I Oppose the Miers Nomination

The Truth Laid Bear is asking people to take a position (results here):

I oppose the Miers nomination and have from the get go. Close-minded sexist elitist that I am, you know.






37 replies
  1. 1
    Sojourner says:

    Sexist? Maybe not. I think all the really smart women are liberals.

  2. 2
    bago says:

    An administration nigh under indictment appoints its own lawyer to the highest court in the land, qualifications be damned.

  3. 3
    Vladi G says:

    I think all the really smart women are liberals.

    Any woman in the current GOP is, by definition, an idiot.

  4. 4
    Slide says:

    Any woman in the current GOP is, by definition, an idiot.

    Does that include the likes of Fred Dreier, Ken Melman, Scotty McClellan, Jeff Gannon ?

  5. 5
    Mark-NC says:

    Bush has stated that he picked the best candidate for the job.

    I’m assiming that most Republicans believe that Bush prayed and God told him to make this pick – so I don’t understand the dissent from the righteous side.

  6. 6
    zzyzx says:

    I’m more neutral. I figure that I’ll hate anyone Bush appoints, so getting a person who’s kind of incompetent and annoys the people who were so into the Schiavo “issue” is about the best I can hope for.

  7. 7
    Vladi G says:

    Fred Dreier

    Well, Fred Dreyer, aka ‘Hunter’, is a former NFL football player. You’re thinking of David Dreier.

  8. 8
    Andrew J. Lazarus says:

    I support the Miers nomination and major props to Harry Reid for suggesting it.

    Of course, Miers, on her qualifications, is just about right for a District Court judgeship, but against that

    1. anything that arranges the Republican Party into a circular firing squad is good for the country;

    2. anything that emphasizes how Bush is a narrow-minded, blindered screwup is good for the country;

    3. like, Bush was going to appoint Steven Reinhardt as second choice? The battle to get a good justice was lost last November.

  9. 9
    Kimmitt says:

    I support Harry Reid’s suggestion of Harriet Miers.

  10. 10

    Opposed.

    She is completely unqualified and she was the President’s personal lawyer.

    No dice.

  11. 11
    p.lukasiak says:

    I support Miers because I think it sends the wrong message for the only complete moron on the court to be a black male.

  12. 12
    Tim F says:

    Like anybody serious I oppose this nomination on the merits. On a practical level, considering that there’s practically no chance at this point that she will even make it out of committee, I’m enjoying the show immensely.

    Kevin Drum points to K-Lo reacting to the nomination at The Corner:

    The president just took some questions. To sum up his message: She’s my girl. She’s a good girl. Trust me.

    I hate this groaning-when-the-president speaks reflex I’ve had all week on this issue

    To coin a phrase, Indeed.

  13. 13
    BumperStickerist says:

    My hope for the confirmation hearing is that Harriet Miers walks over and smears a reddish blood-like substance all over Senator “Not Proven”‘s face.

    The fact that she’s post-menopausal only adds to the spectacle.

    Plan B) is for Harriet to channel “Evil MasterMind Reagan” from the SNL skit. Should she display a stunning in-depth knowledge of, well, everything Constitutional, then we’ll have our show.

    Remember, folks, this is a country that turned on a dime when Ollie North showed up in uniform on TeeVee.

  14. 14
    Slide says:

    Remember, folks, this is a country that turned on a dime when Ollie North showed up in uniform on TeeVee.

    I know Ollie North. Ollie North was a friend of mine. Harriet, you’re no Ollie North.

  15. 15
    Krista says:

    I’m opposed to it, and I don’t even live in the U.S.
    The circular firing squad has already reached the point of no return, and Bush’s cronyism, muleheadedness and incomptetence has already been spotlighted with blinding floodlights. The damage has been done. I don’t want her confirmed because she has the potential to screw up the lives of an awful lot of American women.

  16. 16
    tzs says:

    The woman is mediocre, if not incompetent in the area of Constitutional law.

    Forget the strategy of “who’s next?” The only way this country will get back on its feet is if we reward merit and punish cronyism. I vote NO.

  17. 17
    Shalimar says:

    Nothing in her background suggests that she has even minimal qualifications to be on the Supreme Court. That alone shouldn’t disqualify her if she has the legal mind for the job, but it does mean that the burden of proof to establish her constitutional law bona fides is on the White House. They seem to have completely flubbed that with the botched questionnaire and the unconvincing meetings with senators. Based on what we know now, Harriet Miers will be a complete disaster. Of course, the entertainment value of reading her poorly-reasoned decisions might balance the damage she does to the country, but she will undoubtedly have law clerks who are significantly more capable than she is, keeping her from making a complete fool of herself.

