Miers: "I overslept. Can I please schedule a make-up exam?"
No, not really, but finally her speckled track-record (ideologically, legally, intellectually) and the full court press she'd been struggling under as the shot clock ticked toward zero, finally got to her (or, in one last fit of pique before exiting the White House with a sharp kick in the ass, Karl Turd Blossom Rove did):
The best sign that this rationale is a crock of shit is all that stuff about respect for separation of powers, something everyone should remember the Prez said the next time he or his minions freak out about judges doing their jobs.
Hard not to suspect the timing, too. By Saturday morning, after the indictments come down tomorrow, at a minimum implicating Scooter Libby and Karl Rove (or so all appearances suggest), there's going to be a new story in town and Miers will be a memory.
Now, what I'd like to see is the White House chart that has a different contingency nominee for every permutation of indictments and charges, based on assumptions regarding administration credibility, unity among the base, and the country's willingness to tolerate anymore of this Presidency's bullshit.
How much does anyone want to bet it isn't Gonzalez. My guess: the Honorable Edith Brown Clement (third one down), although I still have a selfish reason for wanting to see the Honorable Samuel A. Alito, Jr., get the nod (top of the linked list), since I once interviewed for a position in his chambers in Newark, NJ, where he currently sits on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Then again, I didn't get the job, so eff him, right? Can't say why I think it's Clement, because I don't really know, but there's a little bit in her record to please everyone. Make no mistake, though -- she's a bad-ass conservative in almost every way. But as a libertarian on the Fourth Amendment, at least she wouldn't join the ongoing rollback of private citizens' expectations of privacy in contacts with officialdom.
If you want to keep up with developments on this front, do what I do: keep one eye on SCOTUSBlog, another on Howard Bashman, and if you have a third, or a sort of mental DVR, direct it to Volokh for an array of moderate conservative to kill-'em-all conservative perspectives. They will tell you everything you need to know, or direct you to the others who can.
President Bush on Thursday accepted the withdrawal of Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, according to a statement from the White House.
In her letter to the president, Miers said she was "concerned that the confirmation process presents a burden for the White House and its staff and it is not in the best interest of the country."
"It is clear that senators would not be satisfied until they gained access to internal documents concerning advice provided during her tenure at the White House -- disclosures that would undermine a president's ability to receive candid counsel," Bush said.
"Harriet Miers' decision demonstrates her deep respect for this essential aspect of the constitutional separation of powers -- and confirms my deep respect and admiration for her."
The best sign that this rationale is a crock of shit is all that stuff about respect for separation of powers, something everyone should remember the Prez said the next time he or his minions freak out about judges doing their jobs.
Hard not to suspect the timing, too. By Saturday morning, after the indictments come down tomorrow, at a minimum implicating Scooter Libby and Karl Rove (or so all appearances suggest), there's going to be a new story in town and Miers will be a memory.
Now, what I'd like to see is the White House chart that has a different contingency nominee for every permutation of indictments and charges, based on assumptions regarding administration credibility, unity among the base, and the country's willingness to tolerate anymore of this Presidency's bullshit.
How much does anyone want to bet it isn't Gonzalez. My guess: the Honorable Edith Brown Clement (third one down), although I still have a selfish reason for wanting to see the Honorable Samuel A. Alito, Jr., get the nod (top of the linked list), since I once interviewed for a position in his chambers in Newark, NJ, where he currently sits on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Then again, I didn't get the job, so eff him, right? Can't say why I think it's Clement, because I don't really know, but there's a little bit in her record to please everyone. Make no mistake, though -- she's a bad-ass conservative in almost every way. But as a libertarian on the Fourth Amendment, at least she wouldn't join the ongoing rollback of private citizens' expectations of privacy in contacts with officialdom.
If you want to keep up with developments on this front, do what I do: keep one eye on SCOTUSBlog, another on Howard Bashman, and if you have a third, or a sort of mental DVR, direct it to Volokh for an array of moderate conservative to kill-'em-all conservative perspectives. They will tell you everything you need to know, or direct you to the others who can.
posted by Moon | 10/27/2005 08:58:00 AM
2 Comments:
Clement would make a lot of sense to me. Alito too. And both should sail through hearings.
And when I realize that, given the types of judges this president has tended to appoint that I'd be relatively happy with either pick - it's 1) a grim reminder of just how far to the right GW's judges are and 2) a grim reminder of the utter lunacy of the "religious" conservatives who don't seem to notice that.
So with some further consideration, and in light of comments exchanged in an early morning email repartee with Andrew, I'm thinking that tomorrow makes a lot of sense for an announcement. My guess is that, whether the nominee to be has yet been informed (typically, it seems, this isn't settled until the eve of the announcement), odds are the Admin already knows who it is.
Indictments tomorrow. Which means all of the unscathed mouthpieces will be on the talkshow circuit Sunday morning regardless. Why not give them an alternate narrative to distract the commentators from the indictments? Something to which they can change the subject?
Sure, the timing would be patently suspect, but I really don't see how the administration loses by dividing the media's attention this weekend between two mammoth stories.
I also commented to Andrew that I think this could ultimately turn out to be one of the most politically consequential weekends of our generation's lifetime. Seems like there's an awful lot at stake. All the more if, say, Cheney is indicted (fingers crossed). Or Bush (dare I dream? -- but I can't imagine how, since at that level all they'd have would be perjury and obstruction, and he never testified under oath . . . although maybe obstruction could stick).
And all on Halloween weekend, too, so people will be paying even less attention to the media than they usually do on weekends. Sunday morning being the morning after the clocks change; more people sleeping late (by the adjusted clock). Pity.
Post a Comment
<< Home