If the Dems don't unite against Miers, they will rue the day.

[cantstandbush]

I am certain about this. It will be a huge mistake to not stop this nomination.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. Based upon what?

Please, if you've got something substantive other than your gut reaction to her, by all means share it. Quite frankly, no one else has anything, so I'd be very interested in whatever evidence you can help use to show the American people why we should stop her.

[Inland]

4. Bush likes her. Picked for that, and stealth.

Good enough for me.

Fact is, we all know what Bush is TRYING to accomplish with his picks. The only question is, is he going to succeed with whatshername?

Well, HE thinks so. And there isn't any reason to think differently. And the Dobsons who get the private phone calls all come away reassured. You think they are being told something we're aren't?

I'd vote no no matter what she said in hearings. Anyone who thinks that Bush wanting her is good enough for them can vote yes.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

8. Good enough for you, but probably not the 62 million that voted for Bush.

[Inland]

12. Then she'll be confirmed. But you asked for a reason.

You asked for a reason to be against her, and I gave you one. Will it be convicing to the general public?

If Bush likes her is good enough, after all, that means that the people actually trust Bush's judgment and agree with his goals of another scalia or thomas, at the least, or a reversal of Roe v. Wade and an unchecked Commander in Chief over civilian domestic and foreign affairs.

I hope that there would be a discussion of those issues before the vote is held. But that's the LAST thing Bush wants.

[LittleClarkie]

10. That's not going to fly

Bush likes her, hence we should stop him. There has to be provable misconduct, or evidence that she won't be an impartial judge, or something like that.

That Bush likes her isn't enough to stop her. What did you think, Bush would nominate someone he DOESN'T like?

[ewagner]

13. Her comments

when Bush** nominated her are enough for me.

There doesn't have to be a legal reason to oppose her, this is political and her statement which implied that she would overturn lower court decisions if she thought they were going beyond her interpretation of the role of the judiciary, is enough political reason for Dems to oppose her.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

19. What are your political reasons?

That you have a hunch she's an extremist? I'm sorry, but that isn't enough either. Until we get something hard and specific that she's done, it isn't nearly enough to stop her.

[ewagner]

47. Sorry for the late reply

I just got back into town after an early morning departure....

What are the political reasons?

Well, to start with, we're the loyal opposition therefore it is our duty to oppose the other party's attempts to install their philosophy into government (and especially when it's for as long as another generation).

Then there is the matter of preserving our future options. If we do not exercise all of our franchised means of opposition, then we tacitly forfeit our right/ability to use them in the future.

All this is very "egghead" stuff, I know, but I think these would be paramount in my considerations if I were in Harry Reid's position.

(I know....right now you're saying THANK GOD he's not in Harry Reid's position! :rofl: )

[Inland]

15. It flies pretty darn good with me.

Bush has a definite set of goals for the supreme court. So do his theocrat and neocon supporters. The supreme court always was the goal. It's all thats keeping Bush's supporters at his side during all the fuckups.

So "Bush likes her" doesn't mean any of that crap about her being a good person or such. She meets the criteria he and his supporters have been talking about for years.

The criteria being, that she will be a bad judge. Not committing misconduct. Not being partial. Just bad. Bad, with bad values and bad ideals and bad views on the law.

Bad like Thomas bad. Nothing wrong with Thomas that turning the clock back to the Articles of Confederation wouldn't cure. After all, the antifederalists were often moral, fair, perfect gentlemen.

Either accept the debate on those grounds or waive as she passes by.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

25. If you're on DU, we don't need to convince YOU.

Being in the minority means we need to win over people who didn't vote for us. Which means they voted for someone like Bush. Which means they're likely to err on the side of the nominee. Which means this isn't even close to being enough yet.

[Inland]

43. Your faulty assumptions make winning over Bush voters impossible.

You assume that Bush voters shared his goals for the supreme court. That's not true. But in so assuming, you then conclude that one has to find, well, dirt or there's no useful basis for opposition.

