Tumblr Icon RSS Icon

Rove Says Obama Can’t ‘Have A Vetting Mistake’ With SCOTUS Nominee…Even Though Bush Had One With Miers

Posted on  

"Rove Says Obama Can’t ‘Have A Vetting Mistake’ With SCOTUS Nominee…Even Though Bush Had One With Miers"

Share:

google plus icon

Yesterday on The O’Reilly Factor, Karl Rove gave his “insights” into the Supreme Court nomination process. Rove talked about how prepared Bush administration officials were when they nominated their two justices and counseled the Obama administration to follow their example. He warned that “they cannot afford to have a vetting mistake after having five cabinet nominations or five administration nominations with tax problems”:

ROVE: I was part of a five party committee that spent years at the White House under President Bush preparing for the moment of the Supreme Court vacancy. We had thick notebooks on all prospects. We had everything from all of their writings and opinions to college transcripts to tax returns to, you know, charity dinner speeches, you name it. We had it. We studied those. It was why it was possible three months after a vacancy occurred to have Chief Justice John Roberts confirm to the Supreme Court. [...]

So I thought it was smart when President Obama said, you know, this is going to take at least six months. Because they do — they cannot afford to have a vetting mistake after having five cabinet nominations or five administration nominations with tax problems. They can’t offer up somebody they’ve not fully and completely vetted. And that takes time.

Watch it:

Rove left out one inconvenient detail: Harriet Miers. Justice Samuel Alito wasn’t Bush’s first choice to fill the vacancy left by Sandra Day O’Connor. Bush chose Miers, saying that her “talent, experience and judicial philosophy make her a superb choice to safeguard the constitutional liberties and equality of all Americans.”

However, Miers’s thin resume beyond being Bush’s loyal friend (she was head of the Texas lottery and a member of the Dallas City Council) generated opposition not only from liberals, but also from conservatives who were embarrassed by the pick. Less than a month after she was nominated, Miers was forced to withdraw her name from consideration.

Heckuva job, Rove.

Transcript:

O’REILLY: I only have two minutes left and want to get your view. You are expecting a liberal Supreme Court justice, of course, coming down the road.

ROVE: Absolutely.

O’REILLY: Any insights into that?

ROVE: Well, just this. I was part of a five party committee that spent years at the White House under President Bush preparing for the moment of the Supreme Court vacancy. We had thick notebooks on all prospects. We had everything from all of their writings and opinions to college transcripts to tax returns to, you know, charity dinner speeches, you name it. We had it.

We studied those. It was why it was possible three months after a vacancy occurred to have Chief Justice John Roberts confirm to the Supreme Court. The Obama administration, having come in 100-some odd days ago, has probably not had the time to do that kind of exhaustive research.

So I thought it was smart when President Obama said, you know, this is going to take at least six months. Because they do — they cannot afford to have a vetting mistake after having five cabinet nominations or five administration nominations with tax problems. They can’t offer up somebody they’ve not fully and completely vetted. And that takes time.

But to me, there are a couple of interesting points. Barack Obama has a problem in that he voted against two highly qualified nominees of President George W. Bush to the Supreme Court. Roberts and Alito. He did he so, after he Senator Obama said they were qualified, had the right temperament. Had the respect for presidents. Were — had great passion for the law. It was very laudatory of him. But yet, he voted against them.

So having voted against qualified mainstream conservative recommendations, nominees of a conservative president, he can’t turn around now as president and say a well-qualified liberal nominee ought to be given the same benefit of the doubt. Because he didn’t give them the benefit of the doubt. He also voted for a filibuster of Sam Alito. So he cannot say my nominee automatically deserves an up or down vote on the floor of the United States Senate because he himself refused to give an up or down vote on Sam Alito.

« »

By clicking and submitting a comment I acknowledge the ThinkProgress Privacy Policy and agree to the ThinkProgress Terms of Use. I understand that my comments are also being governed by Facebook, Yahoo, AOL, or Hotmail’s Terms of Use and Privacy Policies as applicable, which can be found here.