Do you suppose that Bush has put Miers in as a trick?

[DU me]

With so many coming out against her it isn't a far reaching to expect a possible failure to be passed thru and put on the court. With that failure and all of the fighting that will go on, the next nominee will be the doosey.

Are there any critical cases coming up to be heard by the Supreme Court while Harriet is being thrashed around?

[Richard D]

1. Exactly.

My thoughts about her since I heard she was nominated.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

2. I just can't give them that much credit.

He probably chose her because he didn't dare go with any of the Appellate Judges with a paper trail.

[sniffa]

3. in poker, it's caLLed a bLuff

this is the bait in an attempt to get the dems to fiLibuster.

i say, we caLL the bLuff, and go for the up or down vote.

[NYCGirl]

4. Well, it'll be a real surprise when she's confirmed then. NT

[tex-wyo-dem]

5. It's interesting...if the WH was going to pull a trick...

one would expect that they would first put out the name of a true conservative extremist knowing that the nomination will likely fail and plan to follow that one with a less extreme extremist. This would increase the chances of getting the person they really want to be on the court (the second nomination).

Miers' nomination is curious...she doesn't appear to be a truly extreme conservative on the surface, but yet another soft nominee ala Roberts. The only simple explanation I can come up with is cronyism pure and simple...she's one of *'s people. But if Rove, et al. are really that smart, why would they risk pissing off their base like this?

Something else that makes me nervous: Every RW radio talking head I listened to yesterday (albeit for a short period of time) seemed to be echoing the same talking points (very disappointed, historical opportunity to change the court wasted, wanted to see a nominee in line with Scalila/Thomas, * screwed up, etc., etc.). Now, we know these guys get their daily briefs and talking points directly from the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute...so what gives?

I smell a rat somewhere.

[DU me]

14. So do I

I think that it could be if Meirs fails to get confirmed, Bush will put in the REAL choice that will satisfy his base and basically say - Hey I put somebody that would have been "moderate", but they couldnt't be passed because "the people" want my 2nd pick and those type of values....just a thought

[sendero]

6. It's all a game..

...

The anti-Miers chatter coming from the right is all coordinated. They always have a message and they stay on it.

There is no way any substantial number of Repugs are going to vote against her confirmation.

Bush** chose a pig-in-a-poke to basically neuter any arguments Dems might have against her, and trust me Bush** knows exactly what kind of jurist she will be despite his protestations to the contrary.

You are looking at the next SC appointee. IMHO, she's bad, but she could probably have been a lot worse. We won't really know for a while now will we :)

[longship]

7. Trick? No.

It's standard Repug operation. Put up two fundy looney toons, hold back documents, have them sit silent in the hearings, and insist on an up-and-down vote.

Of course, many Dems fall for it. (Remember Biden? "I like you.")

[yellowcanine]

8. No trick - But I think there is a chance she won't be confirmed because of

a lack of qualifications and there will be Republican votes against her. If she gets a less than stellar vote in committee I think she might even withdraw. Bush will be so steamed if this happens that I think he might punish the right wing by nominating Gonzales. Then the real fun will begin.

[gratuitous]

11. No, if she gets out of committee, she gets confirmed

The Republican-controlled Senate won't embarrass Chimpy, no way no how. But I do think that Miers is a "tantrum" nomination, by which I mean that I think Chimpy nominated her to prove that he'll nominate a crony to any position. Michael Brown at FEMA was a clear disaster, and a lot of people questioned Chimpy's judgment in putting someone so clearly unqualified in such an important position. Now, he nominates Miers as if to say "You want to see an unqualified person in an important position? I'll show you!"

We'll see if the organizing principle of the Republic party is "Bush uber alles" or the good of the country. This could be their last chance to show that it isn't.

[yellowcanine]

12. Oral Hatch has been strangely silent. Spector and Voinavitch also.

Actually, come to think of it, a LOT of pubbie senators have failed to weigh in. Anyone have any kind of tally as to who has weighed in positive, negative, and neutral?

[onenote]

9. nope.

No president would put up a SCT nomination just to see it fail. Presidents rightly regard losing as a sign of weakness and losing as contagious. And if he put up Miers and she failed because of opposition from the right, then he'd have handed the Dems a basis for filibustering if/when he named a known wingnut next.

onenote

[ebal]

10. Project X

Do you think it is in response to the "Project X" discussed earlier and each previous week here on DU?

[gratuitous]

13. Shhhh! Ixnay Project, uh, x-ay

Gotta throw off the freepi!