home

Conservative Flip Flops on Presidential Power

by TChris

Remember when the right wing insisted that any presidential nominee to the Supreme Court was entitled to “an up or down vote”? Remember when conservatives whined that it’s the president’s job to select judicial nominees, and labeled opponents of the nominee “obstructionists”? Those who have an intact memory should be amused at the right wing flip flop regarding presidential power and Bush's choice of Harriet Miers.

A growing number of Republican activists say Bush blundered in naming Miers to the U.S. Supreme Court, failing to anticipate the firestorm it would ignite among conservative backers and leading opinion makers who question her qualifications. Bush now may be forced to choose between an embarrassing withdrawal of the nomination or accepting a fissure among conservatives that could jeopardize the party's hold on power.

“Right now the base is completely fractured and people are very concerned about the impact on the 2006 elections,” said Manuel Miranda, who heads a coalition of 150 conservative and libertarian groups and opposes Miers. “The troubling thing is that the Supreme Court was the gold ring and the president's thinking appears indiscernible, unless you're willing to take it as a matter of faith.”

The value of Miers is that she isn’t any of these judges, held up as the female icons of the right wing judiciary:

Peggy Noonan, who wrote speeches for Bush's father, this week urged Miers to “take the hit” and withdraw so the president could pick “one of the outstanding jurists thoughtful conservatives have long touted.” She mentioned federal appeals court judges Edith Jones, Edith Clement or Janice Rogers Brown.

< A Million More | Rove Testifies for FourthTime >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Conservative Flip Flops on Presidential Power (none / 0) (#1)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:00 PM EST
    Uhm, no. The "up or down vote" and "obstructionist" talk was centered on filibustering. Nobody is filibustering Miers's confirmation vote. They're just complaining and (loudly) making suggestions. That said, TChris is a better researcher than me. Maybe he can point out a single Republican who A) said it was inappropriate for somebody to complain or make suggestions about Roberts's nominations, and is B) complaining or making suggestions about Miers's nomination.

    Re: Conservative Flip Flops on Presidential Power (none / 0) (#2)
    by swingvote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:00 PM EST
    I'm no more amused now than I was when Chuck Schumer spun his own position 180 degrees, going from a position that all nominees must get an up and down vote and that it's simply wrong to block them in committee to a stance that says that blocking nominees is the natural role of the Senate and filibustering people based on their political affiliations is the right thing to do. The question, TChris, is whether you are equally amused by the Democrats new-found belief that all nominees must be given an up or down vote, and whether you will be when Miers is replaced with a Scalia clone. And I do believe Roy has a point. No one, as far I can find, has yet said that Miers should be denied such a vote. Do you have any evidence to suggest otherwise, or is this post really just a bit of schadenfreude at the expense of W's latest blunder?

    Re: Conservative Flip Flops on Presidential Power (none / 0) (#4)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:01 PM EST
    Uhhh, the party that controls the senate (and the house and the WH) doesn't HAVE to filibuster. What's funny is that repubs refuse to let it get to a vote w/o more info, and have bottled it up in committee.

    Re: Conservative Flip Flops on Presidential Power (none / 0) (#5)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:01 PM EST
    Uhhh, the party that controls the senate ... doesn't HAVE to filibuster.
    That's only true when all the party members act in concert, which is not the case now.
    What's funny is that repubs refuse to let it get to a vote w/o more info, and have bottled it up in committee.
    I'd forgotten about that aspect. Nominations are supposed to spend some time in committee; is the Miers nomination in longer than Roberts's was before allegations of obstructionism?

    Re: Conservative Flip Flops on Presidential Power (none / 0) (#6)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:01 PM EST
    on September 6, announced of Roberts's nomination to the position of Chief Justice[...] On September 22 the Senate Judiciary Committee approved Roberts' nomination
    On October 3, 2005, Bush nominated Miers to serve as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
    And she still ain't out of committee, noot due to dems, but repubs.

    Re: Conservative Flip Flops on Presidential Power (none / 0) (#7)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:01 PM EST
    on September 6, announced of Roberts's nomination to the position of Chief Justice[...] On September 22 the Senate Judiciary Committee approved Roberts' nomination
    On October 3, 2005, Bush nominated Miers to serve as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
    And she still ain't out of committee, noot due to dems, but repubs.

    Re: Conservative Flip Flops on Presidential Power (none / 0) (#8)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:02 PM EST
    ...and that's not counting the time he spent in commitee for his non-chief nomination

    Re: Conservative Flip Flops on Presidential Power (none / 0) (#9)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:02 PM EST
    Good point roy, let's see the days go by and see what happens.
    The question, TChris, is whether you are equally amused by the Democrats new-found belief that all nominees must be given an up or down vote
    No dem, no host on this site and no commenter here has made that claim. Now who could have said that? Was it ... ... ... SATAN!? Or maybe just lamebaugh and o'lielly. Amazing how quickly the exact rnc talking points make it to this site.

    Re: Conservative Flip Flops on Presidential Power (none / 0) (#10)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:02 PM EST
    Amazing how quickly the exact rnc talking points make it to this site.
    It happens something like this. ctrl-c et al: ctrl-v (click post)

    Re: Conservative Flip Flops on Presidential Power (none / 0) (#11)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:02 PM EST
    scarshapedstar - LFAO!

    Re: Conservative Flip Flops on Presidential Power (none / 0) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:02 PM EST
    Hmmmmm, I remember so many comments that the Repubs were just following blindly and not excercising their right to discuss and disagreee.. And now we have them doing that. Be careful what you ask for. You have got it.

    Be careful what you ask for. You have got it. I mightn't have asked for it, but now that it happened, my reaction is: Pass the popcorn, please.

    Re: Conservative Flip Flops on Presidential Power (none / 0) (#14)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:03 PM EST
    DA: Pass the popcorn, please. Did you want the red popcorn or the blue popcorn, DA?