Political Crossfire Forums

[John Galt]

Miers Withdraws Supreme Court Nomination

Oct 27 9:36 AM US/Eastern

By TERENCE HUNT
AP White House Correspondent


WASHINGTON


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.

Miers notified Bush of her decision at 8:30 p.m. Wednesday, according to a senior White House official who said the president will move quickly to find a new nominee.

In her letter dated Thursday, Miers said she was concerned that the confirmation process "would create a burden for the White House and our staff that is not in the best interest of the country."

She noted that members of the Senate had indicated their intention to seek documents about her service in the White House in order to judge whether to support her nomination to the Supreme Court. "I have been informed repeatedly that in lieu of records, I would be expected to testify about my service in the White House to demonstrate my experience and judicial philosophy," she wrote.

"While I believe that my lengthy career provides sufficient evidence for consideration of my nomination, I am convinced the efforts to obtain Executive Branch materials and information will continue."

Miers' nomination has been under withering criticism ever since Bush announced her selection on Oct. 3. There were widespread complaints about her lack of legal credentials, doubts about her ability and assertions of cronyism because of her longtime association with Bush.

The nomination drew fire across the political spectrum and caused a rebellion among the conservative core of Bush's supporters who doubted her qualifications and wanted a nominee who they felt would be a reliable vote against abortion, affirmative actions and other hot- button issues.

On Capitol Hill, there was meager support among Republicans for Miers and her nomination appeared in serious trouble.

In a letter on Wednesday, Sen. Arlen Specter, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, sought public assurances that Miers would show no favoritism toward Bush if confirmed to the Supreme Court.

Most recently she has been Bush's White House counsel. Bush said that with her withdrawal, she would remain as counsel. He did not indicate when he would name a successor.

"My responsibility to fill this vacancy remains," Bush said in a statement. "I will do so in a timely manner."

Before Bush chose Miers on Oct. 3, speculation focused on Miers and two other Bush loyalists: Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Bush's longtime friend who would be the first Hispanic on the court; and corporate lawyer Larry Thompson, who was the government's highest ranking black law enforcement official as deputy attorney general during Bush's first term.

Other candidates mentioned frequently included conservative federal appeals court judges J. Michael Luttig, Priscilla Owen, Karen Williams, Alice Batchelder and Samuel Alito; Michigan Supreme Court justice Maura Corrigan; and Maureen Mahoney, a well-respected litigator before the high court.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/27/D8DGDFR00.html

[DavidXV]

She would have been a great asset to the court and to this country which is in desperate need for the exactly the kind of SC judge she would have been, a strict constitutionalist. Score one for partisan posturing, score one for satanic baby murderers and attackers of our constitution, score one for the manipulative leftwing extremist press, their commie comrades and low IQ marionettes in the senate and the idiots that voted for them. But this is the just the first round and Bush will win in the next round, get ready for a knockout.

[Isaac Brock]

Don't hold back, David, let us know what you realy think.

Regardless of her qualification or lack, this is a vote of non-confidence in Bush, not Miers.

[F'losrix]

I think her withdrawal is a sign of just how strong the stranglehold of the extreme right is on this administration. I expect the replacement nominee will be someone with less ambiguous views on social issues, so that the administration can avoid the appearance of impropriety fostered by stuff like conference calls with James Dobson and other extremists.

It's especially telling that James Dobson and his ilk were given assurances that Miers would have made decisions based not only on the Constitution, but also on her strong beliefs. That hardly sounds like 'strict constructionism'.

So you can save us the hoohah. What the administration tried to give us was a stealth ideologue in sheep's clothing, and Miers got sheered as the result. The plan totally backfired on them.

It will be interesting to see who they put up next.

[psholtz]

Nice story, but can we get a slightly less enormous mug shot to go w/ it??

Kinda ruins the PCF home page.. :lol:

[anselfir]

:lol:

woot! we are teh pwnage!!!!111

[Kahlfin]

DavidXV wrote: She would have been a great asset to the court and to this country which is in desperate need for the exactly the kind of SC judge she would have been, a strict constitutionalist. Score one for partisan posturing, score one for satanic baby murderers and attackers of our constitution, score one for the manipulative leftwing extremist press, their commie comrades and low IQ marionettes in the senate and the idiots that voted for them. But this is the just the first round and Bush will win in the next round, get ready for a knockout.

