Captain Ed who is celebrating his two year blog anniversary said on the Miers nomination.
Not only does Harriet Miers not look like the best candidate for the job, she doesn’t even look like the best female candidate for the job. If judicial experience is a liability, why not Maureen Mahoney, who is younger, has argued cases at the Supreme Court, and worked within the Deputy Solicitor’s Office after clerking for William Rehnquist? Better yet, why not nominate J. Michael Luttig or Michael McConnell, with their brilliant and scholarly approaches to the law and undeniable qualifications through years of judicial experience? Why not Edith Hollan Jones, if Bush wanted to avoid the confrontation that Janice Rogers Brown would have created?
Miers may make a great stealth candidate, but right now she looks more like a political ploy. Color me disappointed in the first blush.
John Hawkins at Right Wing News posted.
George Bush’s decision to appoint Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court is bitterly disappointing.
Miers is a Bush crony with no real conservative credentials, who leapfrogged legions of more deserving judges just because she was Bush’s pal. She used to be Bush’s staff secretary for God’s sake and now she’s going to the Supreme Court while people like Michael Luttig, Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown & Emilio Garza are being left on the sidelines.
To merely describe Miers as a terrible pick is to underestimate her sheer awfulness as a selection.
People didn’t like Roberts’ track record? Miers has never been a judge, so she has almost no track record. She’s 60 years old, which is getting up there for a Supreme Court selection. Not only will she not excite the base like a Janice Rogers Brown, Miers selection will lead to a wave of attacks on the President by conservatives. Moreover, not only is there no guarantee that Miers will be another "Scalia or Thomas," it’s an open question whether she’ll be as conservative as Sandra Day O’Connor.
Keep in mind that we’re talking about a woman who has donated to Al Gore, Lloyd Bentsen, & the Democratic National Committee before. You want a candidate who has "Souter" written all over her? You want a candidate who can’t be trusted to overturn Roe v. Wade? Well, her name is Harriet Miers.
This is undoubtedly the worst decision of Bush’s entire presidency so far.
Though John Podhoretz at the Corner notes that "And those 1988 contributions could well have been "bundles" — meaning that the collection plate was passed around at her law firm so that some leading partner could be a high-dollar-raising Dem muckety-muck and she wasn’t in a position to say no."
I am rather disappointed myself in that it certainly looks this was not a great pick. Though I guess again the President is not worried about public perception and other demands. He nominated Roberts at the time when there was pressure to directly make a woman’s seat on the Supreme Court. Now he has nominated someone he has worked with for years despite the fact that the charge of cronyism in his appointments has gotten much attention recently. Though it might be that he has bowed to pressure by selecting people who will have an easier time going through the nomination hearings. Personally I was hoping for a fight and that the Democrats would filibuster the nomination finally forcing spineless Republican leaders to act. Though maybe I still may not be disappointed in that regard since they are probably already searching for a pretext that she presents "extraordinary circumstances" and should be filibustered. I can hardly wait for the first NARAL ads linking here to abortion bombings somewhere.
The downside to the fact that she had no judicial track record is that we don’t know her judicial temperament. Even though there have been articles that claim she is firmly anti-abortion as a judge her reading and interpretation of the Constitution is of primary importance. Her predecessor was also suppose to be against abortion but managed to have judicial hallucinations that by squinting your eyes in the right way enabled you to see penumbras and other emanations coming from the Constitution. Of course if she does become a good justice her age will limit the legacy of this, though if she becomes another O’Connor or worse a Souter that would be the upside.
Though there is couple thing I can say in support of Harriet Miers. She is not Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales and she sure can handle tough questions.
Alex, from Fargo, North Dakota writes:
Could you explain how Barney plays horseshoes?
The President throws the horseshoes to Barney, and Barney runs after them. Metal horseshoes are too heavy for Barney to lift, so he doesn’t carry them around. Instead he moves them around with his nose. He has figured out pretty quickly how to get under the horseshoe enough to flip it over. As you know, the President loves horsing around with Barney.
She is not Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales
Are you sure? Have you ever seen a picture of the two together?
It is an awful pick. Harriet Miers Souter. Secretly married, dontcha know.
They say the 1988 donation was to the pro-life version of Al Gore, before he was reprogrammed.
Blimey. I haven’t got a clue! What chaps me is, it appears the best qualifications to be a Supreme Court Justice these days is… well, making sure you don’t have any qualifiers in your background!
Hey, I nominate one of Stephen Hawking’s Black Holes! Or how about a blank blackboard?
Well, they look good in black anyway. Seems to be about the only thing we can intelligently ponder regarding nominees anymore.
Is Judge Judy busy these days?