    Maybe Bush should just go ahead and nominate one of the thousands of Republican judges around the country who would do a better job? Edith Clement would be a good choice and get a near-unanimous confirmation based on the little I have read.

  18. 18

    Yeah, but if Miers goes down does that mean that the chef is next?

  19. 19

    I think if Miers goes down–at the behest of Republicans–then Bush will be basically forced to nominate a moderate like O’Conner. If the Repubs stop or shoot down Miers nomination, the Dems will be able to argue that she was shot down because a small minority of the conservative base–particularly the Terri Schiavo section of the religious right–has the majority of the power when it comes to the Republicans. Therefore, this new nominee is an extremist, and calls for a filibuster.

    I do not believe that the Repubs would bring the nuclear option, and even if they did–I don’t think they would have the votes.

    That is how I see it playing out.

  20. 20
    Tim F says:

    Frist is debilitated and Bush has no political capital. No, correct that, Bush has negative political capital. Even in the best of times the “nuclear option” had to come into effect before a contentious SCOTUS nomination, not in the heat of the fight. Add all of those together and you can predict that Bush can’t, and won’t, pick a partisan fight.

    Looking forward, I would prefer that this Miers fight drags on for a few more months before it dies off, and that Bush nominate a base-pleasing firebrand for the next seat. What’s happening at roughly the same time as that fight plays out? The 2006 midterms. Let those elections serve as a referendum on whether America wants a radical like Janice Brown in the most powerful judicial seat in the country.

  21. 21
    Tractarian says:

    If the Repubs stop or shoot down Miers nomination, the Dems will be able to argue that she was shot down because a small minority of the conservative base—particularly the Terri Schiavo section of the religious right—has the majority of the power when it comes to the Republicans. Therefore, this new nominee is an extremist, and calls for a filibuster.

    No way. This is the same argument Schumer made yesterday on MTP for why Bush can’t withdraw Miers. I think he’s dead wrong.

    First, it’s not the extreme theocon right that’s mainly objecting to this nomination – it’s the establishment right, i.e. Will, Kristol, Frum, etc. By and large the Dobson crowd has been quiet and content with Bush’s winks and nods.

    Second, since when has the extreme theocon right’s overwhelming influence over the administration and the GOP been in doubt? Surely Bush isn’t going to nominate someone based on a fear of being associated with the theocons. If Miers is defeated in the Senate, Bush will come back with a hard-right nominee with a good resume – a McConnell or Luttig, for example – that will fire up the base, just like he would have done in the first place had Rove not been preoccupied.

    And I say “defeated”, not “withdrawn” because I agree with Schumer that there’s no way Bush withdraws Miers, just for a different reason – he won’t want to “show weakness” by changing his mind.

  22. 22
    Shalimar says:

    Bush always picks a partisan fight, especially when he’s pushed into a corner. The difference between now and last year is that his confrontational choices are exploding in his face instead of on his enemies. Too many reporters have started asking questions again to get away with it now, but it won’t stop Bush from appointing Luttig or Brown. And George Will and Bill Kristol (etc) will support the choice as long as it is someone competent. The main problem with Miers is that Bush picked the worst possible time to nominate a crony with no relevant experience, not whether she’s extremist enough.

  23. 23
    Jim Miller says:

    I can’t say that I have been impressed by most of the arguments against Harriet Miers. Few get much above childish name calling.

    If you would like to make a rational argument against her, let me suggest that you first note this point: President Bush said he would nominate justices like Scalia and Thomas. Roberts is, most people seem to think, like Scalia and Miers is — like Thomas.

    Having noted that Bush is doing what he promised to do, then you should answer this question: If you used the same standards on Thomas (when he was nominated) that you use on Miers, would you have opposed his nomination? Almost every intellectually honest person will say yes.

    (Of course I know that Thomas had a few years as a judge. But he had no significant private career, unlike Miers, who was head of her law firm and head of the Texas Bar Association. Her career — at this point — is, significantly more impressive that his was, when he was nominated.)

    (My apologies to John Cole for attempting to make this discussion more rational. That is less fun, I know.)

  24. 24
    Tractarian says:

    (My apologies to John Cole for attempting to make this discussion more rational. That is less fun, I know.)

    You shouldn’t apologize for being rational. You should apologize for making shit up.

