Scary

Bush picks conservative for Supreme Court - The Changing Court

No time to comment--Halloween is a serious time at work--but I agree with Pat Leahy. This pick is "needlessly provocative"--which, after the bruising he took from his base for picking Harriet Miers, is probably exactly why Bush made it. Samuel Alito may be more congenial than Scalia, but congenial doesn't change the vote count. I smell a filibuster...

Top Notch

US Department of Justice, Office of Special Counsel

My respect for Patrick Fitzgerald is at an all-time high today. I watched his press conference over lunch, and as he explained Libby's actions, and how he allegedly lied about them, Fitz laid out his case in a manner that was understandable. He made clear what a serious set of crimes (obstruction, false statement, and perjury) the indictments represent. And he threw cold water on the talking point that any indictments that did not include breaking the 1982 law that protects covert agents would be a technicality, using the words, "That talking point won't fly" and explaining the importance of truth to our justice system. He was serious, humble, judicious, and fair. I hope they pick up big clips of his statement on the network news tonight and over the weekend. It will help persuade the American people of the importance of this investigation and the seriousness of the misdeeds committed by Libby--and by other players to be named later...

Stolen Thunder

'Star Trek' Actor George Takei Comes Out

Here I thought the most exciting news of the day would be the frog-march of Scooter Libby. But Sulu being gay? That's blockbuster-level stuff!

It is a bit insulting, though, that AP chose this photo as the one to run with the coming out story:


The rose-colored glasses, the fey expression--it's all just a bit too "gay" for a man coming out at age 68. Sort of says, "Duh--why didn't people figure this out on their own?"

[UPDATE: Here's a link to the full interview in which George Takei comes out and discusses his childhood, his partner, and his family. It's a good read.]

Sing a New Song

Leak probe details to be released at noon ET

I think Patrick Fitzgerald has let having a holiday named after him get to his head. Rumor has it he's going to indict Scooter Libby today and continue investigating Karl Rove. This is, of course, a wonderful development, if true: Bad news for Bush today with the promise of more bad news in the future. But it begs the question: Is today really Fitzmas?

I hereby propose that today be declared the "First Day of Fitzmas." As in, "On the first day of Fitzmas, my lawyer gave to me, a Scooter and further scrutiny." We can only hope there will be eleven more days of torture for a White House so willing to inflict it on others.

This sing-song approach to the whole thing also raises a new question: What if Fitzgerald's goal in going bird by bird rather than indicting the whole flock at once is to get one of the birds to sing? Would Libby squawk on Cheney, Rove, and others to save his own feathers?

Hilarious

Flak Magazine: Harriet Miers's Original Intent, 10.27.05

The link above leads to the alleged first draft of the letter Harriet Miers gave to President Bush today. It's quite probably the funniest thing you'll read all day!

Another Possibility

Answered Prayers - How Bush lost the Miers fight. By John Dickerson

John Dickerson offers a good analysis of how the Miers nomination went down in flames, but what's most interesting is something that makes me reconsider my earlier prediction:

Is there any good news in this for the White House? Inside the West Wing, the fever might break: Aides have suffered day after day as Miers' chances diminished; now they can fight for a new, presumably more defensible, pick. Also, a replacement nomination—which officials say may be announced as soon as tomorrow—gives Bush an opportunity to change the story line of conflict inside the GOP. A new choice the right applauds may bring the fractured party back into line. "If he chooses a solid conservative, this is the opportunity he needs to shore up the base on the one issue that unites all," says a senior Republican strategist. "It wont just shore them up—they will be excited because they will think, rightly, they got it done."

Announcing a nominee on the same day his staff is eviscerated by indictments? Sounds like typical Bush to me. In that case, though, it can't be Mahoney...unless he's met with her in secret and determined that he knows her heart and her character. Clement? Jones? Heaven forbid, Brown? We might find out tomorrow...

Reluctant Prediction

Miers withdraws Supreme Court nomination - The Changing Court

I predicted this wouldn't happen until next Wednesday, but here we are. So I'm reluctantly predicting that Wednesday will still be a big day--the day Bush appoints Maureen Mahoney to the Supreme Court. Read her brief bio and you'll see that she's basically John Roberts without the penis--appointed by Bush I to a circuit court, but never given a vote; an impressive record of litigating before the Supreme Court; law clerk to Rehnquist. No one would argue that she's unqualified. Her name has been bandied about on both sides, winning mentions on the mostly left-leaning Slate and the obviously right-wing RedState.org as a strong contender with a good background.

