Important to note about the social conservatives is that they will still vote for a republican over a democrat. The republican party seems to feel that they have a secure vote with the social conservatives much the same way the union vote is consistent with dems. So 'pleasing' the social conservatives is not really necessary

 

Social conservatives dont HAVE to vote. I imagine they wont always vote with strong enthusiasm just to keep banging their head against a brick wall and not attaining their goals.

 

But they will vote as long as the democrats continue to push a socially liberal agenda. Its like the cubans in miami voting for republicans to pressure castro for over 50 years. The social conservatives will continue to vote for someone who MIGHT end abortion just to block someone who defintely will allow it to stay. (abortion is just an example, i know that its more a judicial issue anyway)

What socially liberal agenda have the democrats pushed in the last decade or so that the Republicans have put a halt to? I fail to see the issue that democrats have pushed nationally that has driven social conservatives into fearfully voting Republican. Undoing Roe is THE issue for most of these people and if it doesnt happen from a Republican, they arent exactly going to be crushed by a atheist lead democratic party if they punish the Republican party for inaction.

CNN Article

 

I wonder just how big a role her religion played in getting this nomination. Even though the headline of this article goes quite a bit further than Bush's actual words, I still find the idea completely plausible and utterly disturbing. It is not acceptable to have "deep faith in Jesus" as a criterion for a Supreme Court nomination. Period, end of story. If she were even remotely qualified to sit on the bench, this wouldn't be an issue. There's nothing wrong with having faith. But considering she lacks qualfications, the idea that the President is promoting her candidacy based in part on the fact that she's a devout Christian is atrocious. Carrying a bible does not make her qualified for placement in what is arguably the highest position in American politics.

 

The Democrats suck. I don't understand why they're sitting back and letting Bush's base do most of the attacking. This is a serious issue and they need start making some noise.

 

I'm saying this right now, if this lady gets confirmed, I am going to get a list of every person who voted for her, and I will flat out refuse to vote for any one of them in 2006 or 2008. And that includes Senator McCain, who is a favorite of mine, and who up until about three minutes ago I would have voted for above anyone else for President in 2008. Then I found out that he's in favor of this nomination. Seriously, WTF, Senator McCain?

The Democrats suck. I don't understand why they're sitting back and letting Bush's base do most of the attacking. This is a serious issue and they need start making some noise.

 

 

The Dems are actually playing this pretty smart. Many of the attacks on Meirs is coming from the conservative base. If the Dems criticize Meirs, Republicans will probably be forced to stand up and defend her. By taking a more reserved approach, they also appear to be more open-minded and less radical.

The Democrats suck. I don't understand why they're sitting back and letting Bush's base do most of the attacking. This is a serious issue and they need start making some noise.

 

 

The Dems are actually playing this pretty smart. Many of the attacks on Meirs is coming from the conservative base. If the Dems criticize Meirs, Republicans will probably be forced to stand up and defend her. By taking a more reserved approach, they also appear to be more open-minded and less radical.

 

I completely disagree. Maybe I'm putting too much faith in the Republican critics of Meirs, but I think they're principled enough to hold their ground against Meirs no matter what the Dems do. They're not going to completely reverse course just because the Democrats happen to agree with them in this one instance. And the other half of the Republican party, the half that supports Meirs, has already broken out the rhetoric machine, calling critics sexist and what-not, so unless they have a second and more powerful rhetoric machine, I don't think throwing more dissent into the mix is going to make them "stand up and defend" her any more. On the other hand, more dissent would help more of the public and, of course, the administration realize just how ridiculous this situation is, and maybe it would get Bush or Meirs to back out of this before it gets to a vote.

 

Maybe the Dems would rather sit back and watch the Repubs splinter but to me its just another sign that the party is spineless. My concern is that Bush will strike enough bargains to push this through, and the Dems won't be able to say sh*t about it because they kept quiet the whole time.

