I Don’t Get It

This pick makes no sense to me:

President Bush nominated Harriet E. Miers, the White House counsel, as his choice to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor this morning, his second nominee for the Supreme Court.

Ms. Miers, 60, a longtime confidant of the president’s, has never been a judge, and therefore lacks a long history of judicial rulings that could reveal ideological tendencies. Her positions on such ideologically charged issues as abortion and affirmative action are not clear.

Many of President Bush’s allies had lobbied the president to choose a conservative justice to replace Justice O’Connor, a key swing vote on the court, in order to affix a conservative stamp on the court for years to come. The president has vowed to turn the court rightward. Democrats in the Senate however, have warned that a conservative pick to replace a moderate justice would lead to a drawn-out partisan battle.

Ms. Miers has spent her life serving others, Mr. Bush said in making the announcement at the White House. “And she will bring that same passion,” for helping others to the Supreme Court, he said.

At first glance, I don’t like the pick.

At all.






151 replies
  1. 1
    Sav says:

    At first glance, I don’t like the pick.

    At all.

    Get in line.

  2. 2
    ape says:

    well, that’s two of us.

    cronies, cronies, cronies. for every chicken house, a fox to guard it.

  3. 3

    I don’t know about you, but I’m mad as hell.

    Despite the President’s protestations, I don’t trust that the President’s own personal White House counsel will be neutral on the Court with regard to Bush’s opinion — especially on cases where the power of the Executive is at stake. Will she recuse herself from any case regarding the power of the White House, or the members of the Executive she probably met on a daily basis?

    I don’t want Justices that are buddy-buddy with the President. I want our Court to be able to tell the President to go to hell when it’s needed. And ask yourself this question — if the President were anyone else — even a Republican, even a conservative Republican — anyone but George Walker Bush — would Harriet Miers even be under consideration?

    The answer is a blatant no. Miers just doesn’t have enough presence on a federal level, and no experience as a judge. Maybe if she’d had any experience at all as a judge — or a single federal job that didn’t come from her fellow Texan —

    I don’t know what her positions on the issues are, or her level of integrity; and I don’t care. I look at Miers and I see the process that gave us Michael Brown. Down with inexperience. Down with personal favoritism. Reject Harriet Miers for Supreme Court.

    (full post at my site, follow link above)

  4. 4
    Shygetz says:

    Man, it really is “who you know, not what you know” in America now, isn’t it. Hey, I have zero experience as a judge, maybe someone I know will become President and I can be a Supreme too!

    Of course, given the current “standards” of review in the Senate, as long as she refuses to answer all questions, they will be expected to rubber stamp the nomination.

  5. 5
    Giordano says:

    Fifty-five Republicans in the U.S Senate and Bush picks a 60 year old stealth candidate instead of a fifty year old well known and established conservative. Liberals will express concern about her, but secretly they are laughing their heads off and satisfied with the pick.

  6. 6
    Bob says:

    This seems to be a practical choice. Think of all the indictments coming down.

  7. 7
    Tim F says:

    She sure would prove helpful if the question of whether the Pres or the Veep can be indicted for conspiracy ever reaches the Court.

    Something to think about while Fitz wraps up his investigation.

  8. 8
    Tim F says:

    Bob,

    heh.

  9. 9
    Giordano says:

    This is just too unbelieveable to be true. Redstate posted that Harriet gave a $1,000 to Al Gore’s campaign in 1988 to help his presidential campaign. This is just too funny.

  10. 10
    John S. says:

    Of course, given the current “standards” of review in the Senate, as long as she refuses to answer all questions, they will be expected to rubber stamp the nomination.

    And anyone who doesn’t give her the rubber stamp on the grounds that she wasn’t forthcoming with her answers will be branded a zealot and a partisan hack.

  11. 11
    Stormy70 says:

    This is just too unbelieveable to be true. Redstate posted that Harriet gave a $1,000 to Al Gore’s campaign in 1988 to help his presidential campaign. This is just too funny.

    He was a conservative Democrat back then and the Democratic party ruled Texas and she worked for a law firm. I like the pick.

  12. 12
    Another Jeff says:

    Here’s a theory. Maybe he picked someone that he knows won’t be confirmed, and he figures that will get the nasty confirmation battle out of the way, and then once she’s rejected, he’ll put in the conservative he really wants, figuring the Dems and the country don’t have the stomach for a second fight.

    Hey, i said it was a theory. I didn’t say it was a good one.

  13. 13
    Bob says:

    It just shows you how ham-handed these thugs are. Discretion is no longer an option. It shows how isolated Bush is from reality. Maybe he didn’t want to give up the White House chef.

  14. 14
    jobiuspublius says:

    Giordano Says:

    This is just too unbelieveable to be true. Redstate posted that Harriet gave a $1,000 to Al Gore’s campaign in 1988 to help his presidential campaign. This is just too funny.

    There ya go, she is bipartisan. The gods of fair and balanced have been appeased.

  15. 15
    cfw says:

    Bush could have done worse. Looks like a middle of the road choice. Not one who wants to spout and defend over arching theory, or push a fundamental religious approach. Head of Texas Bar indicates ability to build consensus and a decent political ear. Meet the white house writings also look intelligent politically.

    Lack of demonstrated brilliance about legal theory or writing is why we have law clerks who were first out of harvard, stanford, columbia, uva law, etc. Also note that any opinion she writes will get scrubbed by flocks of other clerks, as well as other justices. Key question: can she stand up to folks like scalia and thomas? In my view, no problem. Recall that she may serve 20-25 years. Any recusals from white house years will occur in 05-08 or so. Seems like a small risk that she will refuse to recuse at some key time.

  16. 16
    Mr Furious says:

    Ugh. Catfish has it right:

    I don’t want Justices that are buddy-buddy with the President. I want our Court to be able to tell the President to go to hell when it’s needed.

    This is supposed to be an independant branch of the government—a check and a balance. Installing your personal lawyer who has no other experience or qualifications is a fucking joke.

    Given the climate after the whole “Brownie” fiasco, this is a bit surprising, you would think the Administration would avoid any appearence of “Cronyism,” but you’d apparently be wrong.

    Let the card-playing begin…anyone who opposes her is a partisan obstructionist. Her unknown-ness gives cover to the few Republicans who might have opposed an anti-Roe nominee (Snowe, Chaffee, etc) so this guarantees her 55 votes.

    Wouldn’t it be nice if REpublicans actually took their responsibility seriously and asked the President “What the fuck?” on a nomination like this, instead of rubber-stamping the PArty line?

    Seriously, does she have a single qualifcation for this job?

  17. 17
    norbizness says:

    Just a note on the Al Gore thing: Rick Perry (current governor of Texas) was his Texas campaign manager in 1988.

    As for the pick, maybe he could have gone one better and nominated somebody who wasn’t a lawyer and doesn’t speak any English apart for the nonsense phrases “strict constructionist” and “legislate from the bench.”

  18. 18
    Mr Furious says:

    Theoretically she should recuse from many of the cases that will come before the court, since as WH counsel, she would have involvement…But you know how it goes with this Administration. they will just insist she wasn’t involved, claim executive privilege, stonewall, and challenge detractors (who, I don’t even know) to prove otherwise. They are stocking the Court with an inside (wo)man.

  19. 19

    […] UPDATE @ 9:18: JOHN COLE: “I don’t get it.” […]

  20. 20
    DougJ says:

    Don’t you see the Rovian genius behind the pick you idiots?

    Well, I don’t either. But I guarantee that many in the press do, whether it’s there or not. Expect a Howard Fineman article no what a smart (but flawed) pick this no later than Thursday.

    My take is this: the number one priority of Rove is to see that Roe v. Wade is *not* overturned. If Roe v. Wade goes, the party’s over for the Republicans in Washington. If you look at things now, something like 27% of Americans vote solely based on aborion policy and that breaks about 20 to 7 in the Republicans’ favor. Throw out that 27% and the Democrats have a majority.

    Any redrawing of the lines on this issue hurts the Republican party very, very badly. Much worse than any crap about the economy or wars or terrorist attacks ever could.

    Think about it: the Republicans now get 20% of the vote for doing nothing. I consider futzing around with late term abortions and parental notification to be essentially nothing. If Roe v. Wade goes, it will be time to fish or cut bait. They can outlaw abortion at a national level or say good-bye to the freebie 20%. Not much of a choice.

    So we’re seeing stealth candidates because Rove has to get people through who won’t overturn Roe. But he can’t let the Dobsonites know. It’s that simple. And one of these stealthers can want to overturn Roe. All they need is to slip one through who won’t.

  21. 21
    slide says:

    Stormy returns with this:

    I like the pick.

    Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but what is it that you like exactly? No one, except presumably Bush, has a clue as to her positions on anything.

    Her experience has been as a corporate lawyer and as the President’s counsel. In both positions she is representing clients. Whatever she did in those capacities, as we saw in the Robert’s nomination, will be not be relevant, because she was just representing someone else. Without any judical experience we have NOTHING to look to to see how she thinks, what she belives, what her judicial philosophy is. No writings. No decisions. Just a lawyer. And we are supposed to put her on the highest court in the land for life? Please give me a fuckin break.