    1) Read George Will again, or any of the other scathing critiques of Miers. (I’d link them for you, but I’m at work and already wasting too much time.) I think you’ll see it’s way more than name-calling.
    2) I don’t know of anyone likening Roberts to Scalia. He is a Rehnquist clone, if anything.
    3) In no way is Miers’ career more impressive than Thomas’ when he was nominated. Thomas was assistant AG of Missouri and served in several Reagan/GHWB administration positions. Plus he spent a couple of years on the federal appellate bench. His resume wasn’t great, but it was a damn sight better than Miers’.

  25. 25
    Flagwaver says:

    Opposed. I get a huge kick out of reading the responses of people to this issue, as almost EVERYONE (except those on the right who oppose Miers) misstate or misconstrue (intentionally???) the nature of the opposition to Miers from the right. I am a libertarian/conservative. I happen to be Catholic, and pro-life, but that’s NOT my objection to Miers (nor is it the objection of anyone else I know or have read or heard on the Right). She may very well be pro-life. I neither know, nor care. She lacks both the intellectual heft, and the grounding in Constitutional theory and law, to participate meaningfully on the Supreme Court. As I put it to a friend, who is a Bush loyalist, and who urged me to support her because, “You can trust George. He knows her, and he knows she’ll be a reliable vote.” My response was, “We need a VOICE, not a vote!”

    While every lefty I know despises Nino Scalia with a burning purple passion, only the most moonbat lefties (and I ignore them) will argue that the man is not a brilliant legal mind. When discussing Thomas with the lefties, I always enjoy asking them to point me to one of his published opinions that demonstrates his “sub-par” intellect and legal skills (haven’t had a successful taker, yet). Read anything you can find written by Miers (not opinions, of course, as she was not a judge, but articles and position papers written by her as President of the Texas Bar Association, for example) and tell me that this woman can write or reason. With a straight face.

    We need conservative jurists on the Court who can articulate, and argue persuasively, the “Originalist” approach to Constitutional jurisprudence. And that means, for those of you lefties who have managed to (intentionally or otherwise) miss this “nuance,” that I fully expect that a principled conservative jurist would, from time to time, NOT vote “my way” on Constitutional issues. So long as they do so from a principled, well-reasoned and well-articulated conservative/Originalist legal philosophy, I’m FINE with that – much happier than I would be with a Miers voting “my way” on every issue, and unable to persuasively articulate or argue a coherent judicial philosophy.

    Thomas may not have been the greatest legal light in the world, but his background and his experience and his intellect make him demonstrably more qualified than Miers. It’s not JUST that she’s a lightweight, intellectually and in terms of experience, it’s that it’s a bad selection for almost every reason – the nomination smacks of cronyism, it is an insult to the dozens of qualified conservative jurists and legal scholars available to fill this position, and it’s a political disaster. W couldn’t have picked a worse nominee if he’d tried.

  26. 26
    Cyrus says:

    In addition to Tractarian’s summary of relevant points that Jim Miller was completely ignorant of, I’d add another: cronyism.

    No, it’s not just a shorter way of spelling “unqualified,” and it’s not a generic “doubleplus ungood” either. Bush nominated his personal lawyer and longtime friend to the Supreme Court. Those two things alone should disqualify her.

    It reminds me of another principle of modern societies which, sadly, is also getting very little respect these days, the idea of avoiding conflicts of interest. On a matter where you’re supposed to be impartial, like judging or reporting the news, recuse yourself if you can’t be impartial or at the very least make the conflict of interest clear up front. It’s partly to ensure objectivity, but not entirely. Because even if you know in your heart that you can and will report or arbitrate fairly, it still looks bad, opens the door for all kinds of abuses in the future and generally shreds the integrity of the process.

    So, Bush appointed his personal lawyer and longtime friend to the Supreme Court. And we’re seriously supposed to give him the benefit of the doubt about her qualifications when there’s no evidence they exist? Accept this, but reject it soundly when his successor does something just a tiny bit worse? Be proud of our meritocratic, egalitarian democracy when “White House chief of staff” is the final step on the way to the Supreme Court? Fuck that. Or, as a Kossack would say, Cheney Bush.

  27. 27

    You know what I find truly hilarious is that all of you Bushie morons think I actually said she is being opposed by the religious right. I suggest you actually take the time and read my post.

    You see, I never said that, you shitheads. I think the criticism about Meirs is mainly because she is unqualified (no constitutional law experience) and that being so unqualified she won’t be able to write persuasive opinions. HOWEVER, I think that the Dems will act as if it was the case that a small fraction (the theocon religious right) caused the nomination to fail–not that it actually is the case.

