What Now has shared a creative idea. Linking to the RNC donation page, he says:

ADD NINE CENTS to whatever you plan to give. That will allow an easy tally of the pro-Alito donations. So if you’re going to give $5, give $5.09. If you’re going to give $20, give $20.09. Doing this is ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL to the effort.

As you may know, on November 16th in New York City, Pajamas Media is hosting their big “Launch Event.” The keynote speaker, who will be introduced by the Professor, will be none other than Judith Miller. There has to be some irony there somewhere, but it’s eluding me.

In other blogging news, LaShawn wonders what will happen to your blog if you die.

There is bound to be lots of confusion regarding what Alito’s ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey really means, but only because of the deceptive or naive statements of those who would villify Mr. Alito.

Here is the key portion of the law, from the Supreme Court decision.

3209. Spousal Notice.

(a) Spousal notice required. — In order to further the Commonwealth’s interest in promoting the integrity of the marital relationship and to protect a spouse’s interests in having children within marriage and in protecting the prenatal life of that spouse’s child, no physician shall perform an abortion on a married woman, except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), unless he or she has received a signed statement, which need not be notarized, from the woman upon whom the abortion is to be performed, that she has notified her spouse that she is about to undergo an abortion. The statement shall bear a notice that any false statement made therein is punishable by law.

(b) Exceptions. — The statement certifying that the notice required by subsection (a) has been given need not be furnished where the woman provides the physician a signed statement certifying at least one of the following:

(1) Her spouse is not the father of the child.

(2) Her spouse, after diligent effort, could not be located. [p909]

(3) The pregnancy is a result of spousal sexual assault as described in section 3128 (relating to spousal sexual assault), which has been reported to a law enforcement agency having the requisite jurisdiction.

(4) The woman has reason to believe that the furnishing of notice to her spouse is likely to result in the infliction of bodily injury upon her by her spouse or by another individual.

Such statement need not be notarized, but shall bear a notice that any false statements made therein are punishable by law.

(c) Medical emergency. — The requirements of subsection (a) shall not apply in case of a medical emergency.

(d) Forms. — The department shall cause to be published, forms which may be utilized for purposes of providing the signed statements required by subsections (a) and (b). The department shall distribute an adequate supply of such forms to all abortion facilities in this Commonwealth.

(e) Penalty; civil action. — Any physician who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of “unprofessional conduct,” and his or her license for the practice of medicine and surgery shall be subject to suspension or revocation in accordance with procedures provided under the act of October 5, 1978 (P.L. 1109, No. 261), known as the Osteopathic Medical Practice Act, the act of December 20, 1985 (P.L. 457, No. 112), known as the Medical Practice Act of 1985, or their successor acts. In addition, any physician who knowingly violates the provisions of this section shall be civilly liable to the spouse who is the father of the aborted child for any damages caused thereby and for punitive damages in the amount of $5,000, and the court shall award a prevailing plaintiff a reasonable attorney fee as part of costs.

Law.com summarizes Alito’s dissent, where he states that the spousal notification law is not unconstitutional.

Alito argued that the Pennsylvania law’s restrictions should have been upheld, saying “the Pennsylvania Legislature could have rationally believed that some married women are initially inclined to obtain an abortion without their husbands’ knowledge because of perceived problems — such as economic constraints, future plans or the husbands’ previously expressed opposition — that may be obviated by discussion prior to the abortion.”

The case went on to the Supreme Court, resulting in a 6-3 decision that reaffirmed Roe v. Wade and struck down the spousal notification provision of the law. But late Chief Justice William Rehnquist, in his dissent, quoted Alito’s underlying dissent and said he agreed with his reasoning.

Kathryn Jean Lopez has a great observation about the scare tactics that are already beginning to develop.

Already this morning, I’ve heard a lefty on FNC scary viewers with abortion: Alito ruled that a woman needs her husband’s consent for an abortion. It was part of the Casey vs. Planned Parenthood case in 1991 and it was notification (vs. consent). And all Alito did was say the Pennsylvania law was constitutional, as I, layman, understand it.

The QandO blog has more.

Libertarians (generally) would not support a law requiring women to inform their husband before getting an abortion. But—and this is important—that was not the question before Judge Alito. That question was asked and answered when the legislation was proposed and passed.