I agree that Miers would have been a moderate constitutionalist, which is exactly what a justice is supposed to be (although her lack of experience left much to be desired).

Okay, I think you've got the wrong enemies of Miers. The reason Miers lacked support was not because of pro-choicers ("satanic baby killers"), attackers of our constitution and the non-existent leftwing extremist press. It was because of conservatives such as yourself wanting someone more conservative and qualified. If your own party had given enough support, I believe Miers would have been approved, as Roberts, a more conservative justice, was approved by somewhere around 80 senators (that's almost all the republicans and a majority of democrats). And your claims of Satanism have no basis, at least as far as I know, because as far as I know most pro-choicers are not satanists.

[mrster]

"And your claims of Satanism have no basis, at least as far as I know, because as far as I know most pro-choicers are not satanists."


Oh come on, where have you been hiding, they're all devil worshippers!!

[Eclectic]

This is ridiculous!

Bush nominated a ‘woman’ that appeared to have an ‘unbiased’ political perspective and the Republicans turn on her, the Democrats exploit her because she isn’t as “freakishly” Right Wing as the current administration, and everybody cries until they get what they want.

Think about this:http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=40513

[Scribbler1]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: So you can save us the hoohah. What the administration tried to give us was a stealth ideologue in sheep's clothing, and Miers got sheered as the result. The plan totally backfired on them.

It will be interesting to see who they put up next. I believe she was more a sacrificial candidate than a stealth candidate. Bush is on the way out and if he wants to really make his mark he'll put someone in so far right that most mainstream Republicans won't like him. The problem would be the Democrats AND Republicans would gang up on him and he wouldn't be a successful nominee. But with all the posturing about Miers they won't be so quick to trash number TWO.

She was the warmup band for the Stones, old whazzername was.

[Eclectic]

John Galt wrote: 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."

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/27/D8DGDFR00.html

You know what this is about, don't you? This may have little to do with the crybabies; this is to keep the Senate from seeing documents regarding the Bush administration's actions. This wasn't even about "us" seeing them, it's the Senate! Only ELECTED OFFICIALS would have been able to view these files and that's the reason she withdrew!

WE are under a tyrannical dictatorship, and I'm not kidding in the slightest.

Added: I take back the part I said before about her maybe being 'unbiased'; she probably wasn't.

[Scribbler1]

Eclectic wrote: John Galt wrote: 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."

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/27/D8DGDFR00.html

You know what this is about, don't you? This may have little to do with the crybabies; this is to keep the Senate from seeing documents regarding the Bush administration's actions. This wasn't even about "us" seeing them, it's the Senate! Only ELECTED OFFICIALS would have been able to view these files and that's the reason she withdrew!

WE are under a tyrannical dictatorship, and I'm not kidding in the slightest. What I don't understand is why they would feel the need to give up the REAL documents anyway. If no one has seen the things before, who is to say they are fake.

[Eclectic]

Scribbler1 wrote: Eclectic wrote: John Galt wrote: 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."

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/27/D8DGDFR00.html

You know what this is about, don't you? This may have little to do with the crybabies; this is to keep the Senate from seeing documents regarding the Bush administration's actions. This wasn't even about "us" seeing them, it's the Senate! Only ELECTED OFFICIALS would have been able to view these files and that's the reason she withdrew!

WE are under a tyrannical dictatorship, and I'm not kidding in the slightest. What I don't understand is why they would feel the need to give up the REAL documents anyway. If no one has seen the things before, who is to say they are fake.

Dude, I don't think the files are fakes or forgeries. I think they are authentic documents covering some of what the Bush administration has been doing.

And they won't let the Senate see them? :shock:

[Coral]

Eclectic wrote: John Galt wrote: 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."

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/27/D8DGDFR00.html

You know what this is about, don't you? This may have little to do with the crybabies; this is to keep the Senate from seeing documents regarding the Bush administration's actions. This wasn't even about "us" seeing them, it's the Senate! Only ELECTED OFFICIALS would have been able to view these files and that's the reason she withdrew!

WE are under a tyrannical dictatorship, and I'm not kidding in the slightest.