    Come on, you guys do know the difference between reality and spin don’t you? I mean, afterall, the republicans act as if Howard Dean is far left–when in reality–he is more of a centrist–balanced the budget, NRA approves of him, reformed welfare.

    Then again, you are probably too stupid to actually check your facts though.

  28. 28
    Jim Miller says:

    So far, the responses to my comment illustrate this point I began with: “Few get much above childish name calling.”

    For example, one advises me: “You shouldn’t apologize for being rational. You should apologize for making shit up.”

    But never mentions anything that I made up. It is, in fact, quite easy to find similarities between Scalia and Roberts. For example, both are said to brilliant and conservative. That Roberts may — or may not– prove to be more like Rehnquist in his opinions on the court does not mean he is not similar to Scalia.

    To claim that the former head of a major law firm and the Texas Bar Association is a “crony” is to misuse the term. Similarly, it would be unfair to say that Clarence Thomas was a crony of either the first President Bush or former Senator Danforth, though Thomas was close to both — and was helped in his career by both.

    I haven’t read George Will’s columns closely but did find one argument in them simply hilarious. (The Judd Borthers have a fine disection of it for those interested.) If that’s a fair sample of his thought on the subject, then I can only say that Will needs a vacation.

    Come on, folks. If you have a rational argument, bring it out. And skip the name calling and crudities. I haven’t been impressed by them since I was in junior high.

  29. 29

    Come on, folks. If you have a rational argument, bring it out. And skip the name calling and crudities. I haven’t been impressed by them since I was in junior high.

    There are plenty of rational arugments in the thread Jim. If you don’t see them then you aren’t looking hard enough.

    Here is one. She has absolutely no experience in Constitutional law. Now, this is seperate from her not having been a judge. There have been several justices who did not have judicial experience but, and this is a bug but, just about every single one in recent history has had some experience in Constitutional law. She is unqualified for the position.

  30. 30
  31. 31
    RA says:

    I would like to point out how gleefull the idiot left is when they see useful idot conservatives bashing Bush and HIS pick. Conservatives should take a deep breath and count their blessings. We could be having AlGore or Kerry appointing judges. All conservatives should recognise how much better Miers will be compaired to another Ruth Bader Godzilla!

  32. 32
    Tractarian says:

    Why do I get the feeling that DougJ is somewhere snickering?

  33. 33
    Sojourner says:

    Ruth Bader Ginsburg had a remarkable legal career prior to joining the supreme court, having contributed significantly to the law on equal rights. During that same period Miers was sending love letters to W. Please don’t use their names in the same sentence. Yes, there are highly qualified women out there, Ginsburg being an excellent example. No need to settle for W’s maid.

  34. 34
    Andrew J. Lazarus says:

    If Miers is shot down by Republicans it makes it far easier to filibuster Clement, Rodgers Brown, Luttig, or any other far-right nominee. That’s how GWB got himself stuck, by making it acceptable to thwart his nominees without the Dems having to exert themselves at all.

  35. 35
    Kimmitt says:

    When discussing Thomas with the lefties, I always enjoy asking them to point me to one of his published opinions that demonstrates his “sub-par” intellect and legal skills (haven’t had a successful taker, yet)

    Um, have you read any of Judge Thomas’s opinions, especially the dissents? They’re often quite terrifying.

  36. 36
    Tim F says:

    Why do I get the feeling that DougJ is somewhere snickering?

    No no, that’s me.

  37. 37
    Flagwaver says:

    Kimmitt,

    I’ve read most, if not all, of Thomas’ published Supreme Court opinions. “Terrifying” they may be, to you, because they take positions, and reflect a philosophy and ideology, foreign to you, and with which you do not agree. My challenge was to find one such that demonstrated, based upon its structure, language, and intellectual content, that proves his sub-par intelligence. I disagree with virtually every word Breyer writes, but he is a brilliant scholar, and a powerful and gifted writer. He’s just dead-ass wrong. Thomas’ linguistic and reasoning skills are not, unfortunately, on a par with Nino Scalia’s . . . but, then, neither are Souter’s, Ginsburg’s or Kennedy’s. But, again, find me that opinion that PROVES that he is the imbecile you lefties paint him to be.

    Disenfranchised Voter,

    Do you EVER make an argument that amounts to more than “You conservatives are stupid!” said in different, garbled, misspelled ways?? Gets old.

Comments are closed.