I think your point is definitley a valid one mabdul. But I think the dems approaching this with some real caution is a good idea. This is the big enchilada and I think they just dont want to be caught falling into a trap as a lot of people initially suggested the Miers nomination was. Correct me if Im wrong but I think the idea of so much political gamesmanship being played over the highest legal position in our country might be what is bothering you the most. At least in my opinion, fighting fire with fire is the only way to approach this administration(and the conservative movement) that, again IMO, cares less about the integrity of the bench than it does about overtaking the final branch of government.

 

Long story short, I think the dems dont want to jump the gun so that Bush can later nominate a staunch uber conservative(like a Priscilla Owens) and then claim the dems are out to get anyone he nominates right off the bat. In order to do this, he has to lure the dems into an immediate attack. That way muddies the water with a relatively benign Miers and the ubder conservative as two capable judges who the dems just filibustered because they are nominated by him. For him this can trump and muddle the dem claims that Owens is too extreme. Yeah I know this sounds ridiculous but its what the party in the minority has to be wary of. And for me, thats especially true of Bush whom I see as the master of the bait and switch.

 

If youre right and if the conservatives like Brownback stick to their principles, then the dems can still vote no on Miers in the committee and not prematurely pull the trigger. If however they pull back, the dems can use the rights own rope to hang them by attacking or even filibustering Miers with the language of the right. (ie "we arent the only ones who think she is bad, just listen to what Ann Coulter said!"). Remember, the dems just need the right to break enough, not fully. I dont think its impossible for the dems to come in late with their attacks and be too late. Miers is already tainted and its possible Bush and company will be exhausted convincing the skeptical right. Then they face a dem front that did a decent job during the filibuster fight?

 

I think youre right in that a deal can be struck. But what can you give these antiMiers conservatives to back down? I mean this is the big one right? This is what the religious right has been waiting for for the longest time.

 

Think also what happens if Bush withdraws Miers because of the pissed of conservatives? He would essentially be showing his hand and would have to nominate someone they approve of. Then the dems can fight hard on that one and just say "we would have nominated Miers, but Bush is clearly going only with super social conservatives." Of course with this, the dems risk that the second and worse conservative breaks the fillibuster. Which brings me to the next point:

 

Its also possible that maybe the dems actually want Miers. Nothing has been worse for the left than smart experienced super conservative jurists(Scalia was a 98-2 vote I believe). These judges tend to have the least likelihood of flipping over. And this is why those people on the right are pissed. Because they dont want someone with the potential to be convinced by the arguments of the middle to left judges or readjusted after a different perspective of the bench. For the dems, even if she was picked for being religous, it would be just as likely that the new nominee would be religous and bad for social liberal legal doctrine. So might as well take someone with the potential to flip. Which again, is why the right is so pissed that Bush doesnt get it and tries to patronize them with the "look! look! she is religious" stuff.

 

Worst case scenario for the dems is that she ends up becoming a theocrat and not a judge. But how likely is that? The more likely worst case scenario is that she ends up a Scalia or Thomas. And thats the risk thats always prevelent with any Bush nominee...as it was with Roberts.

 

Regardless, the whole situation is nuts.

I see your point, and you're right that I hate this kind of political gamesmanship. Stuff like this just makes me angry, and makes me despise both political parties. I just don't understand how it is that partisanship ever became a reasonable excuse for stupidity. I think most of these people are so caught up in their own political party that they would rather hurt the country than hurt their party.

 

IMO, a qualified ultra-conservative nominee is still preferable to Meirs. For one, Meirs is clearly Bush's hand puppet. I don't think there's any doubt that she's one of those people that thinks Bush was somehow put in this place by God. She worships him, and that's not really an exaggeration. I don't know how it could get any worse for the Democrats. At least if a qualified ultra-conservative judge is nominated...well, at least that person's qualified. Now it's just the worst of both worlds. And I don't expect the Dems to just roll over no matter how many extremists Bush nominates. They were fine with one Roberts and they'd probably be fine with a second judge just like him. But if Bush starts nominating people who are far outside of mainstream opinion, it's not like the Dems are going to be hurt by getting in the way. I understand the concerns about this being a trap, but I'm not all that sure it's one that the Dems have to worry about falling into.