Baseball Crank
Covering the Front and Back Pages of the Newspaper
October 28, 2005
LAW: Revisionist History

The Democrats are now doing with the Harriet Miers nomination that thing they do best . . .

First, several prominent Senate Democrats are now claiming that they were just fine with Miers, so as to blame "the extreme right wing" for doing in her nomination. As Carol from ConfirmThem points out here and here, this is in direct contradiction to their own previous statements about Miers.

Second, Kos now takes the view that "Senate Democrats have helpfully emailed around the list below of GOP passion for the "up or down vote". Too bad the Miers fiasco has taken away that talking point from their repertoire." As John Cole explains slowly and in (hopefully) small enough words, there was not a peep from Republicans about blue-slipping or filibustering Miers, or even about delaying the scheduled date for her hearing. Those of us who called for her withdrawal simply felt that she deserved to be voted down, and thought the president shouldn't let the bleeding continue for another month. This is not even close to the same thing as filibustering a nominee who has the support of a majority of the Senate.

And, hey: we were all told, repeatedly, by Miers' friends that she was opposed to abortion and likely to vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. Are Kos and the Senate Democrats now admitting that they would have permitted a floor vote for, and possibly confirmed, a nominee who was - in Barbara Boxer's words - "anti-choice"? Because maybe now they can retire that talking point too.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 7:07 AM | Law 2005 | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)
Comments

Aw, c'mon Crank, of course the Dems are spinning! What'd you expect? Are you angered that the White House is reporting that Miers tendered her withdrawal which was then "reluctantly" accepted by Bush? Is that the Republicans doing what "they do best"?

Each side is expected to lie, and lie better than the other side. And filibustering, whether you like it or not, has a long tradition, and has been used -- masterfully -- by the GOP on many occasions. It's the best tool at a minority party's disposal.

Also, while filibustering is gamesmanship, the Nuclear Option won't be? The Republicans will resort to it, if necessary, as any political party fighting the good fight would, and should.

Yet at that point, the lies & spin will go on: the Dems will say that a filibuster is a-ok, but the Nuclear Option "goes too far." And the GOP will say that the filibustering is nothing but obstructionism, while changing the Senate Rules is "doing what's right." Blah, blah, blah. They're both full of it, and full of it they'll remain.

Posted by: Mike at October 28, 2005 8:52 AM

So you're only entitled to an up or down vote if the votes are there to confirm? I don't get it. How is that a principle?

I agree with Mike, both sides spin. I think the first lie came from the 'pubs, though, since they suddenly decided that the filibuster didn't apply to judicial nominations, which is total manure. And many of the 'pubs, particularly those that had once been in the minority, knew it was manure which is why they defected.

I think Miers would have been confirmed by enough Dems, simply because they knew that she had to be better the Owens, Edith Jones or Rogers-Brown. But I personally was calling for a filibuster of Miers, since I think we could have put the nuclear option in the permanent sh*tcan with it, thus making the next nominee unlikely to be a nutjob (or what others call "originalist").

And I think anyone that wants to reverse Griswold should not be nominated, and should be voted against even if they're John Marshall...Roe was perhaps decided with "compromise" and should be reevaluated, but I don't think I'd like to see it be re-evaluated in a Roberts/Scalia/Thomas cabal of a court, I'll wait until the court comes out of the dark side. I think there are ways to establish a firm right to choose without a test of viability/trimester system at its core. But I don't trust originalists to do it right.

Posted by: AstrosFan at October 28, 2005 10:45 AM

1. Nominees who lack the votes also deserve an up or down vote, it's just a less obviously egregious abuse since it's just forestalling the inevitable. But a president can prudently withdraws a nominee who lacks the votes.

2. Reversing Griswold directly would require another test case, which ain't gonna happen. But there's no defensible principle behind Griswold anyway. The opinion was based on the special role of marriage, and the same Justices who wrote it threw that principle overboard in Eisenstadt v. Baird.

Posted by: The Crank at October 28, 2005 11:44 AM
Site Meter 250wde_2004WeblogAwards_BestSports.jpg