  22. 22
    Blue Neponset says:

    Liberals will express concern about her, but secretly they are laughing their heads off and satisfied with the pick.

    We aren’t laughing secretly, we are laughing out loud. This is schadenfreude at its best. The right wingers sold thier souls for a ‘Conservative’ President who would steer the court to the right, and this is what they get.

  23. 23
    jobiuspublius says:

    Another Jeff Says:
    …he’ll put in the conservative he really wants, figuring the Dems and the country don’t have the stomach for a second fight.

    I question your version of what he really wants. He’s a crony capitalist in need of a life saver. Why would he do that? There is also the possibility that the purpose of this candidate is too distract, fatigue, and compromise opponents.

  24. 24
    ET says:

    Never been a judge and she should be a judge on the Supreme Court? Never been a Judge??? WTF??? Shouldn’t that be at least a minimum qualification????? Never been a Judge?

    I can’t get over that never been a judge thing. Shit – I would go for Gonzales and I didn’t think he had the qualifications for the job. I don’t know about anyone else but this job is too important to give to someone who has Never been a judge.

  25. 25
    Shygetz says:

    Let me make a prediction–Just like with Roberts, the Repub base will start getting all pissed. Then Bush will give them an “Aw, shucks, trust me guys.” and they will shut up. Miers will be confirmed in a walk without giving any information about how she will judge, other than some vague sports analogies. The White House will refuse to hand over some of her legal writings, claiming privilege. In then end, John will lambast Dems who vote against her as partisans seeking a presidential nomination because they don’t have a specific credible reason to vote against, such as she eats small children braised in white wine (although I may well be mistaken about John’s response).

    No predictions about what kind of judge she’ll be.

  26. 26
    DougJ says:

    How is one inside person on the Supreme Court going to help with the legal problems?

  27. 27
    jobiuspublius says:

    cfw Says:
    Lack of demonstrated brilliance about legal theory or writing is why we have law clerks who were first out of harvard, stanford, columbia, uva law, etc.

    Lol, clerks, how sneaky. So, what sort of clerks will she pick?

  28. 28
    Krista says:

    In then end, John will lambast Dems who vote against her as partisans seeking a presidential nomination because they don’t have a specific credible reason to vote against, such as she eats small children braised in white wine

    Nah, John seems to think that this is as ridiculous as we do. But I bet a lot of the repubs will act just that way.

    And as far as that “specific credible reason” — um, there is the fact that she’s NEVER BEEN A JUDGE!

  29. 29
    Otto Man says:

    How is one inside person on the Supreme Court going to help with the legal problems?

    Yeah, even by Scalia’s standards, Miers would need to recuse herself if and when this stuff comes before the Court. Even Rehnquist did that back when the Nixon Watergate tapes case arose.

    But I’m leaning towards the theory that he wants this to fail. Given all the administration’s desire to put people on the bench for decades — as seen with the 50-year-old Chief — I’m surprised they nominated a 60 year old. Thought they’d have gone younger. Maybe they will, once Myers gets shot down.

  30. 30
    Tim F says:

    Sheesh:

    In the White House that hero worshipped the president, Miers was distinguished by the intensity of her zeal: She once told me that the president was the most brilliant man she had ever met.

  31. 31
    slide says:

    Andrew Sullivan has an interesting take:

    Think of her as a very capable indentured servant of the Bush family. She’ll do what they want. She’ll be a very, very tough nut to crack in the hearings. And I have no idea about her judicial philosophy. But I imagine that’s the point. When I described her as a flunky last July, a source close to Bush told me: “Don’t mess with Harriet.” I think they’ve found someone whose personal loyalty to Bush exceeds even Gonzales‘. And in some ways, I see this very personal, very crony appointment to be a response to being told he couldn’t pick his main man, Alberto. Harriet is his main woman. I reserve judgment on her fitness to serve on the court.

    So much for an independent Supreme Court. We certainly expect presidents to nominate people that share his judicial philosophy, but do we really want someone with fierce loyalty to him personally? She will be expected to rule on many issues involving the Bush adminstration in the next three years, does the country want a Brownie on the Supreme Court making those decisions? especially when you consider that her relationship to Bush is her ONLY qualifiation for the position.

    I think this just stirs up the cronyism charges against Bush. Rove may be a genius, but perhaps he has been a little distracted of late. Wonder why?

  32. 32
    Tim F says:

    But I’m leaning towards the theory that he wants this to fail.

    Don’t claim conspiracy when incompetence will suffice. Nina Totenburg pointed out this morning that they needed some form of minority, but the list of minorities they could hope to confirm in this political climate was slim to none. Basically, they needed a skirt and this was the best they could do.

    Thus marks another great passage in US history.

  33. 33
    Steve says:

    I have a funny feeling this one is not going to make it through the confirmation process, by design.

    If this is a real pick, either Karl Rove has lost his mind, or this is his most subtle masterstroke yet.

  34. 34
    jobiuspublius says:

    Well this guy has an interesting view and some info, maybe.

    So far, not even NPR’s Nina Totenberg seems to have noticed a note the President made in his brief remaarks this morning, about Harriet Miers’s work with various volunteer groups: her work with Exodus Ministries:

    Exodus is the largest Christian referral and information ministry dealing with homosexual issues in our world today….

    Exodus is a worldwide interdenominational, Christian organization called to encourage, strengthen, unify and equip Christians to minister the transforming power of the Lord Jesus Christ to those affected by homosexuality.

    Nothing will arouse the blue state secularist homophile base of the Democratic Party like someone involved in Exodus. The group has been vilified extensively by some homoseuxal groups, which find the suggestion that anyone could leave a homosexual lifestyle with the assistance of religious faith anathema.

  35. 35
    DougJ says:

    Well, the lefty blogs are falling down on the job on this one. I guess it took them by surprise. The NRO crowd is foaming at the mouth though.


    Here’s David Frum:

    The president has only very rarely sought out the best person for the job. Conservatives have expressed unhappiness with the nomination of Julie Myers for the top immigration enforcement slot, but there are dozens and maybe hundreds of similarly troubling choices, from the cabinet on down.

    Again and again, George Bush has announced bold visionary policies – and again and again he has entrusted the execution of those policies to people who do not believe in them or even understand them. This is most conspicuously true in foreign policy, but it has been true in domestic policy as well. The result: the voice is the voice of Reagan, but too often the hands are the hands of George HW Bush.

  36. 36
    DougJ says:

    You know, the National Review people don’t get the credit they deserve for telling it like it is. I know they’re pretty far to the right, but aside from Jonah Goldbert, they’re not big spinners. Don’t know why John doesn’t link to them more.

  37. 37
    Shygetz says:

    Krista–it’s not unprecedented to appoint Supremes that have no judicial experience. Earl Warren had no previous judicial experience before he became Chief Justice in 1953.

  38. 38
    slide says:

    Many conservative pundits said Bush should nominate a hard conservative and get into a big battle with Dems over confirmation. That a big fight over ideology would help the president (even if he lost the nomination) as it would distract from incompetence, corruption, cronyism and lost agenda that seem to be plaguing Bush’s second term. It would bolster the Bush image of standing for what he believes in etc. etc. But he did do that. There very well may be a fight over the confirmation, but it will not be on ideology since no one knows her ideology, but it will be on grounds of competence, qualifications and cronyism. Just what Bush doesn’t need the focus to be on in my opinion. I think this is a huge blunder for him. Rove is definitly distracted.

  39. 39
    Lines says:

    Doesn’t this pick just show that Bush is so incompetent that he must be impeached as soon as possible for the safety of the country?

    Cronyism above Party above Country.

    At least we’re turning the corner on snarking.

  40. 40
    DougJ says:

    Jobius,

    Here’s the website for Exodus Ministeries. They work with ex-inmates. They’re not anti-gay.

    The anti-gay group is called Exodus International. Here’s their site.

    I’m guessing he really did mean Exodus Ministeris. I guess we’ll find out.

  41. 41
    Shygetz says:

    Being incompetent is not a high crime or a misdemeanor. Neither is nominating your cronies. And I, for one, don’t want to perpetuate the Clinton standard for impeachment.

  42. 42
    slightlybad says:

    While this whole “never been a judge” meme is indeed a convenient talking point, it doesn’t mean much.

    Earl Warren, probably the most influential chief justice other than John Marshall, was never a judge before being appointed. He had been the governor of California and (I think) the state attorney general before that. He was appointed by Eishenhower.

    William O. Douglas, appointed by FDR, had never been a judge either. He had been the head of the SEC and a law professor. He was a strong political supporter of FDR and had supported the Court-packing plan.

    Hugo Black, also nominated by FDR, had been in the Senate before his nomination. He too was a political supporter of FDR and supported the Court-packing plan. His only experience as a judge was a brief stint as the police court judge for the city of Birmingham (essentially hearing misdemeanor cases).

