OK, for the record. This is NOT Souter redux.

David Souter was the number two to Senator Warren Rudman when he was the AG of New Hampshire. Rudman swore on a stack of bibles that Souter was a confirmed conservative. Bush 41 trusted Rudman.

Souter wasn't and isn't. Rudman's Senatoral career came to screeching halt. He is no longer the Senator from New Hampshire.

Harriet Miers has been Bush 43's attorney for more than ten years. She counselled him in private industry and then when he was Governor.

She cleaned up the dirty Texas Lottery as his hand picked Chairwoman. She got herself elected to the Dallas City Council.

All the while, after putting herself through college and law schoiol at SMU, she got a job as the first woman in a 200 man firm that she ended up running, then merging into another 200 man firm which she co-chaired.

In her spare time she was elected the first woman president of the Dallas Bar, then, the first woman president of the Texas Bar.

When Bush went to Washington, she went with him, rising to be his counsel, replacing Alberto Gonzales when he became AG. As such, she's been vetting judges and getting them confirmed, counselling with the President about them.

Every piece of paper that gets to his desk is vetted by her.

I trust my President; I worked my ass off to get him elected and then reelected, and gave the maximum and raised a lot more.

I trust him now when he says he knows her heart.

Why doesn't every other good conservative? Because Harry Reid says he likes her? Hell, he said he liked Roberts, too, then voted against him.

I am backing Harriet Miers. Damn the torpedos.

No not Souter, more like the airhead she replaces. Pat Buchanon called her a cipher. I think that describes the intellectually dull Mandarin set who are untroubled by ideology because their connection to life is not intellectually rigorous. To borrow a phrase, they always vote at their party's call and never stop to think for themselves at all.

The upside is that she doesn't seem like the kind of gal who is interested in hobnobbing with the Washington social scene. She's a crapshoot, and that's not what we deserve.

Events have weakened this presidency to the point where the filibuster is a reality that the President must face and deal with. He has.

He knows what this woman thinks; for him it is no crapshoot, for all the reasons I set forth earlier.

Me, I'd rather have her than some of the others that he does not know. The ones about whom we could be sure, Janice Rogers Brown for one that I know personally, are not confirmable right now without further erosion of the presidency.

He's just got too much on his plate with Iraq and the hurricanes to stop and fight one out right now.

If he sails her though like I think he will, the next one, (John Paul Stevens), if and when it comes, may be the place to make the political stand. It may also be better timing for the next president, be it McCain or Guiliani, to make his case and to beat up on Hillary and the Kerry clones.

For now, I back Harriet, until I learn something really bad about her, which I deem unlikely, since she's been in the spotlight a long time without any scandal being attached to her name.

People thought Roberts was a bad choice when it began and look how it turned out. I say, trust the man, it's better than the other alternative.

Remember, he won Ohio. More than I can say for California.

CASCA, i am going to scold you now. I am not an anti-intellectual, in fact I am returning to college after many years for further education. But I don't think you have to be a graduate from an Ivory league school like most of the other justices, to be smart and know what the hell is going on. In fact, I think it refreshing to get someone with a mid-west, or southern sensibility in the court, instead of the northeast corridor thinking which has ruled everything for centuries.

LOL, Kyle, that's what they said about O'Conner. She's a pragmatist... politically sound...

The trouble with that argument is that people who are unwedded to ideas are so for a reason. Ideas are not a part of who they are, and they never will be. Without the tether of ideology, why the whole field of maneuver is open, and one is free to embrace the sophist fancy of the moment.

As for which battles to fight... the only good of political capital is when it is spent. It is always better to fight in the first ditch than the last.

Shelly, if Bush wanted someone with State Bar experience, he should have picked you. At least one blogger would have been totally behind that pick!

Thanks Annie, I'm flattered, but you forget that I used to be a judge. I hated the regimented life and resigned after three and a half years to return to doing what I like and actually getting paid for it. So, I would not qualify, nor would I be interested. On a hot day, those robes are murder.

I know most of the California judges, know Janice better than most because of her work in the Governor's office. The travesty that occurred in the State JNE Commission during her confirmation for the State Supreme Court has haunted her even to today. Because of it, I will monitor the Commission's deliberations of the Governor's possible picks to be sure that political considerations will not enter into the ratings. Actually, the leadership of the JNE Commission today is a far cry from the old one, so we will have no further outrages, I think.

I also know Tony Kennedy. Sometimes I like him, other times I wonder why we supported him. He's not far from Sandra, and will replace her as the leader of the center, I believe.

You had me at "Roe would be overturned."