The question to which Judge Alito responded was whether such a law violated the Constitution. Alito dissented because the law did not violate the Constitutional standards established by precedent. Specifically, the law did not create what Justice O’Connor called an “undue burden”. In fact, Alito specifically listed the components of “undue burden” and explained why the law did not violate them.

The law may still be bad policy, but that’s a wholly different matter. States are constitutionally permitted to enact bad abortion policy, so long as it does not—as has repeatedly been held by the Supreme Court—present an “unduly burdensome interference with her freedom to decide whether to terminate her pregnancy”.

The Left Coaster spews invective, showing a clear misunderstanding of the issue at hand.

Yet this week, Bush has forgotten all those words in touting the long conservative judicial track record of Alito, who seemingly takes the position that women have their place, as second-class citizens, barefoot and pregnant.

Donklephant, too, misses the mark, apparently failing to read (b).(4) of the law.

Why is this troubling? Well, imagine that you’re a woman in an emotionally or physically abusive realtionship [sic] and you’ve just found out you’re pregnant. You don’t want to carry the pregnancy to term because you don’t want to bring a child into this situation. Alito’s dissent seemingly ignores these types of situations. And what troubles me most, is that it appears he fails to understand that these laws are specifically made for the exceptions. These laws protect the weak and the wounded.

Don’t be confused by the inaccuracy, intentional or not, of those who misrepresent the Alito decision on Casey v. Planned Parenthood.

UPDATE: Bainbridge takes to task the “spousal notification is extreme” mantra. And Volokh has a look at the public opinion polls on the issue.

… or something like that.

Captain Ed has the full jaw-dropping analysis, from Late Edition:

BLITZER: But do you feel comfortable, do you feel comfortable with the very narrow issue of — for example, some people that have problems with you, and they say, well, let’s go to his — let’s see what his wife is up to, and we’ll try to drag her into this?

BAUER: But, Wolf, in this case, his wife allegedly played a role in sending him on a mission that ended up in a very real way being used to undermine the president’s desires in foreign policy areas…

BLITZER: So you don’t have a problem dragging her into this?

BAUER: Well, I would have trouble attacking somebody’s spouse if that spouse had nothing to do with the controversy. I’m arguing that in fact she did have something to do with the controversy. Look, this is a tough city…

Ed:

“Dragging her into this?” Does Blitzer ever do any research or real reporting, or does he just read off of notecards at this point? The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence made this quite clear in their unanimous report on the use of intelligence leading up to the Iraq war. Plame didn’t get dragged into this controversy by the Bush administration — she initiated the entire event by getting her husband a job to investigate the Niger data, based on the CIA’s curiousity about the British intelligence on the subject.

We’ve never tried the open trackback thing before, but hey, there’s a first time for everything.

If you are blogging about the Samuel A. Alito Jr. nomination, feel free to link and trackback to this post.

UPDATE: I have just now realized that decorum would dictate that I display the trackbacks inline when doing an open trackback type thread. Until I re-do my template to permit this, your entry will only show up in the expanded thread, and not on the main Myopic Zeal page. I’ll be working on that over the next week or two.

Until today, I had never heard of mesothelioma. It is a form of cancer that is linked directly to asbestos exposure (according to the Asbestos Victims Association):

Terry Miller from the Asbestos Victims Association says some regions will report a higher rate of illness than others.

“You have a higher proportion of asbestos-related diseases from people particularly around the Whyalla area that were involved in the ship building. I mean asbestos in its day was a super-duper product,” he said.

This disease is a real killer, with the median survival time being from 6 to 12 months after presentation. This alternative treatment site lists the rates of success of various types of treatment.

If you, or someone you know, has been exposed to asbestos, and are interested in filing a lawsuit seeking damages for your Mesothelioma, this website has lots of information.

Wow.

Mesothelioma is the most lucrative type of asbestos claim. Such suits typically are settled out of court for about $3 million each, according to plaintiff and mesothelioma attorneys.

Why did I post this on my blog? Let’s just say it’s a small experiment. ;-)

President George W. Bush will nominate Samuel Alito for Supreme Court at 8:00 am ET today, 10/31/2005.

CNN has the reporting, as does FoxNews.

James Joyner has more coverage, as does Jay Tea and Stop the ACLU.
Julian Sanchez says it’s “Trick, or Treat?” time for the headline writers.

