Bush faces decision with next pick

[Extra Stout]

Does he try to spite everybody by picking Alberto Gonzales?

Or does he give a big middle finger to the conservatives that dared question his authority, and nominate Cass Sunstein or Larry Tribe?

And if Bush does nominate Sunstein or Tribe, how long until Nbadan googles up an article claiming that Sunstein/Tribe actually is a closet neocon?

[FromWayDowntown]

I can't imagine that Sunstein or Tribe are going to get any consideration here, even if Bush wishes to spite his base. Though I guess that stranger things could happen.

Personally, I'd think that we'll get a nominee who is an ideological conservative, but one who has a judicial background. I thought that the idea with Miers was to get the ideological conservative woman but to do so without the possibility of a knock-down, drag-out war in the committee and on the Senate floor. I think the WH thought that Miers lack of a non-privileged paper trail would make it harder for anyone to question her before the hearings and would make the confirmation process more a game of blind man's bluff -- Senators not knowing what she really stood for and running into the Ginsburg/Roberts precedent to deter them from finding out much about those views. That was a serious miscalculation. We might truly be in for a war with the next nomination.

[Yonivore]

I think he does one of two things:

Leaves the seat vacant as a smackdown to the disloyal Republicans that derailed Miers nomination or, nominates the staunch conservative they've asked for.

If it's the former, we know Miers was a serious nomination all along...the latter, she was a throw down nomination intended to call negative public attention to the nomination process in the hopes the public won't tolerate a repeat of the nonsense.

Just a thought; but, obviously, I've already been wrong on this.

[boutons]

"to call negative public attention to the nomination process"

the "nomination process" was dubya's own cronyism process, which of course he's too ing stupid to see it for what it was. Why would he want that to be seen as negative? Miers is a reflection of dubya and dubya alone.

I'm pretty sure dubya's crony was seen, by himself at least, to be a serious nomination. I'm the much brigher lights who really run the Repub machine knew Miers was doomed from day one. As with most of his life and administration, when left to his own devices, he totally ed it up, while showing profound ignorance of and disrepect for the role the SC plays in the US system.

[ggoose25]

i think he'll nominate another woman or minority. but he won't pick an ultraconservative the way his base wants him to. he knows if he does, the Senate Dems will filibuster his/her ass

[Extra Stout]

I think he does one of two things:

Leaves the seat vacant as a smackdown to the disloyal Republicans that derailed Miers nomination or, nominates the staunch conservative they've asked for.

If it's the former, we know Miers was a serious nomination all along...the latter, she was a throw down nomination intended to call negative public attention to the nomination process in the hopes the public won't tolerate a repeat of the nonsense.

Just a thought; but, obviously, I've already been wrong on this.

Number one... yes, Miers was a serious nomination. Bush was looking for somebody with a short paper trail who he liked, and who he thought would vote in ways that he would like.

He simply failed to anticipate that his core supporters would insist upon a well-qualified candidate. He failed to understand how conservatives were putting up with a lot of his un-conservative policies because they were expecting the payoff to come on SC nominations.

And, he failed to vet her properly because he trusted his gut.

This was not some genius Rovian maneuver. If anything, it happened in part because Rove has been distracted by the ongoing grand jury investigation and Andy Card has filled that void.

Number two... unserious nominations are not a good idea. It would take very imaginative thinking to say that this was in any way a positive episode for the President. The best that can be said is that a complete break-up of the conservative movement was avoided here.

Number three... I don't see how this helps or hurts the nomination process in any way. What we saw is that an unqualified, substandard candidate will receive bipartisan opposition.

[Yonivore]

Number one... yes, Miers was a serious nomination. Bush was looking for somebody with a short paper trail who he liked, and who he thought would vote in ways that he would like.

He simply failed to anticipate that his core supporters would insist upon a well-qualified candidate. He failed to understand how conservatives were putting up with a lot of his un-conservative policies because they were expecting the payoff to come on SC nominations.

Sounds reasonable but, you can't convince me that after witnessing the Roberts process President Bush didn't think her public statements, speeches, and liberal viewpoints from the 70's and 80's wouldn't be soundly thrashed around in the media. I don't buy it.

I'm more inclined to believe the Miers nomination was -- and this doesn't speak well of the President either -- a statement on sorry state of the judicial nominations process.

I believe the President full well remembes his pledge to nominate justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas and, for that reason, think there is much more to the nomination of Harriet Miers than just an unconscious selection of a trusted crony. Sorry, doesn't fly with me.

And, he failed to vet her properly because he trusted his gut.

This wasn't a David Souter nomination where the President relied on the recommendation of a Senator. This is a person he's been in close personal relationship with for a couple of decades.

It had less to do with his gut than what he absolutely knew about Harriet Miers.

This was not some genius Rovian maneuver. If anything, it happened in part because Rove has been distracted by the ongoing grand jury investigation and Andy Card has filled that void.

Sorry, I don't buy into the "Karl Rove Rules The World" conspiracies. I actually believe -- as I've experienced in my past dealings with the former Governor -- that we have a thoughtful, sincere, serious, and intelligent President who, for reasons I'm confident are well thought out (even if wrong), selected Harriet Miers as a nominee based on a process more complex than just a lack of attention.

