Reuters: "Bush pick for high court outrages conservatives"

[Lex]

.
:nopity:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush on Monday nominated White House insider Harriet Miers for a Supreme Court vacancy, triggering outrage from conservatives who questioned whether she would uphold their political views.

Bush chose Miers, a lawyer but not a judge whose opinions on key issues likely to come before the high court are largely unknown, to replace the retiring Sandra Day O'Connor.

Conservatives who formed the bedrock foundation of Bush's re-election last November immediately protested the nomination as a betrayal of his campaign promise to pick conservative judges, pointing to her past campaign donations to Democrats.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2005-10-03T165626Z_01_EIC341094_RTRUKOC_0_US-BUSH-COURT-MIERS.xml

[moc]

1. Oh the tragedy

:rofl:

They've done been snookered. Why do I not feel any empathy for them? :shrug:

[Child_Of_Isis]

2. Give shrub a week on the propaganda trail

and they all will be singing a new tune.

[jmatthan]

3. Talking Points Smokescreen?

eom

[mopinko]

15. hammer, nail, bang

eom

[Rosco T.]

4. If it's a smokescreen, it's backfiring...

... too many 'normal folks' are PO'ed about her also.

No, this is hubris taking it's toll..

(ok Fitz.. now's a good time to drop the bomb...)

[Lex]

20. I agree. nt

[Blue_Roses]

5. well, that didn't take long

LOL
:rofl:

[Goldeneye]

6. What a bunch of idiots.

I figured they'd try to hang on to their base at least. They've lost pretty much everyone else. But, like I said in a nother thread, I'm sure Rove is working on selling Miers to the freeper blogs and the fundy leaders. They didn't like Roberts that much at first either. I don't know if they can pull it off, but I'm sure they're trying.

[papau]

7. WSJ is selling her as anti-abortion & a Scalia "originalist"-Fundi-Bible?

So is Ms. Miers's not just a judicial restraint/limited role of the court/judicial conservative, she is a Scalia anti-abortion "orginalist" with no respect for precedent?

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB1128351923853585...

<snip>Marvin Olasky, a journalism professor and the father of the "compassionate conservative" movement, posted a series of excerpts from interviews with friends and acquaintances of Harriet Miers he conducted before the official nomination. One of the interviews was with Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht, who said he has known Ms. Miers for 30 years and described their relationship as "very close friends."

Quoting Mr. Hecht on Ms. Miers's judicial philosophy: "She's an originalist -- that's the way she takes the Bible," and that's her approach to the Constitution as well -- "Originalist -- it means what it says."

Mr. Hecht says he and Ms. Miers "went to two or three pro-life dinners in the late 80s or early 90s."<snip>


http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa022701a.htm
Scalia on the Constitution


U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia explained and defended his "originalist" approach to constitutional interpretation in a closing address to a Princeton University conference on James Madison, fourth president and framer of the Constitution.

Speaking on Feb. 23, 2001, Justice Scalia explained that he, like Madison, interprets the Constitution according to the "common sense" meaning and definition of the document's words at the time they were written. An opposite approach, Scalia suggested from that applied by Justices who believe the Constitution "changes from age to age in order to meet the needs of a changing society."

Scalia criticized the second approach, saying that it too often results in crafting subjective interpretations of the Constitution to address issues that could and should be handled by Congress.

Calling his view of the Constitution an "originalist" view, Scalia conceded it often places him in a position of supporting laws that do not seem to make sense.

"It may well be stupid, but if it's stupid, pass a law!" he said. "Don't think the originalist interpretation constrains you. To the contrary. My Constitution is a very flexible Constitution. You want a right to abortion? Create it the way all rights are created in a democracy, pass a law. The death penalty? Pass a law. That's flexibility

<snip>

[DawnneOBTS]

8. Did anyone think...

...that he possibly picked her because he thinks that there is no way his own party will vote for her? That he could be using her for a "red herring?" Then he can say after she is rejected by the Right, "Oh, well, see...I tried to be a uniter after all."

[Lex]

9. No, I think he thinks he's stacking the SCOTUS with his loyalists.

He thinks he can call in a favor one day from his buds on the Supreme Court if Plamegate ever comes to fruition.

[derby378]

10. I don't think he puts that much thought into it...

This sounds like the sort of thing Rove or Cheney might do.

[zbdent]

11. zbdent: "Bushit!"

smokescreen . . .

[zalinda]

12. Wait, wait, maybe she is JUST a lawyer

meaning that she can divorce herself from her client. How many lawyers fight for their clients when they know the client is guilty. Maybe she is a liberal, but just was being a lawyer for her client.

zalinda

[RaleighNCDUer]

13. Hold it, hold it, HOLD IT!

Just a couple weeks ago, weren't the cons all freaked out because they didn't know where Roberts stood? Does anybody remember that?

BULLSHIT!

If they didn't know exactly where she stood, she'd have never been nominated.

They doth protest too much, and it's all designed to make the moderates and liberals less uncomfortable, make them less likely to really dig in and fight.

Rove handed out the talking points over the weekend, and that is how there is a concerted chorus of concern from the right within moments of the nomination.

[triguy46]

14. Oh yeah, they are so torn up...

that they will do nothing.

[LaPera]

16. She's a fucking Texas republican conservative-A smokescreen for confusion

to get another unqualified right-wing judge into the highest court...

How much did Rove have to pay Bill Kristol and other republicans to whine and pretend?

"The president has selected a loyal political ally without a judicial record to sit on the highest court in the land." - Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.

[MrBenchley]

17. LOL!!

Yup, that's the problem...she's not batshit crazy enough for the "Let's screw with Terri Schiavo" crowd.

[AZBlue]

18. Just on freeperville - they really are in a tizzy.

I usually can't stomach it but today was funny - they are so upset over her nomination. I mean, she might even be pro-choice! :scared:

I just had to share some quotes (including their typos):
"There's nothing inherently wrong with cronyism"

"Does the fact (just now reported on Drudge) that this nominee was a DEMONCRAT in the 1980's and is a RECENT convert to conservatism a bad enough smell? To the phones! To the Phones! We haven't worked this hard to get conservatives throughout government to have another ruthie on the bench!"

"I am extremely disappointed in W. I'm beginning to think that he is worse than his father and this father was bad. I am embarrassed to admit that I voted for him."

"My problem is that she comes from Bush's personal circle, not the Beltway as a whole. Miers is far less "Beltway" than Roberts. She's part of Bush's Texas circle. I'm thinking about the future of conservativism beyond Bush's term. I'm thinking about a return to strict constructionism. Above all, I'm thinking about the conservative movement that was here long before Bush and will be here long after him, and all the work they've put into this, and all the hopes of an entire generation that are riding on this appointment. I'm thinking about how Bush's father blew it with Souter, and Reagan blew it with both O'Connor and Kennedy.
And most of all, I'm thinking about how Bush is stealing this moment from the conservative movement all for himself."



Bushie's losing his base.

[Lex]

19. LOL!

Freeper: "To the Phones! To the Phones!"

:eyes: