ABC's Douglass reported that Democrats will "split" over Miers nomination, ignored possible GOP divisions
Shortly after President Bush tapped White House counsel Harriet Miers to replace retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, ABC News chief congressional correspondent Linda Douglass predicted that the Miers nominaton will create a "split" among Senate Democrats. And the Republicans? Douglass did not mention possible divisions within the GOP, nor did she mention specific warnings before the nomination by some Republican senators that they will be looking for more concrete answers regarding the nominee's position on particular issues than they required of newly confirmed Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.
On the October 3 broadcast of ABC's Good Morning America, anchor George Stephanopoulos suggested that, in nominating Miers, President Bush had hoped "to do what he did with John Roberts and split the Democratic Party." Later in the broadcast, host Charlie Gibson solicited comments on the nomination from Douglass, who stated Stephanopoulos's theory as fact. "[T]here will clearly be a split among the Democrats," Douglass reported, "and that's the last thing they want, since they sent a very confused message, in their view, about John Roberts." Douglass went on to depict Senate Democrats as already fractured in their response to the Miers nomination: "So they are clearly lining up reasons to oppose her. But it is not clear they are going to be able to agree on what those are."
But while Douglass baselessly stated that a "split" Democratic response is inevitable, she did not mention recent statements by several Senate Republicans that in anticipation of a nomination that suggested the possibility of dissention within their own ranks. A September 25 New York Times article headlined "Next Court Nominee May Face Challenges From GOP" reported that "both socially conservative and more liberal Republican senators say they may vote against confirmation of the next nominee if the pick leans too far to the left or the right on prominent issues like abortion rights." According to the article, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), a member of the Judiciary Committee, has said he would oppose a second nominee who was not "solid and known" on social issues such as "abortion, same-sex marriage and religion in public life." The Times further noted that Sens. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) stated that they would more strictly scrutinize the views of Bush's second nominee.
From the October 3 broadcast of ABC's Good Morning America:
STEPHANOPOULOS: First of all, she is a woman. And the president was under a tremendous amount of pressure, including from the first lady and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, to pick a woman for the Sandra Day O'Connor seat. Number two, she is close to the president. And he believes she is a solid conservative. We have already seen some leading voices in the conservative movement come out this morning and support her. Third, in part because she hasn't been a judge, she doesn't have all that much of a paper trail. So it will be difficult for the senators to pin her down on some of these most controversial issues like abortion. And then finally, I think the president believes he has a prospect of splitting the Democrats and getting a fairly smooth confirmation. The Democratic leader in the Senate, Harry Reid [D-NV], actually urged President Bush to consider Harriet Miers. Other Democrats are not signaling that kind of acceptance right now. But there were some signals from the Democrats that she would be someone worthy of consideration. So the president believes he will be able to do what he did with John Roberts and split the Democratic Party.
GIBSON: George, I'm curious. The president had said to conservative backers that he would name to the court a conservative in the mold of Justice [Antonin] Scalia, Justice [Clarence] Thomas. Does he have any sense that she's in that mold? Has he broken any promises to the conservatives?
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, that's going to be one of the big questions, Charlie. I think President Bush believes she's a conservative and also believes, quite firmly, that she is pro-life. They point out, for example, her allies, that she was involved with Texans for Life, and she's expressed those views privately. But I think there's no question that Harriet Miers is not in the mold of sort of an intellectual pioneer in the way that Justice Scalia is, or someone that is going to, you know, be in the vanguard of the conservative movement on the court. Or, at least, there is no evidence right now that she has that capability.
GIBSON: All right, George Stephanapoulos. Thanks very much. I want to turn to Linda Douglass on Capitol Hill. She covers Capitol Hill for us. Linda, the president was very careful to point out that he consulted with 80 senators on this. We understand that the minority leader in the Senate, Senator Reid, top Democrat in the Senate, had signaled that Miers might be somebody that was acceptable. So do you think she will sail through?