Check my blog out; I trash this chick, and as a former Dallas lawyer, I know the type all too well.

I agree with Shelly.

Annika, we don't know you very well but we know how you would vote on most issues.

Surely, Bush who has known Miers for 12 years knows how she will vote on every issue.

Jeez, I just read David Frum's piece in NRO:

http://frum.nationalreview.com/archives/09292005.asp#077899

That's all I need to know.

The President has no better friend than the vast majority of people who come to this blog. Our disappointment is not because we desire anything less than success for his administration. This is one of his greatest missteps because at a time when the dogs are at his heels, what does he do but throw his allies from the sled? These SCOTUS appointments are a defining moment of his administration.

In Churchill's words, "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war."

Michael Savage was right. Bush is really moving to the Left.

I thought that Bush would be more Reagan-esque in his last term, but it appears that he just wants to be another Nixon or a substitute for his mediocre father's lost term.

Not only do I have to worry about Bush's apparent Supreme Court blunder, but Ann Coulter is giving me reasons to HATE Karl Rove now.

After all of these years in the political wilderness, the GOP wants to screw up their rennaissance by emulating Nixon and becoming lite Democrats. The dream of a Reaganism rebirth died on Jan. 20, 2005 even without Kerry's inauguration. When 2008 rolls around, I won't be biting my nails again over the fate of the GOP.

The GOP better hope that Hillary is the Dem's candidate because I'm thinking about staying at home on election day if she isn't.

I agree with every word of this post.

I think some criticism of Miers is culture-based. She comes from a southern/Christian/Texas nicey-nice culture which aims to please, and values acting like a decent person in public - as opposed to acting like an asshole. I come from the same culture. What this means is your dingbats and your hard as nails people are all walking around aiming to please and acting like decent people, because both are "the Christian thing to do." From a distance, there's absolutely no way to tell if Harriet Miers is a dingbat, or is hard as nails - except, if you trust G.W. Bush not to promote the career of a dingbat - which we have to do at this point. I'm hoping Harriet Miers will be what I originally hoped O'Connor would be - before the long O'Connor nightmare began.

All that said, I am disappointed in Bush. I believe this pick is a political move designed not to frighten the electorate of the 2006 Mid-term elections. I disagree with the "don't frighten the electorate" political strategy, and believe the Republicans would've been better off swinging haymakers in a huge political fight, then going into 2006 Mid-Terms from a position of strength. A huge political fight tends to get everyone's cards on the table. The more that happens, the better it is for the Republicans. A lot of them can't even remember what cards they have in their hand.

"If i had my way, Roe would be overturned. Kelo would be gone. The Lemon test: gone. Oregon v. Smith: gone. Fifty years of establishment clause jurisprudence: gone. i wouldn't stop there either. The exclusionary rule? History. Miranda? Toast. 1A protection for Child Porn? Dead. The Second Amendment? Reborn. Federalism? Hell yah."

A sincere round of applause to Annie, who understands the Constitution better than some Justices do.

Some justices? How about most justices?

The only ones that seem to fully get it are Scalia and Thomas. I think Roberts will be a strict constructionalist as well. If Miers follows in the same mold, it sets the stage for WWIII when Stevens dies or leaves.(I hope soon)

They can still get Kennedy some of the time, but he is wobbly at best. I give up on Stevens, Souther, and the ACLU Twins.

The build up has been over the "swing vote center" of O'Connor, so try to imagine the controversy if one of the Four Horse's Asses of the Apocalypse were to leave in this administration.

Katie bar the door...

that brings up an issue i've never heard anybody talk about. The left has argued that Bush should replace moderate for moderate (i.e. O'Connor mold) and center right for center right (i.e. Rhenquist mold). The implication is that under no circumstances would the Senate Democrats accept a replacement who is to the right of the justice being replaced. How would this work if Stevens leaves and there's an opportunity to turn the ideological balance of the Court upside down? Would the left argue that Bush must nominate a liberal? As ridiculous as that sounds, i wouldn't put it past them.

Annika,

I am confused. Why would you wish to overturn Oregon v. Smith? It seems inconsistant with your other stands. Other than the fact that we both agree that Peyote is a cool and probably should be decriminalized, I think of you as someone who would have ruled against the two NA's and denied them UE benefits. SInce when do you think religious beliefs trump the criminal statutes or more to the point an employers right to terminate an employee for engaging in criminal behavior especially if they agreed to not imbibe as a prerequisite of employment?

I find Scalia's reasoning to be OK.

What's your problem?

in Smith, the court declined to give religious freedom the highest standard of judicial scrutiny. i believe the free exercise of religion is so fundamental a right, that it deserves such protection. Congress agreed, and passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, only to be smacked down again by the supreme court.

