Miers going down

This is from the National Review, which, as you probably know is a right wing mag.

http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?ref=/york/york200510201613.asp

October 20, 2005, 4:13 p.m.
The Miers Support Team: Gloomy and Demoralized
Now they’re discussing stopping her visits to the Senate.

Strategists working with the White House in support of the Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers are becoming increasingly demoralized and pessimistic about the nomination’s prospects on Capitol Hill in the wake of Miers’s meetings with several Republican and Democratic senators. On a conference call held this morning, they even discussed whether Miers should simply stop visiting with lawmakers, lest any further damage be done — and so that time spent in such get-acquainted sessions will not cut into Miers’s intensive preparation for her confirmation hearing.

The strategists discuss issues on a twice-weekly conference call led by Leonard Leo, the executive vice president of the Federalist Society who has taken leave to help the White House shepherd the nomination through the Senate. A number of people who have taken part in the calls described the conversations to National Review Online. None wanted to be identified, because they do not want to openly oppose the White House or defy loyalists like Leo who are trying hard to defend Miers. Nevertheless, they paint a grim portrait of morale among those close to the nomination.

“The number of participants is declining,” says one knowledgeable source. “With Roberts, these calls occurred five or six or seven times a week. Pretty early on, the calls on Miers were scaled back to twice a week. That says something in and of itself.”

“It’s been a gradual descent into almost silence,” says a second source of the calls. “The meetings with the senators are going terribly. On a scale of one to 100, they are in negative territory. The thought now is that they have to end…Obviously the smart thing to do would be to withdraw the nomination and have a do-over as soon as possible. But the White House is so irrational that who knows? As of this morning, there is a sort of pig-headed resolve to press forward, cancel the meetings with senators if necessary, and bone up for the hearings.”

“They are going to be keeping the meetings that they’ve already scheduled,” says a third source. “But they have scheduled murder boards today from 12 to 5. She has to focus on her hearing. And the questionnaire that wasn’t filled out, to me that’s an indication hasn’t done the vetting. She has to spend a lot of time discussing stuff that should have been done before. So between those two things — finishing the questionnaire and preparing for the hearing, which is going to be make or break — they prefer to put her time into that.”

“In the early days, there were people on the call who tried to give facile defenses of Miers, and they were immediately shot down,” says a fourth source. “And by the way, those defenses weren’t as insulting as the White House line — no way would they have done the ‘sexist, elitist’ line.”

In summary, says the first source, “People have been looking for ways to support this. There are a lot of us who would like to find a reason to be encouraged. Every time I try to accommodate myself to this nomination, folks at the White House say idiotic things that piss me off, like that spin on Rove’s part about her supposed deep involvement in judicial selection for three years, which is just not accurate.”

“Demoralization and pessimism?” the source continues. “That’s been a constant. We’re in the various stages of grief.”

— Byron York, NR’s White House correspondent, is the author of the new book The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy: The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President — and Why They’ll Try Even Harder Next Time.

Both sides hate her so I love her.

Apparently she’s against women’s right to choose and for affirmative action. Add Moderates to the list of non-supporters.

This is from the National Review, which, as you probably know is a right wing mag.

http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?ref=/york/york200510201613.asp

October 20, 2005, 4:13 p.m.
The Miers Support Team: Gloomy and Demoralized
Now they’re discussing stopping her visits to the Senate.

Strategists working with the White House in support of the Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers are becoming increasingly demoralized and pessimistic about the nomination’s prospects on Capitol Hill in the wake of Miers’s meetings with several Republican and Democratic senators. On a conference call held this morning, they even discussed whether Miers should simply stop visiting with lawmakers, lest any further damage be done — and so that time spent in such get-acquainted sessions will not cut into Miers’s intensive preparation for her confirmation hearing.

The strategists discuss issues on a twice-weekly conference call led by Leonard Leo, the executive vice president of the Federalist Society who has taken leave to help the White House shepherd the nomination through the Senate. A number of people who have taken part in the calls described the conversations to National Review Online. None wanted to be identified, because they do not want to openly oppose the White House or defy loyalists like Leo who are trying hard to defend Miers. Nevertheless, they paint a grim portrait of morale among those close to the nomination.

“The number of participants is declining,” says one knowledgeable source. “With Roberts, these calls occurred five or six or seven times a week. Pretty early on, the calls on Miers were scaled back to twice a week. That says something in and of itself.”

