Bush Nominates Harriet Miers for Supreme Court

by Scott Shields, Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 11:32:41 AM EST

Bumped--Chris

The news is out this morning that Bush has decided on White House Counsel Harriet Miers to fill Sandra Day O'Connor's seat on the Supreme Court. It's notable that Miers has never served as a judge, so she has even less of a record than John Roberts.

But what immediately jumps out in the wire story about Miers is that she's "a loyal member of the president's inner circle," having served in the past as Bush's personally attorney. We've seen some what some of the other people in his inner circle are capable of, so I personally can't imagine that's a good thing. And another Bush partisan, "Axis of Evil" speechwriter David Frum, wrote on the National Review website about Miers' loyalty that right now is "no time for the president to indulge his loyalty to his friends." He was referring to the fact that Miers once told him that Bush "was the most brilliant man she had ever met." I'm supportive of the idea that the President deserves a lot of leeway to pick Supreme Court nominees. But this pick -- no matter what Miers' ideology -- seems to be the most egregious example of Bush cronyism we've seen so far.

Those are my initial thoughts. How about yours?

Update (Jerome): Be sure and check out the comments on RedState's Confirm Them. Gov Dean used to recount (it's in his recent book too) that Bush all along was faking it to the wingers, telling him something along the lines (when they were both Governors) that "I can't stand those nuts". This is cronyism, sure, typical Bush-like, choosing the chooser. Bush and Rove are beyond caring about what the public thinks, including the cons. It's obvious that Miers isn't a movemement conservative (she gave money to Bentson & Gore in the late 80's). Apparently she's on the Dems "no filibuster" list (laugh along as the cons cry about betrayal and cut loose). If she turns out to be a true conservative, it won't come out until after the next mid-term; let the damage be done.




Tags: Judges (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 81 Comments :: Post a Comment


Miers = Another Inexperienced Crony (none / 0)

With the problems Bush has had of late with such people, I'd highlight this fact.
by dpANDREWS on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 08:13:59 AM EST

Re: Miers = Another Inexperienced Crony (none / 0)

I have it on good authority that she knows how to spell FEMA.  So obviously she's qualified for the job.

If confirmed, she will even learn how to spell Supreme Court.

by Paul Rosenberg on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 10:19:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Miers = Another Inexperienced Crony (none / 0)

There's no question - this should be the early democratic buzz.  Lay the groundwork for hammering her (and him) if after closer examination she looks to be as terrible as many of his other crony picks.  Lay the groundwork now, while Brownie is still fresh road kill.

Yes, cronyism, cronyism, cronyism.  Expressed first as a "concern," then progressively more forcefully as warranted.

But let the right publicly froth at the mouth a little, if that's their wont.  This qualifications point can be made at medium volume at first, to set things up but not drown out the right's self-immolation.

by arenwin on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 10:31:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Affirmative Action for rich white Texans (3.00 / 1)

This is almost comically bad timing; more evidence that Rove et al have gone completely tone-deaf in recent months. Americans like to pretend that there's no class strafication here and that the smartest, best qualified person gets picked for the job. Of course it's a lie, and people have suddenly had to confront that reality (Brownie) with cronyism as the lead story in the news for weeks. So why on earth would you choose a Supreme Court pick that just reinforces the exact same theme?

The message this pick sends to the right-wing base is that A) I value my friends in the Texas business community more than I value the conservative movement, B) I'll use the religious right to get elected and then turn my back on them when the chips are down, and C) I'm more afraid of Harry Reid, to the extent that I'll go along with his pre-selected moderate pick, than I'm afraid of consequences from double-crossing the religious right. He really seems like he's making it his main goal to beat Richard Nixon's 1973 disapprove numbers; there's no way to do that without giving the finger to his unshakable base and now he's doing it.

So I haven't actually addressed how I feel about her... Is she dangerously underqualified for the job? Yes. Is she a movement conservative? No, like Roberts, she's a corporate lawyer and from the pro-business wing of the party, and she's being put on the Court to enhance executive power and chip away at the Commerce Clause; the social issues stuff is just an annoying afterthought to them. Do we filibuster her? Ha! Let Brownback and Santorum do it for us. Do we oppose her? Hell if I know; she doesn't have a record. Let's just hammer on the "cronyism" theme (which is a lot easier for the general public to understand and get pissed about than the Commerce Clause) over and over until the hearings, while letting the pro-business and Christofascist wings of the GOP beat the crap out of each other.

by Crazy Vaclav on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 01:27:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Bingo! n/t (none / 0)


by Seldom Seen Smith on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:45:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hack/Crony/Insider (none / 0)

In a town where the best pick up line is, "I work for..." it's still suprising to me how much Bush is willing to play into that paradigm.
by Kombiz Lavasany on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 08:19:58 AM EST

Re: Hack/Crony/Insider (none / 0)

I agree. To me, this looks like a complete no-brainer for Democrats: Bush cares more about rewarding friends than serving the country. With "Brownie" still fresh in everyone's mind, this should resonate, no?

