"I'm disappointed about that," Mrs. Bush said. "I know Sandra Day O'Connor would like to retire.Classic First Lady rhetoric.
"She stayed longer because the president asked her to when he nominated John Roberts for chief justice," the first lady added.
१७ जानेवारी, २००६
The First Lady's take on delaying the Alito vote.
Applying women-and-the-elderly moral pressure, she observes that it's unkind to to Sandra Day O'Connor:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२२ टिप्पण्या:
When I read that, I thought, "There's a perspective the beltway people won't put on the table."
She is a classy lady.
(vufnohta: are we in Scandanavia yet?)
She has a right to her opinion, but did Laura talk to Justice O'Connor before reaching this conclusion?
Or did she consider that perhaps Justice O'Connor would rather see a thorough vetting of her successor and then allow the time for Senators to think it over before voting on him, instead of just slapping it on through? Better to do it right than do it quick?
The truth is that no one has asked Justice O'Connor of what she thinks about the Alito hearings, and I'm sure that she appreciates Laura putting words into her mouth.
If Laura wants to have any say in confirming Supreme Court nominees, then she can go run for the Senate (which is why her predecessor now does have a say in it-- she did what it took to have a say).
But, Laura is no Hillary.
There is a rumour - prety far out there, IMO, but potentially of immense significance - that Justice Souter have been talking about retiring. I think it's very unlikely, but if so, it would be, literally, armageddon for the Democrats: the reality of a third Bush SCOTUS pick, and the high likelihood of a forth. Retirements of both Stevens and Souter - if Bush picks the right choices ("right", in my view, being Judge Sykes and perhaps Miguel Estrada or Steve Calabresi) - would not only create an opportunity for a genuine conservative majority on the Court, but would at a stroke render Tony Kennedy a nullity.
My suggested GOP response to the delay is explained here.
Wow, talk about an overreaction.
Not one thing the First Lady said about O'Connor was incorrect.
Putting words in O'Connor's mouth? She stated that O'Connor wanted to retire (obviously true) and that she did stay longer because the President asked her to (again, obviously true).
Which of these statements do you believe were made up?
But I do find it funny that you support Hillary's First Lady (obvious political maneuvering) right to have an opinion on all matters (HillaryCare anyone) but Laura Bush isn't even allowed to voice an opinion without first becoming a Senator. Hillary had quite a bit to say, long before she ran for anything... but your memory probably has a heavy filter on anything pre-2000.
That aside, this was an article about Mrs. Bush, not O'Connor. Or do you belieeve that all opinions in all articles must be backchecked to see what the source believes to be true? Perhaps you believe in such expert journalism, but if so, let me point you to the New York Times - they seem to disagree.
"I'm sure she appreciates... " Are you putting thoughts into O'Connor's head now? When did you run for the Senate? Your hypocrisy knows no bounds. Checked your demagogue rating today? You'd be blinking at 100%.
Eli:
Nothing Mrs Bush said relies on any first hand knowledge of Justice O'Conner's feelings.
Laura's disapointed.. Ok
"I know Sandra Day O'Connor would like to retire." We knew that because they are replacing her and no one forced her out.
"She stayed longer because the president asked her to when he nominated John Roberts for chief justice" We knew that as well.
Please no Hillary comparisons, are you kidding me?
The truth is that no one has asked Justice O'Connor of what she thinks about the Alito hearings
... is about as knowable, yet presented as fact, as what Arlen Spectre receives in his mail.
Souter off to pasture?? Oh God! My lovely Janice Rogers Brown, get fitted for a new black robe...
Classic first-lady rhetoric, indeed!
What she said isn't earth-shaking, surprising, or even important. But it's going to resonate simply because the delayed vote--that is, the reasons behind it--so nakedly exemplifies just the attitudes and shenanigans that average Americans can't abide in beltway-centric pols.
Dems, in this case, need to get over themselves and get on with it.
Word verification: hugwrryh
Tired of making nice with those who are so persistently obtuse and aggravating.
