Decision ‘08

Surprise x 7?

John Fund of the Wall Street Journal is predicting six or seven ’surprises’ in the coming days regarding Harriet Miers, with the implication that they will not be pleasing to conservatives. This is, of course, the very definition of a planted leak, so we shall see. Obviously, the hope of the anti-Miers camp is that she will withdraw her nomination under fire. On that, we shall see, as well…I put her odds of confirmation at this point at 3-2…

11 Responses to “Surprise x 7?”

1 Gerry Says:
October 11th, 2005 at 10:26 am
“On that, we shall see, as well…I put her odds of confirmation at this point at 3-2″

WWTABAD?

What will the ABA do?

I think that Miers’ fate is in their hands. Conservative Republicans can’t, without hypocrisy, sink her nomination. They have been arguing that ideology is not a disqualification, and Miers is in the mainstream (just as Scalia and Thomas are, as is Ginsburg). They cannot filibuster– in an ironic twist, it would be role-reversal time for the gang of 14, but they would balk. There have been SCOTUS justices with thin resumes before, including non-judges, so there is precedent for that.

But if the ABA comes back with a “not qualified” rating, then there is something for the conservatives in the Republican caucus to go with, if they choose. It would even make a plausible argument to threaten (but probably not carry out) a filibuster. They would probably pick up enough Democrat votes, in this scenario, to defeat the nomination– the Democrats would love to give the ABA the power to sink nominations again, since they tend to give “not qualified” ratings more often to conservatives than to liberals. The irony here would be that Bush moved to minimize the ABA’s influence, a move that Miers opposed (which will haunt her if, indeed, the ABA does come down with a “not qualified” rating).

I would not lay odds on her confirmation right now, much as bookies sometimes hold lines awaiting a key injury report. If the ABA rates her as “qualified” (or, less likely, “well qualified”) then I think she will be confirmed– I’d rate it at above 90%. However, if the ABA comes back with a “not qualified”, then I think her chances of confirmation fall markedly, probably to a quarter or less.
2 Jacques Distler Says:
October 11th, 2005 at 10:33 am
Me, I’m looking forward to a filibuster of the Miers nomination by a band of conservative Republican Senators. The irony could not be richer …

(Perhaps it could: one of your Coalition friends could kick-start the internet campaign for such a filibuster.)
3 Mark Says:
October 11th, 2005 at 10:37 am
Jacques, I don’t think it will happen, though I can appreciate your desire to see such a spectacle. I think if the nomination were in that much trouble, the Senators who intended to filibuster would approach the Bush camp, and Miers would withdraw her name. Hey, for all I know, something like this may already be in the works.

I still say let’s have the hearing and see what transpires…at that point, I think those of us who are waffling can come out clearly for or against…
4 Jim Voigt Says:
October 11th, 2005 at 12:13 pm
Okay, I’m a conservative here, but I have to offer a complaint. Why is it that it is horrible and terrible for a Democrat to question John Roberts about his ideology in an attempt to determine how he will decide cases, but it is NOT abhorrent for conservatives to lose it when the President chooses someone we know little about, and hence cannot guarantee how she will vote on certain issues? Isn’t this a double standard?

Put her before the committee, drill her on her qualifications, and see if she is good enough for the job. What’s so terrible about that?
5 peter Says:
October 11th, 2005 at 12:53 pm
I’m sticking with my prediction that she will withdraw the nomination – I think the ABA will give her an unqualified rating, which will provide a fig leaf to Republicans to oppose the nomination, and she will withdraw rather than lose a floor fight –
6 AcademicElephant Says:
October 11th, 2005 at 2:26 pm
I’m interested in the Fund planted leak idea–who do you think did the planting?

Unrelated: keep an eye on Condi today. If nothing else, there are very funny pictures of her on yahoo news with a hawk.
7 AcademicElephant Says:
October 11th, 2005 at 2:27 pm
I mean a real hawk, not just a war monger.
8 Mark Says:
October 11th, 2005 at 3:22 pm
Ahh, that kind of hawk…I just meant it sounded like a leak to me…I should have been more clear…

Have a great one!
9 Decision ‘08 » Blog Archive » Fund On Miers: A Failed Vetting Process Says:
October 13th, 2005 at 8:48 am
[…] John Fund, who made waves a few days ago when he suggested that six or seven surprises were in store in the coming days regarding the Miers nomination, has a new piece out that pillories the vetting process, or lack thereof, that led to the nomination. […]
10 Decision ‘08 » Blog Archive » Surprise Number One: The Conference Call Says:
October 17th, 2005 at 6:50 am
[…] Some days back I posted about the comment by John Fund of the Wall Street Journal that 6 or 7 surprises were in store for the Harriet Miers nomination. Surprise number one is unveiled today: On Oct. 3, the day the Miers nomination was announced, [James] Dobson and other religious conservatives held a conference call to discuss the nomination…The call was moderated by the Rev. Donald Wildmon of the American Family Association. Participating were 13 members of the executive committee of the Arlington Group, an umbrella alliance of 60 religious conservative groups, including Gary Bauer of American Values, Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation and the Rev. Bill Owens, a black minister. Also on the call were Justice Nathan Hecht of the Texas Supreme Court and Judge Ed Kinkeade, a Dallas-based federal trial judge. […]
11 Decision ‘08 » Blog Archive » Surprise Number Three? Says:
October 20th, 2005 at 7:05 am
[…] It’s possible the third surprise in the ’six or seven’ that John Fund spoke of regarding Harriet Miers is in this Robert Novak column. I’m speaking of allegations regarding the firing of a whistleblower during Miers time at the Texas Lottery Commission: The possibility of the Lottery Commission controversy being the subject of confirmation hearings is even more daunting for the White House. The story now is only being printed in alternative publications, such as the Dallas Observer of Oct. 13. These reports recalled the lawsuit brought by Lawrence Littwin alleging that Chairman Miers fired him as the Lottery Commission’s executive director because he had uncovered corruption involving Gtech, the lottery management firm. […]