    The big difference that I see these days is that we are largley nominating professional attorneys and judges. While they certainly have their own political convictions, they generally aren’t politicians. Both Warren and Douglas had presidential ambitions, and Black was a Senator for a couple of terms. And as far as cronyism goes, Douglas was a personal friend of FDR’s and a poker-buddy of Truman’s.

    I have no idea what sort of judge Miers might be. But to say that there is no precedent for this sort of pick is just wrong.

  43. 43
    slide says:

    Earl Warren had no previous judicial experience before he became Chief Justice in 1953.

    yes, but at least Earl Warren was a governor. A governor makes lot of decisions that give an insight into where he stands on issues. Miers has just been a lawywer serving clients. We have no idea on where she stands on anything.

  44. 44
    DougJ says:

    Almost positive that Exodus Ministry is the benign one I linked to. So let’s not get excited here.

  45. 45
    Iowa Voice says:

    Harriet Miers Is Bush’s Pick For The Supreme Court

    I was busy composing another post when this came out, so I’m a little behind the curve. To put it bluntly, this has to be one of the biggest disappointments of the Bush Presidency. And that’s saying a lot.

    There has to be a serious concern as to…

  46. 46
    slide says:

    DougJ:

    Almost positive that Exodus Ministry is the benign one I linked to. So let’s not get excited here.

    Agreed. Seems like a legit organization. Josh Marshall has some further info on it as well.

  47. 47
    DougJ says:

    The Freepers are really freaking out too. I simply do not get this pick. This is fascinating to me. Thank God, we’ve got a good on here. The Roberts thing put me to sleep.

  48. 48
    jobiuspublius says:

    Here is the other side of the story:

    …“There’s every indication that she’s very similar to Judge Roberts judicial restraint, limited role of the court, basically a judicial conservative,” said Republican consultant Greg Mueller, who works for several conservative advocacy leaders.

    White House press secretary Scott McClellan said the president offered the job to Miers Sunday night over dinner in the residence. He met with Miers on four occasions during the past couple weeks, McClellan said.

    Both Democratic and Republican senators recommended Miers as a possible nominee, he said. Senators also suggested that Bush consider picking someone who was not a judge so the bench would be flush with justices from all walks of life.

    “Harriet Miers, like Justice O’Connor, has been a trailblazer and a pioneer,” said Rick Garnett, a law professor at Notre Dame and former law clerk to the late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. “Like Justice O’Connor, Ms. Miers has broken through barriers in the law, serving as a leader and role model, and impressing everyone with her decency and her sharp intellect. She would be a worthy and appropriate successor to Justice O’Connor, and would carry to the court a commitment to constitutionalism, judicial restraint, and the rule of law.”

    Rehnquist, whose death paved way for Roberts’ nomination, had not served as a judge before President Nixon put him on the Supreme Court.

    The funny thing is that people are actually contemplating a 3rd view, cronyism, hehehe. Let’s see if it doesn’t evaporate.

    How many of his appointments have to fail before he runs out of cronys to nominate and has to rubber stamp and who will he rubber stamp for? I guess some Senators are trying to avoid that chaos. It will lead to filibusters and nuclear option. So, Karly won. The threat of a nuclear option continues to work. He has the moderates by the nuts.

    I hope I’m wrong. I hope the cronyism sinks Karlies battleship.

  49. 49
    slide says:

    So far, from my perusal of the right wing blogs, their is a lot of unhappiness with her nomination. Don’t imagine liberals are going to be happy that she is a Bush crony that she has been described as fiercely loyal to the Bush family. So who does this nomination appeal to? other than our very own Stormy?

  50. 50
    slide says:

    another small point. They pick a woman theoretically to get a woman’s perspective on the bench but they pick a woman that has never been married, never been pregnent, never had a child, never sent a child to school.. etc. etc. Are American woman going to feel they have anything in common with her other than her gender?

    Repeat its a small point. Please don’t barage me with, “you mean someone that has never been married, can’t serve on the Supreme Court?”. Not my position. Again, just trying to find out who she is supposed to appeal to exactly.

  51. 51
    jobiuspublius says:

    I appeals to:

    Both Democratic and Republican senators recommended Miers as a possible nominee, he said. Senators also suggested that Bush consider picking someone who was not a judge so the bench would be flush with justices from all walks of life.

    The question is why? It could be possible that the Senators are fighting back by suggesting a candidates expected to fail. Once Karly fails a time or two then he will lose his ability to persuade, advise, or lead. Then someone(s) will fill that vacuum. The question is who will fill Karly vacuum.

    BTW, Springer is just now having a segment on Bennett. What timing.

  52. 52
    over it says:

    I don’t know Slide….it may well appeal to me as well. At least, the fact that neither side is crowing about it appeals to me. I think I would be nervous replacing a moderate ‘swing voter’ Justice with someone that either side is ecstatic about….or mortified by. Just my (not so) humble opinion though.

    And, to those above decrying the fact that she has no judicial experience….it is not required. In fact, if I remember correctly, Renquist had none when he stepped onto the bench. Nor did Earl Warren. So, one the most influential Conservative Justices and one of the (if not THE) most influential Libral Justices stepped onto SCOTUS having never been judges before.

    Big picture….I plan to hurry up and wait.

  53. 53
    over it says:

    I see I should read posts more thoroughly before posting myself. ;) It had already been pointed out that judicial experience is not mandatory. My apologies. Please report any complaints to the Deptartment of Redundancy Dept.

    I hope that the above comment ‘clarifying’ the Exodus group that she worked with is correct. The other Exodus group really is kinda scary.

  54. 54
    slide says:

    it may well appeal to me as well. At least, the fact that neither side is crowing about it appeals to me.

    I’d rather have a little more to go on in supporting someone for a lifetime position than “well neither side is happy”. They may not be happy because they dont’ know where she stands on their respective pet issues but that doesnt’ for a minute mean that she is a “moderate”. She could have the most extreme views in the world and we would not know it would we since she has never had to rule on a case or offer her opinion.

  55. 55
    Jane Finch says:

    In my opinion, he’s picked someone for the Democrats to torpedo, and then will nominate his real choice who will be much more difficult to deny confirmation because the Dems will have expended their political capital on Meiers.

  56. 56
    slide says:

    Just a sampling from Drudge’s headlines. Not exactly what the president had hoped for I imagine:

    BUSH CHOOSES MIERS FOR SUPREME COURT…

    CONSERVATIVE GROUP OPPOSES…

    FRUM: NOMINATION IS AN ‘ERROR’…

    ONE OF THE MOST DISCREET, MOST PRIVATE AND MOST PROTECTIVE MEMBERS OF BUSH’S INNER CIRCLE…

    MIERS TURNED 60 IN AUGUST; IS SINGLE, DEVOUT CHURCHGOER, VERY CLOSE TO FAMILY…

    ONCE GAVE $1,000 EACH TO DEMS ‘ALBERT GORE JR FOR PRESIDENT COMMITTEE’ AND ‘SENATOR LLOYD BENTSEN ELECTION COMMITTEE’…

    NEVER BEEN A JUDGE, BUT…

    .

  57. 57
    over it says:

    Slide–That is why I plan to hurry up and wait. I said that she may appeal to me…not that she did. For now, at this stage in the game, I feel better about the pick than I would if either side was throwing tickertape parades. ;)

  58. 58
    ppGaz says:

    How strange. Really. Somewhere around 150 million possible picks out there, and he chooses this one. It just seems so odd. Inexplicable.

    She once told me that the president was the most brilliant man she had ever met.

    Oh. Never mind. I get it.

  59. 59
    jobiuspublius says:

    So, this SCOTUS pick is all politics, by both the WH and SOTUS. Frist is down. Who is running the SOTUS show? Spector, Hatch, and Leahy? The WH is on fire. Can the SOTUS judiciary committee win this one?

  60. 60
    over it says:

    Heh. Too funny ppGaz. :P

  61. 61
    slide says:

    and this is coming from the RIGHT:

    “The President’s nomination of Miers is a betrayal of the conservative, pro-family voters whose support put Bush in the White House in both the 2000 and 2004 elections and who were promised Supreme Court appointments in the mold of Thomas and Scalia. Instead we were given ‘stealth nominees,’ who have never ruled on controversial issues, more in the mold of the disastrous choice of David Souter by this President’s father.

    “When there are so many proven judges in the mix, it is unacceptable this President has appointed a political crony with no conservative credentials. This attempt at ‘Bush Packing’ the Supreme Court must not be allowed to pass the Senate and we will forcefully oppose this nomination.”

    .

  62. 62
    Blue Neponset says:

    he’s picked someone for the Democrats to torpedo

    I don’t understand that. Why do you think torpedoing Meiers would benefit the D’s?

  63. 63
    slide says:

    over it said:

    That is why I plan to hurry up and wait. I said that she may appeal to me…not that she did. For now, at this stage in the game, I feel better about the pick than I would if either side was throwing tickertape parades.