Based on various comments over the past weekend on the talk shows, it may be a fight. But if it’s a fight for what’s right, I say, bring it on. Many are casting him in the mold of Scalia, and Harry Reid, who didn’t get his way with Miers, is not too happy, which is probably a good sign.

But the Senate’s top Democrat, minority leader Harry Reid of Nevada, raised the possibility of “a lot of problems” if Bush settles on Alito, who sits on the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, to succeed O’Connor, a swing voter on abortion and other social issues.
…
For instance, Alito, 55, wrote the lone dissent in a case striking down a Pennsylvania law that included a provision requiring women seeking abortions to inform their husbands.

The case later was appealed to the Supreme Court, which voted 6-3 in 1992 to strike down the spousal notification requirement. In his dissent, former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said he agreed with Alito’s reasoning. [MZ notes: Patterico reviews this decision in detail here]

Alito’s “is not one of the names that I’ve suggested to the president,” Democratic leader Reid told CNN. “In fact, I’ve done the opposite. I think it would create a lot of problems.”

bRight and Early (via Jawa), says it’s not Halloween, it’s Christmas!
PoliBlog wonders: “So, how many times do you think we will hear “Scalito” in the next 24 hours? Does Vegas have an over/under yet?”

Sister Toldjah has a bit of a roundup, as does Michelle.

PoliPundit thinks confirmation is all but assured, and does a roll call. [UPDATE: But Taegan Goddard points out that the more important question is whether the Democrats have enough votes to force a filibuster.]

Ed Whelan says “Congratulations, President Bush!“:

By any objective criteria, it is doubtful that there is anyone now or in recent decades (yes, not even Chief Justice Roberts) whose experience and qualifications better prepare him for the Supreme Court.

The BBC has a brief profile.

1950 - born in Trenton, New Jersey
1972 - graduates from Princeton
1975 - earns Doctor of Law degree at Yale
1981-85 - assistant to US solicitor general
1985-87 - deputy assistant to US attorney general
1987-1990 - US attorney for district of New Jersey
1990-present - judge US court of appeals

Many conservative bloggers are initially reacting with “thrilled” - including Southern Appeal, a Typical Joe (well, actually it’s his mom who would be thrilled), and Confirm Them.

Conservative Outpost reminds us that he has twice been confirmed unanimously.

There should be absolutely NO DOUBT among conservatives as to his credentials, (or those of the academic “elite”, as he’s a Yale/Princeton man). Rated well-qualified by the ABA…and confirmed twice by the US Senate - unanimously. I’m sure we’ll all be “treated” to Halloween references by those on the left today, but no matter. This is great news folks. In Alito we get exactly what we want (a solid conservative) and what we need (a fight that will re-galvanize conservatives).

BlogsForBush has started the Confirm Alito Coalition.

The RNC talking points are in. Qualified. Experienced. Respected.

And of course, there has to be the requisite fake Alito blog.

Others are scared. And are yelling “Goodbye choice.” The KOS thread is a fun read. Fired Up America says it’s an appointment from weakness. Howard Friedman looks at this decision in Blackhawk v. Pennsylvania. Arguing with Signposts notes: “Alito appears to be everything Miers was not in terms of qualifications. He is also a “he”, which is bound to raise some hackles.” Chuck Currie thinks that Conservatives who are “opposed to basic civil rights for women and other minorities” will support this nomination (my guess is that Chuck, too, is opposed to these basic civil rights for women and other minorities who are not born yet). And also, what does the phrase “women and other minorities” mean? Are women currently a minority? A class of people maybe, but minority? That’s a stretch.

Pandagon screeches: “The Chimp bowed down at the altar of Dobson, Bauer, Schlafly, and the rest of the AmTaliban to save his “base” of the wild-eyed Freeper set, nominating Samuel Alito.” … but then goes on to ask this legitimate question, which many on the right would have liked an answer to as well: “how on earth did Harriet Miers rate ahead of Sam[uel Alito]?”

Ott spoofs Schumer: “hopelessly overqualified.”

Captain Ed says the Democrats blew their chance.

Democrats blew their one opportunity to get a moderate on the bench during the Bush administration by waiting until Miers withdrew before defending her. Prior to that, Charles Schumer and Pat Leahy took great pains to call her questionnaire response “insulting” and echoing conservative complaints that her resume seemed too lightweight for a nomination to the Supreme Court. Had they pledged to support her, Bush likely would have allowed her to coast through the hearings to a floor vote despite the dissatisfaction on the right.