DOUGLASS: Well, as George says, there will clearly be a split among the Democrats, and that's the last thing they want, since they sent a very confused message, in their view, about John Roberts -- half of them voting for him, and half voting against him. There was certainly urging by the Democrats that they choose somebody -- that the president choose somebody -- who has not been in the so-called judicial monastery, and she fits that bill. But already we are hearing from Democrats that they are concerned that her views are not known. They are questioning her intellectual heft. Some of the liberal groups are already suggesting she might be a crony of the president's. That's a theme you have been hearing from Democrats about some of the appointments in government. So they are clearly lining up to find reasons to oppose her. But it's not clear they are going to be able to agree on what those are.
















Wow, hannity had to back off of his assertions that democrats would do anything they could to fight Roberts, so someone else picks up the slack for Miers...
Course, slanderity isn't going to correct his obvious mis-statements, and this nobody from ABC won't make it on air about this topic now that the only consistent opposition to Miers has been from the Republican party...
Fish/Barrel - so funny, it shouldn't be so sad...
Yes, it's possible that Jesse Jackson can become president. Yes, it's possible that saddam was an honorable man.
This is a very weak attempt by mmfa. The republicans will strongly support Miers and the democrats will be split. Douglass and Stephie got it exactly right.
Pres.Bush has once again outwitted the dimocrats...another slam dunk confirmation...another conservative supreme court justice on the bench...so long failed liberalism.
It takes very little sophistication to give no-bid contracts to friends, to be on-message when huge corporations like GE/Lockheed also news and news analysis shows, or like ABC/Disney are in bed with Clear Channel and their representatives, like Limbaugh, have no competition. It's easy for a goofball to "win" a debate against someone far more articulate when you control the 24/7 news spin. Same goes for controlling the message & getting your nominee in, discounting the Downing Street memo, etc. It's easy to send soldiers to war when you can hammer associations between Saddam and 911, Saddam and yellow cake, Saddam and Al Quaida. Neocons by and large are proud of their abuse of power.
I myself would not be so comfortable with a defender of a person who outed a covert agent with such power, who's helped stave off investigations into what truly are un-American, un-Patriotic activities. To have power and not abuse it is the litmus test she's not passed. She's clearly an eager insider in a regime that's been highly critical of the judiciary.
- She's clearly an eager insider in a regime that's been highly critical of the judiciary. - laura ================================================================
If this is the best rebuttal you can offer...it's weak...just like this thread by mmfa.
However, you're warming up nicely since you'll have decades to complain after the emasculation of liberal power base in the supreme court.
Astro Boy totally ignores the bulk of Laura's post, which he cannot refute.
Gloat while you can, astro boy. The criminal enterprise masquerading as the Bush administration will eventually disgust the majority of Americans; maybe not in time for the next election, but history will expose them for the slime that they are.
Rocketman - if you're eager for "an emasculation of the liberal power base", just replay the videos of the folks who lacked "personal responsibility" (as neocons put it afterwards) and failed to leave New Orleans. Just review the fact that even "liberal" organizations like the New York Times were in support of the Iraq "War". That Clear Channel has a virtual monopoly. That the president never has to respond to follow-up questions (which would inevitably be repeats of the first question which he dodged). That you "have the media" as Coulter admitted.
You need wait no longer to celebrate, your dream's come true already.
The republicans will?
[link to www.confirmthem.com]
[link to corner.nationalreview.com]
[link to thinkprogress.org]
[link to thinkprogress.org]
But here's what Bush hack Miers had to say:
Sept. 10, 2004: Miers defended the administration's efforts to draw links between Iraq and 9/11, said she appreciates "the president's calm, strong leadership" and declared that it would be a "great idea" to turn Sept. 11 into a national holiday. Miers said she was with Bush on 9/11, helping him prepare the remarks he would deliver from Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana, and she remembers that Bush praised her by saying, "Good hustle." "He made me feel good that I was contributing," she said. When a writer said that the United States is in "a struggle for civilization and the survival of the free world against anarchism and barbarism" and a "fight to preserve our way of life against extremists who would return us to the Dark Ages," Miers thanked him for expressing himself "so wonderfully." "I certainly agree with you," she said. "As I said before, we will persevere and we will not relent."