    I agree with you. Definitly too early to take a position, but the pick really confuses me. Don’t quite get the strategy here. Doesn’t do anything for his base which is keeping him afloat at this point. He starts losing his base, Bush will be in the mid to low 30’s in approval. They are already a little skittish with spending, Katrina’s lavish promises, the unknown Roberts etc. This is going to rile them up a little more unless she has a freakin tattoo on her back of Judges Scalia and Thomas.

  64. 64
    slide says:

    Well, this is really going to piss off Bush’s base:

    The statement of Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) as released to RAW STORY.

    “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.

    “In my view, the Supreme Court would benefit from the addition of a justice who has real experience as a practicing lawyer. The current justices have all been chosen from the lower federal courts. A nominee with relevant non-judicial experience would bring a different and useful perspective to the Court.

    .

  65. 65
    Barneyg says:

    Bin Laden determined to strike US
    Terri Shivo
    Katrina
    Harriet Miers

    This guy has to stop going on vactaions

  66. 66
    CalDevil says:

    Don’t like the pick based on age alone.

  67. 67
    jobiuspublius says:

    Blue Neponset Says:
    I don’t understand that. Why do you think torpedoing Meiers would benefit the D’s?

    It would salvage their image by being able to take on the big putz. But, that may not be the intent of Worst-POTUS-Ever.

    There is also another possibilty, being that the political process is owned by big money. Remember what Scooters letter to Miller said, something about the Aspens turning.

  68. 68
    jobiuspublius says:

    In my view, the Supreme Court would benefit from the addition of a justice who has real experience as a practicing lawyer.

    DOH! And Robert’s is …?

  69. 69
    jobiuspublius says:

    slide Says:
    Doesn’t do anything for his base which is keeping him afloat at this point.

    The fundies are not the base of Putz in Chief. It’s the haves and have-mores. They’ve gotten much of what they wanted. It’s now time for them to consolidate their gains and cover their asses for the coming shit storm. Putz in Chief is their political tool. As such he is expendable. He could actually be in on it. What he may not be in on is being the fall guy for Cheney’s, et. al., criminal behavior.

  70. 70
    Rome Again says:

    Krista—it’s not unprecedented to appoint Supremes that have no judicial experience. Earl Warren had no previous judicial experience before he became Chief Justice in 1953.

    The same Chief Justice Warren who was responsible for the Warren Commission? That Chief Justice Warren? All the more reason this makes me nervous… but, hey, as long as Republicans are knocked off balance, I’ll grab some popcorn and watch the show. Freeperland is fun today! :P

    Tomorrow I’ll worry about how Bush is placing someone in the SCOTUS who only has his best interests at heart.

  71. 71
    Rome Again says:

    Don’t quite get the strategy here. Doesn’t do anything for his base which is keeping him afloat at this point. He starts losing his base, Bush will be in the mid to low 30’s in approval.

    Sorry to point this out, but in case you haven’t realized it, Bush is not up for re-election. His numbers are nothing to be concerned with now. He is a lame-duck President who can spend the next three years doing as he damned well pleases (barring any legal problems). Bush is a man who promised “a justice in the mold of a Thomas or Scalia” to those *who think they are his base*, this actually sets the record straight. They were never his base, his base has MONEY, AMBITION and NO SCRUPLES! What does Bush care if the Republican party crashes and burns? Freepers are reminding others today that he’s just another Kennebunkport liberal.

    He made a promise, he didn’t keep it and now those little guy Republicans who were taken in by his aura just so that they would cast a couple of votes for him are going to see exactly what they got in the deal, it’s about time if you ask me.

    What we don’t seem to have with this nomination is a justice in the mold of a Thomas or Scalia (as far as we can figure) and if that’s true, that’s just fine by me.

  72. 72
    DougJ says:

    I’m hearing that he went with Miers because Michael Brown turned the job down.

  73. 73
    jobiuspublius says:

    Rome Again Says:
    What we don’t seem to have with this nomination is a justice in the mold of a Thomas or Scalia (as far as we can figure) and if that’s true, that’s just fine by me.

    There are no other objectionable options?

    DougJ, lol. Scary to think someone would actually hire that guy for anything.

  74. 74
    DougJ says:

    What does Bush care if the Republican party crashes and burns?

    Rove cares. That’s what matters. At least I thought so until now.

    I’ve got to think the idiocy of this pick, along with a lot of the other idiocy we’ve seen from the White House this summer, must have something to do with the fact that Rove is under investigation and suffering from kidney stones.

  75. 75
    slide says:

    Sorry to point this out, but in case you haven’t realized it, Bush is not up for re-election. His numbers are nothing to be concerned with now. He is a lame-duck President who can spend the next three years doing as he damned well pleases (barring any legal problems).

    Don’t quite agree with you that his numbers are nothing to be concerned about. Yes, he is not up for re-election but he does (did) have an agenda that he wants passed. Numbers are important there. All presidents very much care about their legacy as well. Poor numbers might mean he has to abadon Iraq, his signature project as president. If his numbers don’t much matter to him do you really think he would be running around like a chicken without a head in advance of Rita so that he can show that he is “on top of things?” Please they care very much about the numbers. This was a miscalculation I belive. Rove is distracted. Looming criminal indictments tend to do that to people.

    You say he is a lame duck and at the same time says he can do as he pleases for the next three years. They are both contradictory. Lame ducks can’t do what they please (unless you just mean vacationing in Crawford). Unless he has given up all hope of doing ANYTHING for the next three years he better get his numbers up or he’ll have no support in Congress to accomplish anything else.

  76. 76
    Rome Again says:

    From the link at Drudge Report to the Public Advocate statement that Slide posted earlier:

    “The President’s nomination of Miers is a betrayal of the conservative, pro-family voters whose support put Bush in the White House in both the 2000 and 2004 elections and who were promised Supreme Court appointments in the mold of Thomas and Scalia. Instead we were given ‘stealth nominees,’ who have never ruled on controversial issues, more in the mold of the disastrous choice of David Souter by this President’s father…”

    Gosh, I remember several months ago when those on the left were trying to warn those on the right that this was going to happen, and they were so sure we were wrong… it makes me wax nostalgic.

  77. 77
    Rome Again says:

    You say he is a lame duck and at the same time says he can do as he pleases for the next three years. They are both contradictory. Lame ducks can’t do what they please (unless you just mean vacationing in Crawford). Unless he has given up all hope of doing ANYTHING for the next three years he better get his numbers up or he’ll have no support in Congress to accomplish anything else.

    The term has evolved, when corruption is at the heart of an administration, he can do as he pleases, because he will not be re-elected… but he can do little to nothing good for the country. So, okay, I stand corrected, maybe what I mean to say is that this country has become the lame duck now.

    I don’t think he has enough support from anywhere now. I understand many in Congress are distancing themselves from him now in hopes of saving their own political careers… but we’re still stuck with him for the next three years. I see him trying to start new projects which have just enough support to confuse the entire atmosphere. He may not accomplish much, but he’ll sure try to continue his dream of being a visionary, despite his being completely delusional.

  78. 78
    Steve S says:

    Are you an idiot? How can you possibly claim it makes no sense?

    She’s been with Bush since ’94 when she headed his transition team into the Governorship… She’s the Michael Brown of the Supreme Court.

    Gotta agree with others. The base of the Republican party isn’t James Dobson and Robertson… It’s the haves and the have mores. Always was, always will be.

  79. 79
    Rome Again says:

    Poor numbers might mean he has to abadon Iraq, his signature project as president. If his numbers don’t much matter to him do you really think he would be running around like a chicken without a head in advance of Rita so that he can show that he is “on top of things?”

    I find it hard to believe that I understood how important this nomination was to those who voted for him (“family values voters”)and he didn’t. The fact that he gave those voters the middle finger today says to me that the mask is coming off. I don’t think this is a miscalculation (as I stated above, quite a few blog and AOL political chatroom posters – including myself – were fully aware that this was going to happen one day and were warning his voters about it many moons ago). I don’t see this as a political miscalculation on Karl Rove’s part at all. It was inevitable. Those who thought they were his base never were, they were used, and he never intended to get rid of Roe v. Wade. He used their vote to get in, raid the coffers, and now he is showing his cards. IMO.

    I simply can’t believe that what others and I said would come to pass (and his supporters said “that will never happen”) has happened, and it’s by pure accident. Sorry, I don’t buy it.

    As someone posted above, if Republicans finally give in to Roe v. Wade, they will lose, that is their main issue, the one that keeps voters turning out again and again. Nothing fires up a bunch of conservative christians like abortion. Once that’s gone, the party is over.

  80. 80
    Rome Again says:

    Still, I will add, that his political holdouts are wondering who his next SCOTUS pick is going to be, as if vacancies just grow on trees.

    The fact that he got two picks is almost miraculous (I think), I’m hard-pressed to hold my breath waiting for the third to open up.

  81. 81
    Rome Again says:

    jobiuspublius said:

    There are no other objectionable options?