He also notes:

Democrats may well try obstructionism, but they stand to lose the filibuster if they try — and if John Paul Stevens steps down or dies during the next two years, the path will open up for Janice Rogers Brown to take his place.

Ian wishes it would have been Brown.

Not surprisingly, Planned Parenthood weighs in with: “Planned Parenthood opposes the nomination of Alito because he would undermine basic reproductive rights.” Of course, they mean only the reproductive rights of those who are already born. If you are a young person who hasn’t yet taken a breath, you have no rights at all according to planned parenthood. No right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. And PFAW has similary lambasted the president’s choice.

It’s interesting, though again not suprising, to hear the Democrats looking not for who is most qualified, but for who has the right color and gender. (Which, incidentally, seems like what Bush did originally with Harriet Miers).

Confederate Yankee thinks the left will now shriek themselves into oblivion. California Conservative says that conservatives should now keep their powder dry.

California Conservative is doing open trackbacks, as we are here.

Drudge is splashing that “Scalito” is ethncially insensitive. “… the DNC’s anti-Italian American talkers…”

Howard Kurtz (via Nate):

This is a winning political move. Alito is at least as qualified as Roberts, and his Casey opinion will not sustain a convincing filibuster. The Democrats seem trapped here. Reid has warned the president not to nominate Alito. And despite the narrow and non-substantive character of Alito’s dissent in Casey, the Dems will be forced by their groups to make abortion the issue. So if there is no filibuster, this is going to come off as a huge victory for the president.

UPDATE: Welcome those of you who arrived at this post from http://www.SamuelAAlito.com! Feel free to look around at our other posts. Down the road, this domain name will probably point to a full featured site with lots of links and info about Judge Alito, but for now, it points here for your reading and linking pleasure!

And Captain Ed says: “Expect Alito to get confirmed, 65-35.” He arrives at this after analyzing the chances of a filibuster, including the perspectives of one of the “Gang of 14,” Lindsey Graham.

Ann Althouse makes the case that Alito is stronger than Roberts.

Forbes has run an alarmist cover story titled “Attack of the Blogs.”

LaShawn opines:

A blog swarm can be a stinging gadfly, a much-dreaded possibility, or someone’s worst nightmare, but in my opinion, blogging is free expression at its purest. If we’re willing to embrace this freedom, we ought to be willing to embrace its power.

Micro Persuasion summarizes:

The gist of Lyons’ soon-to-be maligned story is that blogs are “the prized platform of an online lynch mob spouting liberty but spewing lies, libel and invective.”

If that’s not bad enough they also squarely put the blame here on Google and Yahoo as our “potent allies.” It’s so ridiculous that two companies that have done so much to democratize media are being chastised for it.

Below the Fold:

Then again, I hear Geraldo plans restart up his blog soon, so maybe Forbes has a good point.

It seems that George Gallway has been linked with even more Oil for Food money than previously disclosed.

GEORGE GALLOWAY faced new questions last night after a UN inquiry tracked additional payments of Iraqi oil money into his wife’s bank account.
Days after a US Senate committee tracked a $150,000 (£84,000) payment to the MP’s now estranged Palestinian wife, the UN inquiry reported that Amina Naji Abu Zayyad had earlier received a series of transfers totalling $120,000.

The revelation increases the pressure on the vocal anti-war politician, whom the report says was nicknamed “Abu Mariam” by the Iraqis, a reference to his anti-sanctions campaign, the Mariam Appeal.

…

The report also contained details of an unexplained payment of 20,000 Swiss francs (£8,800) to the son of Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary- General. And Jean-Bernard Merimée, France’s former UN Ambassador, admitted receiving $165,725 in commissions on an Iraqi oil sale in January 2002 while serving as a special adviser to Mr Annan.

M Merrimée told investigators that Tariq Aziz, Iraq’s former Deputy Prime Minister, had offered him the commissions because he was a “fair negotiator” as Paris’s UN envoy in setting up the oil-for-food system in the mid-1990s.

The report found that Marc Rich & Co financed oil purchases from Iraq and the associated kickbacks for the son of a French MP shortly after the company’s founder received a controversial pardon from President Clinton.

I sure wish I had a diagram that showed the connections between all of these people and corporations. It’s getting mindboggling. Has anyone seen such a diagram? Or have the time to make one? It would be a great resource.

