The Next Hurrah

Notes on the Nuclear Option -- Part XVIII

by Kagro X

Hey, long time no see! Well, here we are again. It may be too early to tell whether we'll make it all the way back to the brink of nuclear destruction, but it couldn't hurt to revisit the scene of the crime and see how the landscape has changed.

Do Not Play Poker With This Man

By DHinMI

A couple weeks ago I showed a picture of George W. Bush and asked would you buy a used car from this man?  Today, I don't ask a rhetorical question, I issue a warning: 

Do not play poker with this man.

As you surely know by know, we won't have weird-looking Harriet Miers to kick around anymore; she's withdrawn her nomination to the Supreme Court.  Apparently the tour of Republican Senators' offices was getting about as warm a reception as the Sex Pistols got on their 1978 tour of the South.  So Harriet Miers will go back to serving as counsel to the smartest man she's ever met.  [She really needs to get out of the house more often.]  But she won't become a Supreme Court Justice.  No matter what her ideological views may be, that's a good thing, because her qualifications for the Supreme Court were barely greater than the senatorial qualifications of Nero's horse.

Kagro X presciently discussed the administration's privilege dodge a few days ago, and it shouldn't surprise folks that Miers cited the need to preserve the President's prerogative to keep secrets as a reason for her withdrawal.  Privilege, of course, had little to do with it; she withdrew because it was becoming clear that she would not be confirmed by the full Senate, and might not even have made it out of the judiciary committee. 

Why was her nomination doomed?  Well, Harry Reid has the answer:

Overlooking the Obvious: What we know about Miers

by Kagro X

I've just smacked myself in the forehead. That either means I coulda had a V-8, or it means I've just read something I'm ashamed to say I hadn't thought of on my own. And I'm thinking of doing myself slightly more harm, too, since what I've just read and found so enlightenting comes from conservative columnist Donald Lambro:

As Bush's counsel, one of her chief jobs has been to screen all of the judicial nominees he has sent to the Senate for confirmation and, in many cases, have been rejected by Senate Democrats. It would not be a stretch to say that Miers has been a powerful influence on the kind of judges Bush has nominated, including Judge Roberts.

Now, it's true that most of the judges at the center of the nuclear option controversy were nominated long before Miers took over as White House Counsel, and I don't know that she played any role in their  initial selection. But that's a pretty obvious piece of the puzzle right there. She was clearly on the team at the time, and probably shares some significant responsibility for laying those stinkers on us.

SCOTUS-a-Go-Go

by Kagro X

Here are a few of the most interesting nuggets to chew on while we wait to see how badly Iceberg Miers has damaged the hull of the Bushtanic.

1. Arlen Spector may not be thrilled about piloting the ship.

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said Sunday he plans to vigorously question Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers about her qualifications because she has not proved to him she can handle the weighty issues that come before the high court.

But on the other hand:

"I think she may well turn out to be the best qualified once we give her a chance to be heard," Specter said on ABC's "This Week." "But when you deal in constitutional law, you're dealing in some very esoteric, complicated subjects that require a great deal of background."

Mixed signals, at best. Is it time for another "Scottish compromise?"

Some Preliminary Observations on the Miers Nomination

By DHinMI

In an email earlier today, Mimikatz made a sage observation about the Miers announcement. After several of us had partially gamed out several scenarios to explain the bizarre nomination of Harriet Miers, she observed that “these possibilities are all reasons why it is bad to come right out of the chute with any definitive position, other than ‘Hmmm…a lot of questions here. We really need a lot more information on her to make a judgment, given her lack of experience as an appellate lawyer or judge or major political office holder.” I fully agree; I think Miers is still a little too unknown for us to figure out in the less than 12 hours that’s passed since Bush announced her nomination. But I think there are some tentative observations that are worth making.

(Only Republican) Elections Have Consequences

by Kagro X

Hi. Did you know that Republicans were full of shit?

Did you know that Paul Weyrich is a Republican?

Do you know what a syllogism is?

No Senator with whom I spoke disagreed with the proposition that Senator Frist would be required to change the Senate Rules in order to assure confirmation of the next Supreme Court nominee.

Imagine, Democratic National Chairman Howard B. Dean, III, M.D., and various liberal Senators, including two so-called moderate members of the Gang of 14, without knowing the identify of the next nominee, already are trumpeting the filibuster and signaling strong opposition.

Who won the election?

[...]

These Liberals are acting as if they, and not Bush, had won the 2004 Election.

This particular steaming pile is, of course, a variant of the now-shopworn line that "elections have consequences." Has anyone ever asked why Senatorial elections don't have consequences?

Democrats for Roberts, and the Contrast Principle

If you always smile, nobody will know when you're  happy. Always frown, and nobody knows when you're sad. And if you shout all the time, how will anybody know when you're really outraged?

Judge Roberts will soon be confirmed as Chief Justice, with many Democratic 'Aye' votes ... and so there is wailing and gnashing of teeth and rending of garments in progressive quarters.

Are our frantic exhortations all for naught? Are our party leaders utterly lacking in brains, or hearts, or spines, or testicles, or situational awareness, or moral compasses? Are they lost in the beltway bubble? Have they sold us out? Is there no hope? Are we doing something wrong? Are we doing everything wrong? Doesn't anybody listen -- the voters? The media? Elected officials? Doesn't anybody care?

The psychic torment is genuine, but our message is undeliverable, our anguish is misplaced, nobody cares -- and it's OK.

SCOTUS Strategery, or, You Think Too Much

by Kagro X

I just caught up with reading one of the better analyses of the way the Roberts votes are breaking, over at Daily Kos. Written by diarist LarryInNYC, it posits, among other things, that Dems preparing for the necessity of leading the opposition and/or filibuster against the next nominee are likely "aye" votes, hoping that such a position, "strengthens the Democrat's argument with the seven Republicans who will matter" (i.e., the GOP signatories to the nuclear option deal).

I'm here to tell you that I don't think you've got a shot in hell.

"Extraordinary Circumstances" Rides Again.

by Kagro X

Well, here we are again. If you thought the dynamics of the last Supreme Court go-round, which hasn't yet resolved itself, was interesting -- extraordinary, even -- then you'll love the new twist. Last time, we were merely being asked to swallow stealth conservative John Roberts, sight unseen, while the press and public were openly speculating on the question of just how many traitors the White House was harboring.

Now, of course, we'll be asked to swallow two such conservatives with TraitorGate still unresolved, and with Bush wanted for the murder of New Orleans.

Extraordinary circumstances? Ask "Gang of 14" member Mary Landrieu whether wiping the biggest city in her state off the map is extraordinary.

There's Something Queer About John Roberts

By DHinMI

A few days ago I speculated that John Roberts would probably sail through his confirmation with little resistance offered by Democrats. There seemed to be little that had come forth, or was expected to come forth, that would indicate what Roberts’ actual beliefs were, and not enough on which to build a case that he was too extreme to be on the Supreme Court.

But with what we’re learning from documents that just came out from his tenure in the Reagan administration, there may be a case that Roberts shouldn’t ascend to the Supreme Court because he’s just too weird.

Last week, researchers found several memos from the summer and fall of 1984 in which future Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, working as a Reagan White House lawyer, argued against sending presidential thank-you notes to Michael Jackson for his charitable works. But it turns out this was just the beginning of what appears to be the young lawyer's concerns about the star.  Three new memos uncovered by Post reporters show Roberts described Jackson as "androgynous," "mono-gloved" and a balladeer of illegitimacy.

On April 30, 1984, Roberts wrote to oppose a presidential award that was to have been given to Jackson for his efforts against drunk driving. Roberts particularly objected to award wording that described Jackson as an "outstanding example" for American youth.

Roberts wrote: "If one wants the youth of America and the world sashaying around in garish sequined costumes, hair dripping with pomade, body shot full of female hormones to prevent voice change, mono-gloved, well, then, I suppose 'Michael,' as he is affectionately known in the trade, is in fact a good example. Quite apart from the problem of appearing to endorse Jackson's androgynous life style, a Presidential award would be perceived as a shallow effort by the President to share in the constant publicity surrounding Jackson. . . . The whole episode would, in my view, be demeaning to the President."

Um, OK. Thanks for your strong opinions on that subject. It appears that Roberts is very concerned that if the people stare at the man with one hand in glove, then pretty soon everyone will be “sashaying around” with “hair dripping with pomade.”