    There are, I stated above that today I’m going to watch the show and tomorrow I’ll concern myself with the fact that he’s conveniently placing a friend on the SCOTUS during a time when he could have to answer for some pretty heinous crimes… but I’m glad to see that the Dobsonites didn’t get what they wanted, even if I knew months ago this would happen, I’m still pretty relieved that we apparently don’t have to worry about that.

    DougJ: You seem to be under the impression that Bush has only been making mistakes for the last few months? I’m sorry, I have to disagree, I think he’s been making mistakes pretty much all along.

  82. 82
    W.B. Reeves says:

    If it is true that Democratic Senators put forward Miers as a filabuster proof pick, what we may be seeing is a quid pro quo for Roberts receiving a pass. In which case the only bar to confirmation would be a revolt on the right. We may be witness to the irony of Miers becoming a Justice through Democratic support.

  83. 83
    fishhead says:

    hahhahahahhahahahahaahahahahhhhahahahah

    what a joke! i am lovin’ it! Bush’s base will go nuts!

  84. 84
    StupidityRules says:

    Connect the dots. Gannon, Roberts and Miers. Outed gay prostitute/White House correspondent , man who poses with food and 60 year old woman who never married. Obviously some closet gay in the White House who Gannon used to visit is now using his power to stuff the Supreme Court with homosexuals. I got two candidates about who the guy might be (actually there might be three candidates). This administration will be worshipped by gays and lesbians forever. The gay amendment referendums were only used to stay in power to be able to set the plan in motion. The Christian right has been majorly s*****d over this.

  85. 85
    Louise says:

    Is it so confusing as to why he picked her? She’s totally loyal to Bush. That is the main reason.

    He’s not thinking about his “legacy” or his “base”. He needs a vote on the Supreme Court, period, to deal with all the legal problems facing this Presidency, from the upcoming Fitzgerald nominations on down.

    Miers will never recuse herself from voting on issues regarding this administration. She will always vote to protect Bush. That is why she has been nominated.

    Miers has been Bush’s legal fixer since before his Governorship. He apparently believes he is going to need her services on the highest court in the land. She’s known him since the ’80s, served as Chairman of his gubernatorial campaign. She was in charge of dealing with his National Guard records, and managing the Texas Lottery Commission scandal.

    Let’s say Fitzgerald issues an indictment of Bush and Cheney for conspiracy in the Plame case. It will immediately be appealed, all the way to the Supreme Court.

    What are the odds Miers would recuse herself from that decision? Slim to none. After all, what penalties does she face for not doing so? None. Scalia, after all, goes duck hunting with the Vice President and sees no reason to recuse himself from approving of Cheney’s position on the release of Energy Committee documents.

  86. 86
    Rome Again says:

    Gotta agree with others. The base of the Republican party isn’t James Dobson and Robertson… It’s the haves and the have mores. Always was, always will be.

    Yeah, but I gotta wonder, which ones am I more afraid of? Dobsonites want to force me to believe in a God I don’t believe in (I do believe in God, just not the one they preach)and force me to live in a biblical society (I’ll shoot myself first)… but the haves and have-mores just want to stomp me out of existence because I’m just not qualified to share in their parties serving hors d’oevres of caviar and bottomlesss glasses of cognac!

    Funny, I grew up on that stuff, it was overrated anyway.

  87. 87
    Mac Buckets says:

    he’s conveniently placing a friend on the SCOTUS during a time when he could have to answer for some pretty heinous crimes

    Lol. Yeah, right, heinous crimes. Is Armando on a grand jury? Don’t hold your breath waiting for those indictments.

    Regarding the pick, sorry to all those who want the Dems to reject her. It looks to me like a Ginsberg redux — just like Hatch backed her, Reid backs Miers. How do you expect the Senate to mount an opposition campaign without the Senate Minority Leader’s buy-in?

  88. 88
    BillS says:

    She’s the Michael Brown of the Supreme Court.

    Heh.

    There are other conservatives out there. Take Judge Karen Williams for instance. Her version of “compassionate” conservatism may not hold up to scrutiny as well as Roberts, the stealth nominee, but the Bushies have never let reality stop them before.

    In the instant analysis, this nomination is cronyism personified. Why would Rove et al confirm the administration’s addiction to cronyism? Well, until Bush finds a way to pardon himself maybe she will be his “get out of jail free” card for the Plame case.

    The bench of nearly-indentured Bush servants with even minimal qualifications must have been exhausted when Gonzales was approved for AG. Why not nominate him? Just a guess: He may be more important as confirmed/sitting AG when the Plame investigation starts hitting the fan.

  89. 89

    Bush’s Legal “Pit Bull” Miers Picked For Supreme Court (UPDATED ALL DAY)

    Just as he did on the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court, Pr…

  90. 90
    CaseyL says:

    Stormy likes Miers. Maybe Stormy will come back and say why, since she seems absolutely alone in that. About the only think I can come up with is that Stormy simply adores W…

    Waitaminute. Stormy does adore W… and she’s from Texas, as I recall…

    OMG! OMG! Stormy IS Harriet Miers!!

  91. 91
    Matt Rea says:

    It seems to me that the sense of bewilderment evident in the posts submitted by those who would class themselves as conservative (my law school compadres used to call me a “crazy hippy” and after 5 years of this administration–they might be right!) is driven by the idea that this administration “should have known” how their own base would react.
    Didn’t your boy Rove once explicitly say that he wanted to get away from “reality-based decision-making”? Not engaging with one’s critics is great for clarity of vision, e.g., but perhaps not for predicting the immediate future.
    Some of my progressive friends like to say that the current administration is great at politicking, but not at governing–seems to me being great at the “art of the possible” requires a more than tenuous connection with reality. Just a thought.

  92. 92
    Rome Again says:

    Lol. Yeah, right, heinous crimes. Is Armando on a grand jury? Don’t hold your breath waiting for those indictments.

    No, Armando is not a friend of mine. I know who he is, but I don’t keep tabs on his opinions, or which way the wind blows in regards to those who do subscribe to his diaries on any given day. To be quite honest, Armando pisses me off more than he intrigues me. Usually when I disagree with something that is front-paged at Kos, I find Armando’s name on the diary.

    That said, there are currently ongoing investigations pertaining to several different scandals, and other unanswered questions such as the destination of billions of dollars missing in Iraq. The White House may have quite a lot to answer for, as well as other members of the GOP (Delay – already indicted, Frist – currently being investigated, Abramhoff – may be the tipping point in several different investigations). I will be surprised if nothing ever comes of any of them.

    You go ahead and hold your breath if you wish.

  93. 93
    DougJ says:

    DougJ: You seem to be under the impression that Bush has only been making mistakes for the last few months? I’m sorry, I have to disagree, I think he’s been making mistakes pretty much all along.

    *Political* mistakes. As a noted conservative who posts here regularly said, when asked what Bush had done right, said “Got elected twice.” This White House is sound politically, but inept at the actual work of governing.

  94. 94
    BillS says:

    If this quote is accurate then I may have to re-think.

    William Kristol on Miers pick:

    “Disappointed, Depressed and Demoralized.”

  95. 95
    Mac Buckets says:

    The White House may have quite a lot to answer for,

    There won’t ever be an indictment of President Bush on Iraq money, on Plame, or on anything else he’s done to this point — make book on it. The Democrats haven’t found any “heinous crimes” that Bush has to answer for to a grand jury, or they’d be further into the script by now. That’s all I’m saying.

  96. 96
    Rome Again says:

    Political mistakes. As a noted conservative who posts here regularly said, when asked what Bush had done right, said “Got elected twice.” This White House is sound politically, but inept at the actual work of governing.

    Yes, I very much agree with that statement, but politically speaking, he’s been playing with fire regarding those who think they are his base, and it was only a matter of time before he showed them just how little they really mean to him. That may sour the mouths of GOP voters in the 2006/2008 elections (does Bush consider that he may be ruining the entire party because he didn’t deliver what many voters were demanding?) and it seems to me that indicates the political soundness of his administration is no longer sound at all.

    Dobsonites threatened several months ago that if he didn’t deliver their reconstructionist ideologue to the SCOTUS, they were going to withdraw support. I think the letter posted on Drudge is the beginning of that withdrawal. They flipped when Roberts was named, but they speculated that when Rhenquist died, the next named nominee would be the answer to that promise. Now they find it wasn’t. Do you think Bush will have the chance to name a third SC judge?

    It looks pretty grim for their agenda, unless all sides oppose this nominee and Bush has another chance to fill the position. Even if that happens, the damage has been done, Bush had the opportunity to name someone in line with their ideals and he didn’t. What does that say to them about the man they supported in the last two elections?

  97. 97
    DougJ says:

    Mac, I don’t think anyone thinks it is likely Bush will be indicted for anything. But if Rove or DeLay goes to the clink, that would certainly hurt the presidency a lot. My guess is that someone relatively high up — Rove, DeLay, Frist, Libby, Bob Ney, or someone else — goes to the clink. With four investigations going — the SEC on Frist, the Abramoff probe, the Plame probe, and the ARMPAC TRMAPC probe — there’s only so many bullets that cab be dodged. If it’s Rove, DeLay, or Frist, you’re talking real trouble. If it’s Scooter, Ney, or some other lesser muckety-muck, maybe it’s not such a big deal.

