home

O'Connor and Miers: Peas in a Pod?

Atrios brings back the memories of Sandra Day O'Connor's pre-confirmation beliefs on abortion.

< DeLay's New Defense: 'I Mispoke' | Abu Ghraib: Two Lives Destroyed >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: O'Connor and Miers: Peas in a Pod? (none / 0) (#1)
    by ras on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:41 PM EST
    TL, So you now support Bush's personal lawyer, an evangelical who has never been a judge, who says she opposes abortion and who also supported criminalizing gay sex? Um, OK. And so too do other plugged-in Leftie bloggers, altho the rank-and-file are a lot more sceptical. Interesting divide. I'm startin' to think that the plugged-in (to the Dem Party, I mean) bloggers are deliberately working out of a common playbook, one that says, "that idiot Reid recommended her, and cuzza that we're scared to risk a filibuster, so we gotta go along, cuz he's boxed us in. Try to dampen the anger over losing this one, wouldja?" Either that, or the Dem party is really changing its views, and fast.

    Re: O'Connor and Miers: Peas in a Pod? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:42 PM EST
    No, I'm leaning towards supporting her because I know her through serving on a legal board with her and believe she will separate her personal views from her judicial role - and I believe she will be good on criminal justice issues like access to qualified counsel for the indigent. But, like everyone else, I'm waiting to learn more.

    Re: O'Connor and Miers: Peas in a Pod? (none / 0) (#3)
    by ras on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:42 PM EST
    No, I'm leaning towards supporting her because I know her through serving on a legal board with her Same as Bush, then: you base it on a personal relationship. Nothing wrong with that, I guess. But, speaking objectively, I think it's safe to say that, if RBG retires, Bush can then replace her with, for ex, Luttig, no prob. Cuz if Miers is confirmable, and shown as such to the public, Luttig is only moreso. Yeah, yeah, I know: each case is different etc. But seriously, it's pretty much impossible to refute. You pass Miers, you gotta pass Luttig, protestations as the reality dawns notwithstanding. Reid & co have boxed in the D's more than I've ever seen before. Maybe you'll get lucky and the R's will reject HM for you. But prob not.

    Re: O'Connor and Miers: Peas in a Pod? (none / 0) (#4)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:42 PM EST
    "and [I] believe she will separate her personal views from her judicial role" Not for nothing, but apparently TChris thinks you're wrong. It seems he agrees with this: "Above all, Miers is loyal to President Bush. Itís hard to imagine her putting faithfulness to the Supreme Court above faithfulness to the Bush family." Personally, if TChris, as a lawyer, believes that lawyers can't/won't separate personal beliefs from doing the job they're hired to do, especially a job as important as this, well, that's a pretty damning indictment of lawyers.

    Re: O'Connor and Miers: Peas in a Pod? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:42 PM EST
    I'm startin' to think that the plugged-in (to the Dem Party, I mean) bloggers are deliberately working out of a common playbook, one that says, "that idiot Reid recommended her, and cuzza that we're scared to risk a filibuster, so we gotta go along, cuz he's boxed us in. Try to dampen the anger over losing this one, wouldja?"
    I don't think that's the reason. I am not in the least plugged in to any "common playbook" and yet I find this nomination (from what I hear so far) much preferable to one of the candidates with experience on the bench who has already proved that they will use their position to advance an extreme RW agenda. It is unfortunate that the neocons have hijacked the term "Christian" and, in many people's eyes, made it synonymous with their RW agenda. But true Christianity is something quite different. Jim Wallis says this wey well:
    Since when did believing in God and having moral values make you pro-war, pro-rich, and pro-Republican? And since when did promoting and pursuing a progressive social agenda with a concern for economic security, health care, and educational opportunity mean you had to put faith in God aside?
    Now Harriet Miers is obviously no Jim Wallis. But what I have read about her so far tells me that she might be a lot more symapthetic to his views of what Christianity really advocates than the other candidates being promoted by the extreme RW. More likely to admire Jimmy Carter than Pat Robertson, if you like.

    Re: O'Connor and Miers: Peas in a Pod? (none / 0) (#6)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:42 PM EST
    ras, what gives? You're making a helluva lot of sense in your argument, which isn't altogether new: but what does strike me as odd is your seeming distaste for Bush's appointment practices and even, mre subtly, his judicial choices in general. I thought you were a Bush backer, man! TL, your contribution to the political discourse is appreciable, this is my favorite blog, period. But seriously, as ras and others have shown, lately you've been displaying much of the same cronyistic tendencies so deplorable in Bush. You've got friends working for FOX, they're nice to you when you interview, so you let them off the hook for their demagogic shenanigans. And as long as Bush appoints someone you know and like, or if Tom Delay hires a friend to defend him, you circle the wagons. Yet another example of the upside-down priorities in the Democratic Party. No wonder so many of you felt, and continue to feel, so threatened by Howard Dean. Use logic. Your own coverage of this Presidency ought to tell you enough about the danger Miers and Roberts pose. Garbage still stinks, no matter how pretty the bag.

