Harriet Miers withdrew her nomination for the Supreme Court. Considering the lack of support she's had over the last three weeks, this move is probably less embarrassing than not being confirmed in the end. It makes me wonder, though, whether or not Bush's nomination of Miers was actually part of a deeper plot.
I know how you feel about a "deeper plot" coming from Dubya's direction (deeper plot? the man can't even pronounce nuclear!), but let's indulge ourselves here for a sec. In nominating a woman who (likely) wouldn't have been confirmed and who raised the ire of both conservatives and liberals alike, perhaps he was looking towards his ultimate choice after Miers. Now that he has the option once again to nominate another, can he now point towards Miers and say "Look at Harriet! I nominated a woman, and that didn't work out! Just look how qualified [insert WASP-y male here] is! Confirm him!"...? Now that he's supposedly given a woman a chance, can he now nominate an ultra-conservative, completely non-diverse male with (perhaps not total, but at least more) impunity?
Is this the real reason for Miers's nomination?
3 comments:
Have you been reading my mind?
Oh, silly me. Geniuses often come up with the same ideas :)
If you check out the faculty blog, Stone is already calling for McConnell. STONE!
I think you're overestimating the President here. He just wanted to appoint someone who was loyal to him and would carry out his vision for the country. He counted on the Republicans to rubber stamp the nomination, and the Democrats to acquiesce because Miers' a woman. This episode will teach Bush not to ignore the real conservatives in the party any longer. -- MO
Post a Comment