thoughts on Harriet Miers (gloomy monday)

[lapsedmodernist]

So 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"

MIERS, HARRIET E
DALLAS, TX 75219
LOCKE PURNELL RAIN HARRELL
LOCKE PURNELL RAIN HARRELL FEDERAL POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $630
primary 02/16/88

MIERS, HARRIET E MS
DALLAS, TX 75219
LOCKE PURNELL RAIN HARRELL GORE, AL (D)
President
ALBERT GORE JR FOR PRESIDENT COMMITTEE INC $1,000
primary 02/16/88

MIERS, HARRIET E MRS
DALLAS, TX 75201
LOCKE PURNELL ETAL BENTSEN, LLOYD SENATOR (D)
Senate - DC
SENATOR LLOYD BENTSEN ELECTION COMMITTEE


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?

Comments

[bromius.livejournal.com]

You make some very good points, but I think this is a particularly weak pick for Bush. Yes, she's a woman, but she's got zero judicial experience and her donation to Gore you mentioned makes her look less conservative than some on the right might like. She is, as has been said elsewhere, just another Michael Brown, a crony whose loyalty got her promoted time and again.
Granted, we don't know any of her judicial beliefs, but that's on purpose. I don't think she could "pull a Roberts" and simply deflect any questions that Senators pose to her, since I don't believe she's that skillful. Roberts got a free pass in part because he was so eminently qualified; I sincerely doubt the same thing will happen to her.

[lapsedmodernist.livejournal.com]

precedent shows that judicial experience is not necessary for SCOTUS. honestly, if she weren't a Bush pick, I'd rather have someone with her resume than any other political businessman who did two years at the DC circuit court. I think the fact that she regularly appeared before trial and appeals judges makes her more in touch than your average Brownie. The Gore donation is a non-issue, it's like the gay rights/abortion murders were for Roberts, on both sides. And she won't have to skillfully deflect, I don't think, she can claim attorney-client privilege over anything she has done since being on staff for Bush and it will be valid.

[bromius.livejournal.com]

We shall see. Apparently conservatives already think she's an awful choice, which is fine by me.

[lapsedmodernist.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately, I think finding solace in the conservative critiques of the candidate is a false hope. Conservatives argued that Roberts was a bad choice, too, because he advised a group working to protect gay rights in Colorado, and Ann Coulter-type pundits seemed to feel that he will pull a Souter. And I am not inclined to feel hopeful about anyone Bush describes as a "pitbull in size 6 heels." She seems like a Katherine Harris type, you know what I mean?

[bromius.livejournal.com]

Point taken. Still, we've got plenty of time to dig up dirt and see how opinions change before her hearing.

[danschank.livejournal.com]

nice to know someone else ran a google search after dubya declared his opposition to the dred scott verdict in the debates. i remember watching that and being like, "duh!". i then of course read the same slate article you just linked to.

[lapsedmodernist.livejournal.com]

I was less duh than wtf but then it allllll made sense.

[cascadianista.livejournal.com]

That first paragraph is hall of fame material.

[chitinous.livejournal.com]

I'm positive that Bush and his cabinet already know where Miers stands on every key issue, even though the public doesn't.

[lapsedmodernist.livejournal.com]

exactly!

the civilian junta

[mjmj.livejournal.com]

i don't understand -- President Gore didn't pick this woman, so why is the Senate giving the choice any consideration?

it looks to me like some people may have forgotten that the country is being ruled by an illegitimate, un-elected group of traitors to democracy.