And I don't think we should spend too much time trying to decide just how conservative she really is or whether she would vote to repeal Roe v. Wade or how bad she'd be for the environment. From first impressions, she looks completely unqualifed. And if so, she shouldn't be on the SC no matter what her politics are. Isn't that a principle we should support?

by Omark on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 09:23:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hack/Crony/Insider (3.00 / 1)

She's qualified to rip the supreme court apart. Remember, this is the person who quashed the lawsuit against tillwin and the state Lottery of Texas when they found out Ben Barnes would tattle on Bush's record if it went past deposition.

She works for Bush and Karl Rove, day in, day out.
She is a virus that will consume the court.

by turnerbroadcasting on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 01:23:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

huh (3.00 / 1)

It's just plain bizarre that this guy gets sucked into the process, and winds up choosing the chooser
Miers has been leading the White House effort to help Bush choose nominees to the Supreme Court, so getting the nod herself duplicates a move that Bush made in 2000 when he tapped the man leading his search committee for a vice presidential running mate Dick Cheney.

by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 08:21:00 AM EST

That's What We Get For Letting Cheney Get In (3.00 / 1)

Cheney choosing himself should have been the straw that broke Bush's back in the 2000 campaign.  The failure to expose the folly and outrage of this move is what made this possible, or even, one might argue, inevitable.
by Paul Rosenberg on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 10:22:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Sam Brownback (none / 0)

I read where Sam had sent a letter to Bush during the Robert's hearings asking that the next nominee be more clear on certain positions, such as RvW.

I have to wonder if rightwing conservatives will wink and nod and take Dubya's word that Miers "has a good heart" or if they will want to hear more from her than they heard from Roberts.

by dpANDREWS on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 08:21:31 AM EST

Most brilliant man (3.00 / 0)

She seemed rather vacant to me in her acceptance.  To think that the dimmest light ever to inhabit the White House was referred to by her as the "most brilliant man I've ever met" is truly frightening.  The real tragedy is that I see real difficulty ahead in getting a fillibuster off the ground under the circumstances.  Maybe he is the most brilliant... no, nevermind....
by nytrialman on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 08:27:24 AM EST

Scalia could intimidate her? (none / 0)

She doesn't seem to be a looney right winger like Thomas, but she does seem to be someone - judging by her assessment of Bush as the most brilliant President - who could be swayed by strong personalities like Scalia and be their defacto extra vote.
by Pravin on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 10:23:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Most brilliant in his smart apparent stupidity? (none / 0)

OMG! She really said that??

But lets talk about something more meaningful here.. I doubt if Bush is really the man in charge.. Why put someone in charge who is subjected to elections and term limits? Who is visible and hence, vulnerable to assasination by enemies.. The power brokers are not that dumb..

In totalitarian countries, the 'inner circle' or as Arendt said, "onion-skinned" (The Origins of Totlaitarianism) structure is always how it is done.. The external government structures, the ones you see, never have any power, and are just for show.. They typically have two or three organizations fulfilling each function, with the visible ones having zero power, and the inner, secret apparatus actually running the show.. But the bureaucrats in the missions, parties, etc.. never realize that they are just spinning their wheels... In a setup like this, a 'promotion' is usually a demotion, someone may get what appears to be a plum position, like president of the national bank.. or .... but they are actually being escorted out of the secret inner circle and into the powerless bureaucracy..

Thats how the Nazis, how Stalin, how China still does things.. Why would it be different here, the biggest one of them all?

Under that analysis, both the Dem and GOP parties would be fakes.. neither having any real power.. But thinking they had..

Judges still have a marginal amount of power to effect things, even though the agencies that are supposed to enforce their decisions are increasingly powerless.. so their loyalty to Cheney, the Federalist Society, etc. (or whatever the real power party is called) is still very important..

At least, this is my gut feeling...

Maybe Bush is the most brilliant Pres. in the rEagan sense in that he does it by playing dumb..

Notice how Reagan became conveniently hard of hearing when anyone asked him a difficult question?  Later on, everyone attributed it to Alzheimers, too.. which improved his place in history.. everyine forgetting about Iran-Contra, the funding of the death squads, etc..

by ultraworld on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 10:53:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

This is a problem... (none / 0)

Unfortunately, Harry Reid urged Bush to pick Miers according to the AP.  If this is true, this will make it much harder.  I got to give Bush credit, he may be an incompetent moron, but at this point if Miers is confirmed, we have no idea WHAT will happen on the SCOTUS and that makes it harder to fight.  We don't know if R v W will be overturned or what else will happen.

I don't like this pick.  Roberts at least had a limited judicial experience AND had argued in front of the Scotus as a lawyer numerous times.  Credentials wise, this was impressive... even if it doesn't prove he would be a good judge.  A bush crony with no judicial experience is not a good pick.  I won't go into the thoughts on the fact Bush's inner circle is mostly women and why, but I have to agree... We have seen just how good Brownie and Rumsfeld have done in office.

I guess the one good thing is she is 60 instead of 50.

by yitbos96bb on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 08:37:19 AM EST

Re: This is a problem... (none / 0)

Unfortunately, Harry Reid urged Bush to pick Miers according to the AP

Please tell me you are kidding...or read that wrong...link?

Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.
by Parker on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 08:54:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is a problem... (none / 0)

Here is the AP link

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BUSH_SCOTUS?SITE=NDBIS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

by Bob Miller on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 09:03:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is a problem... (none / 0)

Yep.  I like Reid so much that it made me wonder if she might not be all that bad, despite the fact that everything else I know about her says that she is all that bad.

But not what it says:


"Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., had urged the administration to consider Miers, two congressional officials said."

"Two Congressional Officials" who are identified by neither name nor party.

I also mentioned this little find over on kos:

 According to an article in last December's Newsweek, one of Tom Delay's "questionable contributions" came from the law firm that Miers headed.

"Among the contributions at issue: a $1,000 check in 2001 from superlobbyist Vin Weber, whose clients included Microsoft and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers; and $2,500 that same year from Locke Liddell & Sapp, the Texas law firm formerly headed by Harriet Miers (who was recently named White House counsel), which was then representing Burlington Northern Santa Fe."

This has the potential to turn into a real media stench.

by ignatz on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 09:10:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

How So? (1.00 / 1)

If the contribution was in 2001, Miers had probably already left the firm, although news reports are somewhat imprecise as to exactly when she did that. Weber is a former Congressman from Minnesota who probably works out of DC with his own agenda. What would be unusual or improper in his contributing to Delay?
by SLinVA on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 09:25:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is a problem... (none / 0)


MINORITY RETORT
How a pro-gun, anti-abortion Nevadan leads the Senate's Democrats.
by ELSA WALSH
Issue of 2005-08-08 and 15
Posted 2005-08-01

About twenty minutes before President Bush announced that John G. Roberts, Jr., was his choice to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court, he telephoned Harry Reid, of Nevada, the Senate Minority Leader. As Reid recalls the brief conversation, Bush said, "This guy is really smart, and you'll like him." Reid replied, "I hope so," and added that, during the search, he had enjoyed working with the White House legal counsel, Harriet Miers. (A few days earlier, Reid had met with Miers and had suggested ways to avoid a divisive confirmation process.) Mentioning her name, Reid said, was a signal--his way of telling Bush, "Thanks for not giving us any of these crazies."

The New Yorker
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050808fa_fact

by thesleepthief on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 12:21:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It over Reid has already capitulated (none / 0)

Reid's full pathetic statement:

Text STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARRY REID ON THE NOMINATION OF HARRIET MIERS TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT
Monday, October 3, 2005

"I like Harriet Miers. As White House Counsel, she has worked with me in a courteous and professional manner. I am also impressed with the fact that she was a trailblazer for women as managing partner of a major Dallas law firm and as the first woman president of the Texas Bar Association


Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.
by Parker on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 12:40:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It over Reid has already capitulated (none / 0)

I don't think capitulation is the right word.  I think "complicit" - it seems like rumours were correct, and he did pre-approve this one.  Too positive a statement, coming out too quickly, to think otherwise.

Hopefully, Reid knows what he's talking about (although I know you don't think so, Parker).

by arenwin on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 12:48:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It over Reid has already capitulated (none / 0)

Harry Reid bent over...

How they can degrade the Supreme Court in this manner is unbelievable...

Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.
by Parker on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 01:03:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It over Reid has already capitulated (none / 0)

So Parker who would you choose as the party leader since Reid is not on your list, is there any Democrat you like.
by THE MODERATE on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 01:10:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It over Reid has already capitulated (none / 0)

I am sure you are enjoyng this...you will get your wish of criminalizing abortion.
Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.
by Parker on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 01:34:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It over Reid has already capitulated (none / 0)

Parker we are a long way between here and there, but I will make it easy on you what Democratic Senator do you like.
by THE MODERATE on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 01:47:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It over Reid has already capitulated (none / 0)

Parker we are a long way between here and there

You insist on keeping yourself ignorant of the facts.

A t*eenage boy convicted of striking his girlfriend with a baseball bat to end her pregnancy* has been sentenced to 200 hours of community service at a pro-life pregnancy center, drawing objections from his lawyer and his family.

...

Lawyer Miranda Massie said it was the teens' call to a similar pregnancy center that led to their decision to terminate their pregnancy in the first place.

"There are plenty of places he could do (for community service) that provide an unbiased, non-religious, non-sectarian view of women's options," Massie said.

"These kids called a place like this and got factually inaccurate information about what their options were. It's part of what led them into taking the actions they took into feeling they had no other option but to attempt a back-alley abortion."

It is already happening and now Democrats for Life will introduce a bill sponsored by Ryan to federally fund these sham clinics.

Yes, Reid is capitulating on purpose and he knows that Roberts and Miers are anti-abortion.

Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.
by Parker on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 01:57:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It over Reid has already capitulated (none / 0)

LINK
Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.
by Parker on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 01:57:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Priests for Life Calls for Swift Confirmation (none / 0)

WASHINGTON, Oct. 3 U.S. Newswire -- Fr. Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life and president of the National Pro-life Religious Council, thanked President Bush this morning for nominating a replacement for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in a timely manner, and called upon the Senate to do its work in an expeditious way as well.

"Our prayers are with Harriet Miers this morning as she begins this important process. We trust the President's judgment and his determination to fulfill his promises about the kind of Justices he wants to see on the Court.