The first European Pyramid apparently has been discovered (bottom of article).

More images here.

From Unjournaled (Via Ace):

Near the city of Visoko, 30 km north of Sarajevo, there is a stone pyramid of monumental size, claims the Bosnian archeologist Semir Osmanagić, who lives and works in the USA.

After several months of geological and archeological research, Mr. Osmanagić concluded that under the present hill of Visočica hides a stairs-like pyramid, about 12,000 years old. Osmanagić, who intensively researched on pyramids in Americas, Asia and Africa for the last 15 years and wrote several books on the subject, says he’s quite sure he found the first pyramid in Europe, which is quite similar to ones in the Southern America.

He believes that the project would completely change Bosnia’s significance in the world of archeology.

The AP reports:

The San Antonio-based company, which does business as Remedy Intelligent Staffing, pleaded guilty in January to hiring illegal immigrants and trying to cover it up by falsifying employment eligibility forms. The workers were hired for Wornick Co., which makes MREs — or “meals ready-to-eat.”

James Joyner is rightly concerned.

[O]ne would think there would be more scrutiny at a firm that makes MREs, given the obvious damage that could be done in such a facility.

Is water a beverage?

That question could come before a John Roberts court. And you never know, Bush’s impending pick may be the deciding vote.

A three-judge panel said Tuesday that bottled water is more like fruit juice, cider and other “naturally occurring substances” that are tax exempt, than it is Coke, Pepsi or even soda water.

The ruling affects 15 licensed water bottlers in Tennessee and six dairy processors with the capability to filter and package spring water. None is happier than English Mountain Spring Water Co. in Dandridge, about 30 miles east of Knoxville. The tiny bottler challenged the special 1.9% gross receipts tax when it was first imposed on bottled water producers in 2000.

The state was desperate that year to find new revenue to balance the budget. Bills to tax water bottlers failed in the legislature, but a state attorney general’s opinion offered an opportunity to tax under a 1937 post-Prohibition law regulating soft drinks.

“We happened to be the first guinea pig,” English Mountain founder John Burleson said yesterday, recalling the arrival of state auditors.

English Mountain, which produces about 150,000 gallons of water a week for vendors in 41 states, including every Cracker Barrel restaurant, faced $119,002 in taxes, penalties and interest from 2000 to 2003.

The company contended that bottled water is not a soft drink, but the state said bottled water was taxable because the soft drink law applied to “any and all nonalcoholic beverages.” Jefferson County Chancellor Telford Forgety Jr. ruled in favor of the state.

This further underscores the need for a staggering intellect for one who would be the next SCOTUS nominee.

Heh.

AJAX is not a new technology. It’s not a new language. In fact, it’s not even new. Google put existing technologies (javascript, css, dhtml, and HttpRequest calls) to better use than anyone had before (ie. Maps, Gmail, etc), and now we have the newer web surfing experience that begins to very much blur feel the desktop and the web.

This article is a great snapshot of the changes we’re experiencing.

Not nearly as impactful as the Miers withdrawal, but certainly interesting, is this article from the Detroit News.

In a memo that was distributed Tuesday to workers at Ford’s Michigan Truck plant in Wayne, plant managers said too many of the factory’s 3,500 hourly workers are spending more than the 48 minutes allotted per shift to use the bathroom. The extra-long breaks are slowing production of the Ford Expedition and Lincoln Navigator sport utility vehicles that are built there, the company said.

BREAKING: Fox and CNN are reporting that Harriet Miers has withdrawn her nomination. No online stories yet….

8:57 am EST UPDATE: CNN.com has a newsflash

President Bush “reluctantly” accepts Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers’s request to withdraw her nomination.

8:59 am EST UPDATE: AP bulletin is up:

Harriet Miers withdrew her nomination to be a Supreme Court justice Thursday in the face of stiff opposition and mounting criticism about her qualifications.

Michelle is on it too.

9:02 am EST UPDATE: … And Llama Butchers

9:04 am EST UPDATE: … MSNBC reports that Bush has gone with the Krauthammer exit strategy.

Confronted with criticism from both the left and right, Harriet Miers on Thursday withdrew her nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a statement, President Bush said he “reluctantly accepted” her decision to withdraw, after weeks of insisting that he did not want her to step down.

