Would you rather keep Meirs or go for what's behind door No. 3?

[keopeli]

As far as a proponent of prudent and honest justices who enforce the law is concerned, the Meirs nomination is a toss-up. There is no paper trail of rulings to perceive her judicial philosophy, so there is no reasonable way to predict how she would rule.

The alternative, should Meirs lose her nomination bid, will undoubtably be an overt conservative whose judicial philosophy will be loud and clear for all the fundamentalists to see.

Frankly, I prefer the "unkown unknown" in this circumstance. I don't see how an alternative could be any better.

[win_in_06]

1. I hate to see the next nominee but I'd hate to see someone with

a lack of qualifications sit on the bench.

[Taylor Mason Powell]

2. I tend to agree...

I think you make a good point. This may well be a situation where the devil you DON'T know is better than the devil you do know.

But on the other hand, as a lawyer, I'd rather have a well-established, principled jurist on the court, even if he or she is really conservative, than someone who doesn't know what the fuck she's doing. The Miers nomination demeans the whole profession of law, much in the same way that electing me Pope would demean Catholicism.

So I guess I'm conflicted about the whole thing. But I do so enjoy the right-wing meltdown!! :-)

[readmoreoften]

3. I actually would rather have Miers.

She seems like such a weak person that, who knows, at least maybe 10 years into her Supreme Courtship with America (after the Bush Admin falls and the world is normal again) she might swing or be easily swayed by a powerful moderate personality that the next president puts on the bench.

It also will be lifelong blight on the republican party. They will always be something of a joke because of Miers. She will cause dissent and bitterness long after she's confirmed because 'a better judge' should have the slot.

With a hardline conservative we just have a hardline crazy-ass conservative.

[longship]

4. Door number four.

The wild card.

Under impeachment proceedings, chimp might not get another appointment. It is very clear that this administration is incapable of conducting the business of running the country. It may be possible that things may blow up in the next week where we could be facing a crisis of considerable significance. In this case, there may be no approval for Miers and there will not be another appointment with Chimp in the White House.

This scenerio could be the best one. A president Hastert, or some other veep in the case that one is appointed before Chimp is forced out, might be much better than anything we'd get under a stupid chimpanzee. If I thought that door #4 was possible, and I had that decision in my power, I might want to play for that outcome.

I am not saying that this is probable, but the odds of door #4 is more than zero. This scenerio is a possibility and the outcome could be favorable, or at least more favorable than what we have now.

If I'm in the Senate and Miers fails (very likely), I'd be talking people into filibustering any and all subsequent Chimp appointees on that very basis.

[keopeli]

5. It's an interesting alternative, but based on too much suposition

If Bush the Lesser really folds under pressure, this would be a wonderful alternative. But, in the present circumstances and until I actually SEE indictments, I'm going to stick with the unknown unknown that I know (or don't).

:)

[longship]

7. Well, the whole implication was that it wasn't probable.

But consider the Hobson's choice a Senator is going through right now. Wouldn't this be a viable alternative? It could be a no-lose alternative. We already know precisely what we are going to get from Chimp--more of the same, or worse. That makes door #4 the defacto best choice. With Repugs in chaos and losing power, an ascendent president will have to accomodate a broader power base, with Dems and moderates. It is almost inevitable that a SCOTUS appointee under these conditions would be far, far better.

So, as Senator I'm going to play that card. After Miers fails or is withdrawn (inevitable) I'm going to play for Chimp failing in the next few months. I'm gonna fillibuster every SCOTUS nominee.

[spooky3]

12. the longer that Dems can draw out the process, the more likely

your scenario seems to be.

[IndianaGreen]

6. Thumbs down on Miers

We will be in the middle of impeachment proceedings next year.

[SammyBlue]

8. Behind door #3 is worse, we know that, but let's see how much

President Oops can fuck himself. Let's go behind door #3 to reveal. . .
ALBERTO GONZALES!!!

Or that California (or Texas, I forget) black lady, Judge Brown the crazy lady.

[depakid]

9. It's a matter of integrity- NOT expediency

Had the Dems actually stood up for integrity in the process even a couple of times over the past 5 years, we'd not only have rejected Roberts- but the party wouldn't be completely irrelevant as it is today.

Shit, the Dems might even control the Senate- and Bush might not still be in the Whitehouse.

[Vinca]

10. This is truly terrifying, but we have to take door #3.

Meiers does not appear up to the job in any way, shape or form. She wants on the court for one reason and one reason only: to overturn Roe as a tribute to the man she loves. What the heck does Shrub have to deserve such loyalty?

[ElectroPrincess]

11. Yes, Door # 3 will reveal Janice Rogers Brown

Further, if you think the repugs won't use the NUCLEAR OPTION to emplace this nut-case, think again.

http://www.civilrights.org/issues/nominations/details.cfm?id=32097

[depakid]

20. The answer to that is easy

Show some cojones and shut down the Senate- just as Harry threatened to before.

[magnolia]

13. I'd rather drag out....

...the Meir's hearing until after the impeachment of Bush and then a new and improved president can make a fair selection: someone like O'Connor.

[Rebellious Republican]

14. KEEP HER, at least long enough to get her into the confirmation

hearings. Where her skeletons will be aired in a very public setting. Here is my reasoning for this http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2174364
Once this goes public, we could see both Bush and Meirs go down in flames. Two for the price of one, and then add on Plamegate, Delay money luandering, Frist's "seeing eye trust".

Forget a trifecta, we are going for a Quinella: Wager in which first two finishers must be picked, but payoff is made no matter which of the two wins and which runs second.

Yes, do you all not agree?

[ElectroPrincess]

19. Yes! I CAN DIG IT! :-)

Yep, citizens "squaring away" the bloated and gutless politicians, FIRST the morally bankrupt Republicans, then - how 'bout we do a little cleaning of our own house (The Corporate Ass Kissing DINOs?)

But sure, as long as we stop the wheels of the "War Machine" and elect those who would NOT pass laws to promote "Corporate Welfare" beyond reality while financially SCREWING the Working and Middle Classes in the USA. :hi:

Yep, figuratively, "I can dig it!"

[radfringe]

15. bush* is in deep doo-doo

he's piled up alot on his plate (Katrina-Fema-Brownie, Iraq,
"treason-gate" indictments to name a few)

Miers is one more "quag-Mires" he has to face and his political capital account is broke. He's going to need support and fast - hanging onto Miers' nomination isn't going to do it. He won't get any support from the left, and his "base" of fundies are not happy campers.

Taking his "politic" ideology - any croney he choses is going to be leaning hard to the right in order to pull the fundies back into his camp -- this is assuming either he withdraws Miers nomination, Miers withdraws it herself - or if it gets that far - she doesn't get the nod from the Judical committe or Senate.

you can look at it as "better the devil you know than the one you don't" -- but we don't know that much about Miers do we? And a supreme court position is a lifelong one -- there are no "do-overs" during election time

bush* is polling between 58-51% DISAPPROVAL ( http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls.html ) - he can't afford to nominate someone who is moderate and further alienate his "base".

[Rebellious Republican]

17. "quag-Mires", thats good radfringe! Bwahahaha, N/T

:spray: :rofl:

[rhett o rick]

16. Our only hope is to get some one intelligent and hope they see the

light. That sure as hell ain't Harry. Take door number 3.

[bklyncowgirl]

18. Say no to Meirs and any nominee who is not both moderate and competent

Do you really want Democrats to be put in the position of saying "yeah we know she's incompetent but she may be kinda sorta moderate even though she says she isn't."

Competence and a mainstream conservative philosophy are not too much to ask for and to stand up for.

Filibuster anything less and make them expose themselves.