Please note, I'm not saying I would support Mahoney, but she'd be a pick Bush could trot out and compare with Roberts without being laughed out of the room. She'd be confirmed, probably without too much trouble after Miers softened the ground for her.

Justice Served?

Well, it looks like the indictments may wait until tomorrow, meaning this won't be Fitzmas. But we can spend the day celebrating anyhow. Not only are the White Sox champions, but every news agency is reporting that Harriet Miers has withdrawn her name from nomination to the Supreme Court...

Day of Deliverance?

The next 24 hours are shaping up to be great ones for the city of Chicago. Tonight, our White Sox are set to deliver the city from an 88-year curse by winning the World Series--in a sweep, no less. And tomorrow, if some of the rumors flying around are correct, Chicagoan Patrick Fitzgerald is set to deliver the nation from evil, indicting Karl Rove and Scooter Libby. If these two events come to pass, these will be two days long remembered in the city's, and the nation's, history.

Merry Fitzmas Eve!

Paying Attention

Consumer Confidence Unexpectedly Falls

I don't understand how this news is unexpected; even the article refutes its own headline:

"The unexpected decline means optimism is under more pressure than we thought," said Patrick Fearon, senior economist at A.G. Edwards & Sons Inc. Fearon believes all the political uncertainty is also weighing on consumers' confidence.

"There is certainly more going on than just hurricanes and a resulting spike in gasoline prices," said Fearon. He noted President Bush's drop in approval ratings, political unrest in the Middle East and concerns about the Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers "could weigh on people's attitudes."

Three major hurricanes have reminded us we're at the mercy of nature just as home heating prices have risen. Gas prices have dropped, but they're still very high by recent standards. Oh, and people are starting to realize, with Bush's nomination of a crony to the highest court in the land and the rumblings of criminal activity within his White House, that the country, already dangerously off course, is being steered by a bozo. Yeah, that might take a toll on consumer confidence, mightn't it?

I'm Not the Only One

- First Read - MSNBC.com

I'm not the only one who sees the impasse over documents as the Krauthammer strategy at work:

With Bush making it clear on Monday that he won't turn over documents about the decision-making process, Strickland says, some Capitol Hill insiders are privately questioning whether the White House and the Senate are playing out a strategy suggested in a Washington Post column to withdraw Miers' nomination in a manner designed to let all involved save face. Last Friday, conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer, who called Miers' nomination a mistake, laid out the exit strategy that centered on "irreconcilable differences over documents." He wrote of her "honorable" withdrawal, "The Senate cannot confirm her unless is has this information. And the White House cannot allow release of this information lest it jeopardize executive privilege."

Any predictions regarding what day this will all come to an end? I'm hesitant to pick a date, as Patrick Fitzgerald can blow any and all Washington plans to hell on a day of his choosing this week, but I think next Wednesday or so is seeming reasonable. Bush can hardly afford to let the nation see Miers at her Senate hearings if she's performed as badly as reported in her private meetings. Better to lose on "principle" than to lose because your nominee is flat-out unqualified.

Scuttled?

Document dispute snags Miers nomination - The Changing Court

Last week I wrote about the Charles Krauthammer strategy for bringing the Miers debacle to an end. And guess what? It looks like I wasn't the only one to notice.

Yesterday on the Sunday talkers Senators from both parties called for documents from Harriet's time as White House counsel, a request that they just know the Bushies will deny. Besides making hypocrites of the Republicans who wouldn't release memos from the Reagan years but now have no problem requesting documents that could reveal the inner workings of the current administration, this request puts the nomination in an interesting position, as Tom Curry notes:

Bush's statement [refusing to release the requested documents] sets up a standoff that could sink the Miers nomination — because senators won't be able to determine on what issues Miers worked and thus won't be able to figure out on what future cases Miers would need to disqualify herself, if she wins confirmation to the high court.