The White House said he blamed her withdrawal on calls in the Senate for the release of internal White House documents that the administration has insisted were protected by executive privilege.

And NBC. And Another Attempt.

9:08 am: And Rovian Conspiracy, Pandagon. And Drudge finally caught up.

9:14 am: Here’s the pdf of her withdrawal rquest letter. Blanco Brawler has some thoughts. And Another Attempt has the text of the letter, where she spells out the justification for withdrawal. Good move.

As you know, members of the Senate have indicated their intention to seek documents about my service in the White House in order to judge whether to support me. I have been informed repeatedly that in lieu of records, I would be expected to testify about my service in the White House to demonstrate my experience and judicial philosophy. While I believe that my lengthy career provides sufficient evidence for consideration of my nomination, I am convinced the efforts to obtain Executive Branch materials and information will continue.

As I stated in my acceptance remarks in the Oval Office, the strength and independence of our three branches of government are critical to the continued success of this great Nation. Repeatedly in the course of the process of confirmation for nominees for other positions, I have steadfastly maintained that the independence of the Executive Branch be preserved and its confidential documents and information not be released to further a confirmation process. I feel compelled to adhere to this position, especially related to my own nomination. Protection of the prerogatives of the Executive Branch and continued pursuit of my confirmation are in tension. I have decided that seeking my confirmation should yield.

9:20 EST: Lots more pouring in now…

Fraters Libertas
Royal Flush
Let the Word…
BrainStream
Charging Rino
Holy Coast

And Fox, and WaPo.

Sploid thinks it’s because she had to redo her homework.
The Agitator
To the People
Gay Conservative
Wizbang: The spin is it’s about documents, not qualifications.
Goldberg: Indictments will erase the Miers withdrawal kerfuffle..
Kathryn Lopez similary points out our short memories.

Joyner, regarding her letter: “Unfortunately, she is wrong: her career has indeed been lengthy; it has, however, provided precious little insight into what sort of guardian of the Constitution she would make.”
Captain Ed: “Now can we nominate a candidate whose qualities and track record presumes we control the Senate?”
Matt Johnston predicts: “Look for a state supreme court judge with 15-20 years of appellate experience to be nominated, probably from the South, but the Mid-West looks petty good bet too.”
A Knight’s Blog is shocked.
The Moderate Voice: “They took the ‘out’ offered”

ABP: “We’ll see quickly enough if the President has learned his lessons from this error and nominates a supremely qualified (and properly vetted) conservative jurist in the mold of Scalia and Thomas, as he promised in 2000 and 2004.”
Goldberg adds: No Gonzalez.
Patterico is back inside and wants to rally around Edith Jones or Janice Rogers Brown.
Decision ‘08 has a mini-roundup.
PoliPundit wants Karen Williams.
Don Surber thinks this killed the Bush presidency.
GOP & the City needs a new idea for a halloween costume.
Stop the ACLU asks: “Who do you think he should choose?”
Confirm Them’s Feddie wants William H. Pryor.
Euphoric Reality has another mini-roundup.

No More Mister Nice Blog: “Is he planning to announce a replacemenmt tomorrow, to blunt the impact of whatever Patrick Fitzgerald might do?”
Danny Carlton: “Now we just have to wait for the other shoe to drop…will Bush pick another dud or a real nominee this time?”
Junkyard Blog: “Now let’s get a real conservative nominated and get ready to rumble.”
North American Patriot: “My choice? Janice Rogers Brown, baby…No question.”
Ian’s got open trackbacks going.
Sister Toldjah is glad Patterico is safe.

WSJ quotes Harry Reid: “The radical right wing of the Republican Party killed the Harriet Miers nomination.” and Schumer: “a fine and capable person, but this was clearly the wrong position for her.”
Gateway Pundit: “Bless Harriet Miers. Next!”
Instapundit: She is to be commended.

KOS: A win for the wingnuts.
Wizbang quotes Durbing: “What we need now is a centrist nominee, someone who’s not too far to the right or too far to the left.” and Reid: “I hope the President doesn’t reward the bad behavior of his rightwing base.”
Conservative Outpost: “This gives the President a chance to start over and find a nominee that would completely unite the conservative base.”
Volokh says the system worked. And he suggests Michael McConnell or Karen Williams.
LaShawn is not optimistic: “But I predict George Bush will nominate another unqualified person. Perhaps his tailor. Or his dentist. Or his dog walker.” Ouch.
Daly Thoughts: What did Sensenbrener really know?
McBride thinks Diane Sykes is likely.