Not only does that fail to attract Bush voters, it fails to attract democratic voters. There IS no dirt, and nobody is bothering to highlight and disagree with Bush's constitutional values.

Because in fact, many Bush voters do not share his goals for the constitution, there is nothing to be lost and everthing to be gained by articulating an opposition to Bush's goals, and with the assumption that whatshername shares all of them, opposing her.

Why do you think Bush picked a stealthier candidate after picking a stealthy candidate? The LAST thing he wants is for a debate on issues relevant to anyone. He already knows what he wants and that whatshername will bring it to him, just as he knows that most of the country wouldn't like it.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

44. We don't need dirt. We need something substantive.

I'm not saying we have to find out that she was convicted of prostitution in 60's to fight her nomination. But we do need more than "Bush nominated her - she must be an extremist!" to wage a meaningful battle.

Why is it a faulty assumption to believe Bush voters share his goals for the Supreme Court? Perhaps not all of them do, but the fact that they voted for Bush means they're at very least not inclined to automatically DISLIKE his nominees either. Again, a lot of these potential Democrats (for lack of a better term) obviously didn't see Bush as being all THAT radical if they voted for him and if we have a chance to win them over. We need proof that SHE is a radical if we want to fight her, because we obviously haven't proven to them that BUSH is a radical. Otherwise, we're just proving their claim that we'll fight anyone he nominates blindly just for the sake of fighting. And that's why I think Bush nominated a stealth candidate - because we can't PROVE that she's as radical as she probably is, and thus, we can't really fight her.

[Inland]

45. Well, you've given up, really.

Why is it a faulty assumption that Bush voters share his goals for the supreme court? Because the polls on abortion rights, civil rights, even gay marriage, show it.

Of course, if Bush really is in the mainstream of constitutional debate, then one CAN'T beat her. In fact, one wonders why one would bother. I would bother because I think Bush is wrong and don't mind having the debate. I don't know why you don't want to have it, apparently not only deciding that Bush speaks for his voters on these issues but that they are beyond convincing.

The concept of being able to prove that she is radical without bothering to prove Bush is radical is a loser. Your point that Bush will receive deference from his voters is only true if nobody bothers to disclose that his own ideas are radical. Otherwise, one would have to believe that Bush is nominating someone who disagrees with him, either out of contraryness or from not knowing her well.

Frankly, I don't know how I can put it any more simply. Bush's goals for the court are radical. If the country can't be convinced on this point, this nomination and all the future ones are lost anyway. Whatshername is radical because Bush wouldn't have nominated her (or any other candidate) if he wasn't satisfied predicting her rulings. Any assertion that "you don't know for a fact" is an insult either to your intelligence or to Bush's, in that you know for a fact that Bush thinks she's a nutbag radical.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

46. Maybe you give the average person too much credit.

You're right that polls on abortion and civil rights are in our favor. Gay marriage though? I'm not too convinced of that one, after ballot initiatives in November passed by 20-70 points in favor of forbidding gay marriage.

But again, why didn't those polling numbers play a factor back in November? Quite honestly, I think the public either doesn't know or doesn't care enough. The Roberts nomination polling was quite favorable to Roberts. Even with Miers, the polling isn't that bad - and you have to consider that a lot of those negative numbers are from neocon rat bastards who think she's not ENOUGH of a wackjob.

Finally, we've been telling the American people for 6 years now how radical George W. Bush. The message is only STARTING to get across now, and it's still not picking up as much steam as it should. All of 2004 was devoted to telling people how radical Bush was and how far out of the mainstream he is. The sheeple obviously didn't buy it. In that area, I think you're giving the public way too much credit. And yeah, unless Bush picked an outright wackjob like Janice Rogers Brown, Samuel Alito, or Miguel Estrada, we weren't going to win. We don't have the power to filibuster whomever we want because they'll just take that right away. Now, you could argue that would be a good thing for them to go nuclear, but unless we can convince people we've got just cause to filibuster, it's not a fight we're going to win in the court of public opinion (which is the only one that matters). I'd have been more than willing to go nuclear over an outright extremist - we definitely could have won that fight. But unless we can prove that Miers definitely is one of those extremists, I think it's absolute political suicide.