  98. 98
    slide says:

    how is wingnuttia going to take this you suppose:

    For instance, she apparently submitted the following report to the ABA’s House of Delegates. Here are two of the report’s recommendations:

    Supports the enactment of laws and public policy which provide that sexual orientation shall not be a bar to adoption when the adoption is determined to be in the best interest of the child. …

    Recommends the development and establishment of an International Criminal Court.

  99. 99
    DougJ says:

    Rome, I don’t understand this nomination at all. I really do believe though that Rove’s main goal is to see that Roe v. Wade is *not* overturned. If Roe v. Wade goes, the Republicans become a minority party within one election cycle. It would truly be politicaly suicide. So I’m not surprised we’re seeing stealth candidates. I am surprised they picked someone who teed the Dobsonites off *this much*.

  100. 100
    slide says:

    oh this is great fun watching the right wing have a meltdown. Andrew Sullivan…. Bill Kristol…. Frum…. Rush Limbaugh…Rich Lowery…..

    I think the liberals and dems should just kinda sit back and say nothing much.. .just that we have to look into her background… yada yada yada… .let the right wing self-destruct….

  101. 101
    jobiuspublius says:

    BTW, look who else pulled the rip cord on his golden parachute:

    Gen. Richard B. Myers Returns to Civilian Life

    By ERIC SCHMITT and THOM SHANKER
    Published: October 2, 2005

    WASHINGTON, Oct. 2 – Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, returned to civilian life this weekend after a four-year tenure bracketed by Sept. 11 and Hurricane Katrina, a time in which the military launched two big wars, one of which has confounded the Pentagon’s expectations.

  102. 102
    CaseyL says:

    I guess that does confirm the Bush-style conservatism is only about money and power for the Elect.

    Still, I don’t see the Righties wandering off anywhere else anytime soon. Bush did give them their precious tax cuts, and their fun little fantasy war. That should be enough to keep them sweet in ’06 and ’08.

  103. 103
    slide says:

    BillS asked:

    If this quote is accurate then I may have to re-think.

    William Kristol on Miers pick:

    “Disappointed, Depressed and Demoralized.

    It’s accurate

    I’M DISAPPOINTED, depressed and demoralized.

    I’m disappointed because I expected President Bush to nominate someone with a visible and distinguished constitutionalist track record–someone like Maura Corrigan, Alice Batchelder, Edith Jones, Priscilla Owen, or Janice Rogers Brown–to say nothing of Michael Luttig, Michael McConnell, or Samuel Alito. Harriet Miers has an impressive record as a corporate attorney and Bush administration official. She has no constitutionalist credentials that I know of.

    I’m depressed. Roberts for O’Connor was an unambiguous improvement. Roberts for Rehnquist was an appropriate replacement. But moving Roberts over to the Rehnquist seat meant everything rode on this nomination–and that the president had to be ready to fight on constitutional grounds for a strong nominee. Apparently, he wasn’t. It is very hard to avoid the conclusion that President Bush flinched from a fight on constitutional philosophy. Miers is undoubtedly a decent and competent person. But her selection will unavoidably be judged as reflecting a combination of cronyism and capitulation on the part of the president.

    I’m demoralized. What does this say about the next three years of the Bush administration–leaving aside for a moment the future of the Court? Surely this is a pick from weakness. Is the administration more broadly so weak? What are the prospects for a strong Bush second term? What are the prospects for holding solid GOP majorities in Congress in 2006 if conservatives are demoralized? And what elected officials will step forward to begin to lay the groundwork for conservative leadership after Bush?

    .

  104. 104
    Rome Again says:

    There won’t ever be an indictment of President Bush on Iraq money, on Plame, or on anything else he’s done to this point—make book on it.

    That may be true, but I find your wording sort of interesting… “anything else he’s done to this point”? It sounded as if you were on his side earlier, but this doesn’t appear to sound that way at all.

    The Bush family has been infamous for keeping the dirt hidden, so if Bush is never indicted, that will not surprise me.

    At the same time, the White House may be complicit in the investigations that are ongoing, and as DougJ said, Bush doesn’t have to be named specifically. More and more people everyday are realizing the corruption going on in this administration. I think there may be a whole lot of people today who are googling and learning some things that they refused to consider before.

  105. 105
    Rome Again says:

    Sorry Mac, I should have blockquoted you, I was remiss and I apologize.

  106. 106
    Rome Again says:

    Still, I don’t see the Righties wandering off anywhere else anytime soon. Bush did give them their precious tax cuts, and their fun little fantasy war. That should be enough to keep them sweet in ‘06 and ‘08.

    The average member of this so-called base that this nomination is affecting are spending more for a year’s worth of gas than those tax cuts will offer them. Besides that, they don’t have to go anywhere, just stay away from the polls on election day.

  107. 107
    jobiuspublius says:

    DougJ Says:
    Rove cares. That’s what matters. At least I thought so until now.

    I’ve got to think the idiocy of this pick, along with a lot of the other idiocy we’ve seen from the White House this summer, must have something to do with the fact that Rove is under investigation and suffering from kidney stones.

    I doubt Karly cares. He’s The Architect. He delivered. He’s got THE Golden Parachute. If there is anybody who can sail away from DC as it burns, it’s Karly.

    Remember Scooter’s letter to Miller. The Aspens are turning. Golden yellow, IIRC.

    BTW, doesn’t the opposition party have a corporatist infestation?

  108. 108
    DougJ says:

    Who knows what the righties will do in retaliation? They sound awfully down about this, though. Honestly, what the hell is Bush/Rove doing here?

  109. 109
    Halffasthero says:

    Mr Furious Says:

    Theoretically she should recuse from many of the cases that will come before the court, since as WH counsel, she would have involvement…But you know how it goes with this Administration. they will just insist she wasn’t involved, claim executive privilege, stonewall, and challenge detractors (who, I don’t even know) to prove otherwise. They are stocking the Court with an inside (wo)man.

    October 3rd, 2005 at 9:17 am

    DougJ Says:

    What does Bush care if the Republican party crashes and burns?

    Rove cares. That’s what matters. At least I thought so until now.

    I’ve got to think the idiocy of this pick, along with a lot of the other idiocy we’ve seen from the White House this summer, must have something to do with the fact that Rove is under investigation and suffering from kidney stones.

    October 3rd, 2005 at 11:47 am

    Two people who have summed this up perfectly for me. I don’t want to lose “Roe” and I think we could use a moderate on the court but no way in hell do I accept the choosing of a crony personal attorney. Give me the Scalia type over this. I already don’t trust her one damn bit.

    (sorry Stormy, breaking with you on this one)

  110. 110
    DougJ says:

    Give me the Scalia type over this.

    You can’t mean this. Scalia is a smart guy, but he scares Rehnquist, for crying out loud.

    I don’t think everyone on the court has to be a big-time intellectual. I think Mitch McConnell would have been great, for example.

  111. 111
    DougJ says:

    Jobius, Rove’s life-long ambition was a lasting Republican majority. Getting rid of Roe makes that impossible.

  112. 112
    slide says:

    I tell you, the more I think about this selection the more it has me stumped. The anguish on the right is palpable. They are totally demoralized. Now contrast that with Kos who is chalking this up as a Dem victory. Reid is praising the selection. TalkLeft is also happy with the choice.

    Did not Bush and Rove anticipate this reaction? Are they so much in their bubble that they thought that any friend of Bush would be good enough for their right wing base? Or, as others have suggested, is it that Bush just doesn’t care about them (social conservatives) and he did something for his TRUE constituancy – Big Money?

    In any case I am quite enjoying myself. With Bush having had two appointments to the Supreme Court and a majority in the Senate, I think most of us on the left would have to agree that we have “dodged a bullet” as Chertoff would have said.

  113. 113
    Tim F says:

    In the prediction thread I posted that Bush would punt. I had in mind that he’d pick an unremarkable geezer who nobody’d care about enough to go to the mat over him, but this works the same way. They probably don’t even expect her to pass; at this point they’re dripping flopsweat and hoping that the deliberations take enough time for a lucky break to come their way and deliver enough political capital to get back into the game.

  114. 114
    The Comish (sic) says:

    As usual, the lefty know-nothings have brought out the liberal meme-machine in this thread. For example:

    BillS:

    Roberts, the stealth nominee

    Yep. 80,000 to 100,000 pages of documents, including policy and position memos, but he’s a “stealth nominee.” Right.

    Hey, let’s see what the President of the NAACP — that hard-core Rethuglican organization — says about that. Do the words “remarkably deep” sound familiar?:

    “The information in these memos disabuses anyone of the notion the nominee has little or no record,” said Theodore B. Shaw, director-counsel and president of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, referring to initial assessments of Roberts as another “stealth” nominee. “In fact, his record is remarkably deep.”