I wonder if there will still be a Dobson-hunt on Capitol Hill.

Iowa Voice: “Hip-Hip-Hooray!”
Donky Stomp: “It’s a shame that conservatives were so quick to criticize Miers…”
Blogs for Bush: “Now it’s time for Bush to nominate someone conservatives can unite behind.”

Beth at MyVRWC: “I’m still disgusted by the nastiness of some of the Miers nomination opponents, and the nasty rhetoric and tactics that some have used has made me mistrust many of them even more than I already mistrusted fair-weather friends. I hate to think that they’ll feel their tactics have been affirmed by Miers’ withdrawal, because I hope this has been the last episode of center-right cannibalism that we have had to endure for a long time.”

Charmaine: “The Indefensible Speech finished her.”

Laura Lee Donoho: “Who are the losers? Any attorney who has real world experience and hasn’t served as a judge.”
Martini Pundit thinks Miers should get the consolation prize.
Real Clear Politics: “A more speculative interpretation of the timing of the withdrawal is that the President knows there are indictments coming down tomorrow and needs to have his base support consolidated. ”

Q&O: “I have to believe that the vigorous opposition in the blogosphere played a large part in the outcome of this nomination—if not by actually changing minds in the White House, at least by building and fanning the flame of dissent among those on the Right. As powerful as the George Will and Charles Krauthammer columns were, I’m not sure that the pre-blogosphere punditocracy could have created such a furor”

California Conservative is doing the Miers open trackback thing.

Harriet Miers’ Blog
Patrick Fitzgerald’s Blog
Edith Clement’s Blog
Barbara Boxer’s Blog

Kevin at Wizbang has a good reminder of what was known about Plame prior to the Novak column.

Where is that questionaire that Harriet Miers was to have completed by today? (HT: MM)

Wow. Who would have thought? ;-)

The Miers nomination continues to unravel as the buzz grows about a speech she gave to the Executive Women of Dallas in 1993. There are several criticisms, both of the substance and the form.

1. The grammar and writing are awful. They are worse than her questionaire responses. Captain Ed has the examples and they alone bolster the argument that she is simply does not have the attention to detail (or maybe the intellect?) to be sit on the SCOTUS.

2. The substance on abortion is concerning. Again, Ed:

She doesn’t seem to share much of Bush’s political views at this time, which belies the notion that she represents some rock, impervious to prevailing winds. For instance, on abortion, we get this declaration:

“The ongoing debate continues surrounding the attempt to once again criminalize abortions or to once and for all guarantee the freedom of the individual woman’s right to decide for herself whether she will have an abortion.”

Does that sound to anyone like someone committed to opposing abortion, or even allowing the issues to be decided by the legislatures?

And to that, Patterico, from his ledge, quoting from the WaPo, adds:

Those seeking to resolve such disputes would do well to remember that “we gave up” a long time ago on “legislating religion or morality,” she said. And “when science cannot determine the facts and decisions vary based upon religious belief, then government should not act.”

Does she still sound like a stealth anti-Roe candidate to you??

On her comments racial issues or property rights, Ed opines:

She gets even more incoherent on racial issues, declaring that “[t]here is no question that Dallas is basically a segregated city and that there is a great need for the development of housing around the city where amenities exist. However, the placement of low income housing around the city is very difficult.” In other words, she wanted to have government force desegregation through confiscation — think Kelo — and the building of low-income housing. She never questions that government should force a solution on people through public takings; she merely questions whether that should be done by the legislature or the courts, but sounds as if she’s prepared to have either one do it.

And on Judicial Activism, Patterico:

She also had an interesting view on judicial activism — i.e., sometimes we need it:

“My basic message here is that when you hear the courts blamed for activism or intrusion where they do not belong, stop and examine what the elected leadership has done to solve the problem at issue,” she said.

Read the whole thing, and weep.

Is Paul Deignan right after all?

Even Hugh thinks the speech was lousy, but cautions:

Is change possible over a dozen years, five of which are spent in a White House at war? Does Miers deserve a hearing? Are you open to being persuaded? What are the minimum qualifications for a SCOTUS nominee? Does a dashed off speech from a dozen years and a different life ago provide a sound basis for judging Harriet Miers?