How far will Bush let this go? And who will he nominate next if he and Harriet finally have the quiet conversation they should have had weeks ago? Senator George Allen mentioned yesterday that he'd have preferred Janice Rogers Brown, Harvie Wilkinson, Michael Luttig, or Karen Williams--and his fellow Republicans likely have plenty more suggestions. Will Bush feel compelled to find another woman, or will he give his base the finger for hurting the feelings of his work wife and nominate Gonzales? We could find out sooner rather than later; Miers looks about as doomed as Scooter Libby right now...[update: Mickey Kaus points out that the rationale being used to scuttle the Miers nomination, executive privilege, will extend to Gonzales as well, meaning he won't be her replacement. Meanwhile, Slate's newly-inaugurated Miers-o-Meter gives her nomination a 75% chance of success. I beg to differ...]

A Wink and a Nod

‘Housewives’: Is prisoner a murderer? - Desperate Housewives

Did anyone else notice that Felicity Huffman danced on top of a bar last night to the same song she once danced to on Sports Night? My boogie shoes, indeed.

Even in Kansas

Kan. Court Nixes Illegal Gay Sex Ruling

No wonder social conservatives hate judges. Even in Kansas--where social issues are a surefire electoral winner--judges refuse to cave in to those who would let the law treat homosexual behavior differently than heterosexual.

While not the ideal case for proclaiming equality, this case, which involved sex between two developmentally-challenged boys, ages 14 and 18, did showcase how far the other side is willing to go. Punishing the 18-year-old with a 17-year sentence rather than a 15-month one because the "victim" of his crime was of the same sex cannot possibly be constitutional. It may be wrong to have sex with anyone that young, but it doesn't suddenly become 13 times more wrong when the two parties have the same genitalia.

Fortunately, the Kansas Supreme Court agreed unanimously, saying, "Moral disapproval of a group cannot be a legitimate state interest." Can we just accept that those words are an appropriate interpretation of every constitution, state or federal, in the nation? It would save us a lot of time.

Mercy

Miers: The Only Exit Strategy

I'm not a fan of Charles Krauthammer, but he has a good idea today for bringing an end to the farce that has been the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. Basically, he suggests that because she has no paper trail, the documents she produced during her time at the White House are the only way for Senators to fairly judge her qualifications. Yet letting the Senate see these documents would violate executive privilege and chill the ability of future staffers to offer candid advice to the president. Thus, we're in a separation-of-powers dilemma: Which branch's needs supersede? Saith Charles:

Hence the perfectly honorable way to solve the conundrum: Miers withdraws out of respect for both the Senate and the executive's prerogatives, the Senate expresses appreciation for this gracious acknowledgment of its needs and responsibilities, and the White House accepts her decision with the deepest regret and with gratitude for Miers's putting preservation of executive prerogative above personal ambition.

Faces saved. And we start again.

Sounds like a plan to me.

Total Control

Russell Shaw: Law Profs. Debate: What Would Happen if O'Connor Takes Back her Resignation? | The Huffington Post

The post above reflects a question I've been asking myself lately: Couldn't Sandra Day O'Connor just stop this whole Miers charade by taking back her resignation?

Leaving aside the fact that O'Connor wants to retire and has valid (family) reasons for doing so, this raises a constitutional question, and in these contentious times, we're going to need an answer eventually: Is it possible for a justice to make his or her retirement conditional not just on the selection of a successor, but an appropriate successor?

Think of it: Poor John Stevens, rather than trying to hold out for a possible Democrat in 2009, could rest his 85-year-old bones AND effectively decide who would replace him. If Bush nominated Michael Luttig, Stevens could withdraw his resignation. Hell, he could send the President a letter that reads, "I hereby submit my resignation, effective upon the confirmation of [insert name of liberal judge or lawyer here] as my successor." Why not? Who can stop him--the Supreme Court? He's on it!

You can see why this could be problematic. Yet most of the experts Russell Shaw polled seem to think O'Connor could pull back her resignation, and that if Bush tried to nominate someone new anyhow, his approval rating would take a dive. Now, I know I wouldn't approve of most of Bush's potential nominees--especially those chosen out of anger that his best gal pal was rejected by the Senate--but still, I can't follow down the dangerous road that allowing a justice to rescind a retirement would represent. Because let's face it, there are worse things than letting Bush pick O'Connor's replacement. Like letting Scalia and Thomas choose theirs.

