Monday, October 03, 2005


Interesting nomination by Bush. He does love to throw curve balls when strikes are expected, doesn't he? Harriet Miers is not, on the surface, an obvious nomination. Hasn't publicly waved the conservative flag. Isn't a judge. On second look, she is an obvious Bush nomination, based on what we know Bush values. But let's look at what everyone else values, first.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid has said it's great that she's a real lawyer with "practical experience" not some Constitution wonk. Isn't that the same argument used every time by conservatives want to avoid having the country run by people who are intelligent? Real life legal experience could certainly be important and germane to the work of SCOTUS. Yet I want someone ruling on Constitutional issues who actually has worked with the Constitution, someone who has, at the very least, argued before SCOTUS. I'm not initially enthused about some SMU yahoo who has excelled only at grabbing more money for corporations and covering Dubya's butt.

Besides, what exactly is Reid's game here? I supported her, I didn't support her. Huh? Was this just a fun flip flop for him? Hope so. How can any self-respecting Democrat (person?) with a brain support someone who said "the president was the most brilliant man (she) had ever met"?

So far, Bush's most important constituency, the far Right, are most unhappy with the nomination. Not conservative enough. Could actually be for gay rights regarding adoption . She just doesn't have good right karma. The call is, well, we've got to trust Bush, as he's never steered us wrong before. But I'm sure that's not exactly a comfortable place for them.

The Left is disgusted by the continued cronyism. Amazing, given Katrina that Bush sticks to what he knows and chooses based on who he knows. But it's worked for him for a term and a third now, so why should he change? SCOTUSblog points out that the US have been victim of the some of the least impressive Justices over the years through cronyism.

Several left bloggers say this nomination shows Bush's "weakness". He knows he can't manage a messy fight right now, given his lack of political capital post Katrina. But both the left and the right are missing the boat. Bush & Co have taken the temperature of the nation and proceeded accordingly. Yes, avoid a messy fight--don't nominate anyone who reeks of ultraconservatism. But more important, follow up the successful Roberts' nomination by a similar choice: someone with no paper trail that Bush knows very, very well. And make it a woman so he's got a ready defense for anyone who jumps on the crony bandwagon (you must be a misogynist to attack a woman, a pioneer in the legal community).

Senator Patrick Leahy made an extremely important point that the Salon War Room picked up. He said, "What I do know is that she has a reputation for being loyal to this president, whom she has a long history of serving as a close advisor and in working to advance his objectives. In an administration intent on accumulating executive power, Ms. Miers' views on and role in these issues will be important for the Senate to examine." Too bad he didn't spend enough time worrying about this issue with Chief Justice Roberts. Might have changed that yes vote to a no.

And may I just that, on an entirely superficial level, someone needs to give this woman a makeover. She's got enough eyeliner on to outfit an entire middle school. We're way past Southern belle and into mini-Goth mode.

Until tomorrow,


Post a Comment

<< Home