“It’s been a gradual descent into almost silence,” says a second source of the calls. “The meetings with the senators are going terribly. On a scale of one to 100, they are in negative territory. The thought now is that they have to end…Obviously the smart thing to do would be to withdraw the nomination and have a do-over as soon as possible. But the White House is so irrational that who knows? As of this morning, there is a sort of pig-headed resolve to press forward, cancel the meetings with senators if necessary, and bone up for the hearings.”

“They are going to be keeping the meetings that they’ve already scheduled,” says a third source. “But they have scheduled murder boards today from 12 to 5. She has to focus on her hearing. And the questionnaire that wasn’t filled out, to me that’s an indication hasn’t done the vetting. She has to spend a lot of time discussing stuff that should have been done before. So between those two things — finishing the questionnaire and preparing for the hearing, which is going to be make or break — they prefer to put her time into that.”

“In the early days, there were people on the call who tried to give facile defenses of Miers, and they were immediately shot down,” says a fourth source. “And by the way, those defenses weren’t as insulting as the White House line — no way would they have done the ‘sexist, elitist’ line.”

In summary, says the first source, “People have been looking for ways to support this. There are a lot of us who would like to find a reason to be encouraged. Every time I try to accommodate myself to this nomination, folks at the White House say idiotic things that piss me off, like that spin on Rove’s part about her supposed deep involvement in judicial selection for three years, which is just not accurate.”

“Demoralization and pessimism?” the source continues. “That’s been a constant. We’re in the various stages of grief.”

— Byron York, NR’s White House correspondent, is the author of the new book The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy: The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President — and Why They’ll Try Even Harder Next Time.

/Simplistic-neofreudian view filter on…

Why all the big schmoo on HM? This same argument was launched over CJ Roberts’ head and he survived. I believe we’re too critical over the smallest issues, which definitely means - we have too much time on our hands.

“Gloomy?” “Demoralizing”? “Pessimistic”?

Non… Grow a sack, would ya? Quit your whining… and “bone up for the hearings,” okay?

HM won’t vote to overturn a ‘woman’s right’ to choose, nor will HM go against AA. These “various stages of grief” are all an act. I wish people (and the majority of the pussies out there whining - are men) would ‘ball up’ and worry about trying to keep a roof over their heads, rather than complain about some judicial nomination - which has nothing to do with them in the long - run.

I have no tissue to give.

  • kd

I think she would make a fine justice, but I do fear her nomination is in trouble. Someone should kick Bush in the shins for failing to garner big gun republican support prior to announcing her as his nominee (and no, Dobson doesn’t count). HM is tough, though, and can certainly weather the storm, whatever its outcome.

The reason Bush is in this whole pickle is that he has lost credibility with his own supporters. Had he picked Miers two years ago, and had he said “trust me” to the far right, there would be no problem. He misjudged how much his credibility has eroded over the past 6 months. The ironic part is that I fully believe that HM would be exactly the kind of judge that the far right wants, at least when it comes to social issues. Seems like they are stupidly shooting themselves in the collective foot.

“Apparently she’s against women’s right to choose and for affirmative action.”

Got proof that she will rule agianst them? Do you know anything about her? It’s the same old crap. The Republicans don’t know what to get mad at their party about so instead of rebuilding there party to be even somewhat what they claim it is they attack Miers. The Democrats hate her now because Bush picked her. The middle hates her because the middle are made of indecisive cowards affraid to make a real choice. Check back with them in 10 minutes.

Can’t she at least have her joke interview in front of the Senate?

So, is it possible to oppose her for any legitimate reasons, do you think? And do you think it’s possible to support her for any legitimate reasons? Or is all opinion on the matter universally a matter of political blindness?

“…the middle are made of indecisive cowards affraid to make a real choice.”
A stark reminder why I’ll remain in the middle. Do you prefer the term lemming or sheep?

It seems like conservative groups are really ramping up the pressure to get this nomination withdrawn (see washington post article at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9808373/). Sites such as WithdrawMiers.org are springing up, and are funded by conservative groups. This is troubling:

“Her answers to a Judiciary Committee questionnaire included a misinterpretation of constitutional law and were deemed so inadequate that the panel asked her to redo it. She revealed that her law licenses in D.C. and Texas had been temporarily suspended because of unpaid dues.”

I don’t have a strong feeling about this lady one way or the other, but I can’t imagine Bush withdrawing the nomination…simply not in his character.

It seems like conservative groups are really ramping up the pressure to get this nomination withdrawn (see washington post article at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9808373/). Sites such as WithdrawMiers.org are springing up, and are funded by conservative groups. This is troubling:

“Her answers to a Judiciary Committee questionnaire included a misinterpretation of constitutional law and were deemed so inadequate that the panel asked her to redo it. She revealed that her law licenses in D.C. and Texas had been temporarily suspended because of unpaid dues.”

