Coulda Done That a Smidge Quicker

How embarrassing. Or mortifying.

Miers Withdraws Supreme Court Nomination

Or all of the above.

11 Responses to “Coulda Done That a Smidge Quicker”

1. Ken Summers says:

   October 27, 2005 at 9:53 am

   Dagnabbit, you beat me by one minute!

2. Mr. Bingley says:

   October 27, 2005 at 10:11 am

   Thanks be to sweet baby jeebus she’s gone.

3. Lisa says:

   October 27, 2005 at 10:11 am

   This dulls the pain of a Sux World Series win.
   Almost.

4. tree hugging sister says:

   October 27, 2005 at 10:16 am

   Dagnabbit, you beat me by one minute!
   While it is always my hope I’m never remembered for being ‘fast’, I am quick.
   And I think it’s a tragedy. The idea of ‘her’ pissed EVERYbody off, so who better? What a bunch of doofuses the WhiteHouse looks like. Gads. Maybe they needed her back since no one knows where Karl’s gonna be in a couple days.

5. Nightfly says:

   October 27, 2005 at 11:22 am

   Yeah, they didn’t go over her properly beforehand. Before forwarding her name they should have known about her major speeches to various legal organizations; hell, they should have known her favorite sandwich from third grade. You can’t just toss this stuff out there in the internet age and expect NO surprises.

6. Dave J says:

   October 27, 2005 at 11:40 am

   Andy Card should have stayed in the Massachusetts state legislature (oh, excuse me, The Great and General Court of the Commonwealth): we certainly need as many GOP members as we can get (they’re outnumbered more than 3-to-1). Together with Sununu, he was responsible for Souter, and he was apparently largely responsible for Miers. His head should roll, but knowing GWB’s preference for loyalty over either principles or competence, I’m not holding my breath.

7. Crusader says:

   October 27, 2005 at 12:43 pm

   The idea of ‘her’ pissed EVERYbody off
   Problem is, that was about the only thing she had to offer.
   Don’t let the door hitcha where the Good Lord splitcha…..

8. GALA says:

   October 27, 2005 at 2:46 pm

   I think one of the main problems is that Congress has too much power and the Executive Branch too little.

9. Dave J says:

   October 27, 2005 at 11:09 pm

   “I think one of the main problems is that Congress has too much power and the Executive Branch too little.”
   Having worked under the opposite conditions in the UK, where Parliament is practically a rubber-stamp for an executive that Lord Hailsham rightly called an elective dictatorship, I’ll happily take legislative preeminence over executive preeminence.

10. GALA says:

    October 28, 2005 at 8:12 am

    I have seen a righteous agenda taken out from under the President of The United States too many times, all because the pork of the Congress is “much more important.”
    After Watergate, President Ford’s hands were tied (not only by Congress, but the news people) and it was ridiculous. (Posterity will show that Ford was a much better president than he was given credit.)
    Anyway, I think the Executive Branch should have some more power and the Legislative a little less.

11. Dave J says:

    October 29, 2005 at 6:31 pm

    Well, I think we probably see eye-to-eye to a greater degree than might initially have come across in those first comments: I certainly wouldn’t object to giving the President a LITTLE bit more power at Congress’s expense. A line-item veto, for instance, although I agree with the Supreme Court that the statutory line-item veto they gave to Clinton was unconstitutional. So, amend the federal constitution to allow for it (like many state constitutions do), the problem being getting the amendment through Congress and even more so through the state legislatures, who regard federal pork as “free” money from the sky.