[Dora]

6. What about the accusations of money laundering?

It's on the DU front page. I think that's enough to raise holy hell on her nomination.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

9. If that amounts to anything, sure that'd be enough.

Don't hold your breath though.

[Paligal]

17. I've got four things:

1."She is on the extreme end of the anti-choice movement," said Lorlee Bartos who managed Miers' first and only political campaign and said they discussed abortion once during the race. "I think Harriet's belief was pretty strongly felt," Bartos said Monday. "I suspect she is of the same cloth as the president." Ms. Bartos said Ms. Miers told her she was "pro-choice in her youth" but underwent "a born-again, profound experience" that caused her to oppose abortion."
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/washington/stories/100405dnnatabortion.d644831.html

2. She donated money to the very man who brought the partial birth abortion ban case to the Supreme Court, Donald B Stenberg
http://www.newsmeat.com/washington_political_donations/Harriet_Miers.php

3. She has been romantically linked with Texas Supreme Court judge Nathan Hecht (wikipedia), who has been vocally anti-choice in his rulings, according to the Republican National Coalition for Life: http://www.rnclife.org/faxnotes/2000/mar00/00-03-24.html

4. This quote from another thread worries me:
Quoting Mr. Hecht on Ms. Miers's judicial philosophy: "She's an originalist -- that's the way she takes the Bible," and that's her approach to the Constitution as well -- "Originalist -- it means what it says." Mr. Hecht says he and Ms. Miers "went to two or three pro-life dinners in the late 80s or early 90s."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1823612#1823623

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

24. Three of those four are hearsay.

And the fourth is a donation - which is combatted by the fact that she donated to Al Gore once too.

[leesa]

21. She has no experience and we will not be allowed to review her papers.

She assisted in the cover-up of Bush's NG lapse. Her only experience is Lottery Queen. Wake up man!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

23. Listen, it's not ME you have to sell it to.

I don't want ANY Bush nominee. What YOU have to wake up to is the fact that 62 million people voted for this asshole, and they are inclined to like his choice. We have to convince enough of THEM that there's a good reason to stop her. If we don't, kiss 2006 goodbye.

[zanne]

29. Then don't start a flame war.

You posted an incendiary post, then, when it got too heavy, you tried to turn it around. And you probably wonder why Democrats can't seem to get along. Please don't play dumb just to get a little attention.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

32. Incendiary? Not at all.

I'm not playing dumb. What's dumb is people demanding a fight when they don't even have any fucking ammunition. That's dumb. And calling people out on that isn't incendiary, it's necessary.

[zanne]

28. When did you start trusting George W. Bush?

Was it before the pre-emptive strike against WMD's in Iraq, or after?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

33. 62 million people trusted Bush in 2004. I was not one of them.

But you have to convince THEM they shouldn't. What part of that don't you get?

[mattclearing]

31. I would say that she will definitely overturn RvW. If Dems can't protect

that, then they will have failed in the single biggest objective they have had in the past thirty years, despite majority backing in opinion polls.

I think that is the major problem. It will show their impotence to an astounding degree...if they can't protect Roe with majority support, then what good are they?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

34. That majority didn't show up in November.

It's tough to fight when the people that back you aren't backing you.

[mattclearing]

37. Depends on who you ask.

If you ask the people who waited in 10 hour lines, you might get a different impression.

Our election system is broken. That doesn't mean we shouldn't fight.