Oct. 14, 2004: When a writer suggested that Bush's tax cuts and other policies were aimed at helping big business more than "ordinary Americans," Miers said that she hoped the writer would "spend some time learning about what the president really has done for the American people, in tax relief and so many other ways." When another writer asked why Bush is "restricting federal funding on embryonic stem cell research," Miers said: "You should start from the premise that the president supports promising medical research."
Oct. 29, 2004: Miers advocated drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, insisted that the administration is "sowing the seeds of freedom" in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to bring "the goal of peace for all nations ever closer," and dismissed concerns over the lack of funding for the president's "No Child Left Behind" plan as the result of "a great deal of misinformation out there."
Yeah, she sure sounds like a real strong, independent person with her own set of beliefs. I'm sure that strict interpretation of the Constitution will be her guiding philosophy. I think that with her inside connections to BushCo as her only qualification, she is such an outrageous pick that nobody really knows what to do or say at this point.
- I'm sure that strict interpretation of the Constitution will be her guiding philosophy - rufus t firefly ================================================================
What a novel concept...strict interpretation of the constitutuion...I knew you were a quick study.
"Strict interpretation of the Contitution?"
How about Scalia and "me too" Thomas and their disregard for the right to privacy?
Scalia's disregard for religious freedoms?
How about Scalia and "me too" Thomas and their disregard for the right to privacy?
Scalia's disregard for religious freedoms?
by archae - Tuesday October 4, 2005 12:36:37 AM EST
The Constitution does not contain a clearly articulated right to privacy. I'm not familiar with any Scalia ruling that would indicate a disregard for religious freedoms, can you be more specific?
Just read some of his speeches.
I saw that you mentioned reading Scalia's speeches...can you help direct me to where I can find transcripts? Scalia previously wouldn't allow reporters or anyone to record his speeches until an incident last April when a Federal Marshall confiscated a reporter's tape. He recently has begun allowing some recordings and I'd love to find some transcripts...Any help would be appreciated!
Strict interpretation of the constitution is a ridiculous pipe dream of the right wing in this country.
Let's not forget that under STRICT interpretation of the constitution would mean that anyone who owns a gun would ALSO have to be a member of a militia, and that corporations would lose the rights to own property and contribute to political campaigns. (The horror! The horror!)
Constructionism is stupid. If the Constitution is to be interpreted literally and its meaning never to be changed...why do we amend it?
Hmmmm...something for you "strict" nutbags to ponder...
Hmmmm...something for you "strict" nutbags to ponder...
by deeznuts - Tuesday October 4, 2005 09:09:54 AM EST -
As a strict nutbag, I have just one question. If a Supreme Court Judge is not bound to merely interpret the constitution, and free to issue rulings irrespective of their constitutional foundation, how exactly then would they be different than the mullahs of Iran? I mean, except for the beards of course.
Be careful what you wish for. The right-wingers often complain about phrases that are not literally in the Constitution, like separation of church and state, or right to privacy. I assume then, that you also don't believe in fair trials, separation of powers, or executive privilege?
If limited to a strictly literal reading, the First Amendment only protects us from actions by Congress. That would mean that the Executive Branch, as well a State Governments, could outlaw newspapers, declare an official religion, or limit speech with which they disagree. Is that what you really want?
I agree. Strict constructionism is a nebulous, unworkable term. These days it's all about applying a particular ideolgical interpretation to further one's agenda. The upholding of a woman's right to privacy in Roe v Wade is opposed based on one group's view of an act covered under that privacy. It's humorous to listen to those who want to see this overturned whine about judges legislating from the bench. They want the law to be their law. There is much that is not clearly articulated in the Constitution. It's the duty of the courts, Supreme and others, to make sure interpretation remains flexible while at the same time retaining the spirit and intention of those who wrote it, which is why a cross-section of philosophies is critical. Instead we have an unscrupulous self-serving bunch of so-called leaders who put personal ideology and advancement over the greater good.
Most of the people complaining about "judicial activism" don't even know what they're complaining about. This was part of the Republicans' "southern strategy" to pry the South away from the Democrats. Essentially, they used racial bigotry to draw the Dixiecrats and former George Wallace supporters into the Republican party. In their minds, judicial activism encompasses actions by the court which, in the past, have prevented them from codifying their bigotry into law. They're still chapped about forced desegregation, but can't afford to admit it. (What do you think the voucher movement is really about?)