No Roll

Miers Says She'll Give Senators More Info

I've got to hand it to Arlen Specter and Pat Leahy--they're refusing to roll over for Harriet Miers, and that's a good thing. In essentially handing a student back a paper and telling her to do it over, they've also told her that her answers to many questions are simply unacceptable. Her B.S. response to the question of how she'd deal with cases involving the Bush Administration--considering her current position as its lawyer--was met with a bipartisan "Hell No!" and a demand for more clarity about when she would recuse herself from cases. Asking how someone would rule may be off limits, but asking her when she would acknowledge herself to have a conflict of interest is a good way to ensure that, even when it's up to her to decide whether to recuse herself, she's made public statements to which she'd be wise to adhere. Considering that she's proven wily enough that Specter says he's looking forward to the hearings, where a stenographer will write down Miers' responses so she can't deny them later, we'll need this kind of clarity if we're to shame her into recusing herself from the inevitable Bush-related cases that will come before her as a justice.

That, of course, assumes that Miers doesn't suddenly realize that she not only forgot to pay her bar dues, she hasn't quite paid her dues to get a seat on the Supreme Court. Considering that she thought Bush was the best governor EVER, though, I have a feeling she'll be raising her right hand and promising to tell the truth soon enough.

New Digital Divide

Subsidize analog TV conversion: senator
Blu-Ray winner in DVD war: industry group

We're moving toward a new digital divide in this country, between people who care about the developments chronicled in the two articles above--and can afford to buy fancy new TVs to take advantage of them--and people who view TV as a mere link to the outside world, essential to have but not worth spending extra for quality.

While I'm on the former side of this divide, I do have sympathy for the latter: The government is planning to make it impossible for you and your old TVs to receive a signal without buying an adapter. If you cared enough about TV to get yourself a digital adapter, and could afford one, you'd just get a new TV!

Of course, government could have solved this problem. It could have told TV makers that they could not sell analog-only TVs after a certain date--a date that should have been set a few years ago. It could have made it clearer to consumers that the cheap analog TVs they were buying in the last few years would become useless without an adapter soon. In exchange for deregulation, it could have required cable companies to offer a low-cost basic package that would ensure that even those on fixed incomes could receive what's currently available over the air, or mandated a special rate for people on Social Security who purchase the lowest tier cable package. (Clearly, if you can afford HBO, you can afford to pay what the cable companies are charging.)

But government, knowing full well that this deadline was looming, did nothing. And a lot of people bought a lot of TVs that will require adapters as a result. Which, apparently, the government will provide. Even I don't like this kind of big government.

At least it looks like the DVD format war will be won by the better competitor. Apparently--much as it pains me to admit this--there are some situations where market forces can work without getting government involved.

Bringing the Funny

The Many Faces of Harriet - Miers supports, opposes, and is neutral on Roe, all within 24 hours! By Dahlia Lithwick

It's been fun--well, not fun, more like amusing in a sad way--to watch the White House and Ms. Miers dance around the matter of her views on abortion, which have been the subject of so many winks and nods these last days and weeks that several eyes and heads in Washington (and in Colorado, and in Texas) are in need of medical care. But at this point, it looks increasingly as if there is no one in any of those three places who has the "political capital" to shepherd this nominee to the Senate floor and get her confirmed. And so, Dahlia calls out the big guns:

So I am begging now. This is embarrassing. End it. Karl Rove: Either plant the 500 pounds of cocaine you keep for such occasions in Miers' car, or trot out some actress to play her bitter, gay ex-lover. You have the power to end this. So do whatever it is you do. But end the unnecessary pain and suffering now, before someone really gets hurt.

I'm for the second option (bitter, gay ex-lover), as it would throw the gay movement, the anti-gay groups, and all of Washington into a simultaneous tizzy. But either way, Lithwick appears to be correct: Even if Miers, cipher though she may be, is the best we can hope for from Bush, her elevation to the Supreme Court is simply inexcuseable, no matter what the rationale. She's not qualified for the job. It doesn't matter if she supports Roe or opposes it or even if she performs back-alley abortions in her spare time. There are plenty of people, and plenty of women, with the legal chops to do the job. Bush should find one and ask his pal to kindly step aside for the good of the country.

Book 'Em, Danno

DeLay Offered Deal Before Indictment

This whole affair is tawdry and pathetic, but it does have its rewards:

DeLay will likely be booked in a Texas county jail this week despite attempts by his attorneys to bypass the fingerprinting and mug shot process.

There's a picture I can't wait to see. It won't quite match the Nick Nolte mug shot, but a picture of Tom DeLay with numbers under his chin will certainly drive home the point that he's a crook, won't it?