2nd word verification: nsputza
The sound of disgust one omits when one exhibits a complete inability to type what one sees.
"Souter off to pasture?? Oh God! My lovely Janice Rogers Brown, get fitted for a new black robe..."
I have a few concerns with JRB; she would not be my first pick. My preference would be Judge Diane Sykes, first brought to my attention by Althouse, in fact. She seems to have the appropriate intellectual heft and a demonstrably appropriate judicial philosophy; she has experience on both Federal apellate and [state] supreme courts, and is a strong writer. And, truth be told, I'd be lying if I said that I didn't think it helps a nominee in this day and age to be photogenic, which Sykes beyond doubt is.
In any instance, I think we're both out of luck; Bush wants to appoint the first (well, second) hispanic Justice, and I think the urge will become uncontrollable with the next vacancy, which suggests Garza, Cantero or Estrada.
"A protracted confirmation hearing certainly was something that [O'Connor] foresaw when she made her decison to wait for a confirmation before retiring."
To be fair, when O'Connor anounced her retirement on July 1 of last year, I doubt she seriously entertained thoughts that the confirmation would be so protracted as to be dragging on seven months later.
Or did she consider that perhaps Justice O'Connor would rather see a thorough vetting of her successor and then allow the time for Senators to think it over before voting on him, instead of just slapping it on through? Better to do it right than do it quick?
Although Eli, I know where you're coming from (the need to do it right, rather than do it quickly), Mrs. Bush's EMINENTLY sensible take of the situation, strikes one as spot on.
Justice O'Connor stepped down, in large part, because she has to take care of her Alzheimer's ailing husband.
Now, to be sure, she wants to do it right -- but I think the First Lady is thinking in very human terms, which Senate Judiciary Committee politics, the kind which Senator Kennedy and Schumer and Graham practise, will never understand.
Laura Bush is indeed, a classy lady -- First Lady.
Cheers,
Victoria
I like Laura Bush,
I don't know anyone who is 'just folks', who doesn't.
It's hard to dislike a woman who once admitted to Cloroxing her shelves for relaxation.
but I think they use her politically when they think it will help.
If you're saying she's a stealth weapon, absolutely.
But I think she has her own opinions, which interestingly at times, do not conform to the administration's.
This comment, as well as the Harriet Miers one (where she was asked by Matt Lauer if the treatment of Miss Miers was sexist, "yes I think so") and the very recent Condi Rice for President testimonial, come straight from the heart.
She comments on matters close to her.
She doesn't venture into political fields unknown (as Eleanor Roosevelt and Hillary Clinton did).
And that's what people like.
Cheers,
Victoria
"This comment, as well as the Harriet Miers one (where she was asked by Matt Lauer if the treatment of Miss Miers was sexist, 'yes I think so') and the very recent Condi Rice for President testimonial, come straight from the heart."
Straight from the heart is one thing. Ignorant and absurd is quite another: Mrs. Bush did her credibility no favors with her ludicrous comment on the Miers nomination.
With apologies if I'm being redundant, since I'm rushing and haven't read every comment thoroughly:
My understanding when O'Connor retired was that her husband suffers from alzheimer's disease, and she's exhausted. My first thought during the Miers brouhaha was, "what a drag for O'Connor" - and I suspect Laura Bush had the same thought. It's not really a comment about the process or the candidates, from that point of view.
It's too bad she couldn't really speak her mind.
Her mother-in-law via Roveian mind meld:
"Yeah sure I'm disappointed. I'm just as sick of this charade as you are. Sammy really stuck it those ass hats, but in all fairness, the Dems need some time to figure out whether or not they can afford to vote for him or not. Most of them want to, but they've got to suck up to Soros and the moveon.org nutburgers. Don't get me wrong. Slammin Sammy's a shoe in, but the kabuki ain't over til it's over.
I just re-read my comment from earlier today, and just want to make clear that in my "word verification" definition related to hugwrryh, I was emphatically NOT referring to commenters here, or anywhere else.