"It is the judgment of certain liberal Senators, however, that gives us more concern. The demand that some make for preserving the current ideological balance on the Court, or for more "mainstream" nominees, is ridiculous. Do we have a more "mainstream" Constitution in some generations but not in others? Or do they think it is up to the Justices to re-write the Constitution? In short, there is no Constitutional requirement that Justice O'Connor's replacement should be a clone of Justice O'Connor.

"The place for arguments about ideology and mainstream positions is in political races. For the purposes of confirming nominees to the Court, the focus should be on qualifications to be a Justice, not on personal views on controversial issues."

For more information, visit http://www.priestsforlife.org.  


Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.
by Parker on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:22:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I wonder if Fitzgerald (none / 0)

has her on the indictments roster. Same team, non?
by totoRULES on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 08:37:55 AM EST

re: choosing the chooser (none / 0)


Miers has been leading the White House effort to help Bush choose nominees to the Supreme Court

It's just plain bizarre that this guy gets sucked into the process, and winds up choosing the chooser


Bush is a very shallow guy.  The only way he know to evaluate people is whether he feels comfortable interacting with them.  Given this woman's reputation as someone who goes all out for her clients it is hard to know what she really thinks about anything aside from representing and reflecting the ideas of the person she is representing at the moment.  Presumably Bush thinks that she agrees with him on everything, but perhaps he just does not have enough worldly insight to understand when she is acting as his lawyer and just reflecting what she knows he thinks.

I think that unless this woman is able to talk freely about her own opinions on a lot of critical issues, in particular choice and privacy, the Democrats should put their food down and force the Republicans to change the rules to get her confirmed. If "exceptional circumstances" means anything at all it should include the President selecting his own personal attorney who has no paper trail that can be discovered, and no relevant experience.

Of course in a post-nuclear Senate the Democrats would have to start acting like a real opposition party, but that is long overdue.

by Fred in Vermont on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 08:39:47 AM EST

At least (3.00 / 0)

At least she's not Janice Rogers-Brown or Priscilla Owen.

I think the Right is more upset with this pick than we are, and we should let them deal the blows.  Harriet, at age 60, isn't likely to leave as much of an impression on the Court as one of the aforementioned judges.

by HoosierJosh on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 08:55:02 AM EST

No Scalia or Thomas (none / 0)

I do think Bush could find himself in hot water with the base over this one.   He didn't keep his campaign promise.  

I don't have a good feeling over how democrats will play thing one.   Especially with 2006 and 2008 factoring in.  But my hope (probably all it is) is that the right will show some cracks on this one, and we democrats won't look like obstructionists.

by dpANDREWS on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 08:59:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Scalia or Thomas (none / 0)

Isn't this the same stunt Redstate pulled over Roberts... I seem to remember the Redstaters having their knickers in a twist about Roberts not living up to the conservative ideology...untill that is Roberts was selected to be Chief Justice and suddenly he was conservative enough.

Frankly, since we have unofficially become a one party nation... Redstate's Kabuki dance is just performed to help the Democratic leadership get the Democratic base on board for another eventual capitulation...

Redstaters follow orders much better than the left's blogosphere...perhaps it is because the GOP leadership panders to their base whereas ours can't wait to sell us off.

Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.
by Parker on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 09:04:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Scalia or Thomas (none / 0)

To be honest, Red State is still not overly happy with Roberts. I think Red State is the most palatable window into the social right wing that any of us will ever see. What people post at Red State is what right wingnuts are saying privately everywhere. Sure, they all came together publicly to back Bush. But privately they had, and still have, doubts. They really do think Bush betrayed them by not picking a blatant Scalia or Thomas type. They think they worked for a known quantity, and somebody they could go to the mattresses with. They were ready for Janice Rogers Brown and the nuclear option. Their sighs of deflation over this are real.
by elrod on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 09:36:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Scalia or Thomas (1.00 / 1)

Freepers get "Talking Points"...

They performed the same Kabuki dance about Roberts not being conservative enough for O'Connors post...until he was nominated for arch conservative Renquist's post and suddenly he was conservative enough...

The GOP has mastered the art of reverse psychology on Democrats...

Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.
by Parker on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 10:30:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Scalia or Thomas (none / 0)

I think you've mastered that art on yourself.
by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 10:52:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Scalia or Thomas (1.00 / 1)

Perhaps I need Rosenberg's "Think Tank" to tell me what to think....
Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.
by Parker on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 10:53:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Scalia or Thomas (none / 0)

You need a tank to tell you what to think?
by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 10:58:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It is the same ploy they used for Roberts (none / 0)

Remember this:

This revelation comes on top of one early this month that Roberts did pro bono work helping a gay rights attorney argue before the Supreme Court that a Colorado law discriminated against homosexuals.

Such revelations are likely to further worry conservatives who are concerned that Roberts may be the next David Souter -- a man who appeared to be conservative as a nominee, but turned out much more liberal when he actually became a justice.

At the exact same time, though, liberals continue to fret that Roberts really is a dyed-in-the-wool social conservative who will help carry the court to the right.  

and this

Even so, reports of his involvement echoed on conservative talk shows Thursday, generating outrage and disbelief. "There's no question this is going to upset people on the right," Rush Limbaugh told his radio listeners. "There's no question the people on the right are going to say: `Wait a minute. Wait a minute! The guy is doing pro bono work and helping gay activists?'

and this


Hmmm.

"What do I think of him? Beats me. Just searched his hearing transcripts on the right to bear arms and found nothing. How is he on federalism and other limits on government power? Beats me again."

Great. O'Connor with a penis.

I'm supposed to be happy about this?

7 of the 9 Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republicans. 3 of them are acceptable, which shows you how incompetent Republicans are at choosing judges.

Frankly this conservative is completely underwhelmed.Bush might think he's got some sort of mojo going on, but if Roberts doesn't turn out to be a solid conservative, and not another O'Connor, then the GOP is screwed.

I know a lot of conservatives who have been adding up the support given, and lack of results received from the GOP. I've been asking a lot of conservatives to name which issues or agendas the GOP has come through on for conservatives.

It's a damn small list.

Sigh. F***ed by the GOP, yet again. I'm done. The GOP's donation letters go into the trash and the next time I vote might be 2008 or maybe 2010. The GOP better not expect me to give a rat's ass about them in 2006.


Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.
by Parker on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 03:25:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Scalia or Thomas (3.00 / 2)

I'm a fairly conservative person who reads this site regularly but rarely posts.  In case you were curious, conservatives are, at best, baffled by the pick, and at worst bitterly disappointed.  Miers may, or may not, turn out to be a conservative vote on the SCOTUS. But she is most certainly a calamitous pick in political terms. To the President's base, who gave their money and time and energy, who were promised justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas, he has given the back of his hand. To independents, who suspect that the President's loyalty to his people is excessive rather than admirable, and who also suspect that he elevates personal connections over qualifications (FEMA anyone?), he has given powerful evidence to feed these doubts. And to the left, who have fought him at every turn for the past five years, he has given the most damning message of all, the message that no President can afford to give with three years remaining in his second term - that he fears them, and that he is weak.  For many conservatives, the President, with this pick, has forfeited their trust.  
by Mose on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 10:46:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Scalia or Thomas (none / 0)

Thanks for the Kabuki dance...
Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.
by Parker on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 10:54:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The old left-right way of defining politics is (none / 0)

really showing its age..

I think what we have now is a lot of people who really don't believe in democratic government (call them crony-anarchists or neo-fascists or something like that) and they are fighting ALL of us who do beleive in democracy but who might misunderstand each other profoundly on many social issues.. (but who often have similar end goals..if you can get away from the most shortsighted positions of both sides)

I think those of us who beleive in democracy and who don't want to see the US transformed into a poroto-fascist state need to see the long term issues here.. The people we are fighting don't see the US so much as a nation as much as another colonial territory to rape economically.. They don't give one whit about the future of the American people, except as far as their own finances are concerned.. And they are really dangerous, because they are selling everyhing this nation has ove value - our securities on so many levels, off to the lowest bidder.. and pocketing the proceeds for themselves..

Just their little bit of revenge for the New Deal and for fighting their buddies in Germany in WWII?

by ultraworld on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 11:03:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Wrong link for elder Bush bio with... (none / 0)

Use this link for the Tarpley Bush book..

http://www.tarpley.net/bushb.htm

by ultraworld on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 11:06:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: At least (none / 0)

I've been saying this everywhere possible today, including on this site.

We should support this nominee and help drive the wedge between moderate and right-wing Republicans.  This is a great opportunity for us.

by clussman on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 02:44:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

RedState.org Going Nuts (none / 0)

Surfing some blogs, it appears that Miers gave money to the DNC and Al Gore it times past. Redstate.Org is asking, "Where is our Scalia/Thomas?"

We do share a common belief with the bloggers on the red side: George Bush has spent the future.

by Bob Miller on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 09:00:46 AM EST

Freepers not happy either (none / 0)

Was just checking out Free Republic, especially the link to the AP story, before she was offically named.   A lot of people were wishing it wasn't true.
by dpANDREWS on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 09:20:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Freepers not happy either (none / 0)

But somebody there could come back and say, "Hatch recommended Ginsburg, and she's a tried and true liberal. Maybe Miers will be Bush's Ginsburg, recommended by a Dem, but solid for conservatives."
by elrod on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 09:39:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm going to write a diary on this one (none / 0)

I have a lock on whats going on that the news people have missed. Unlike john roberts, which I basically felt ok with - this nominee is baddd news.
Read my diary, it will have a scoop in there that will knock your sox off.

by turnerbroadcasting on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 09:19:42 AM EST

Re: I'm going to write a diary on this one (none / 0)

Recommended Reading!
by Bob Miller on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 10:43:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm going to write a diary on this one (none / 0)

FYI here's the link -

http://turnerbroadcasting.mydd.com/

by turnerbroadcasting on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 01:30:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Filibuster what? (none / 0)

Does anyone know what she believes?  What kind of justice she would be?  Sure, there is the "if he likes her, she can't be any good" reasoning.  But wouldn't that be true of Stevens, O'Connor and Souter (and, to a lesser degree, Kennedy)?  