I don’t have a strong feeling about this lady one way or the other, but I can’t imagine Bush withdrawing the nomination…simply not in his character.
This is a test of loyalty: for Miers. Will she back out to save face for “the best governor ever”?

This is a test of loyalty: for Miers. Will she back out to save face for “the best governor ever”?

Yes, that’s why the details of the favorable real estate deal came out recently. It’s a “nannygate” opportunity for her to step aside w/o saying her boss is too stupid to know a good SC nominee if one bit him in the ass.

“So, is it possible to oppose her for any legitimate reasons, do you think?”

Yes but with what little is known about her I think everyone needs to keep their powder dry at least until she talks to the Senate. The Reps are going for her for no reason other then she will not declare what they want to hear and the Dems who hate her because she’s a christian.

“And do you think it’s possible to support her for any legitimate reasons?”

Support yes. I don’t see support though.

“Or is all opinion on the matter universally a matter of political blindness?”

All up to today yes. Check back in a week.

Yes but with what little is known about her I think everyone needs to keep their powder dry at least until she talks to the Senate.

That’s the point Tibbsy - she’s not going to have anything to say to the Senate. It will be like Roberts, except that Roberts had a paper trail and judicial experience that could be analyzed.

It will be like Roberts, except that Roberts had a paper trail and judicial experience that could be analyzed.

And Roberts demonstrated a very good understanding of constitutional and legal issues during his hearings, even if he didn’t take a stand on them, a performance that was preshadowed by what we heard about him before the hearings.

So far, it doesn’t look like Miers is going to put on a similarly impressive show.

http://content.todayscartoons.uclick.com/?feature=f4ef006b8b376ced4f086f1e38458e8b
.

I say at least let her talk to the Senate before she is linched by both sides.

Well she’s talking informally to a lot of them and I’m not hearing any positive repsonses. Frankly, I dont think she’s qualified.

I see you’re gettin’ all wet and excited about the system tearing down a person before the hearing takes place.

Never mind due process. Never mind giving her a fair and honest “interview”.

Quite revealing your character.

Quite revealing your character.

Quite incomplete your sentence, Yoda.

What is this “system” that’s supposedly tearing her down? The system where she has to submit a questionairre dealing with her experience with Consitutional issues during her career?

Miers’ answer raises questions
Legal experts find a misuse of terms in her Senate questionnaire ‘terrible’ and ‘shocking.’

  ![http://www.nynewsday.com/images/nycnews/grayrule.gif](http://www.nynewsday.com/images/nycnews/grayrule.gif)              ![http://www.nynewsday.com/extras/branding/images/nyadrailtop.gif](http://www.nynewsday.com/extras/branding/images/nyadrailtop.gif)      

    ![http://www.nynewsday.com/extras/branding/images/nylocalleftrail.gif](http://www.nynewsday.com/extras/branding/images/nylocalleftrail.gif)       ![http://www.nynewsday.com/extras/branding/images/nylocalspacer.gif](http://www.nynewsday.com/extras/branding/images/nylocalspacer.gif)              **Enter a Category** 

View List http://www.nynewsday.com/extras/branding/images/nylocalrightrail.gif http://www.nynewsday.com/extras/branding/images/nylocalbottom.gif http://www.newsday.com/extras/branding/images/nyshopslinks.gif http://www.nynewsday.com/extras/branding/images/nydoingbusiness.gif http://www.nynewsday.com/extras/branding/images/nyadrailbottom.gif
By David G. Savage
Times Staff Writer

October 22, 2005

WASHINGTON — Asked to describe the constitutional issues she had worked on during her legal career, Supreme Court nominee Harriet E. Miers had relatively little to say on the questionnaire she sent to the Senate this week.

And what she did say left many constitutional experts shaking their heads. At one point, Miers described her service on the Dallas City Council in 1989. When the city was sued on allegations that it violated the Voting Rights Act, she said, “the council had to be sure to comply with the proportional representation requirement of the Equal Protection Clause.”

But the Supreme Court repeatedly has said the Constitution’s guarantee of “equal protection of the laws” does not mean that city councils or state legislatures must have the same proportion of blacks, Latinos and Asians as the voting population.

“That’s a terrible answer. There is no proportional representation requirement under the equal protection clause,” said New York University law professor Burt Neuborne, a voting rights expert. “If a first-year law student wrote that and submitted it in class, I would send it back and say it was unacceptable.”

http://www.nynewsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usmiers1023,0,7855471.story?coll=ny-nation-big-pix