I'm sorry that it may have come across that way.
Laura Bush is the definition of classy. Whether she brings up this issue on her own or at her husband's behest is immaterial.
She discusses openly a very human issue precisely because it has been ignored both in the press and by the judiciary committee. And just imagine the reaction if Mr. Bush himself had said this.
While O'Connor remains a dogged professional, her desire to care for her husband during a very difficult time must be honored. Any delay during such a progresive and devastating disease is unfair and, well, mean.
Of note, a WaPo article in July 2005 had this snide comment on her decision to leave:
"I was on a radio show and someone called in to say, 'Would we ever see a man retire to take care of his spouse?' " says Suzanna Sherry, a law professor at Vanderbilt University who has written about O'Connor. "This is why she's never been considered a feminist's feminist. A feminist would say: 'Well, why would she do that?'".
P.S. I have seen men retire to do exactly this, but it's rare for anyone to have to retire at age 75; most already have done so.
VW ~ czxkc: What comes out when a kid tries to tell you he just put a whole box of Chiclets in his mouth.
Andrew,
"The initial postponement to O'Connor's retirement was Rehnquist's death and her argeeing to let that slot be filled first. Then came the Harriet fiasco which further delayed things. You can blame the Dems for many things, but not those two."
I didn't mean to pass any comment on the blame issue, merely to observe that I doubt that O'Connor foresaw the length of time she would continue to serve.
I completely agree that the blame for the Miers fiasco lies entirely with President Bush, his staff who failed to catch the mistake, and the handful of people (the ones who believe that loyalty is doing whatever your friend wants, rather than, I don't know, maybe excercising some independent judgement and not letting your buddy blow his toes off) who kept us in the furnace long after the nomination was clearly done.
This latest delay, however, is just partisan absurdity. They bamboozled Specter, who will hopefully learn from this that he should get agreements with the committee dems signed by a notarary public. People always complain about the bad blood on Capitol Hill - well, here's why: if you can't trust your colleagues, if you can't take them at their word, bad blood flows.
""I was on a radio show and someone called in to say, 'Would we ever see a man retire to take care of his spouse?' " says Suzanna Sherry, a law professor at Vanderbilt University who has written about O'Connor. "This is why she's never been considered a feminist's feminist. A feminist would say: 'Well, why would she do that?'""
Is Prof. Sherry playing devil's advocate, or is she suggesting she buys into this bullshit? I thought feminism was supposed to be about ending male domination over women, not replacing it with domination by a cultural intelligentsia who will tell you what "real women" do and do not do.
"If they are being mean to anyone it is Alito."
Mean to Alito, and spiteful to Bush. Having had nearly three months to find something - anything - to use to derail the Alito nomination (a massive research project, to be sure, for just a handful of poor Democratic senators, along with their pittance of merely a few hundred staff and the outside assistance of nothing more than the entirety of the mainstream media, the liberal blogosphere, and mostly every left-leaning law professor in the country; it's easy to see why they claim they need more time) and come up empty handed, what can they possibly hope to accomplish with another week that they haven't already failed to accomplish thusfar?
Andrew,
I agree the stakes are far too high to give someone a pass just to move things along. Nothing of the kind has occurred here; Alito has surely not gotten a pass.
Laura Bush is quietly pointing out that now the delay is just for the sake of delay, much as a filibuster and non-confirmation are unlikely.
So do your job, Senators. If the vaunted liberal compassion has any real-world meaning, and is something more than a talking point, now is the time to display it without penalty. Why this needs to be pointed out is unclear.
Pogo quoted:
"I was on a radio show and someone called in to say, 'Would we ever see a man retire to take care of his spouse?' " says Suzanna Sherry, a law professor at Vanderbilt University who has written about O'Connor. "This is why she's never been considered a feminist's feminist. A feminist would say: 'Well, why would she do that?'".
I find myself hoping that this is not actually a 'feminist' position. Perhaps it is not the winner, but it has to be in contention for the most atrocious remark ever quoted on this site.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा