What do you all think of Reid "recommending" Meirs?

[saracat]

I find it disgusting but that is JMHO. I have always had reservations about Reid and this plays into them.But what do you all think?

[Mass]

1. I agree with you, but seems some think it is Reid playing games.

Remember. He also said he liked Roberts and ended not voting for him.

In any case, I certainly hope that many dems will vote against her.

[saracat]

2. I don't think Reid is really playing games. He blusters a lot with no

follow through. Meirs is just a bit too ideologically close to his own beliefs.While I don't believe that religion should be held against a nominee, I do think that a religion that considers itself "above the law" ought to be viewed sceptically.
Meirs is an "Evangelical" . Apparently her views changed along with her religion when she converted. This is a problem.

[Mass]

3. I know, this is disturbing

and particularly after he voted against Roberts, the vote which did not matter. Miers is the vote which matters.

I agree with what you on Reid, but at the same time, I am the feeling that since he is the leader, he is holding people with a firm hand and that may explain the silence of some on important issues.

[TayTay]

4. I think Miers is a vote against Roe

Reid is pro-life, so maybe that doesn't bother him. Reid could be playing politics and making nice to take the 'obstrucitonist' label out of the hands of the Rethugs. Or he could be sitting back and allowing the REthugs to down their own nominee.

I think Dems should oppose on the basis that she is unqualified for this important life-time post. What has she ever done to warrant an appointment to the SCOTUS? I think Kerry will oppose, and I'm hoping that more Dems join in.

It is an open question as to whether or not she will be confirmed now. Maybe, maybe not. It depends on the developing GTech scandal and the Abramoff connection. That alone might sink her.

[beachmom]

5. Reid being part of this decision really hurts us

There are really two problems with Meiers:

1) A mystery what her ideology is, but hints that she would vote against Roe (this matters to us Democrats)

2) She's simply unqualified for the job (this matters to everyone)

If the first part were true, but not the second part, you could say that Reid was pro-life, too, or maybe that he was respectful that the president had the right to choose a conservative nominee. But the second part is what troubles me even more. It links Bush's cronyism with the Democrats. How are we supposed to talk about the unbelievable corruption and cronyism within the Bush administration, if top Democrats were not just cooperating with Bush, but actually helping make the choice. This just kills me, because Reid's foolish actions here, has now taken away a huge part of our campaign for next year. I agree with Saracrat. Disgusting. I actually felt more ambiguous about Roberts -- at least he was a smart, decent guy -- but I oppose Meiers already, because she is the epitome of mediocrity and cronyism. Never mind how she would vote on Roe. She should never have been nominated. Hopefully, the other 8 can tutor her. Has a supreme court justice ever lost their job for incompetence before?

[sandnsea]

6. 3 problems

She's a Bush crony corporatist, which is actually the biggest problem. Those people are nothing but scum, every last one of them.

[whometense]

7. Absolutely true.

The interesting thing is, there seems to be a schism developing between the evangelical/wingnut right and actual conservatives (George Will, Bill Kristol, Pat Buchanan) on this. If it holds the showdown could be pretty fascinating.

More and more that is leaking out about Miers seems to indicate she's a stealth Roe-overturner. It seems like the corporatist junta thought she just might slide through with a wink and a nudge to people like Dobson and with no paper trail for the dems to seize on. At first it seemed like the wingnuts hated the pick, but they may well fall into line. I'm not sure about the moderates now.

And Harry Reid? God only knows.

[whometense]

8. Mystery Pollster

has a post up on the first reaction to Miers.

http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2005/10/first_miers_rea.html

This morning brings a new Gallup/CNN/USAToday poll conducted Monday and Tuesday evenings (10/3-4) with reaction to the Harriet Miers nomination. Both the USAToday and CNN stories emphasize that Americans are less enthusiastic about Miers than they were of John Roberts Forty-four percent (44%) rate her an excellent or good choice, 41% rate her only fair or poor. By comparison, 51% rated Roberts excellent or good just after his nomination, 34% only fair or poor.

The in-depth Gallup summary (available to non-subscribers today only) reveals the usual partisan polarization. Republicans overwhelmingly approve Miers (72% positive, 16% negative, 12% don't know), Democrats disapprove (24% positive, 62% negative, 14% don't know). CNN adds similar results by ideology, but with an important twist: Conservatives were nineteen percentage points happier about Roberts (77% positive, 13% negative) than Miers (58% positive, 29% negative). The difference is big enough that it suggests to MP that liberals and moderates are reacting to Miers much as they did to Roberts. Only self described conservatives appear to be significantly less enthusiastic. Perhaps Gallup can confirm with more complete cross-tabs? .

Even more tantalizing is this nugget available only in the Gallup summary only: The difference in the "excellent" rating for Roberts (25%) and Miers (12%) is more than double than the difference of the combined excellent and good rating (again, 51% for Roberts, 44% for Miers). MP wonders how those results look when tabulated by ideology and party.

The Gallup summary has much more. Read it all, while you can.