The truth is that "judicial activism" is really the Supreme Court not allowing the legislature to pass laws based on bigotry, hatred, and religious intolerance.
The Democrats will split over Miers?
Depends how conservative she is, but I wouldn't count on it since there is even less known about Miers than John Roberts. The Democrats opposed Roberts by a fairly wide margin-there were some supporters, but they were vastly outnumbered. Do you think someone who there's even less known about will get votes.
The Democrats have already folded on this one. We are effectively a one-party country.
Only a few day ago, Senator Harry Reid was calling for an end to the culture of cronyism. [link to reid.senate.gov]
Now, Reid is supporting Bush's cronyism attempt to put Meirs, someone without judicial experience, into the Supreme Court.
[link to reid.senate.gov]
STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARRY REID ON THE NOMINATION OF HARRIET MIERS TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT
Monday, October 3, 2005
“I like Harriet Miers. As White House Counsel, she has worked with me in a courteous and professional manner. I am also impressed with the fact that she was a trailblazer for women as managing partner of a major Dallas law firm and as the first woman president of the Texas Bar Association.
“In my view, the Supreme Court would benefit from the addition of a justice who has real experience as a practicing lawyer. The current justices have all been chosen from the lower federal courts. A nominee with relevant non-judicial experience would bring a different and useful perspective to the Court...
And indeed, cronyism is what we have in this case. Make no mistake. This woman is unqualified, yet a close friend and protector/secret-keeper of George W. Bush. This appointment is reward for her loyalty, not recognition of her professional accomplishments. It could not be more clear.
See Wikipedia: the word means appointment of long-standing friends who are not qualified for the position, the appointment of long-standing friends who are qualified is not cronyism; this would be more akin to political patronage
Or Dictionary.com: Favoritism shown to old friends without regard for their qualifications, as in political appointments to office.
By Bush's standards of career qualifications for the position, Johnny Cochrane could be a Supreme Court Justice...
Actually Bush and his band of criminal NeoCon nutbags would be more likely to nominate Lorena Bobbitt than Johnnny Cochrane. Her approach seems a little more Old Testament.
Just a note Johnny Cochrane died this year so he's off whatever list he might have been on.
I'd agree except for the fact that being dead doesn't seem to preclude being elected, appointed, or serving in political office. After all wasn't Ashcroft was defeated by dead guy Mel Carnahan in Missouri. Appropriately so I think. And there is no way you are going to convince me that Cheney is actually alive.
Well said West1. Here's an angle from Slate. She's all about corporatization, corporate lawyer from Texas. She's lined up with Cheney et al, and is participating in the selling of the democracy. Govt becomes an arm of Mega-business. Moral issues / beliefs / values, etc., are off the table. This sector of a "conservative agenda" has been ditched. We're not spreading freedom. We're comandeering markets and making our friends (Big Oil, Lockheed/NBC) even more wealthy along the way.
Before all the moaning and cheering. A glimmer of light for liberals and a little gloom for neo-cons. Earl Warren was one of the most conservative CJ ever, at least that is what everyone thought, until he got on the bench and preside during many of the cases that conservatives now point to and cry "judicial activism". To be honest, on Miers I have no idea how she will vote, she does appear under-qualified and there is the hint of cronyism in the air.
But a Republican split I doubt it, largely because the party will not want to expose itself to critism during any period but particuliarily a period where their dear George is viewed by so many in a dismal light. Basically, they'll play ball to protect their jobs. They could not afford a failed appointment or scandal.
The whole conservative Repub.s are bucking this one line is crap, most likely. In the end they'll vote the way they are told. If anything this may be an attempt by the Repub.s to garner a little more Democrat support, just to be safe.
And as for Rocketman, if the conservatives are really against her but then cave in, I would not be proud of being a member that produces such "great leaders". That they would sell America short, to protect W, themselves, and their power. If it is true. Not that I doubt they would not sell us short, they have been through the best part of W's reign. When, pick a bill any bill most likely you have a case in point.