At this point I would suggest we marvel in the fact that Bush has given us something that will piss off the religiouz conservatives and intellectual conservatives.  Even the fact that Reid suggested her will give some the opportunity to say "He listens to Reid more than he listens to Brownback."

If she can't handle herself as well as Roberts (which I doubt she can because he handled the process exceedingly well) and she believes something nutty, she will say it and there may not be a need to filibuster.  Personally, my dream is that Brownback gets a couple of others liquored up and they filibuster her.  pinch me.

by comotion on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 09:26:17 AM EST

Re: Filibuster what? (none / 0)

My guess is she was pre-approved.   At least by the gang of 14.  There is no filibuster coming on this.  

Again, I agree with Pat Buchanan (yikes!)that "there are consequences to losing elections."  We can't oppose someone just because Bush picked them.   In this case we probably did about as well as we could have hoped.  She is no Scalia or Thomas or Luttig.

But I love your point.  The rightwing base can't be happy and that just means more trouble for Bush.

by dpANDREWS on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 09:41:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Filibuster what? (none / 0)

Dream on, if you think she can't be stopped. Filibusters can come from both sides of the aisle and fortunately for America that stupid line of control Karl Rove has been abusing all these years is falling apart. The conservatives don't like her, and I don't like her. The democrats may be purring like pussies now but lets find out the real story.
by turnerbroadcasting on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 01:32:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Filibuster what? (none / 0)

Well if NOBODY likes this pick, then there is no need to filibuster- she simply wont win 50 votes. I think this goes down to the "what the hell were they thinking?!?" file for President Bush. I know Sen. Reid approves the nomination, but I'll be damned if Democrats dont scream "Cronyism" at the top of their lungs. This woman has never even been a judge before.
by AC4508 on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:37:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Filibuster what? (none / 0)

"This woman has never even been a judge before."

So?

I'm tired of everyone thinking you have to had gone to Yale or Harvard to lead this country.  And I think that's the REAL problem people have with this nominee.  I hate Bush, but I, like Reid, applaud the choice of someone outside of the overrated Ivy League.  I just hope she's a moderate.

McCain is defining Obama, and Obama is neither defining himself, nor McCain. This is awful.
by jgarcia on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:49:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Filibuster what? (none / 0)

No, the problem isn't her law degree from Southern Methodist University, or even per se her lack of time as a judge (although that is worrysome.)

The problem is that, in addition to having no experience as a judge, she also appears to have no significant experience in constitutional law.  It does not appear to have been an important part of her Texas practice.  She never argued a Supreme Court case.  She never clerked above the federal district court level.  Never worked in the Justice Dept, which deals with the full range of constitutional and other federal legal issues (unlike the White House Counsel's office, which is narrower).

That's the problem.  This isn't about Ivy League snootyness.  It's about showing some indication of experience - judicial or non-judicial - qualifying her to have final word on complex issues of federal and constitutional law.  Maybe I could be convinced!  But a few months as White House Counsel by itself isn't enough, and a general private practice, no matter how distinguished... well, we'll see when the details come out.

by arenwin on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 07:29:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Harry Reid pre-approved (none / 0)

Picking up on what somone posted below, ABC's 'The Note' is saying:

"One senior Democratic source on Capitol Hill confirms to ABC News that Democratic Leader Harry Reid signaled to Bush that Miers would be acceptable. "

by dpANDREWS on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 10:07:01 AM EST

Re: Harry Reid pre-approved (none / 0)

I don't trust The Note.  They're a bunch of freakin' hacks, as far as I'm concerned.

But, this rumour has certainly been circulating in the press (as ignatz points out, without official confirmation).  I'm one of those who has a great deal of admiration for Reid, despite some positions that I disagree with.

So, I'll wait and see.  If it's true that Reid thinks this one is OK, I'll be very, very interested to hear the reasons.  Although I don't give Bush the benefit of ANY doubt, I will give Reid some.

by arenwin on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 10:16:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

the redstaters reading the tea leaves (none / 0)

On RedState and confirmthem, they're trying to read the tea leaves over some 1993 attempt by Miers to get the full membership rather than just the exec committee of the ABA voting on their Roe stance.  Supposedly illustrates her anti-Roe inclinations.

Even some of them seem to realize that this is a little like reading tea leaves.  There's clear disappointment - they didn't want to have to grasp at straws to figure out whether they got their conservative or not.

But I am curious about this 1993 ABA thing, too.  Anyone have more background on this?

by arenwin on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 10:25:28 AM EST

She has a track record (none / 0)

It's just as an attorney, not as a judge.  Surely some of our friends in Texas can research what kind of clients she represented, what positions she adopted in briefs, etc.  Something interesting (pro or con) may come to light.  I'm not going to be satisfied with anyone this nitwit nominates to the bench, but I kind of like the idea that she's a litigator with actual courtroom experience, which I think is better preparation for the bench than, say, an academic or political career.  Also, her assessment of W's "brilliance" notwithstanding, you don't get to be managing partner of a 200+ law firm unless you've got something on the ball--it's not a figurehead job.  So while she's certainly susceptible to the crony charge, I doubt that attacking her competence and experience will be worthwhile.
by lonemorriscodem on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 10:37:34 AM EST

Re: She has a track record (none / 0)

Attacking her competence and experience is certainly worthwhile.  A partner at a law firm does not equate to a Supreme Court justice.  
by Eric11 on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 10:50:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She has a track record (3.00 / 1)

Presuming that it's a good idea to go after Miers, I would say there are three advantages to the cronyism argument:

  1.  It's timely given recent events, and it has the potential to resonate more than I think you allow, because the general public aren't primarily lawyers.  I.e., lawyers probably care more about whether she led a law firm.  My gut says many people are amenable to the argument that a judge should have a judge's resume.

