Miers and Roberts: The consequences Americans refused to believe

[Walt Starr]

The voters have been warned and warned again. The SCOTUS nominations are perhaps the most important consideration when voting.

The only people who paid attention to the supremacy of that argument were the anti-choice theocratic dunderheads, voting on one issue and one issue alone. That shows how effective the argument truly is. Nobody pays attention to the most important undercurrents in an election, only the frivolous bullshit spewed by liars.

The time has come to pay the piper. We'd need at least three more seats to effectively filibuster this nomination, and they ain't coming before the vote happens. These are the consequences of two things, in my opinion. The success of an attack the messenger at all cost dirty politics tactic by the reichwing smear machine and the lack of leadership in the Democratic Party.

It's sad. The only hope we have is the fact that Miers is 60 years old and doesn't look very healthy. Also, men as young as Roberts who appear to be the picture of health have dropped dead from a heart attack before.

Universe help us all.

[xchrom]

1. well said.

[calico1]

2. There is also another reason.

Many people today were not around for the civil rights movement of the 60's nor were they alive when abortion was illegal and a lot of women died from illegal ones. They see these things as far away history. Nothing they can really feel the way you would if you lived through it. I know so many people of this age group that think that what is legal is legal, period. It will never be changed. I am afraid that it may take losing these rights in order to light a fire under the butts of many people who take civil rights, abortion rights, etc. for granted and have never had to work to defend either. There is a lot of apathy in this country. I am overjoyed to see all the people on DU who were not alive in the 60's or 70's who do get it and do realize what is at stake. But there are a lot of people of this generation who don't have a clue of what rights we can lose.

[existentialist]

3. Can This Nomination Be Justified? [excerpts from George Will]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/04/AR2005100400954_pf.html

I just read your post, mostly checking to see that what I was about to post wasn't already posted somewhere. Not only is your subject matter nearly identical, but the essay from which I was about to post illustrates yours nicely because I remember, back in 2000 when George Will stated that one of the primary reasons for voting for him was because of the judicial nominations that he would make. Now George Will says:

"he president has forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution."

Can This Nomination Be Justified?
By George F. Will

Wednesday, October 5, 2005; A23

Senators beginning what ought to be a protracted and exacting scrutiny of Harriet Miers should be guided by three rules. First, it is not important that she be confirmed. Second, it might be very important that she not be. Third, the presumption -- perhaps rebuttable but certainly in need of rebutting -- should be that her nomination is not a defensible exercise of presidential discretion to which senatorial deference is due.

It is not important that she be confirmed because there is no evidence that she is among the leading lights of American jurisprudence, or that she possesses talents commensurate with the Supreme Court's tasks. The president's "argument" for her amounts to: Trust me. There is no reason to, for several reasons.

He has neither the inclination nor the ability to make sophisticated judgments about competing approaches to construing the Constitution. Few presidents acquire such abilities in the course of their pre-presidential careers, and this president particularly is not disposed to such reflections.



In addition, the president has forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution. The forfeiture occurred March 27, 2002, when, in a private act betokening an uneasy conscience, he signed the McCain-Feingold law expanding government regulation of the timing, quantity and content of political speech. The day before the 2000 Iowa caucuses he was asked -- to ensure a considered response from him, he had been told in advance that he would be asked -- whether McCain-Feingold's core purposes are unconstitutional. He unhesitatingly said, "I agree." Asked if he thought presidents have a duty, pursuant to their oath to defend the Constitution, to make an independent judgment about the constitutionality of bills and to veto those he thinks unconstitutional, he briskly said, "I do."

[Inland]

5. Will's right, in that Bush is saying that he knows her,

you won't be allowed to know her, and therefore you must trust him.

After all, Bush and whatshername have had plenty of conversations over the issues that come before the court, enough that he thinks he knows where she will rule on specific cases.

And Bush and whatshername will refuse to divulge the exact same issues to congress

So the entire argument is from Bush, trust my judgment. Trust my judgment as to appropriate goals and trust that this is the person to acheive them. I know things you won't be allowed to know. Trust me.

Of course, I don't, and neither does anyone else. Bush is not only a duplicitous turd, but his judgment on all sorts of levels suck.

[emulatorloo]

4. This is one of the reasons I find the "there's no difference" argument so

tiresome. I'll confess that I held that position once upon a time. But I cannot think of any Dem in our primary group who would have nominated a Roberts or a Meirs, or have put a "Brownie" in charge of FEMA etc etc.

How many DU'ers who are now bitching about Roberts and Miers were busy telling all their friends in '04 "I just don't know if I can vote for Kerry, he's not _________ enough for me!."

Oh well, here's to 2006.

[Inland]

6. Yep. And most irritating of all,

Ralph Nader is sure to write the Senate Democrats a letter about what to do about this nomination.

[OneBlueSky]

7. actually, a majority of Americans DID believe . . .

and voted against Bush . . . unfortunately, the totals got a wee bit altered during the tabulating process . . .

[Inland]

8. The theocrats and neocons kept their eye on the ball.

They still do. I'm of the opinion that the theocrats and neocons know as well as the next guy that Bush's policies are a disaster. But they won't say so, and in fact, they will argue that Bush is the greatest thing since sliced bread, Iraq is going swimmingly, and that deficits don't exist: they need Bush is good enough shape politically to get the supreme court nominations through the senate, so they defend EVerything.

[existentialist]

9. Yes, except that

I consider George Will to be one of those neocons that you are describing.

Yet the George Will editorial from which I posted this morning shows that he has faced up to a painful realization that Bush is a disaster for neocons too.

I still don't trust George Will any more than I trust George Bush, but at least he sees that 2 + 2 = 4.

And Bush doesn't.