Miers Withdraws...

I've been expecting this.

The nomination process has become an abomination.

Some folks even made fun of the way John Robert's kids were dressed.

We never really got a chance to know her with all the noise surrounding her nomination.

 

I agree, the nomination and confirmation process needs to be reined in.

 

Can we say that Miers 'aborted' her nomination?

Notice how nicely they couched this in terms of protecting Excutive branch confidentiality protection rather than say, "we didn't have the votes from our parties base so we withdrew rather than lose."

Which thread has the office pool for the next nominee?

 

Speculation only at this point! However, now we'll never know.

I was not overjoyed at her nomination, wishing that Pres Bush would pick a stronger (Was she or wasn't she?) conservative, but I'm even less overjoyed that the process has taken such a turn.

I would have far more liked to have seen her face acceptance or rejection, and proceeded from there.

The real tragedy of this is the "legitimization" of the witch hunt tactics that the senate is using, and the "filibuster" (HA!!) threats from the dems.

The whole process has become not much more than a comedy of errors, with the country paying the price of power hungry politicians' ambitions.

MARANATHA!!!

 

The confirmation SHOULD be very rigorous. These are lifetime appointments that affect the lives of all Americans. Nobody, regardless of politics, should be a "shoe in".

 

So who's arguing against this idea?

 

Rigorous is not the word for what currently takes place.IMO

 

Agreed.

 

T. Cassidy, the Texas lottery scandal was sure to come up during Senate hearings. So maybe some people weren't so stupid after all. Just a thought.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1154AP_Miers_Texas_Lottery.html

 

What can I say? You know how liberals make mountains out of mole hills. Or invent stuff.

 

I agree. People on the right were to against Meirs. They accepted Roberts who is Catholic but rejected Meirs who was a member of an Evangelical Church for 25 yrs. Doesn't make much sense. IMO

Nate

 

Church membership is no determination of someone's political philosophy.

 

I don't think the religious right were stupid at all. They managed to sink her nomination which the Democrats probably would not have been able to do.

There were legitimate questions about her suitablity for the office - that she had no judicial experience, little experience with constitutional law, that she made an error of fact in citing a constitutional issue, that she failed to answer her senate questionaire adequately, that she considers Bush to be the most brilliant man she ever met.

Bush may kowtow to the religious righties now that they kicked his behind or he could try a well-qualified moderate similar to Roberts. I suspect it will be the former.

 

Okay,

Now lets appoint Sam Cummings.

Conservative, Christian, Baptist - - has already taken pro Christian stances in rulings.

 

Link to Judge Cummings re Constitution (Second Amendment Foundation):

 

I still want John Ashcroft.

 

I thinkyou have a point here. There were two things at play here:

1 - John Roberts ws a very good nominee, so much so that any nominee after him would have big shoes to fill. Meiers simply wasn't as solid of a nominee, not remotely close.

2 - Bush should have stayed on track by sticking to his beliefs of her perspective judicial philosophy. There would arise every now and then a tangent on her religion, or her abortion writings, or lottery actions, etc. All sideissues, really. But nominees often get tanked because of side issues. This one tanked before confirmation hearings were an issue.

Bush needs to find another Roberts. Then again, the next nomineee may appear quite astute when following the Meiers nomination.