Miers Withdraws

Elvis Fu · **Posted:** Thu Oct 27, 2005 10:18 am

http://www.cnn.com: President Bush "reluctantly" accepts Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers's request to withdraw her nomination.

MSNBC is also reporting this.

f4df · **Posted:** Thu Oct 27, 2005 10:21 am

wow this is huge. Sad thing is, Im not so sure that her replacement nomination is going to be anything the Democrats are going to be happy with in the long term.

Now all we need are those indictments.. would make an interesting week politically... implosion

Black Magic Putin · **Posted:** Thu Oct 27, 2005 10:21 am

jesus this whole fucking thing was such a sham.

Finch Platte · **Posted:** Thu Oct 27, 2005 10:22 am

Woohoo! Hopefully, she'll fade into the background quickly so we don't have to look at her and her freaky raccoon eye makeup for much longer. :shock:

Elvis Fu · **Posted:** Thu Oct 27, 2005 10:27 am

I think now that he has time to rethink this one, he should dislodge that whole "must be a woman" thing and nominate the first TV jurist to the court: Judge Larry Joe.

f4df · **Posted:** Thu Oct 27, 2005 10:30 am

Joey Cracked Skull Wrote:

jesus this whole fucking thing was such a sham.

You know I was thinking this when he first nominated her, but I really dont think so now that you consider how this split the president from his constituents not to mention how idiotic he looked. I dont know. But of course, now he can ride the right-wing euphoria and most likely push a neo-conservative through before the Dems know what hit them

Kingfish · **Posted:** Thu Oct 27, 2005 10:54 am

Taking one for the team.

Cap'n Squirrgle · **Posted:** Thu Oct 27, 2005 10:55 am

Wow. Well, that was her 15 minutes.

Elvis Fu · **Posted:** Thu Oct 27, 2005 11:02 am

I read something interesting the other day that said that Bush basically pigeonholed himself by insisting that he choose a woman, but also avoiding anything that might be filibusterable (?!?) or even remotely opposed from anyone within the GOP due to past political wrasslin.

And after crossing off all the other women, he was left with was Miers. To compound things, he relied on his background with her rather than being committed to a standard vetting process, even to the point of having her deputy conduct the background check.

neuroboy · **Posted:** Thu Oct 27, 2005 11:03 am

f4df Wrote:

now that you consider how this split the president from his constituents not to mention how idiotic he looked.

that's my fear now. the christo-fascists, feeling scorned, are really gonna push hard for a "anti-abortion" nominee and bush--with his approval ratings down--may take the bait and try to bring in another thomas.

Elvis Fu · **Posted:** Thu Oct 27, 2005 11:04 am

How is using Christo-fascists any more productive than Limbaugh throwing out Feminazi?

Senator LooGAR · **Posted:** Thu Oct 27, 2005 11:08 am

ptrck · **Joined:** Wed Oct 27, 2004 10:55 pm **Posts:** 5568

Elvis Fu Wrote:

How is using Christo-fascists any more productive than Limbaugh throwing out Feminazi?

Christo-fascist.

Cap'n Squirrgle · **Posted:** Thu Oct 27, 2005 11:13 am

In better news, a perusal of cnn.com led me to this gem, which is a run-down of fantastically awful transition attempts of "stars" to go to TV.

http://www.ew.com/ew/report/0,6115,1119678_3_0_,00.html

Note the strangely I FUH-worthy picture of Shirley MacLaine.

no guru · **Posted:** Thu Oct 27, 2005 11:13 am

Christo-fascists makes for better found poetry than feminazis does.

That's My Fear
N. Rowboy

christo-fascists, feeling scorned,
approval down;
bring another thomas

timmyjoe42 · **Posted:** Thu Oct 27, 2005 11:13 am

if you can't take the heat...

ptrck · **Joined:** Wed Oct 27, 2004 10:55 pm **Posts:** 5568

Heres my overreaching statement today: Roe v. Wade will never be overturned, regardless of who is on the bench. The states don't want any part of it, and no one (not even overzealous right-wing judges) wants to see back-alley abortions come back in vogue. They might try to trim (get it?) it down, put some minor restrictions on it, but I think legalized abortion is here to stay.

Senator LooGAR · **Posted:** Thu Oct 27, 2005 11:18 am

Billy The Clonosaurus Wrote:

Heres my overreaching statement today: Roe v. Wade will never be overturned, regardless of who is on the bench. The states don't want any part of it, and no one (not even overzealous right-wing judges) wants to see back-alley abortions come back in vogue. They might try to trim (get it?) it down, put some minor restrictions on it, but I think legalized abortion is here to stay.

DING DING DING DING DING DING DING...thus enableing both sides to raise more money from the dingbats on either side who think it will be overturned.

Curiously, there are people who believe it should be LEGAL, yet want to see Roe v. Wade overturned because of the thought process behind the decision. Maybe one of our lawyerin' posters could enlighten us about this.

I don't give a shit about this bitch, or whoever the fuck else they put on the court. I do know that I am damn glad I don't have to look at her ugly ass too much longer.

neuroboy · **Posted:** Thu Oct 27, 2005 11:30 am

Billy The Clonosaurus Wrote:

Heres my overreaching statement today: Roe v. Wade will never be overturned, regardless of who is on the bench. The states don't want any part of it, and no one (not even overzealous right-wing judges) wants to see back-alley abortions come back in vogue. They might try to trim (get it?) it down, put some minor restrictions on it, but I think legalized abortion is here to stay.

here's my overgeneralized, totally nonspecific statement of the day: it's true--i totally agree. but there's tons of other issues other than abortion out there to screw with.

the fact that that whole schiavo thing went as high as it did (given that it was pretty much accepted as a settled legal issue back in the 70's) doesn't instill confidence that folks will always leave well enough alone.

Finch Platte · **Posted:** Thu Oct 27, 2005 11:30 am

Miers said her nomination presented a "burden for the White House."

Isn't that more than 2 words?

Finch Platte · **Posted:** Thu Oct 27, 2005 11:33 am

Cap'n Scare-gle Wrote:

In better news, a perusal of cnn.com led me to this gem, which is a run-down of fantastically awful transition attempts of "stars" to go to TV.

http://www.ew.com/ew/report/0,6115,1119678_3_0_,00.html

Note the strangely I FUH-worthy picture of Shirley MacLaine.

Denise Richards' pic is up there and you're looking at Shirley MacClaine???

Cap'n Squirrgle · **Posted:** Thu Oct 27, 2005 11:37 am

Well not exclusively...

Finch Platte · **Posted:** Thu Oct 27, 2005 11:44 am

Cap'n Scare-gle Wrote:

Well not exclusively...

Well, since you're browsing the CNN front page, did you happen to see the SI cheerleaders pictorial and this pic?

Can anyone Photoshop a glory hole with a huge cock sticking out of it in there? Edit: And put a cast on the cock for good measure, wouldja? :twisted:

[img][426:500]http://i.a.cnn.net/si/multimedia/photo_gallery/2005/10/25/gallery.nflcheerleaders/gallery5.jpg[/img]

billy g · **Joined:** Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:41 pm **Posts:** 9020

If only Bush had read his federalist papers more carefully

Federalist No. 76:

Quote:

To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity… He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure.

which reminds me, I've got to start looking for someone willing to be an obsequious instrument of my pleasure

f4df · **Posted:** Thu Oct 27, 2005 12:36 pm

billy g Wrote:

If only Bush had read his federalist papers more carefully

Federalist No. 76:

Quote:

To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity… He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure.

which reminds me, I've got to start looking for someone willing to be an obsequious instrument of my pleasure

its called, intern

Miers Withdraws

Who is online