![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
thoughts on Harriet Miers (gloomy monday)
Oct. 3rd, 2005 12:01 pmSo Bush has pulled another judicial nominee with a tabula rasa for a judicial record from his sleeve. The broken backbone, chewed by coyotes, that is the Democratic contingent (its name is Luka it lives on the second floor) is searching for silver lining with one of those metal rods that has been converted into a blind man's walking stick, they just didn't get the memo.
"She can't be THAT bad/crazy/neoconideologue, she donated to the Dems"
( click for donation record in question )
That is cold comfort. First of all, to contribute to the party in power (which the Dems were in TX in '88) is a smart networking move, and so it donating to the Southerner against the Yankee. Secondly this was before she was drafted by Bush as counsel for his 1994 gubernatorial campaign. Who cares who she donated to 20 years ago? For the last 12 years she has been working for the most brilliant man she had ever met--a statement that has but a binary explanation model of either she is a moron OR she is a sycophant. If she got "converted" to Bush after having any kind of genuine Democratic leanings, well, you know how it goes with xtra-overcompensating zealots. If her character assessment is indicative of brown-nosing, I wouldn't take her campaign contribution record as an indicator of anything except knowing which way the wind is blowing.
I am not really that bothered by her lack of judicial experience. The usual career track to the Supreme Court seems to be professionally politicking or thinktanking ---> being appointed to th DC circuit court of appeals for the nominal year or two of bench exprience ---> SCOTUS (see Scalia or Thomas). As an experienced trial lawyer, I wouldn't peg her as a Brownie, but what bothers me is it seems that (and correct me if I am wrong) her appointment to the White House Counsel's office will result in any line of questioning re: partisan bias being deflected on the (valid) grounds of attorney-client privilege.
Finally, the dust the Bush Administration throws is thrown heavy-handedly. She is a woman, which is a PR move designed to pacify the public meme that "conservative men are legislating over women's bodies." Even for Bush, with his der wille zur macht/Cartmania, it would have been retarded to replace SDO'C with a man. Also, she is the deep blue sea, or something, as in "at least it's not the Torture Memo Guy." And the clean slate seems to offer an itsy-bitsy hope of the "no news is good news" logical fallacy variety.
But don't we already KNOW what she is about? An endorsement by the Bush administration is as informative as any public record. She hasn't gone on record re: Roe v. Wade? Doesn't matter. There is no way in hell that George "I Oppose The Dred Scott Ruling" Bush would appoint someone to SCOTUS unless he was assured, off the record, in private, whatever, that they would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. That is a sine qua non for any Bush nominee and to pretend that it might be otherwise is a river in Egypt, ok?
"She can't be THAT bad/crazy/neoconideologue, she donated to the Dems"
( click for donation record in question )
That is cold comfort. First of all, to contribute to the party in power (which the Dems were in TX in '88) is a smart networking move, and so it donating to the Southerner against the Yankee. Secondly this was before she was drafted by Bush as counsel for his 1994 gubernatorial campaign. Who cares who she donated to 20 years ago? For the last 12 years she has been working for the most brilliant man she had ever met--a statement that has but a binary explanation model of either she is a moron OR she is a sycophant. If she got "converted" to Bush after having any kind of genuine Democratic leanings, well, you know how it goes with xtra-overcompensating zealots. If her character assessment is indicative of brown-nosing, I wouldn't take her campaign contribution record as an indicator of anything except knowing which way the wind is blowing.
I am not really that bothered by her lack of judicial experience. The usual career track to the Supreme Court seems to be professionally politicking or thinktanking ---> being appointed to th DC circuit court of appeals for the nominal year or two of bench exprience ---> SCOTUS (see Scalia or Thomas). As an experienced trial lawyer, I wouldn't peg her as a Brownie, but what bothers me is it seems that (and correct me if I am wrong) her appointment to the White House Counsel's office will result in any line of questioning re: partisan bias being deflected on the (valid) grounds of attorney-client privilege.
Finally, the dust the Bush Administration throws is thrown heavy-handedly. She is a woman, which is a PR move designed to pacify the public meme that "conservative men are legislating over women's bodies." Even for Bush, with his der wille zur macht/Cartmania, it would have been retarded to replace SDO'C with a man. Also, she is the deep blue sea, or something, as in "at least it's not the Torture Memo Guy." And the clean slate seems to offer an itsy-bitsy hope of the "no news is good news" logical fallacy variety.
But don't we already KNOW what she is about? An endorsement by the Bush administration is as informative as any public record. She hasn't gone on record re: Roe v. Wade? Doesn't matter. There is no way in hell that George "I Oppose The Dred Scott Ruling" Bush would appoint someone to SCOTUS unless he was assured, off the record, in private, whatever, that they would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. That is a sine qua non for any Bush nominee and to pretend that it might be otherwise is a river in Egypt, ok?