Kathryn Jean Lopez over at Bench Memos received an email that makes a really interesting observation:

appears to be responding to RECENT cases that her audience would have known. That means she was talking about Casey (1992) (reaffirming Roe) and Lee v. Weisman (1992) (striking down graduation prayer), and trying to put them in an understandable intellectual context. When you read the article with this in mind, it becomes painfully obvious that she’s offering an intellectual justification for the outcomes in those cases — both of which are anathema to conservatives.

NZ continues to track blog positions. Concerned Women for America have also now called for the nomination to be withdrawn, and has a blistering critique of the speech.

Others continue to come off the fence and voice opposition to Miers, including Ed Whelan (a former Scalia law clerk and the head of the Ethics and Public Policy Center) and Pejman Yousefzadeh. (Via Prof B and Matt Franck). Tapscott today voices his opposition for what I believe is the first time.

Tim posting at ProLifeBlogs has quotes from major conservative organizations reacting to the speech. These include Operation Rescue, the Liberty Council and the Family Research Council, in addition to CWA which we mentioned above.

Frum also adds:

This sounds very much like the reasoning that led Anthony Kennedy to reaffirm the Roe v. Wade precedent in his decision in Casey v. Planned Parenthood the previous year, 1992:

And Paul Mirengoff points out:

This is not the speech of a centrist (the worst case plausible scenario, I thought); it’s the speech of a liberal. The behavior of liberal Senate Democrats over recent years relieves conservative Republican Senators of any obligation to vote for the confirmation of nominees who take positions like the ones Miers sets forth in this speech.

BlogsForBush writer Matt notes NARAL’s response.

In the context of the abortion debate, “self-determination” sounds like a more technical term for “choice.” Evidently, so does Kate Michelman, former president of the pro-abortion group NARAL. “If you take what she said at face value, you would conclude that she recognizes the right of a woman to choose an abortion as a matter of self-determination.” Let me say I hardly find this comforting.

And Paul Diegnan adds, The jig is up, though Carol over at ConfirmThem is not quite so adamant.

John Fund, via Frum, wonders if she really was a last option desparate affirmative action pick.

Given Mr. Bush’s idée fixe that the nominee had to be a woman, it’s possible the White House allowed itself to be pushed into a corner in which Ms. Miers was literally the only female left.

MSNBC has picked up the story also, and has this to say:

In the speech, Miers also said, “Abortion clinic protestors have become synonymous with terrorists and the courts have been the refuge for the besieged.”

It isn’t clear from the text of the speech whether Miers herself thought anti-abortion clinic protestors were “synonymous with terrorists.”

Michelle reminds us about BetterJustice.com and WithdrawMiers.org

Ruminate This thinks that Harry Reid is the big winner here.

The only obvious conclusion is that Reid is simply doing this on purpose, giving hopeful signs of approval to Miers’ nomination and then scampering off to his office bathroom to laugh his guts out, knowing that his bland friendly statements are contributing to the increasing panic amongst Gee Dub’s core supporters. Reid is doing this on purpose just to stir up the Republican troops…

…that’s mean.

…and it’s hilarious…

Baseball Crank has 22 questions for Hugh Hewitt. Decision ‘08 is not happy about the infighting, but is missing the big picture. It’s not about keeping RINOs in power (after all, where has that gotten us), it’s about conservative principles and appropriate judicial humility on the Supreme Court. It’s bigger than the 2006 elections. ITA has more on this whole “protect the party” line.

Hewitt thinks that failing to back the president on Miers will hurt congressional Republicans next year and the party in 2008. I think the opposite is more plausible, and that Republicans in the legislature will increasingly try to distance themselves from a White House that is not tremendously popular, with even its base showing diminishing enthusiasm.

As I mentioned in my earlier post, Hewitt thinks the Republican Party is the proper subject of analysis. But electorally, the Republican Party doesn’t exist.

Instead, there are hundreds of Republican candidates who have to win election on their own (as opposed to the party-list of other democracies, like Italy and Israel, or the party-centric elections of the Westminster model). And given the choice between jeopardizing their own jobs or breaking with the president, I can’t think of any senators who would not choose the latter unless the president was acting out of some deeply-held principle the senator happened to share.

Linking/Trackbacks: OTB Traffic Jam, Stop the ACLU, TMH