Why Do Conservative Bloggers hate Harriet Miers?

[bryant69]

Or is this hatred genuine?

If confirmed, Miers would be another O’Connor. She’d sit on the Court for the next 20 or 30 years, issuing one horrible O’Connorite decision after another. Putting her on the Court would be like losing ten consecutive Congressional elections. - Polipundit

I wouldn't mind putting a retarded chicken on the Supreme Court if I knew for a fact that that drooling moronfowl would simply vote whatever way Scalia told it to. I have no guarantees -- not even any good evidence -- that Miers will pursue a strict constitutionalist Scalia jurisprudence. - Ace of Spades

I can kind of see the argument that those in the conservative media like Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter would slam into Miers on orders from Karl Rove to make her seem less partisan. But does that same logic apply to the bloggers?

Oh, and in case anybody is wondering, I think Harriet Miers will probably be a terrible justice; I certainly don't think she will be the next Sandra Day O'Conner. I think her biggest area of influence won't be Roe v. Wade or Gay rights, but rather to expand the power of the Executive branch to do what ever it wants to fight the "War on Terror."

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[displacedtexan]

1. They wanted a knock-down drag-out fight to the death...

so they could feel good about themselves.

They also believed that voting for an oil man would keep gas prices low.

HAHAHAHAHAHA

[crispini]

3. LOL! Jinx!

Well we both thought it so it must be true eh? :7

[crispini]

2. I think it is, and I think it's 'cause they were spoiling for a fight.

They have a well-established "farm team" of conservative justices on the appeallate courts who are known "constitutionalists." They wanted Bush to appoint one of their chosen ones and they WANTED a big-ol knock-down-drag-out with the Dems. Anecdotal evidence-- I heard a conservative commentator on Faux (I forget who) say as much. But it rings true for me -- they see their "boy king" as faltering and they wanted a fight to remind everyone who was really in charge of the legislative branch.

They see Shrub's appointment as almost a betrayal, I think.

[Maat]

7. I am so glad that you put that silly term, 'constitutionalists' in quotes.

It is just a term that they made up to mean 'somebody who will rule the way the Religious Right wants them to when they want it.'

It's not like they have a cogent definition of 'constitutionalist.'

Needless to say, during the last five years (four of them in law school, and 1 studying for the Bar Exam), I have read plenty of opinions, written by a variety of people. Believe me, although conservatives tend to like the status quo, they get very 'activist' when they want something. And, court opinions are as political as anything - I'm positive the various members decide what they want, and find the lingo to justify it later.

I so agree they wanted a more prominent 'Federalist Society' member on the Court, not such a corporatist one (too bad).

[BOSSHOG]

4. They have no paper trail of hate on the nominee

They don't know if she hates minorities and homosexuals and those who work in women's health clinics. They are not sure that she will only "legislate from the bench" when it fits an evil, hateful right wing agenda. Conservatives are consistent however. They want the courts to be used to inflict pain and suffering on their fellow citizens and they just don't have a nice warm and cuddly feeling about harriet.

[Maat]

9. Yes, THAT they are consistent about, Boss.

The idea, on the part of the Religious Right Extremists, such as Dobson, is to have some kind of patriarchal, repressive, exploitive society, in which [fill in the blank of the RRE leader in question) is Mullah. Sort of like the mini-society Dobson has in Colorado Springs.

[katinmn]

5. They voted for * because they saw it as their only chance to

overturn Roe v. Wade. They don't approve of his spending sprees but were willing to overlook it if there was a way to ban abortions.

But Miers is seen as a wild card and they want a known quantity.

[Maat]

10. And the rest of us to sit idly by while it happens (n/t).

[katinmn]

12. Well, not all of us. But too many Americans do not care

and they won't until it affects them personally, and even then, who knows.

[Maat]

22. Exactly.

I want all liberals not living in the liberal east coast states to move to California, where I am. We can make this the Bluest state in the Union.

[katinmn]

24. and then we secede. They wouldn't last 6 months without one

functioning brain amongst all of them!

[Maat]

25. Yahoo!

Let's do it! Maybe I'll get together a "Move a Liberal to Cal" campaign going on.