    Re: O'Connor and Miers: Peas in a Pod? (none / 0) (#7)
    by ras on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:42 PM EST
    Glanton, What gives? Um, I'm wondering myself, actually. Harry Reid and Jeralyn both pushing for Miers? Meet you for a beer at the bizarro bar later, eh? BTW, I actually very much liked the Roberts nomination. I think he's gonna be great. HM ... she's OK (ooh, that's faint praise, ain't it?). I think she'll be good as a Justice but there were better choices available. What's really interesting, tho, is who's backing her, as I noted above. And why? If I had to bet, I'd say Reid f'd up so badly that the Dems are now forced to cheerlead HM rather than oppose her, cuz otherwise - by fb'ing their own recommendation - they will lose a fb fight and they dare not. But ... I was quite serious about the precedent this sets if they don't fb. Confirm HM and Luttig for RBG (as but one example) becomes a snap. Damned if they do and damned if they don't. Either way, the D's are gonna be on the outs w/their rank & file. R's lose a little bit of enthusiasm on this issue amongst their base, but D's lose at least as much. And if HM issues conservative rulings - as we both expect, right? - the R base will forgive come '06, the D base will not. Lemme ask you: if no one in D leadership had ever said a word about HM, and then you heard, just you by yourself, that Bush had nominated his personal lawyer, an evangelical Christian who opposes abortion and supports criminalizing gay sex ... would you have opposed that? Do you now? I'm also wondering why the "big" bloggers of the Left are trying to sell this. Well, I do know that they work directly with D leadership. Isn't that by far the most likely reason? Is HM someone that your side wants to support in principle, or are you being kinda forced to support her now, purely for tactical reasons? Frankly, Reid messed up; nothing to do now but watch the other team dance in the end zone and hope to get it back later somehow. I'm just curious - honestly, just curious - as to whether or not, as the nomination sinks in, the D leadership, blogs and all, can keep a lid on the rank-and-file's anger. It'll be a fascinating study, IMHO, in the group dynamics of the Left.

    Re: O'Connor and Miers: Peas in a Pod? (none / 0) (#8)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:42 PM EST
    "would you have opposed that? Do you now?" Yes, I would have opposed it, and I do indeed now oppose it. Though, as my consistent opposition to fillibustering justices perhaps indicates, I see really no hope for getting any justices out of Bush who do not hold the positions you just eloquently enumerated. In my ideal world at this highly un-ideal point in American history, I would have each and every Democratic Senator vote against (but not fillibuster) these threats to life, liberty, and happiness that the President keeps giving us. Vote against them in an up or down vote, and then lose 55-45. Then they (these imaginary Democrats with a spine, I say) could take their case to the American people in '06 and ask them: do you want your family to be next on the Shiavo gameshow? do you want to aid the droolers in perpetually chasing the myth of the 1950s or even the 19th century, chase the stake and the noose and the death of America as a beacon of individual liberty? With the state of things today, that might not do them any good either, but at this point we don't know. Not a single high profile election that I know of has offered a Democrat who has stood against these rollbacks against liberty in an repetitive and articulate way, not one, that is, except Dean in the primary, before he fell into political oblivion. But I'll tell you what won't work: this strategy of kissing Dubya's behind that the Dems and their spokespeople always adopt in the end. Look at what happened to Max Cleland, 2002. He too, was once a 'Democrat who supported the President.' Either way they're going to try to knife us, the only question is, will it be in the back. Supporting Miers? Protecting Delay? Present back for stabbing.

    Re: O'Connor and Miers: Peas in a Pod? (none / 0) (#9)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:42 PM EST
    glan+ras- First off why is Robert so good. We know nothing about him except that he and his family look like the Ideal american family. They could be on any TV commercial and the product would sell just because of their stereotyped American looks, oh, and he is very, very smart. Meir is also an unknown, and will remain so, as we can be sure that the WH will claim executive and ot atty/client privilege as thay did with Roberts. OK who is next if she is defeated. Can we filibuster for three years. I do not think so. Glan, Ras may be comfortable with Owens or Brown are you as well. Perhaps we will have more to go on about why Meir was nominated after Fitzgerald ties up his investigation. Jeralyn points out in her BBC radio interview that Stevens is likely to retire it two years, how does that figure in for you about the current nominee? I agree with Jeralyn that Bush, on his way out, will have nothing to lose by nominating the most reactionary political operative he can find to replace Stevens. Let's hope by then that many more Dems are in Congress which will make that harder to pull off. Bush is president with control of Congress, unfortunately there is not much we can do if he chooses to nominate extremist after extremist short of revolution.

    Re: O'Connor and Miers: Peas in a Pod? (none / 0) (#10)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:42 PM EST
    Squeak, find a single post where I said something positive about Roberts. The guy's a creep. I fear him greatly, and cannot believe we have descended so far that we have the President we have. It's a science fiction movie come to life. Beyond that, what you say is true, to a large extent. We're not going to get a nominee out of Bush who will defend individual liberties. Fine. How does it follow from that that liberal bloggers and Demo politicians must kiss up to Miers or Roberts, as we have seen on this very website? Why not just consistently speak against, vote against these cretins? I am very disappointed. Yet another example of why the Democratic party might in fact be a dead cause. I used to chastise those who don't vote. No longer. Finally, after all these years, I'm beginning to understand the saying "Son't vote, it only encourages them." Quite arguably, to tune out as much of the conversation as possible beats helplessly watching the constant sellouts that characterize our system.