  2.  It's completely off-script.  The right has been preparing the argument for months - including through TV ads - that we'll call anyone on the right an "extremist."  They haven't laid the groundwork so effectively to defend against a charge of cronism, especially given recent events.

  3.  Even people in Bush's base may be swayed by the cronyism argument, given their initial lukewarm-to-negative reception to this nominee.  As someone said upthread, Brownback is probably not happy right now, and he's got to be wondering why it ended up being a close Bush associate rather than a movement conservative.

All of this said, I meant it when I said upthread that I'll reserve judgement.  But as an argument against Miers, cronyism has a lot to recommend it.
by arenwin on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 10:54:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

ATTN: Left Wing Kooks (2.00 / 3)

Please do not squander your meagre political capital on trying to block this nominee as you did with Roberts. Accept this nominee for what it is, a gift horse. If you want to get riled up, get riled up about the environment, especially the gluttony of your fellow citizens.
by Paul Goodman on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 11:10:02 AM EST

Re: ATTN: Left Wing Kooks (3.00 / 2)

Accepting Miers nomination is like accepting Karl Rove to the supreme court - she has been behind the scenes, she plays a role in almost every major scandal. This is the person who tells George W. Bush that everything he does is legal.

Torture innocent people. Snort coke and carry it in your car. FedEx the Bin Laden family back to Saudi Arabia. Steal money from Harkin Energy.  Distance yourself from Kenny Boy Lay and that Enron company.

Her advice has guided Bush. Karl Rove looks to her to find out what he can get away with , when he scumbarges people.

Appoint her. Appoint Rove. Thats my view.
I oppose her nomination fully and completely. Apart from being unqualified, thats the least of my worries.

We are seeing a no bid contract awarded to a business pal for the supreme court to be sure. But its a business pal that will make sure you get the deal you want when you get there.

No thanks. Bush doesn't deserve to be able to put just anyone on the supreme court. I oppose Bolton, liked Roberts, but am going to oppose Mier.

by turnerbroadcasting on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 01:21:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

turner, (none / 0)

I can safely say that I've never been as proud of you as I am today. But you need to be linking to this mofo.

While I'm at it, I'll link to mine.

Yeah, I'm cynical.
by catastrophile on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 05:07:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Miers called Bush 'most brilliant man' (none / 0)

Harriet Miers called Bush the 'most brilliant man she has ever met'??????? Miers: pro-life, helped Bush with air national guard case, former board member of EXODUS Ministries (religious righties try to change sexual orientation of gay men to straight), and of course this smacks of cronyism!

http://stubbornliberal.blogspot.com

by Marie Smith on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 11:11:43 AM EST

Re: Miers called Bush 'most brilliant man' (none / 0)

There are two Exodus Ministries, apparently, and the one that she's affiliated with is this one, which is oriented toward helping former offenders re-enter society. Granted, it's faith-based, but it doesn't seem to be flamingly right-wing (they don't seem to have their own website, but if you Google them, most of the hits seem to be from mainstream links like Presbyterian and Episcopal churches and from Dallas law firms (including Locke Liddell) and the local bar association).
by Crazy Vaclav on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 01:09:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Miers called Bush 'most brilliant man' (3.00 / 0)

Separation of Church and state doesn't mean that you don't go to church or help out with charities.

But faith based organizations are trying to take government money - the State was never supposed to fund churches. Thats a fundamental thing.

I think churches are wonderful but she's out there to blur the line between church and state, guaranteed.

by turnerbroadcasting on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 01:35:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

At least an inkling of good news (3.00 / 1)

Even my most conservative nutjob coworker (and friend/business partner) just said that he questions this choice.  He just wished he could have chosen someone that hadn't simply been kissing his ass for years.  Now he is still going to defend Bush if I confront him but at least its a sign that they see him for what he is as well.  They just don't admit it.
"So this is how liberty dies...to thunderous applause." Padme, Star Wars Episode III
by jrflorida on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 11:55:52 AM EST

Re: At least an inkling of good news (none / 0)

Why confront him about Bush? Thats what Karl Rove wants. Why not instead call a spade a spade and talk about how Karl Rove effes up everything he touches. Tell him how we all voted Bush to be in power, so he could be a strong leader and Karl Rove sends him off to meet business peeps in San Diego when Katrina strikes just because and I QUOTE ROVE "It might not be good to be seen helping a member of the opposite party and the opposite sex."

So 1/5 of the American economy,the federal government, awards a no-bid contract to rebuild louisiana and now they are awarding no-bid contracts for supreme court justice seats...

