Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that Miers’ nomination resulted from the president’s careful consultation with people capable of such judgments. If 100 such people had been asked to list 100 individuals who have given evidence of the reflectiveness and excellence requisite in a justice, Miers’ name probably would not have appeared in any of the 10,000 places on those lists.

From "The Federalist" # 76 (signed 'Publius.')  April 1788:

[The President] would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure.

Did you ever stop to think it is like a chess game?  Maybe she was nominated first and will not get in and the next nominee will (kind of like a sacrifice fly to short left field).

MATTHEWS: Do you believe that the president can claim executive privilege?

DEAN: Well, certainly the president can claim executive privilege.  But in the this case, I think with a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, you can't play, you know, hide the salami, or whatever it's called. He's got to go out there and say something about this woman who's going to a 20 or 30-year appointment, a 20 or 30-year appointment to influence America.  We deserve to know something about her.

Maybe I have a dirty mind, but "hide the salami" means something quite different to me.  

Good job on your first thread, Posp.  You act like an old pro.  You're not a forum virgin, are you?

I like that analogy CPD

Actually, I trust that she would make a great Supreme Court Judge.  I think it's good to get someone fresh & new, and not someone from the same old stale lineup.  Believe it or not, I have read and listened to numerous commentaries on the subject, and most of them are just biased because GW is the one making the nomination.

JMO of course.  Everyone on here knows I'm not very learned when it comes to politics

"Hide the salami" has always had an entirely different meaning to me as well. I'm pretty sure he misspoke.

I wouldn't think that at all. You're not the only one with that opinion, there are several "learned" legal scholars and Supreme Court historians who feel the same way. The idea of having a fresh and new attitude on the court isn't without merit. I'm just not at all sure that Ms Miers fits that description. However, I will watch the confirmation hearings with an open mind.

Dumbest bunch of nonsense I've seen in a while...

oh, I see Idiot's back!  Welcome back - hope all is well with you and yours. You were missed, kinda.

You don't see any danger for the Republicans here?

Slouching Towards Miers
Bush shows himself to be indifferent, if not hostile, to conservative values.

BY ROBERT H. BORK
Wednesday, October 19, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

With a single stroke--the nomination of Harriet Miers--the president has damaged the prospects for reform of a left-leaning and imperialistic Supreme Court, taken the heart out of a rising generation of constitutional scholars, and widened the fissures within the conservative movement. That's not a bad day's work--for liberals.

There is, to say the least, a heavy presumption that Ms. Miers, though undoubtedly possessed of many sterling qualities, is not qualified to be on the Supreme Court. It is not just that she has no known experience with constitutional law and no known opinions on judicial philosophy. It is worse than that. As president of the Texas Bar Association, she wrote columns for the association's journal. David Brooks of the New York Times examined those columns. He reports, with supporting examples, that the quality of her thought and writing demonstrates absolutely no "ability to write clearly and argue incisively."

I see the danger is that Bush is behaving like a Democrat, in the worst possible way. If any good comes of it, it will be that we conservatives are shocked out of our complacency and will not allow his type - the liberals in disguise - to control our party any more, and we'll get a decent, truly conservative candidate on the ticket in 2008.

You only THINK you would like that, because you THINK it would help the Democrats win in 2008, but it won't.

CHANGING OF THE GUARD
Miers panel to hear explosive testimony'?
Gag order lifted for ex-lottery boss claiming Miers kept 'lid' on Bush Guard controversy

Posted: October 21, 2005
1:31 p.m. Eastern

Released from a gag order, Larry Littwin – the controversial former director of the Texas Lottery under Harriet Miers – is free to appear at the upcoming Supreme Court confirmation hearings to give "potentially explosive" testimony damaging both to President Bush and his nominee, according to WND columnist Jerome Corsi.

As WorldNetDaily has reported, Littwin allegedly was fired by Miers because he wanted to investigate improper political influence-buying by lobbyists for GTECH, the firm contracted to run the lottery.

Corsi believes that Littwin, according to an examination of hundreds of contemporary Texas newspaper accounts, will be able to establish under oath that the GTECH contract was preserved on a no-bid basis by then-chairwoman of the Lottery Commission Miers in order to "keep the lid on" the National Guard controversy involving then-Gov. Bush.

The lobbyists included Ben Barnes, the former Texas lieutenant governor who claims he pulled strings to get Bush into the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War.

GTECH agreed to release Littwin from his gag order under pressure from Senate Judiciary Committee attorneys, Corsi said.

Littwin, who was hired by Miers in June 1997 and fired just five months later, wanted to reopen the GTECH contract for competitive bid, according to Corsi.

The Rhode Island company has held the operating contract on the Texas Lottery since the lottery began in 1991.

When Littwin sued GTECH over losing his job, Barnes gave a five-hour deposition. But GTECH settled with Littwin for $300,000, under the condition that he destroy all documents pertaining to the litigation, including the Barnes deposition.

Until now, Corsi reports, Littwin has been under a gag order as part of his "negotiated settlement" with GTECH, under which he would suffer a $50,000 penalty if he discussed openly any details of his Texas Lottery employment.

Corsi says insiders following the Texas Lottery Commission scandals believe Littwin's testimony is "potentially explosive."

Rumors are circulating, he adds, that influence-peddling crimes, including money laundering, may yet remain to be prosecuted.

Senate Judiciary Committee leadership has pledged to investigate fully Miers' background and qualifications for a lifetime appointment as associate Supreme Court justice.

Insiders see hint of Miers pullout

By Ralph Z. Hallow and Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
October 22, 2005

The White House has begun making contingency plans for the withdrawal of Harriet Miers as President Bush's choice to fill a seat on the Supreme Court, conservative sources said yesterday.

"White House senior staff are starting to ask outside people, saying, 'We're not discussing pulling out her nomination, but if we were to, do you have any advice as to how we should do it?' " a conservative Republican with ties to the White House told The Washington Times.

The White House denied making such calls. "Absolutely not true," White House spokesman Trent Duffy said.

But the conservative political consultant said that he had received such a query from Sara Taylor, director of the Office of White House Political Affairs.

Miss Taylor denied making any such calls.

A second Republican, who is the leader of a conservative interest group and has ties to the White House, confirmed that calls are being made to a select group of conservative activists who are not employed by the government.

A conservative political consultant with ties to the White House said the president and his political team once thought Democrats would go easy on Miss Miers, a friend of Mr. Bush's and his personal counsel. The theory was that Democrats see her as the best they could expect in the way of Bush appointments to the high court.

"But now Democrats smell blood in water," said the Republican, adding that he received a call from Miss Taylor seeking contingency advice on how to handle a possible decision by Miss Miers to withdraw her name or a decision by the president to withdraw the nomination.

"So there are some in the White House and some Republicans in the Senate who are worried the Democrats can now build a case that she is not competent enough or knowledgeable enough to be a justice on the Supreme Court," he said. "Really, that is the most damaging case you can build against a nominee."

The reason, he said, is that "non-ideologues would be responsive to that competence argument, and Republicans won't be able to argue that her defeat was ideological -- that the reason the Democrats beat her was that she was too conservative."

Meanwhile, Republican lawyers in the Senate said yesterday that while previously planned meetings with the Supreme Court nominee have not been canceled, the White House is not scheduling any more new meetings.

I'm glad I decided to stick around for the weekend now, with all these conservative sources starting to say bad things about....... uh... conservatives. 

I'm glad to see you've finally realized how unbiased they are!

I'm wondering who they're going to get to announce that her name is being withdrawn "because of the Democrats" and keep a straight face while saying it. 

Bush's Embattled Nominee to Supreme Court Withdraws
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Harriet Miers withdrew her nomination to be a Supreme Court justice Thursday in the face of stiff opposition and mounting criticism about her qualifications.

President Bush said he reluctantly accepted her decision to withdraw, after weeks of insisting that he did not want her to step down. He blamed her withdrawal on calls in the Senate for the release of internal White House documents that the administration has insisted were protected by executive privilege.

"It is clear that senators would not be satisfied until they gained access to internal documents concerning advice provided during her tenure at the White House -- disclosures that would undermine a president's ability to receive candid counsel," Bush said. "Harriet Miers' decision demonstrates her deep respect for this essential aspect of the constitutional separation of powers -- and confirms my deep respect and admiration for her."

Miers' surprise withdrawal stunned Washington on a day when the capital was awaiting news on another front -- the possible indictment of senior White House aides in the CIA leak case.

Yep her nomination was just one big conspiracy.

I hope Bush puts up the most conservative judge he can find.

Then we can watch all the democrats throw a fit.

Bush may decide to stick it to those in his party who didn't back his friend Miers. Be careful what you wish for...

  That's alot of wishful thinking isn't it.

And wasn't the Moonie Times one of your favorite sources Snoopy?



Somebody's lying here. So who is it Snoop? Here are your choices the way I see it.

1. The "conservative Republican with ties to the White House" AND the "Republican leader of a conservative interest group".

2. The White House.

3. The Washington Times

Miers: The Only Exit Strategy

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, October 21, 2005; Page A23

...we need an exit strategy from this debacle. I have it.

Sen. Lindsey Graham has been a staunch and public supporter of this nominee. Yet on Wednesday he joined Brownback in demanding privileged documents from Miers's White House tenure.

Finally, a way out: irreconcilable differences over documents.

For a nominee who, unlike John Roberts, has practically no record on constitutional issues, such documentation is essential for the Senate to judge her thinking and legal acumen. But there is no way that any president would release this kind of information -- "policy documents" and "legal analysis" -- from such a close confidante. It would forever undermine the ability of any president to get unguarded advice.

That creates a classic conflict, not of personality, not of competence, not of ideology, but of simple constitutional prerogatives: The Senate cannot confirm her unless it has this information. And the White House cannot allow release of this information lest it jeopardize executive privilege.

Hence the perfectly honorable way to solve the conundrum: Miers withdraws out of respect for both the Senate and the executive's prerogatives, the Senate expresses appreciation for this gracious acknowledgment of its needs and responsibilities, and the White House accepts her decision with the deepest regret and with gratitude for Miers's putting preservation of executive prerogative above personal ambition.

Faces saved. And we start again.