Added: I take back the part I said before about her maybe being 'unbiased'; she probably wasn't.

I agree. And this was not her decision, it was Bush's decision when he saw the writing on the wall.

[Scribbler1]

Eclectic wrote: Dude, I don't think the files are fakes or forgeries. I think they are authentic documents covering some of what the Bush administration has been doing.

And they won't let the Senate see them? :shock: That's my point. If the Senate wants to see them and they have any information damaging to the administration, why not give them fakes. What I'm asking is WHO exactly knows what is in these documents and can they be verified independently as to authenticity?

[GunshySlycat1]

DavidXV wrote: She would have been a great asset to the court and to this country which is in desperate need for the exactly the kind of SC judge she would have been, a strict constitutionalist. Score one for partisan posturing, score one for satanic baby murderers and attackers of our constitution, score one for the manipulative leftwing extremist press, their commie comrades and low IQ marionettes in the senate and the idiots that voted for them. But this is the just the first round and Bush will win in the next round, get ready for a knockout.

It goes both ways, David ;) You either love to spew partisanship and not realize that you're doing it or you really believe the stuff you say sometimes which is hard to believe. I heard she was unqualified on FNC. Yeah, I watch FNC and I'm not a republican..ha. I just think It's more interesting than CNN even though they're not really fair and balanced.....

[W.C. Emerson]

Eclectic wrote: This is ridiculous!

Bush nominated a ‘woman’ that appeared to have an ‘unbiased’ political perspective and the Republicans turn on her, the Democrats exploit her because she isn’t as “freakishly” Right Wing as the current administration, and everybody cries until they get what they want.

Think about this:http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=40513

I think people were upset because this seems to be another example of appointing a crony who has a lack of experience/qualifications. Therefore, they ignored the whole unbiased-thing.

[Eclectic]

Scribbler1 wrote: Eclectic wrote: Dude, I don't think the files are fakes or forgeries. I think they are authentic documents covering some of what the Bush administration has been doing.

And they won't let the Senate see them? :shock:

That's my point. If the Senate wants to see them and they have any information damaging to the administration, why not give them fakes. What I'm asking is WHO exactly knows what is in these documents and can they be verified independently as to authenticity?

Well, if our government doesn't have an effective method of designating and identifying authentic documents, then that needs to be addressed and corrected also. However, I believe that they already do, or Bush would have taken the simple course and just given them false documents making her appear to have been a very sound advisor. Of course, that would be risking a lot, and in light of the recent "bad luck" the administration has been having, it wouldn't be wise to risk anything...

and when I say, "bad luck," I really mean that their own actions are coming back to bite them in the proverbial boo boo.

[Jehan]

DavidXV wrote: She would have been a great asset to the court and to this country which is in desperate need for the exactly the kind of SC judge she would have been, a strict constitutionalist. Score one for partisan posturing, score one for satanic baby murderers and attackers of our constitution, score one for the manipulative leftwing extremist press, their commie comrades and low IQ marionettes in the senate and the idiots that voted for them. But this is the just the first round and Bush will win in the next round, get ready for a knockout.

Talk about low IQ.

Have you ever noticed that it is the Republicans who were falling over each other when Bush nominated Miers? No, of course not. You are too wrapped up in a cocoon of ignorance, always viciously lashing out at the Democrats, the Greens, anyone who isn't a Republican. Never mind when it is true or not.

I suggest you look this over, my friend.

[bennieboi]

Miers would've been "at best a mistake, at worst a disaster" as The Weekly Standard puts it. She never had a case before the Supreme Court. Wall Street Journal (Oct. 19) "no sense that she has thought about" constitutional issues. She couldn't even fill out her questionaire. It was the first time a questionaire had to be sent back because she decided not to answer some questions. Second, the Senate wouldn't have confirmed her because they didnt know enough about her beliefs. The Nation (Oct. 24) again states "The Senate is asked, then, to confirm a nominee with no visible judicial philosophy who lacks the basic skills of persuasive argument and clear writing." Third, she wouldnt have been confirmed because her confirmation would split the fragile conservative coalition on social issues. The only reason for her confirmation is that Bush may not be able to find anyone better, but that in itself is not a good enough reason.