Tin Foil Hat Theory
I'm back. And I have a really weird post. This Miers thing seems to be falling apart more and more each day. Today's abortion news has Sen. Feinstein foaming at the mouth, ready to do battle during the hearings. And you know that all of the other Democrats and Specter are ready too. If I were in Vegas, I'd put money on Miers not getting confirmed.
Why? That's the real question. Why would the White House, which has produced John Roberts as a nominee as well as a fleet of incredible Appeals Court nominees, screw this up so royally? Because they wanted her to fail.
Bear with me for a minute. This administration has done everything in its power to get excellent judges on the bench. Except for a few that were lost thanks to the Gang of 14, they have done their jobs. My theory is that they saw how easily Roberts got through and got worried. The fight would be with the second nominee. Democratic senators had voted for Roberts, positioning themselves to be "principled" in their vote against Nominee X. Whoever they chose to be Nominee X would face the huge battle that could not be mounted against Roberts. What can be done?
Sacrificial lamb. Offer up someone to take a hit for the team. Someone that no one would expect to be nominated. Someone that can be attacked on many fronts (cronyism, unqualified, abortion). Someone who would gladly fall on the sword for her president. Enter Harriet Miers. The White House will act like they want her to be on the Court. They will fight for her tooth and nail, knowing that she's doomed. When she gets defeated, the Democrats can enjoy their little victory.
Then comes the new nominee. The real nominee. This nominee will be much more qualified than Miers. This nominee will be a sitting federal judge. This nominee will have an extensive knowledge of Constitutional law and will do great at the hearings. This nominee will be confirmed.
This is my crazy, Karl Rove is a mad genius, paranoid theory. We'll see if it happens.
Why? That's the real question. Why would the White House, which has produced John Roberts as a nominee as well as a fleet of incredible Appeals Court nominees, screw this up so royally? Because they wanted her to fail.
Bear with me for a minute. This administration has done everything in its power to get excellent judges on the bench. Except for a few that were lost thanks to the Gang of 14, they have done their jobs. My theory is that they saw how easily Roberts got through and got worried. The fight would be with the second nominee. Democratic senators had voted for Roberts, positioning themselves to be "principled" in their vote against Nominee X. Whoever they chose to be Nominee X would face the huge battle that could not be mounted against Roberts. What can be done?
Sacrificial lamb. Offer up someone to take a hit for the team. Someone that no one would expect to be nominated. Someone that can be attacked on many fronts (cronyism, unqualified, abortion). Someone who would gladly fall on the sword for her president. Enter Harriet Miers. The White House will act like they want her to be on the Court. They will fight for her tooth and nail, knowing that she's doomed. When she gets defeated, the Democrats can enjoy their little victory.
Then comes the new nominee. The real nominee. This nominee will be much more qualified than Miers. This nominee will be a sitting federal judge. This nominee will have an extensive knowledge of Constitutional law and will do great at the hearings. This nominee will be confirmed.
This is my crazy, Karl Rove is a mad genius, paranoid theory. We'll see if it happens.
Good Theory, but too obvious, especially considering the latest. (Uh-Oh, an NYT link on Steve's blog. It's like sprinkling holy water on Linda Blair.)
My theory is that her group of inner-advisors, who are coaching her for the Senate vote, dislike her enough to not really care what she puts on the questionaire. It's already a known fact that there is open hostility towards Miers among the ranks of the Senate Judiciary staffers (both Rep's and Dem's).
PS Recommend a good Autumn/Oktoberfest beer.
Posted by
nap |
10:51 PM
I'm hoping that this open hostility translates into an all out attack during the hearings. I know that there are a lot of senators that would love to make her look stupid. Especially after Roberts did such a good job of making most of the senators look like morons.
That questionaire was horrible. She's a crappy writer. And if I'm calling someone a crappy writer, that's a pretty damning statement. Cause I suck.
Autumn beers... Check out Augsburger Oktoberfest, Goose Island Okfest, Leine's Okfest (that's a no brainer), or Lakefront's Okfest. If you're feeling a little girly, check out Lakefront's Pumpkin Ale. It tastes just like pumpkin pie. In fact, check out Lakefront in general. They are probably my current favorite micro. Just stay away from the Fuel Cafe Coffee Stout. It's like drinking tar.
More beer reviews to come as my economic situation improves...
Posted by
Steve |
2:10 AM
I have a question for you as a law student. Should abortion even be a federal issue? Whatever happened to states rights? There is nothing in the costitution that should allow the federal government to hand down a yes/no answer on abortion. The states used to have the ability to legislate moral law is this all but dead? My attitude is to let each state's voters decide for themselves (and for the record I am against abortion).
Posted by
Chad Small |
3:46 PM
Well that position is the one of many supporters in the rebirth of federalism. Before Roe, abortion was a state issue, and different states had different laws on the books. That is what would happen if it were overturned.
Many people don't like this, because then abortion is not protected constitutionally. States could enact their own laws based on the desires of their citizens. Some states might totally ban abortion and some states might relax abortion restrictions even further than they are currently. The people who want it to be a federal issue don't want the citizens to make this choice.
I think that we need a frank and honest discussion in this country about when life begins. It's probably the most difficult philosophical and political issue, but it's worth examining. No nine people, regardless of the supremacy of the court they are on, should be making these decisions for a nation.
Posted by
Steve |
7:56 PM
I can agree with that. The sad thing is that the elitist attitude of politicians and judges leads them to believe that they know more than their constituents. It's sad really. Until term limits are put into play and juducial review I doubt that this will change.
Posted by
Chad Small |
11:48 AM
The key is to get good people into the judiciary, especially on the Supreme Court. There are judges out there, lots of them, who agree with the concept of judicial humility. Justice Thomas is an example. He gets ripped for his opinions a lot, but they have a genuine honesty to them. If the Constitution doesn't speak to an issue, he acknowledges that and doesn't write in his own policy preferences (example: his dissent in Lawrence v Texas).
Posted by
Steve |
12:25 PM