Miers to be villified, tarred and feathered by liberals

What else do you expect from the party of no ideas and hate?

We'll have to see if this nomination triggers the "nuclear" option, or explodes into something more nasty.

Let the circus begin!

Anybody interested in seeing Arlen Specter in red coat (with tails), white pants, black shiny boots to the knee, and a top hat and cane?

'cause he's going to be running this three ring circus here shortly.

The best part is that there are already conservative groups that are seething over this choice and the choice of Roberts.

As an example, Drudge is passing along a press release from Public Advocate.

See this information:

Contact: Jesse Binnall of the Public Advocate FALLS CHURCH, Va., Oct. 3 /Christian Wire Service/ -- Public Advocate President Eugene Delgaudio has issued the following statement following the appointment of Harriet Miers to serve on the Supreme Court. "The President's nomination of Miers is a betrayal of the conservative, pro-family voters whose support put Bush in the White House in both the 2000 and 2004 elections and who were promised Supreme Court appointments in the mold of Thomas and Scalia. Instead we were given 'stealth nominees,' who have never ruled on controversial issues, more in the mold of the disastrous choice of David Souter by this President's father. "When there are so many proven judges in the mix, it is unacceptable this President has appointed a political crony with no conservative credentials. This attempt at 'Bush Packing' the Supreme Court must not be allowed to pass the Senate and we will forcefully oppose this nomination."

So we have a choice that is now about to be lynched by the same groups that should be supporting the choice because the choice isn't easily enough read as being staunchly conservative.


I had written quite some time ago that when, and if, Bush was able to put some nominees on the court that I expected we'd see that he would wind up putting faily moderate choices on the court. History will be the final judge on that point, but my prophesy could wind up being very true.

In anycase, we are also of course hearing screams from Conservatives who have found that Miers had donated to Clinton and Gore's campaigns. A true cardinal sin I'm sure.

Delgaudio is kind of whacked.  I would not use him as a standard of how the right is going to react. Unless you mean the Robertson wing of the right.

Well, some of the tar and feathers is starting to come out.

Today, as some liberals were learning that -- oh! my gawd! -- Miers is an evangelical!!! and, worst yet -- horror of horrors!! Miers is strongly pro-life and has led some efforts to get Roe v. Wade revisited, the squealing from the left started ratcheting up.

While there are plenty of conservatives that are upset about this pick, and are worried that Miers = Souter, or that Miers is not as staunchly conservative as they wish, and perhaps not able to argue as forcefully as would a Scalia type nominee, the bigger worries will really come from the left as they find that there is no judicial history to complain about, and precious little written materials to use as a reason to block Miers and keep her off the court.

If Miers truly is fixed in her opinions, and truly is a strong conservative that will not waver once upon the court, then she will potentially be someone that serves for quite some time, and very well may help Scalia and Thomas shift the court further towards the right. That is something that the left can't take a chance on, but for which even their own inept leadership (Harry Reid anyone?) may have themselves to blame for. Remarkably, Harry Reid basically challenged the President to offer up someone like Miers, and now Reid and the rest of his party will have to live with that choice.

A few years out, will Reid be grinning as broadly when reminded that he may have helped prod President Bush into this choice?

Consider this clip from the following article online at Slate: http://slate.msn.com/?id=2127361>1=7125

For the Democrats who promised to charge hard at Bush's second nominee after giving Roberts an easy ride, the problem will be going after Miers without sounding like a snob or a hypocrite. To question Miers' qualifications could open up for attack the whole idea that it's important to appoint a woman to the court, or a broader commitment to affirmative action. Sen. Edward Kennedy started trying to pick his way through this minefield this morning. He called Miers' public record of writings and speeches "insufficient to assess" her qualifications as a nominee, and demanded that the White House release documents relating to her service for Bush during his presidency and Texas governorship. But Kennedy also said that Miers' résumé "lists impressive qualifications as a practicing attorney." ...

Some more comments here, in an artile at AmericanThinker.com

Rather than extend any benefit of the doubt to the President’s White House lawyer and counselor, some take her lack of a paper trail and a history of vocal judicial conservatism as a sign that she may be an incipient Souter. They implicitly believe that the President is not adhering to his promise of nominating Justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. The obvious differences between Souter, a man personally unknown to Bush 41, and Miers, a woman who has known Bush 43 for decades, and who has served as his close daily advisor for years, are so striking as to make this level of distrust rather startling. Having seen the Souter debacle unfold before his very eyes, the President is the last man on earth to recapitulate it. He anticipates and is defusing the extremely well-financed opposition which Democrat interest groups will use against any nominee. Yes, he is playing politics by nominating a female. A defeated nominee does him and the future of American jurisprudence no favors. By presenting a female nominee, he kicks a leg out from under the stool on which the feminist left sits. Not just a female, but a career woman, one who has not raised children, not married a male, and has a number of “firsts” to her credit as a pioneer of women's achievement in Texas law. Let the feminists try to demonize her. If they do so, almost inevitably, they will seize on her religious beliefs and practice. Some on the left will not be able to restrain their scorn for an evangelical Christian Sunday school teacher from Dallas, and this will hurt them. They will impose a religious test against a member of a group accounting of a third of the voting base. Speculation on her being a lesbian has already started. "She sure seems like a big ol' Texas lesbian to me," as one of the Kos Kidz put it. They are going to make themselves look very ugly. The President must also prepare himself for a possible third nominee to the Court. With the oldest Justice 85 years old, and the vagaries of mortality for all of us being what they are, it is quite possible that a third (or even fourth) opportunity to staff the Court might come into play. Defusing, demoralizing and discrediting the reflexive opposition groups in the Democrats’ base is an important goal for the President, and for his possible Republican successors in office. Then there is the small matter of actually influencing Supreme Court decision-making. This president understands small group dynamics in a way that few if any of his predecessors ever have. Perhaps this is because he was educated at Harvard Business School in a legendary course then-called Human Behavior in Organizations.

miers is also strongly pro-gay adoption, so the far right nut jobs do not like that either.

miers is also strongly pro-gay adoption, so the far right nut jobs do not like that either.

Actually M.M. it's probably more correct to say Miers is strongly adoption period. I have a feeling that her stance regarding gay adopters is probably more because she wants adoption to get more emphasis period.

Of course there are those that are trying to smear her with rumors of her own sexual leanings, since she's never been married and never had children.

I was listening to Sean Hannity last night and I feel that unfortunately, the conservatives are trying to do what they say they hate most about Democrat judicial appointments; legislate from the bench.

While I appreciated the John Roberts nomination because he is a true scholar of the law, many conservatives were whining that he was not conservative (ie anti-abortion) enough and did not reflect their ideals. Oddly enough, Ann Coulter has already begun her tirades against our newest nominee. Again concerned that we have not sent someone up that was "conservative" enough.

It seems that neither side is going to be happy unless they have justices that are going to rule in favor of their opinions. This smacks of judicial legislation from the bench, the very thing that Bush and the repulicans have been lambasting the left for.

How about we get a nominee that simply knows how to read and apply the constitution properly and can leave how he feels outside of the office, outside the office.