    The memos address just about every hot-button social and legal issue of the Reagan years: abortion, affirmative action, prayer in schools, sex discrimination, busing.

    But hey, it was on the Democratic Underground, so you know it must be true, right?

  115. 115
    The Comish (sic) says:

    Matt Rea:

    Didn’t your boy Rove once explicitly say that he wanted to get away from “reality-based decision-making”?

    No.

  116. 116
    Davebo says:

    If Kos, TalkLeft, et al are thrilled with this nomination they aren’t paying much attention.

    Miers was originally a pro choice moderate dem, but she had a evangelical born again moment years back and is as strong a social conservative as any of the other possible nominees.

    We can only hope the nutty right isn’t bright enough to figure this out and enough of them cross over to reject her.

  117. 117
    Andrei says:

    Wish I had said this. But I’ll add it to the pile.

  118. 118
    DougJ says:

    Here’s the mistake a lot are making here: to say the “mold of Scalia and Thomas” suggests they’re in the same mold. They aren’t: Thomas is treated a a joke and has little or no influence. Scalia is very influential.

    That’s the thing with this nomination, that Miers won’t be a rightie powerhouse the way McConnell would have been. That’s why the left likes her.

  119. 119
    Mac Buckets says:

    That may be true, but I find your wording sort of interesting… “anything else he’s done to this point”? It sounded as if you were on his side earlier, but this doesn’t appear to sound that way at all.

    Nah, I just can’t see the future.

    More and more people everyday are realizing the corruption going on in this administration.

    No more than in any other eight-year Administration, I’d wager — we just have short memories. By the way, you and Doug should remember that Frist and DeLay aren’t in the Administration, and these no chance that Bush has anything to do with those investigations.

  120. 120
    The Comish (sic) says:

    Louise:

    Scalia, after all, goes duck hunting with the Vice President and sees no reason to recuse himself from approving of Cheney’s position on the release of Energy Committee documents.

    Wow. You really had to reach back for this one. Way to go.

    I’ll make you a deal. I’ll agree that Scalia should recuse himself from ruling on issues related to Cheney’s energy policy, if you’ll agree that Ginsburg should recuse herself from ruling on issues related to women’s rights.

  121. 121
    rayabacus says:

    The unknown scares the hell out of everybody. I read posts here that claim “We don’t know anything about her” in one sentence and then proclaim that the Bush base has deserted because she is not Scalia or Thomas. Yet how do you know she is not Scalia or Thomas?

    It appears that the only person that knows for sure what her Judicial thinking is happens to be Bush. With that knowledge, those on the left that were hoping for a S. D. O’Conner clone should be apprehensive. Those on the right who were hoping for a Senate battle Rayale with Estrada, Luttig, McConnell or Owens should be saying WTF.

    If you want to know what kind of Justice Bush has nominated, you should look at ALL of his nominations for the Judiciary. I think you could find your answer there.

  122. 122
    slide says:

    but she had a evangelical born again moment years back and is as strong a social conservative as any of the other possible nominees.

    would you like to post a source for this opinion, or shall we take it as a faith based revelation?

  123. 123
    jobiuspublius says:

    slide Says:
    Now contrast that with Kos who is chalking this up as a Dem victory. Reid is praising the selection. TalkLeft is also happy with the choice.

    The opposition is driving the wedge between the fundies and Putz in Chief deeper, making the dominant party look self-defeating and nuts, and defending versus obstruction charges. As more information comes out, or time passes, the opposition party can always change it’s mind. By the time the dominant party starts to complain about the opposition party, they will have lost their high ground. It’s perfect, especially when you can’t do much else.

  124. 124
    Davebo says:

    Slide

    Certianly.

    From the folks who know her best.

    http://www.dallasnews.com/shar.....s/opinion/

    scroll down a bit

    I ran Harriet’s campaign for that 2 year term on the City Council.

    I had my own crisis of conscience half way through the campaign when I found out that though she had been pro-choice in her youth — she had had some sort of born again experience and is on the extreme end of anti-choice. Also, she was at that time, very uncomfortable with rights for gay people.

    To her credit, she was at least honest with me about those issues.

  125. 125
    The Comish (sic) says:

    slide:

    Well, this is really going to piss off Bush’s base:

    Harry Reid:

    “In my view, the Supreme Court would benefit from the addition of a justice who has real experience as a practicing lawyer. The current justices have all been chosen from the lower federal courts. A nominee with relevant non-judicial experience would bring a different and useful perspective to the Court.

    It won’t piss me off so much as amuse me. I mean, Reid has either fortotten or is unaware that every current member of the Court has “real experience as a practicing lawyer.” The only possible exceptions are Breyer and Thomas, whose “real experience as a practicing lawyer” came as lawyers representing the government.

    Didn’t we just get done appointing Roberts, who was criticized on these boards since he’d only been a judge for a couple of years? For the record, he was in private practice before that.

  126. 126
    slide says:

    hey commish, all that jabba wabba about lawyers is not what I am talking about. The right wingnuts wanted red meat. They wanted a fight. And what did they get? The Minority leader praising bush’s candidate. If you read the right wing blogs they are seething. Redstate.org has this to say:

    “This is a profoundly disappointing nomination, a missed opportunity, and an abdication of responsibility to make sound, well qualified nominations.

    From what we know, Harriet Miers is unqualified for the position. She had an impressive career of “firsts” as a female attorney in Texas, but those are not enough. Miers did not graduate from a top tier law school. She has no string of impressive legal writings. She has never served as a judge (let alone clerked for a Supreme Court Justice or Circuit Court Judge). She has never had a practice focusing on issues relevant to the United States Supreme Court. She has had nothing in her career that indicates she is something other than just a great lawyer — and being more than just a great lawyer should be a key qualification for one of the final arbiters of American jurisprudence

    I just find it amusing. This could have been a moment when Bush went back on the offensive. Sticking it to the Dems with a hard right choice, forcing them to fight on an ideological front rather than the competency and croynoism front bush has been battered on. But low and behold bush picks a nominee that has the right complaining about cronyism. It don’t get any better than that for Dems.

  127. 127
    Nelson Muntz says:

    Ha Ha!

  128. 128
    slide says:

    Well this:

    Also, she was at that time, very uncomfortable with rights for gay people.

    doesn’t quite match with what she actually did:

    For instance, she apparently submitted the following report to the ABA’s House of Delegates. Here are two of the report’s recommendations: “Supports the enactment of laws and public policy which provide that sexual orientation shall not be a bar to adoption when the adoption is determined to be in the best interest of the child. …
    Recommends the development and establishment of an International Criminal Court.”

    I would be dubious about your “source”.

  129. 129
    rayabacus says:

    Slide,

    For instance, she apparently submitted the following report to the ABA’s House of Delegates. Here are two of the report’s recommendations: “Supports the enactment of laws and public policy which provide that sexual orientation shall not be a bar to adoption when the adoption is determined to be in the best interest of the child. …
    Recommends the development and establishment of an International Criminal Court.”

    Not quite accurate (not the quoate) your characterization of it. That was a committee recommendation, not a personal endorsement. Yes, she was a member of the committee, but there is no evidence that she endorses that reccommendation. She very well could have been a dissenting vote.

  130. 130
    Davebo says:

    Slide

    Dubious about my source?

    Dude, I suggest you look at the timeline involved.

    And perhaps source some of your own quotes for a change.

    But hey, I’m sure her campaign manager knew nothing at all about the woman.

    Geez!

  131. 131
    slide says:

    Yes, she was a member of the committee

    Actually she was the CHAIR of the committee and she signed the report.

  132. 132
    Davebo says:

    Rayabacus

    I was going to mention that but decided to let is “slide” so to speak.

  133. 133
    slide says:

    Dubious about my source?

    yeah, your “source” is an anonymous person that commented in a blog. If that is what you are hanging your hat on that she is “is as strong a social conservative as any of the other possible nominees” fine. Enjoy.

    Dude, I suggest you look at the timeline involved.

    Dude what are you talking about?

    And perhaps source some of your own quotes for a change.

    You are kidding right?

  134. 134
    The Comish (sic) says:

    DougJ:

    Thomas is treated a a joke and has little or no influence.

    Only by folks who don’t know anything about the Supreme Court, and/or are trying to sell an agenda. Here are excerpts from a blog post by a liberal former Supreme Court clerk:

    Unfortunately, there is an ugly undercurrent in the debate over Justice Thomas, fueled by the ill-advised comment by Senate minority leader-elect Harry Reid (D-Nev.) that Thomas is an “embarrassment to the Supreme Court” and that his opinions are “poorly written” (see our earlier post here for more on Reid). Frankly, I don’t see what Reid is talking about — Thomas’s opinions seem to me no better or worse written than anyone else’s on the Court, and calling him an “embarrassment” without further explanation is just, well, embarrassing.
    ….
    …. So let’s be clear: Thomas is a smart, creative thinker — he is not a “Scalia clone” — and he has staked out reasonably clear and consistent positions on many important legal issues. Democrats, particularly those in the Senate, need to get that through their sometimes frustratingly thick skulls and deal with it.
    ….
    Make no mistake: I am no fan of Justice Thomas’s jurisprudence, and the only reason I’d want to see him as Chief is because I think he’d be less effective (for reasons already stated) than some of the other candidates out there. … It’s also legitimate to argue against Thomas as Chief Justice based on a reasoned disagreement with his legal views. But to demean him with terms like “an embarrassment to the Supreme Court” (especially while simultaneously praising Scalia as a “smart guy” who might make a good Chief) plays right into the hands of those who think that all Democrats are hypocrites. Democrats should know better. It is neither morally acceptable nor smart politics to treat Justice Thomas with anything other than the respect that any other serious contender for Chief Justice would receive.