[freethought]

2. Yeah, you;re right! The only problem is

The Dems are already split. The Sen. Harry Reid basicly has already put his stamp on her. Clearly that is not going to help the Dems put up a united front! Bush/Rove has been masterful at making the Dems his bitch. I think she will sail through confirmations even when I thought that the Dems were saving their energy for this fight and not on Roberts.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

3. The only problem is no one can answer my question above.

[DaveJ]

5. What are her qualifications?

Shouldn't that be the question as opposed to "why not"? I mean lacking experience alone seems to be fairly powerful reason given the position.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

7. Not good enough. Plenty of others have been confirmed on less.

[DaveJ]

11. Because it's been done before doesn't make it right.

But I'm an amateur political analyst at best. What do I know.

If you think that someone should be able to rise from obscurity to control the highest court in the land, then I guess another reason we still have is her lack of character. Anyone with character would not accept the nomination based on the appearance of impropriety (crony/conflict of interest).

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

27. Again, I DON'T think so.

But we need more than that to convince the sheeple that voted for Bush.

[leesa]

22. And that's not a reason to you?? You are just arguing to argue.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

26. No, I'm just not the one who needs convincing.

I voted for Kerry, not Bush. But 62 million others didn't. That's not arguing just to argue.

[zanne]

30. And looking for attention.

It's called passive-aggressive.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

35. It's called "thinking".

You might want to try it. BTW, I'm not flaming anyone - you started the flames pal.

[zanne]

39. I repeat--

It's called passive-aggressive. Crack open a Psychology book. (You might want to try it).

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

40. No, I think I'll just put you on ignore.

[converted_democrat]

14. I agree. Bye, bye, female rights. Guess they don't matter anymore...n/t

[depakid]

18. and bye bye 2006

Sirota makes great arguments as to why they need to stand up here (and why they should have in the Roberst case, too).

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1003-31.htm

If the Dems can't make a stand against this one based on principle, you might as well pack it in, because no one like to vote for cowards and appeasers- which is the widespread perception of the Dems behavior over the past 5 years.

[leftchick]

16. no they won't

the worst of them will be rolling in their corporate profits laughing all of the way to the bank. Not all of them but the worst of them and they are very obvious.

:(

[leesa]

20. They won't. A Fundie Christian lunatic without experience is OK with them

They've proved it with the criminal Roberts.

[seabeyond]

36. right, cause it is even a little reasonable to believe dems

could stop it. there ya go. put out an impossible as a must. or they rue the day

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

38. That line of thinking seems lost on some.

[seabeyond]

41. totally into war pigs right now..........

so appropriate. satan calling, spread wings, in such laughter, bah hahahahah satan laughs.

i am just ogoing to say it, what a retarded world we live in

govt wmd. govt uses on us. anthrax, protest. martitial law, bird flu, YIKES run and hide, run and hide

like i am fuckin worried about some scj that isnt too far away from the two that left.

and this one is wishy washy

to go from dem to reborn fundie,....wow

anyway, doesnt matter. what a president does, hire the scj. and again he put in an incompetent, not a genius.

i have a friend staying a little too long too. just a bit snappy

the stupidness with "i walk away from the dems". that is going to work. right

the outrage dems are wusses or spineless. i call bullshit.

the anger, the fighting, fuck that shit.

i have two kids i have to wash their hands obsessively cause who the fuck knows what is going to be coming around the turn pike.

anyway, this middle of the road, betrayer of left agenda democrat is tired of all this hyperbole. we are much more mature and capable, arent we? adult like, anyway. what dems use to have anyway.

problem solve. tired of two year old tantrums

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

42. Well said. I'm sick of it too.

"Two year old tantrums" is just about what it amounts to. Demanding a fight "or else", ignoring the fact that the fight is not only irrelevant (because Republicans have all the power) but also that we don't even have any ammunition to fight the fight they're demanding. Everyone here seems to think it's good enough to fight Miers on the grounds that Bush nominated her alone. Sorry, but that isn't going to fly.