I previously made the claim that if Bush could have gotten a clear hard-line conservative (another Scalia, as opposed to a moderate-conservative in the O’Connor/Kennedy mold) confirmed, he would have nominated one in the first place.
And so, I took the position that Bush selected a crony (Harriet Miers) because it was the best he could offer the right: Someone with no record, but about whom he could say to his base “trust me, I know you’ll like her.” Well, his base wasn’t buying it, and took the risk–spitting in the face of Hamilton’s logic–that they could get someone more acceptable on a second try.
OK, so is Alito significantly more moderate than Scalia, as some have claimed? If so, then I was correct in my analysis, and we have a nominee who is conservative, but not hard right–the only kind confirmable (or so I argued). If this is the case, then why are groups on the right suddenly so happy?
Or, is Alito a nominee that Democratic senators “should clearly reject,” as Scott Lemieux says? And if so, then why did Bush pick this fight only on the second try?
Best I can come up with is a disturbing lack of foresight. Or perhaps the puppeteers were busy elsewhere at the time of the Miers nomination.
Either way, no way does the ‘Scalito’ nomination make it passed the Senate confirmation. With the rhetoric already getting nice and warm, once the hearings actually start…should be fun.
Seed planted by Antonio — 04 November 2005 @ 02:58
no way does the ‘Scalito’ nomination make it passed the Senate confirmation
Which five of the seven Democrats in the Gang of 14 will hold firm with the rest of their caucus to make a successful filibuster, or which six Republican senators (i.e. almost all of their members in the Gang) will defect and vote no?
It will take one of those two developments to block the nomination (assuming it is not “Miersed” somehow. Hmmm, her name does not become a verb as nicely as Bork’s).
You may be right, but I would not bet on it.
Seed planted by Matthew Shugart — 04 November 2005 @ 08:31