    Another thoughtful post on the issue.

    If, on the other hand, you oppose Thomas’s jurisprudential philosophy, I’d be happy to debate that with you. But I won’t hold my breath that you’re even aware of any opinions he’s written, let alone able to accurately characterize his judicial philosophy. But I’d advise against drive-by statements that he’s a joke; the only one that ends up looking bad is you.

  135. 135
    The Comish (sic) says:

    slide:

    hey commish, all that jabba wabba about lawyers is not what I am talking about. The right wingnuts wanted red meat. They wanted a fight. And what did they get? The Minority leader praising bush’s candidate.

    I got that. I was just going off on something that amused me from your quote. Sorry for the confusion.

    And for the record, I have no idea what kind of Justice she’s going to be. I’m guessing a moderate. But then again, Bush is a moderate who appears happy with the Court’s current composition. So I really didn’t expect him to change it (although I did expect him to nominate an Hispanic at some point).

  136. 136
    Davebo says:

    Slide

    It wasn’t an anonymous source dude. It was her campaign manager.

    And the Dallas Morning News is a bit more than just “a blog”.

    You thinking the editorial board in Dallas doesn’t know who her Dallas City Council campaign manager was?

    Seems like a stretch to me, but then you are being pretty damned elastic on this subject.

  137. 137
    Jimmy Jazz says:

    1) Bush is too weak for a fight.
    2) He will always choose personal loyalty over any other characteristic.

    Given those two items, this nominee makes perfect sense. Bush has the mentality of a three year old, and he was quite put out when he was told he couldn’t nominate Abu Gonzales. This is his big F.U. to everyone: Abu Gonzales in a skirt. The fundies all have battered wife syndrome, though. They’ll just fall for the next Republican who promises to take them away from all this and usher in the Rapture.

  138. 138
    Davebo says:

    One should keep in mind as well that when trying to climb the ABA or Texas Bar Association political ladder one might try to appear more moderate than they really are.

    Not exactly a den of social conservative in either organization.

  139. 139
    rayabacus says:

    Actually she was the CHAIR of the committee and she signed the report.

    Yes and like the CJ on the SCOTUS she had one vote and of course as Chair of that committee she would have signed it. Your point?

  140. 140
    DougJ says:

    Comish, I’m not arguing with you about Thomas. I’m sure you can find plenty of wingnuts who think he’s wonderful. If you think Thomas is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court, you’ve got bigger cognitive problems than this blog is going to solve.

    Scalia is *much* more influential than Thomas. If Scalia weren’t there, Thomas would just vote with Rehnquist every time instead of voting with Scalia every time. Remember, these guys have very smart clerks so you could have Michael Brown up there and if he just voted with Scalia every time and had his clerks write everything for him, no one would know the difference.

    I doubt that Miers is as unqualified as Thomas. I could be wrong. I don’t think that Bush should have picked Miers, but now that he has, I’m not sure I oppose her nomination.

  141. 141
    DougJ says:

    Comish, that was a pretty good article you linked to, though, I’ll give you that. But even the Thomas apologist who wrote it said

    Make no mistake: I am no fan of Justice Thomas’s jurisprudence, and the only reason I’d want to see him as Chief is because I think he’d be less effective (for reasons already stated) than some of the other candidates out there.

    Which is pretty much my point.

  142. 142
    DougJ says:

    meant to say “oppose her confirmation”.

  143. 143
    Louise says:

    The Comish (sic) said:

    Wow. You really had to reach back for this one. Way to go.

    April 2004 is way back? How recently would such an event have had to happen for you to consider that it is a valid precedent for consideration? 18 months ago is too long ago to count as indicative?

    If Ruth Bader Ginsburg has a personal friend, with whom she has gone on vacation, make an argument before her on the bench, I would certainly want her to recuse herself.

    Has such a thing occurred? Or is mere recognition by an advocacy group enough to disqualify Ginsburg’s rulings on related issues in your eyes?

  144. 144
    DougJ says:

    Okay, I’ve thought more about it. I think I do oppose her confirmation. I just don’t think her record sounds Supreme Court material.

    I wonder what Reid will do. My guess is the Dems will confirm her. Barring a Dobsonite rear-guard action (which certainly could happen), she’s in.

  145. 145
    flaime says:

    More justices with no previous judicial experience, according to Volokh…

    White, Powell, Fortas, Rehnquist, Davis

    White and Powell were very highly regarded justices…

  146. 146
    jobiuspublius says:

    ROFLMAO, I think Reid was being sarcastic.

    Harry Reid:

    “In my view, the Supreme Court would benefit from the addition of a justice who has real experience as a practicing lawyer. The current justices have all been chosen from the lower federal courts. A nominee with relevant non-judicial experience would bring a different and useful perspective to the Court.

    From what we know, Harriet Miers is unqualified for the position. She had an impressive career of “firsts” as a female attorney in Texas, but those are not enough. Miers did not graduate from a top tier law school. She has no string of impressive legal writings. She has never served as a judge (let alone clerked for a Supreme Court Justice or Circuit Court Judge). She has never had a practice focusing on issues relevant to the United States Supreme Court. She has had nothing in her career that indicates she is something other than just a great lawyer—and being more than just a great lawyer should be a key qualification for one of the final arbiters of American jurisprudence

  147. 147
    DougJ says:

    It’s not just the lack of judicial experience, it’s a decidedly underwhelming track record in general. The firm she worked for is not particularly well-regarded. She didn’t go to a prestigious law school or make law law review at the one she went to.

    She’s just not qualified. The NRO crowd is right on this one.

  148. 148
    jobiuspublius says:

    DougJ Says:

    Okay, I’ve thought more about it. I think I do oppose her confirmation. I just don’t think her record sounds Supreme Court material.

    I wonder what Reid will do. My guess is the Dems will confirm her. Barring a Dobsonite rear-guard action (which certainly could happen), she’s in.

    ROFLMAO. Your getting subtler everyday. Almost got me.

  149. 149
    jobiuspublius says:

    DougJ Says:

    It’s not just the lack of judicial experience, it’s a decidedly underwhelming track record in general. The firm she worked for is not particularly well-regarded. She didn’t go to a prestigious law school or make law law review at the one she went to.

    She’s just not qualified. The NRO crowd is right on this one.

    Very good, DougJ. Laying the groundwork for a fundy pick. ;)

  150. 150

    I kinda don’t like her because, as a Rep, I wanted a BIG VCICTORY.

    I think, therefore, she will be confirmed without a big loss for Bush. Her confirmation, if she really IS against Roe, would be a big victory, but quiet — stealth.

    Assuming confirmation, Bush is right, and I am wrong to want the BIG WIN I want. (I know it’s not politically good rub the losers nose in the loss; I still want to.)

    If she’s NOT confirmed — maybe even better. The Reps will vote for her, even if unethusiastically in public (prolly WITH secret enthusiasm); the Dems will have to stop her.

    There’s no paper trail to claim she’s “outside the mainstream.” If the Dems don’t accept her, I’d expect a nukular-option fight over a stronger conservative.

    Do the Dems really want to “hurt” Bush’s 2008 chances that much? They already know he won’t win again.

  151. 151
    AlphaPatriot says:

    Bush Blows Opportunity

    With Republicans in control of the House, Senate, White House and the majority of govenorships Bush continues to make unnecessary concessions to Democrats. Is the man that ousted the Taliban and freed a nation so afraid of confrontation that he won’t …

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. AlphaPatriot says:

    Bush Blows Opportunity

    With Republicans in control of the House, Senate, White House and the majority of govenorships Bush continues to make unnecessary concessions to Democrats. Is the man that ousted the Taliban and freed a nation so afraid of confrontation that he won’t …

  2. Bush’s Legal “Pit Bull” Miers Picked For Supreme Court (UPDATED ALL DAY)

    Just as he did on the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court, Pr…

  3. Iowa Voice says:

    Harriet Miers Is Bush’s Pick For The Supreme Court

    I was busy composing another post when this came out, so I’m a little behind the curve. To put it bluntly, this has to be one of the biggest disappointments of the Bush Presidency. And that’s saying a lot.

    There has to be a serious concern as to…

  4. […] UPDATE @ 9:18: JOHN COLE: “I don’t get it.” […]

Comments are closed.