[katinmn]

27. "For pennies a day, the price of a cup of coffee,

you can bring joy and sunshine into the life of a depressed liberal...."

[Maat]

28. Perfect! (n/t)

[tx_dem41]

6. Because they fly-off-the-handle before knowing any facts...

just like some here do (including me) sometimes.

[asthmaticeog]

8. "if I knew for a fact that ... vote whatever way Scalia told it to..."

Riiiiight - no reason to have those NINE justices, they just clutter things up. :eyes:

[nvliberal]

11. Because the bloggers wanted a knock down, drag-out

floor fight over the judicial filibuster, and it looks like now they aren't going to get one.

They wanted the last vestige of checks-and-balances eliminated.

That's what this whole anti-Miers hysteria is all about.

[Cary]

13. Their coallition cannot last forever.

Their ideology isn't showing well and they know it, even though they refuse to acknowlege the relevance of the poll numbers. Bush is a lame duck and without popular support he has nothing with which to enforce his discipline.

It's only going to get worse as the wannabes jockey to be Bush's successor.

In short, our national nightmare may be coming to an end. The Supreme Court nominations may be the only real damage left for Bush to inflict on our nation.

[bryant69]

19. You might be right

Certianly so far it seems like it's been bad (his pics for the supreme court) but could have been worse.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[WeRQ4U]

14. Because they wanted a "certifiable" asshate nutbag....

Not this wild card.

[The Backlash Cometh]

15. They have a bigger agenda than Roe v. Wade.

They're probably thinking of disjoining the states in the effort to save "Americanism."

It's possible that someone like Meiers hasn't been brought into the loop. You'd have to be a Federalist Society member to know what the real redprint is.

[katinmn]

16. Do you think the average rank and file * voter has an agenda?

I think if they aren't corporate bloodsuckers then their agenda is fairly narrow.

[The Backlash Cometh]

17. No, no. no! The average Republicans are marks.

I don't believe for a minute if they really understood where the Federalist Society is headed, that they would approve of it at all. The average Republican believes that social program cutbacks will only hurt the people they hate most: minority members. They believe blacks and hispanics are lazy people who are living off the dole and they believe that those tax cuts were meant to cut them off, while leaving more money in the pockets of white, hard working Americans.

Never mind that they are now paying through the nose for higher insurance premiums and deductibles, suffering more at the hands of malpractice without being able to recover through legal remedies, and paying more for gas.

They also believe that minority members are incompetent and that Affirmative Action has brought down the level of productivity and efficienty in this country. (Thank you, George Bush, for proving that white cronyism is alive and kicking in this country and destoying this country without anybody else's help.)

In essence, Republicans don't really understand where the party is going, and by the time they figure it out, it will be too late.

[katinmn]

20. I agree whole heartedly. Kinda hard to watch them marching

unknowingly over the cliff, isn't it?

We're not much better off. We know what's happening and haven't been able to stop it.:evilfrown:

[Joanne98]

21. That's what I think! She's not smart enough to unravel 70 years of law.

She's not an insider to the TAKEOVER! They think she got appointed to protect Bush from future lawsuits. It's a total sellout.

[H2O Man]

18. Good thread!

I think that there has been a degree of manipulation in this. Bush has surrounded himself with extreme right-wing religious conservatives since he was governor. Harriet fits that mode. She is not, however, a neoconservative per say ... it's important to remember Bush was not invested in this worldview until he was a candidate for president. I suspect that there is more at play here than meets the eye, though I do not doubt that many of the right-wing blow-hards are sincere in believing Bush could have made a better choice.

[Disturbed]

23. The hardcore RW doesn't trust...

Shrub's judgment. Most will fall in line when it comes to voting yea for her. RWingers rarely break from the marching orders.

[robertpaulsen]

26. They didn't get Rove's memo like Dobson did.

FINEMAN: Yes. And the way he would do it is, he would talk to his—the people he deals with in the media. He would talk to friends on the Hill. He would talk to people in the conservative community, as, indeed, he was doing over Harriet Miers, trying to sell Harriet Miers to James Dobson. It‘s all of a piece. Karl is Mr. Fix-it. Karl is the salesman, the political operative.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9662325/