Thursday, October 27, 2005

In Which I Gloat, Justifiably but Unbecomingly, about Miers' Withdrawal

Now that Harriet Miers has withdrawn her nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, I will take the opportunity to somewhat ungraciously observe that I told you so. Granted, I didn't predict that she would withdraw. Neither, though, did I commit myself to saying she would lose a confirmation vote. I said merely that Miers would "fail[] to win confirmation. . . ." Advantage: Me.

Really, though, I should not strut simply because I guessed the outcome of Miers' nomination. It matters far more whether I correctly guessed the causes of that outcome. I claimed that Bush was offering Miers "as a sacrifice to Republican lawmakers approaching mid-term elections." I offered that, I now admit, mostly as an amusingly conspiratorial explanation for Bush's puzzling nomination of a clearly under-qualified candidate. My lack of solemnity doesn't mean I pegged the wrong cause, though.

Many a truth comes cloaked in jest. In retrospect, I note, it seems awfully convenient that nominating Miers allows the Republicans to say to their evangelical wing, "We tried! Oh, Lord, how we tried! But how can you get a true Christian past those Godless Lefties? Perhaps more money would help. Please send some, just in case." The Miers nomination also gave intellectual conservatives reason to fret and fulminate, leaving them basking in warm, harrumph-y feelings. So even though I think it most likely that the Bush machine nominated Miers in a fit unreality-based reasoning, I'll entertain the possibility that I kidded all the way into the facts.

Although I'm evidently not too good at seriousness, I'll really try to make a straight-faced prediction about the next Bush nominee to the Supreme Court. I predict (drumroll, please): Bush will nominate a much more clearly and conventionally qualified candidate this time, one that will satisfy the intellectual conservatives so chagrined at Miers' nomination. I second Todd Zywicki, in regarding Judge Edith Jones as the most likely candidate. (Tradesports likes Jones, too.) I'm not putting any money down on that, though.

At all events, the new Bush nominee will rouse the Democrats into action, leading to a loud confirmation fight in the Senate. Democrats will not filibuster. They will lose. The nominee will win confirmation. Bush will have, happily for him (and me), distracted the mainstream media from the (eye-glazing) Plame story.

13 comments:

betsy said...

I agree with you that Bush will go with someone along the lines of an Edith Jones. However, I do see a Democratic fillibuster with a couple of dems who signed the filibuster memorandum of undertanding will argue that she is out of the mainstream of judicial philosophy. Perhaps 1968 all over again.

W.C. Varones said...

There is no apostrophe in her last name, dude.

Q said...

Nobody likes grammar Nazis

Pete said...

We need someone who unabashedly represents the view that Roe vs Wade needs to be overturned and believes that life needs to be defended in America.

No more "stealth" nominees!

America is now a proud member of the sex/gender selection crowd of the world. Hello Nazi Germany.

http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2005/10/mad_scientists.php#more

Peter
http://www.marchtogether.com

Pete said...

ProLifeBlogs.com Article

California Conservative said...

We posted our prediction yesterday morning.

Stephen said...

Godwin's Law in only two posts! A blog record!

Tom W. Bell said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Tom W. Bell said...

W.C.: Thanks. I think I fixed those typos. Good grammar uber alles!

Democrats Hate America said...

We are hoping Bush nominates Michael Lutig or Janice Rogers Brown (who served the state of California quite well in her tenure on the California Supreme Court).

AST said...

You'd better be right on EVERY point.

Jeff Brown said...

The "(incredibly boring) Plame story", eh?

Wait, you changed that to "(eye-glazing)". Still, I don't feel like that's a particularly good description anymore.

Tom W. Bell said...

Jeff: It's just a matter of taste, I suppose, but I regard the Plame story as important mainly to politicians and D.C.-based reporters. I don't think it will have any significant impact, pro or con, outside that bubble. (And I changed the description only because, while making other edits, I decided "incredibly boring" was, well, an incredibly boring description.)