I ALWAYS find Scalia to be persuasive.

The man's a genius and is able to simplify any issue so that even I can understand it.

Oh, to have had 60 votes this year...

Annika,

Do you remember who struck down this precious act? An act that was vigorously put forth by your pal Bill Clinton? Supremes ruled 6-3 Breyer, O'Conner, SOuter desenting.

I love that act! Actually, now that I researched it a bit the one I really love is a spin off called the Native American Graves and Repatriation Act (NAGRPA) Same difference though.

It was the basis for a suit by NA's to have the Williamette Meteroite moved from the Museum of Natural History back to Oregon where it was dug out in 1908. They claim it belonged to them, did not come from outer space and was an important part of their relgion and culture.

http://salmonriver.com/lightscience/willamettemeteorite.html

They lost the case but were granted a day each year to dance around it, commune with it and generally stay aquainted whilst it stays in place at the ROse Planetarium on 81 street. But, and this is a big one, should the Museum decide it is no longer needed it will be returned to them. Nice.

The other case that made me fall in love with this act was that of another NA tribe of the Pacific Northwest that demanded that the remains of a human "Kennewick Man" discovered in a riverbank, and determined to be 9,300 or so years old and was of non-asian decent and supported another theory of the migration of humans to the New World, be returned for reinternment. They argued sucessfully that the science be damned, that it came from a river on their land and it was one of them. The bones were reintered and the origin of this early explorer was never fully determined and the clocks ran backwards for a few days.

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V119/N52/col52schne.52c.html

I love religion and how it re-dedicates itself time and time again to the shackling of human curiosity and the quashing of human potential. Your absolutely right Anni, the practice of religion should be held back by no laws of man.

Strawman once let his anti-religion sentiments become known in a more amusing way at Moxie's:

"And don't forget that until the people of Earth give up the idea of a supreme being in any form, nobody on the galactic council will ever vote to let us into the Federation. The council thinks the refutation of a belief in a supreme being is an important marker in evaluating the cultural evolution of a planet. Just as you think your kids are getting more sophisticated and grown up when they give up the tooth fairy and Santa Claus."

Aren't Jews supposed to be religious? Mike's Jewish, right?

Raygun,

Once more dedicates himmself to and renews his membership in the head up my ass and loving it society.

But seriously Ray, have your parents gotten through to you yet about the tooth fairy? I know your not old enough to have all you permanent teeth and need the money to buy the God cut of the "Passion of Christ" with commentary by Pilate and Mary and never before scenes of the blood spatter anaylized by David Caruso and Melina Kanakaredes.

I hear is it amazing.

Anni,

Please change precious to pernicious in my first sentence. Sorry for the confusion.

Thanks

FUCK involved IT NAZIS! shrub and Chaney of the mornings NOT in this scandal, however in CONSEQUENT the CPar mornings behind 9-11! what to make you sheep think, which, if it of the Songtonnenehmen-Custom-Ton illegaly, immoral war and they, which this to help, IT And to examine, TREASON by Outing means has the to fix, then they not in 9-11, also to include? How that other our gov' T! With LU IF the CIA or FBI this one, RULE CVos arbeit and RESEARCH HOWEVER ALSO ALSO CVotre CPossible INCLUSION of the SUPERIORS in HIGH the CEn cover CPeut-to be CVotre INCLUSION NOTCNur SHRUB, cheney CEt RUMMIE, in 9-11!If which has everyone in CChaque groups Eingeweihtinfo with the REQUEST the CPour REQUEST WHICH LOVES of CNotre COUNTRY, to ruin HIM to it QUALITY CDehors CEt NOW!CONGRESS TO LEAVE TON of the CEt SHRUB of CHENEY GESICHTSCAnklage of ODER Itself WISHES CMaintenant CHARGES! HEY, IF HIM NOT CHARGES, LEGEND ME CHARGE YOUR ASSES SANS.VALEUR TOO! AND TO LEAVE YOU SHRUB AND CHENEY-bezahlung ALSO OF CHEEK VON OF The PATIENT TO RECEIVE PROFIT YOU IT LARVA, The OVER AND SMART ROOFRIDGE THEIR Golf IN WATER THUNDERS YOUR APPROACH WITHOUT FOOD, IN ANY WATER AND ASSISTANCE NO, THEN LIKE PUNISHING FOR 9-11, Etc... IF YOU SEND The TONS OF GITMO, THEN AFTER CELUI-Ci, YOU ARE MADE ASSASSINATE PAYMENT OF CHEEKS, AROUND THEN With SLOPES OF YOUR EVIL AND ASS AND NOW! JUSTICE ONLY RIGHT UNIVERSE OF THESIS THINGS! AS MUCH OF SETTING WITH DIED AND MURDER AND BADLY HIM THOUSANDS OF THE PEOPLE CAUSES A CREDIT! IF YOU TEST YOURSELVES, RK LA HAGUE WAS ALSO FOR CRIMES! AND NOW! DO NOT LEAVE you to the REMAINDER of CAutre richter! AND ROBERT RECALL, NOW! The European Council, NOTCZaehlimpuls! AND IMPEACHEMENT AND NOW! If IT There A OF, EACH POSSIBLE PIECE WISHES JUSTICE SE FINDING IN AMERICA, THAT the ASSASSINATION, NO GOOD, BAD FASCISTIC MISCHLINGS SHOWN On the left AND FOR TREASON, With OF HUNG ECTcC.

So, tell us how you really feel......

OK, Annie, some maniac has found our blog.

Do your duty.

Hit the "delete" button, immediately, if not sooner.

Damn, that reminds me. I forgot to go to the gunshow and buy ammo last week. Ah hell, I usually shoot what I'm aiming at, and I got more than I can carry anyway.

Sorry Annika,

One of my multitude of repressed personalities got the better of me for a minute. But, fear not, my sane and reasonable self is back. See how bad it could really be if I had no observing ego?

Straw.

Annie, looks like CB is on to us. Damm, I just got through to Karl Rove and he assured me that the guy has already been identified and the Men In Black are on the way.

Here's two of my favorites from Von Bismarck:

"Politics is the art of the possible."

"To retain respect for laws and sausages, one must not watch either being made."

Those who are new to the process of making judges should turn off their TV's and forget about the newspapers for a while.

It is different when it is the Democrats doing the choosing, for we play the game differently. We actually measure the merit without the agenda of killing off every qualified person who is suggested due to some identifiable agenda.

I once asked Senator Orren Hatch why it was that we were so generous in our confirmations of obviously left wing liberals, and it was he who told me the above. For the Demoncrats, the end justifies the means, no matter how ugly it is getting there.

Maybe that's why we keep getting majorities elected, year after year; the people are on to them.

I hope.

Shelly,

I'm curious; what "left wing" liberal has been confirmed for anything in the past twenty years?

Guess you never heard of Breyer and Darth Vader Ginsburg?

I'm more interested in Annie's Second Amendment conversion. Last I heard, Annie, you were a skeptic.

Well, yes, Breyer and Ginsburg, to name a couple of Supreme Court Justices, but also a whole bunch of 9th Circuit and other Appelate Judges, and another passel of District Court Judges.

I could name a lot more, but Richard Paez in the 9th, Bill Fletcher in the 9th, Marsha Berzon in the 9th. Kim Wardlaw in the 9th, Ray Fisher in the 9th and a passel of District Court Judges we just let go through without any shenanigans.

But, the Dems all but stopped a bunch of ours, Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, to name a couple who benefited from the deal by the Gang of 14. It took a real threat of a nuclear option to do it.

Caroline Kuhl dropped out of the 9th appointment after being frustrated for years at being unable to get a hearing.

Judge Charles Pickering dropped out of the 5th. He was stopped cold, but Bush finally gave Pickering a recess appointment just to piss off Leahy, Kennedy and Schumer, after they stopped him twice.

And, of course, there is Robert Bork, himself, who the Democrats changed the rule from 51 to 60 votes required, just to keep off the Supreme Court.

They also damn near got Thomas.

We've never done what they have done, and I hope we never get in a position where we are on the outs again, but they are so frustrated about having no cachet in the House, the White House, or the Senate (other than an ability to filibuster with their meager 45 votes. (44 plus Jeffers).

Now, they are losing some more control of the one place where they used to make a difference, their Judicial Legislators.

So, what you see is a bitter bunch of losers, trying to protect the last liberal bastion, the refuge of liberal legislation, the Judiciary.

The liberal democrats are literally in danger of becoming the permanent minority party in the US, and one more eight year Republican President will all but wipe out their stranglehold on the courts.

Is it any wonder they fight so hard and so dirty?

Well, maybe, if they'd act a little more civil, they might appeal to more voters and actually gain some seats in the House or Senate, instead of losing more and more each election.

We shall see how this next confirmation goes, but, like I said earlier in another place in this blog, when Stevens goes, if it is in this Administration, it will be WWIII and Armageddon combined to replace that liberal old goat with someone to Bush's liking.

Katie bar the door.