Anyone think Rove will tell Bush to say she's
doing a "heck of a job" ?

by turnerbroadcasting on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 01:38:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Supreme Court Clean Skins (none / 0)

It strikes me that both Roberts and Miers have deliberately been picked for their lack of judicial records, much like al Qaeda picks operatives with no terrorist connection -- clean skins -- to perpetrate suicide attacks without alerting the authorities.
by Nannystate on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 12:02:43 PM EST

Re: Supreme Court Clean Skins (none / 0)

She has skeletons in her closet.

http://turnerbroadcasting.mydd.com

by turnerbroadcasting on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 01:38:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Harriet Miers' Supreme Opportunism (none / 0)


The nomination of Harriet Miers as the replacement for Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has united liberals and conservatives in ways few thought possible. Democrats fear she is a stealth arch-conservative. But it is Republicans fellow-travelers like Michelle Malkin, Bill Kristol and David Frum who seem most horrified. They are simply astounded that Bush confirmed Americans' worst fears that he values cronyism over qualification.

For the details, see:

"Harriet Miers' Supreme Opportunism."

by AvengingAngel on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 01:00:07 PM EST

Re: Harriet Miers' Supreme Opportunism (none / 0)

I'm kind of expecting Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, Sam Brownback, and Rick Santorum to join hands and filibuster her together (albeit for totally different reasons). If that happened, I think we'd be able to pinpoint the exact moment when the Bush presidency jumped the shark.
by Crazy Vaclav on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 01:32:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Harriet Miers' Supreme Opportunism (none / 0)

Santorum would be a double idiot to oppose this nominee..he's facing electoral defeat next fall, the last thing he needs is for Bush to abandon him
by dantata on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:32:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Bush, Rove don't want Roe v Wade to be overturned (3.00 / 2)

What the conservative base may just be waking up to is the fact that they've been used and taken as fools by Bush and Rove.   Rove realizes that Roe v Wade being overturned would be a political nightmare for the GOP.  I don't think (like others of his social class and upbringing) that Bush really care about the issue, but pays lip service to the pro-lifers to win their votes.  I think Roberts and Meirs were picked because they will probably vote to uphold Roe v Wade (and afirmitive action), while being reliably conservative on constitutional issues that Bush and his financial backers really care about, like the Commerce Clause.  As usual, the social conservatives are suckers, maybe one day they'll realize their Reepublican voting patterns are futile.  I wouldn't bet on it, though.
by ctd72 on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 03:00:48 PM EST

Re: Bush, Rove don't want Roe v Wade to be overtur (none / 0)

God you and I are soulmates man !!! I've been harping about this to my evangelical friends since 2000 and I think it is finally beginning to sink in.
by dantata on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:31:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bush, Rove don't want Roe v Wade to be overtur (none / 0)

Exactly. There are two things the GOP elite definitely doesn't want: repeal of Roe v. Wade and a military draft. Either might wake up sleeping voters, especially the currently apolitical younger ones. (Present company excepted, of course.)
by Blank Frank on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 09:56:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Guys..think long I say... (none / 0)

Bush's petulant short sightedness is our gain (provided we plan it carefully). Think about it, the GOP has effectively given us the keys back to a durable majority, excluding the need for us to pander to the Dobson crowd...here is my thinking on this:

  1. Let's assume this Miers lady is a stealth candidate and in her desire to foolishly pacify the wingnuts she votes along with the closeted Roberts to overturn Roe, well guess what happens? The GOP implodes! Why? The mealy mouthed upper income white female GOP voter accustomed to taking abortion rights for granted will then realize that once the wingnuts get their politico-clones to pass abortion bans across various states like NV,AZ,CO,OH and MO, they will then realize that their promiscous sorority daughters who get stiffed by some one night stand and has to get an abortion will be told by their local Rep,NO!! Daddy Dobson told me to ban abortions in this state and that is what I did..well guess what, how many wealthy white women give a rat's ass about James Dobson and his grass roots evangelical crowd..Zippo!! And did I forget to mention that wealthy white women generally have wealthy husbands who might very well take heed to what their wife is saying. Then the conflic arises between the country club GOPers and the grass root fanatics..guess which group we'd like to cross over to our side..you bet it. The GOP cannot afford that fight, cos with Xtian and social conservatives along, they'd lose the general election and usher in a relatively long period of Democratic dominance in the WH. This was pretty much how the GOP planned the Southern strategy in the 1960s and even though we fought for principle, we lost the electoral advantage.

  2. HISPANICS!!!! This is probably a dicey area so we have to be careful how we exploit it. I was deathly afraid that Bush would nominate Garza or some other Hispanic individual and he didn't, why? Cos this loyalty thing he has is crap. So provided Stevens and Ginsburg stay healthy before 2008 and with Mark Warner for 2 terms, we'll be able to replace both with the first Hispanic nominee (preferably a woman) and the 2nd black nominee (No african american I know thinks Thomas is black). I think of Roger Gregory of VA who the GOP treated shamelessly as the next nominee in a Warner administration to the US Court of Appeals and immediately to the Supreme Court. Same thing for Judges Sotomayo, Tagle and Paez.. trust me, with these guys, Hispanic voters will not forget. What do y'all think?

by dantata on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 03:46:42 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.

Login
Username:

Password: