October 18, 2005

WHO BUT THE NEOCONS...

Reid says Miers should not withdraw nomination to court (STEVE TETREAULT, Oct. 18, 2005, Las Vegas Review-Journal)

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid on Monday said embattled Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers should not withdraw her nomination and he agreed with first lady Laura Bush, who has charged complaints about Miers are sexist.

The Nevada Democrat stopped short of endorsing Miers, but said he found her nomination "refreshing" because she has not been a judge.

Reid made his comments at a news conference on Capitol Hill as the White House ramped up efforts to bolster Miers' nomination, which has split President Bush's conservative base.

"As Laura Bush has said, as (Senator) Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) said, there is a whiff of sexism in the far right's complaining about Harriet Miers," Reid said.


...could lose the moral high ground to Harry Reid?

Posted by Orrin Judd at October 18, 2005 4:46 PM
Comments

Have you read Glenn Reynold's article in the WSJ? He makes what has got to be the most bizzare argument I've heard so far:

The tendency in recent years to nominate judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court has led to a certain amount of politicking and positioning by appellate judges who think they have a shot. That's bad, but surely it would be far worse if future White House counsels started letting hopes of a court nomination distort advice they offer the president.

So, it's bad if you keep picking judges from the Court of Appeals, but it's even worse if you don't!

A close runner up is the argument over at NRO that, because she originally declined when asked if she wanted to be considered for the O'Connor vacancy, but then accepted the nomination when given it, she's likely to become a liberal while serving on the court or something.

Posted by: Timothy at October 18, 2005 5:09 PM

Timothy:

Combine them and you have the objection that she gave bad advice because she wanted to be picked for a job she refused when offered. That's about as sensible as anything these guys claim to get around their real objection: religion.

Posted by: oj at October 18, 2005 5:14 PM

I sure hope someone out there with a clue is taking notes and can explain what the heck is going on with this nomination someday. Obviously Bush & Reid cut some sort of deal, but what does it all mean?

Posted by: b at October 18, 2005 5:29 PM

b:

How could anyone in politics pass up an opportunity to stick it to the insufferable neocons?

Posted by: oj at October 18, 2005 5:33 PM

Keep in mind that Reid is pro-life...

Posted by: Timothy at October 18, 2005 5:40 PM

b --

Reid is just chattering; he will be a "No" vote. If Harry and the other flakes who voted against Roberts actually support her after the hearings, I doubt anyone else will.

Posted by: curt at October 18, 2005 5:41 PM

OK, so why have several theocon-ish Senators made such grumblings about her? To provoke the neocons into even more open opposition, and bring their distaste for the Southern, evangelical base into the open? Why do that now?

Posted by: b at October 18, 2005 5:43 PM

They want a 100% certain vote against Roe, which no one can give them. Remember Brownback opposed Roberts initially too.

Posted by: oj at October 18, 2005 5:54 PM

curt: I don't see what's in it for Reid to publicly double-cross Bush. The Dems have no hope of recapturing the Senate anytime soon. A cynic might say that Reid actually wants Roe overturned, since the CW is that that will be good for the Dems, and maybe didn't know she had such an easily revealed record, nor did he expect so many Republicans to freak out and force that record into the open so soon. I still suspect some sort of deal was made, but dunno what the details could possibly be...

Posted by: b at October 18, 2005 5:55 PM

b - Senators will give talking points to every element in their constituency, but then they'll vote the party line. To give a grumbling constituent a grumble too makes them feel good and costs nothing.

Posted by: pj at October 18, 2005 5:57 PM

No withdrawal. I want to see the screechers actually persuade enough GOP Senators to vote to reject her, for the entertainment value alone.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at October 18, 2005 7:11 PM

Agree with Raoul - let's get to the hearings and see who wins. Not to be petty about this but NRO, Frum, and Fund have been ridiculous on this whole affair and should be slapped down when it is over (assuming Miers passes the Senate)

Posted by: AWW at October 18, 2005 9:08 PM

AWW;

No more ridiculous than those who term any objection to nominating a woman "sexism". Are Reid and OJ now channeling the Hillary Clinton campaign staff?

Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at October 19, 2005 3:51 PM

If Hillary were a guy people wouldn't hate her.

Posted by: oj at October 19, 2005 3:54 PM

If St.Hillary were a guy, she'd be lucky to still be a County Commissioner in Little Rock.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at October 19, 2005 7:29 PM
« NOW THAT'S WHAT I CALL A BONE (via David Cohen with title): | Main | ICKY...POLITICS: »