow at 4:48 PM on October 27, 2005

" A lot of the information out there tends to show her being a lot more moderate..."

Yes, but the key issue for this nomination was the position on Roe v. Wade. She and Bush are close, and her ex and some others have been loudly saying that there's no doubt whatsoever that she would overturn RvW. I really think that this is key to Bush's nomination and why he expected it to be successful. He expected, given her background and her closeness to Bush, that the Christian conservatives opposed to RvW would accept her as "their" representative on the SCOTUS. He's all about personal relationships and loyalty—this appointment met all his personal goals. It was someone he is close to; it was a female replacing a female; it was a strong anti-RvW person; it was someone generally conservative. Some of his advisors didn't like the choice and counseles Bush against her, but Bush being Bush, I think he just knew that he knew better than they and stuck to the choice with which is was very satisfied. This is also how he responded to her rejection later.

A whole bunch of the right rebelled and rejected her. I think this blindsided Bush. I suspect that he's very angry about it. I suspect that he really doesn't understand why it happened. And I think because of this, he'll be much less inclined to satisfy the anti-RvW contingent than he was before. I think he'll find someone pretty much exactly like Roberts. And there are indication of exactly this.

And this is going to really piss of the cultural hard right. We're really watching the breakup of the long-monolithic GOP. It's a beautiful thing.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:53 PM on October 27, 2005

It should have been clever. Nominate someone that you know will overturn Roe, but for who there's no credible or documentary evidence of her position to be used against her.

If I were feeling snarky, I'd say that Bush didn't understand the cultural right's motivation. They don't want a stealth justice to sneak in and overturn Roe. They want an openly make-abortion-illegal justice put into place over the strenuous opposition of the Democrats, they want to crush the liberals, to burn their villages, to see them driven before them, and to hear the lamentations of the media. They want a triumphant, violent rape, and slipping the country a roofie won't cut it. Well. I guess I feel snarky after all.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:27 PM on October 27, 2005

They want an openly make-abortion-illegal justice put into place over the strenuous opposition of the Democrats, they want to crush the liberals, to burn their villages, to see them driven before them, and to hear the lamentations of the media.

I really like the snarky ROU_X.
posted by Ynoxas at 9:11 PM on October 27, 2005

What did Miers withdraw herself from ? Was it painful, I wonder /
posted by troutfishing at 10:57 PM on October 27, 2005

"Democrats, they want to crush the liberals, to burn their villages, to see them driven before them, and to hear the lamentations of the media."

The Chalcedon Foundation
posted by troutfishing at 11:01 PM on October 27, 2005

Next week's Doonesbury will be reruns instead of these now-obsolete strips. (Trudeau: Slacker.)
posted by soyjoy at 7:48 AM on October 28, 2005

What ROU_Xenophobe said. Exactly, snarky but very true.
posted by nofundy at 7:55 AM on October 28, 2005