Number two... unserious nominations are not a good idea. It would take very imaginative thinking to say that this was in any way a positive episode for the President. The best that can be said is that a complete break-up of the conservative movement was avoided here.

I tend to agree and, if this were a "throw down" appointment intended to make some sort of statement on the process, it was ill-advised and ill-conceived. But, hey, we all make mistakes.

Number three... I don't see how this helps or hurts the nomination process in any way. What we saw is that an unqualified, substandard candidate will receive bipartisan opposition.

First, I don't buy that she was unqualified or substandard...but, that aside, if nothing else, it exposed (in conjunction with the vote on the Coburn amendment) Republicans who are serious about the conservative agenda and those who are merely interested in politics as usual. The Coburn vote was a real eye-opener for many.

[FromWayDowntown]

Sounds reasonable but, you can't convince me that after witnessing the Roberts process President Bush didn't think her public statements, speeches, and liberal viewpoints from the 70's and 80's wouldn't be soundly thrashed around in the media. I don't buy it.

I'm more inclined to believe the Miers nomination was -- and this doesn't speak well of the President either -- a statement on sorry state of the judicial nominations process.

I'm not sure exactly how the Miers nomination reflects on the process or illustrates that it is in sorry shape; if that's what you believe the Miers nomination illustrates, then what did the Roberts confirmation illustrate?

It seems to me that the juxtaposition of the two nominations is indicative of the fact that the process actually works.

Roberts is exceedingly qualified to sit on the Supreme Court, both by education and experience. He has routinely dealt with and considered the various facets of many of the most complex issues of Cons utional law and can legitimately discuss the nuanced distinctions that create different results in those cases. He had an extensive paper trail, but that only enhanced the ease of his confirmation proceedings. Senators knew who Roberts was and what he believed; that some chose to vote against him on party lines is not indicative of the fact that the process is somehow flawed -- it's indicative of the fact that some Senators will play politics no matter what. That's not a blight on the process, it's a blight on those Senators.

What the Miers fiasco proves, I think, is that Senators take their advise-and-consent obligations very seriously. As the Cons ution contemplates, the Senators don't view their role to be that of a rubber-stamp for Presidential nominees. Their actions with respect to the Miers nomination show that regardless of the nominee, they demand to know about him or her and to gain some understanding of a jurisprudential philosophy, whether politically-based or not. The questions about Miers have arisen because: (1) she lacks demonstrable paper qualifications to sit on the Court; and (2) nobody has been able to discover whether she has qualifications that transcend her paper trail. In part, the second issue has become more crucial because Miers has given responses at various points in time that are, to say the least, curious. Further, the issues surrounding her appointment and the need to establish who she is (though not necessarily related to her qualifications) has become a more significant issue because of the Dobson revelation and the quasi-assurances offered by Justice Hecht and Judge Kinkeade, all of which would be appropriate subjects for examination during a confirmation hearing and all of which are appropriate subjects for do ent requests and/or subpoenas.

Again, I don't see how any of those things are indicative of some endemic problem with the process of nominating federal judges (including Supreme Court justices). Certainly, the process is more political than some might wish it to be, but that's the nature of a government with separated powers and competing political parties. It is not, in my mind, an indictment of the nomination process. Roberts proves that the nomination process works.

First, I don't buy that she was unqualified or substandard...

I'm not trying to be contentious here, but I'm honestly curious about what you rely upon for that conclusion.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

I just hope we get a candidate that judges every decision as conservative as humanly possible

[Marcus Bryant]

One could look for a pattern in the last 3 high profile Presidential nominations, Roberts, Miers and Bernanke.

What explains the Roberts' selection? Perhaps its that Bush thinks so highly of his staff that he went along.

As for Miers, what I think happened is that the staff decided that O'Connor needed to be replaced with a woman. Bush thought, 'hey, I have a super smart lawyer woman here who I know and know what she believes'.

Then it's on to Bernanke, who was heading up Bush's Council of Economic Advisors. I guess we should be fortunate that in addition to being someone Bush was working with, he was a well qualified economist.

[JoeChalupa]

I think he does one of two things:

Leaves the seat vacant as a smackdown to the disloyal Republicans that derailed Miers nomination or, nominates the staunch conservative they've asked for.

If it's the former, we know Miers was a serious nomination all along...the latter, she was a throw down nomination intended to call negative public attention to the nomination process in the hopes the public won't tolerate a repeat of the nonsense.

Just a thought; but, obviously, I've already been wrong on this.

You're wrong on many other issues but keep on postin'!

[Yonivore]

You're wrong on many other issues but keep on postin'!

If you mean in Joe Chalupa world I'm wrong, I'm okay with that.

[JoeChalupa]

Bush will listen to his cronies this time around.

[SpursWoman]

Bush will listen to the political party that supported/s him this time around. There is a difference, you know.


Nice to know there's a new catch phrase, though.

[Extra Stout]

Bush will listen to his cronies this time around.

Listening to his cronies is what got us the Miers pick in the first place.