Bush's nominee to replace O'Connor is Harriet Miers

I worked with Harriet Miers. She's a lovely person: intelligent, honest, capable, loyal, discreet, dedicated ... I could pile on the praise all morning. But nobody would describe her as one of the outstanding lawyers in the United States.

A couple of days ago:

In the White House that hero worshipped the president, Miers was distinguished by the intensity of her zeal: She once told me that the president was the most brilliant man she had ever met. She served Bush well, but she is not the person to lead the court in new directions - or to stand up under the criticism that a conservative justice must expect.

The flack of flacks has just been nominated and even the other flacks can't handle it! This is going to be interesting.

"I worked with Harriet Miers. She's a lovely person: intelligent, honest, capable, loyal, discreet, dedicated ... I could pile on the praise all morning. But nobody would describe her as one of the outstanding lawyers in the United States. And there is no reason at all to believe either that she is a legal conservative or - and more importantly - that she has the spine and steel necessary to resist the pressures that constantly bend the American legal system toward the left. "

1) she has worked for Bush for many years and therefore should not be disqualified for that reason alone (the hell?)

2) she has experience in fighting terrorism (uh-huh)

Of course the more telling bit is him saying: "The president is a poker player in a long game. He's decided to take a sure win with a good sized pot. I trust him." Of course you do, dear.

Leonard Leo and Jay Sekulow are also all "Yay the President can do wrong!" -- but that sure ain't the overwhelming feeling elsewhere. Instapundit is 'underwhelmed' and is pulling together a slew of links, generally not positive. Meanwhile, there's a claim that Sen. Reid is happy with the choice, while the wingnuts at ConfirmThem are thoroughly peeved if not angered.

After the Roberts pick conservatives swooned and said Bush doesn't care about “diversity”; it's only high qualifications that matter to this bold, let-the-chips-fall-where-they-may leader, etc., etc. Don't we have to take all that back now?

"Miers is a disastrous, enigma on Roe pick. bush has betrayed us and lied to us in two elections. We ought to abandon this administration, stop giving dollars, stop activism.
We fought tooth and nail on the promise of Scalias and Thomases. With incredibly able judges around Bush chose a crappy lightweight just because he liked her."

So for whom are betrayed Bushies gonna vote in '08?

!!!

Uh, hadn't they noticed that Bush does this with almost every position of importance? The FEMA fiasco is proof of that.

One of the dumbest things being said today about Harriet Miers is that she has no paper trail. She has a colossal paper trail, and a potentially dangerous one too -- as one of the two honchoes of a law firm in Texas called Locke Liddell and Sapp. This means that every case taken by Locke Liddell and Sapp during her time as chief partner is part of her "paper trail." It's true she has said nothing about abortion. But what about making money defending, say, polluters? Or tobacco companies? One really controversial case might give Democrats sufficient cover to oppose her en masse and, depending on the circumstance, might be enough for a few Northeastern Republicans to go off the reservation.

Anyway, what do you want to bet that we'll soon hear a story about how Bush and Miers were working late one night ("late" for Bush being 7:30 p.m.), poring over the lists of candidates, when Miers made some sparkling observation, and GW looked up at her, intently, appraising her anew in the Oval Office lamplight, and said, "What about you, Harriet?" ("At first I thought he was joking," she will tell us, with a self-deprecating laugh.)

Not hard at all, really. It goes both ways, and thus Podhoretz's point is an interesting one -- the focus being so much about abortion, what about something else instead?

Argh. I want to punch someone in the neck now.

He should lay claim to her hand, as the prize and reward of his valor.

You'd think the Christian right would see things more clearly, but they're probably blinded by their conviction.

x-post

It's very interesting how few fundamentalist Bush supporters DON'T think that and never will. Stepping back a couple of days, here's what increasingly disillusioned crust Derbyshire noted:

"What surprises me is how many of my conservative friends are still hot’n’heavy for W. Some of them are born-again Christians, and Bush is a born-again Christian, and that’s what does it for them. Fair enough, I suppose, if that’s the most important thing in your life, but what about the rest of us?"

There have been a few cases over time -- the occasional column and op-ed piece, or brief news story -- about how a number of noted fundamentalist activists who had supported the GOP for years finally had to let go when they realized that they weren't getting anywhere, or that they were indeed being used. It's the same ideological disappointment most extremists eventually feel with their more widely accepted counterparts in the mainstream, but sometimes it takes something big to shake them up out of it.

In the past few weeks, Bush has successfully angered both the small-government base and now the fundamentalist base. Hey, anything to cause the big tent to finally collapse...

She is immensely, perhaps irrationally, into birthdays: "She always remembers everybody's birthday, and has a present for them. She'll be finding a present for somebody in the middle of the night.... 'Can't it wait until next week?' 'No,' she'd say, 'It has to be done now.'"

xpost

but they're probably blinded by their conviction.

yeah, that and daddy/authority issues. can't question those in authority who God put into power now, can we?

Here's an excerpt from the president's announcement on Harriet Miers. Among the charities that Harriet Miers has worked for are the following:

[T]he Young Women's Christian Association, Childcare Dallas, Goodwill Industries, Exodus Ministries, Meals on Wheels and the Legal Aid Society.

Stop right there. Exodus Ministries? Does he mean this or this? We need to know.

Alleged tits, please. Remember, she's an old maid.

Also from Wonkette...

The statement of Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) as released to RAW STORY.

“I like Harriet Miers. As White House Counsel, she has worked with me in a courteous and professional manner. I am also impressed with the fact that she was a trailblazer for women as managing partner of a major Dallas law firm and as the first woman president of the Texas Bar Association.

“In my view, the Supreme Court would benefit from the addition of a justice who has real experience as a practicing lawyer. The current justices have all been chosen from the lower federal courts. A nominee with relevant non-judicial experience would bring a different and useful perspective to the Court."

VERY interesting.

"Dude, go for it. Totally. She'll be fine. Seriously. I'll behind you all the way."

Kinda the same way Reid was behind nominating Scalia as Chief Justice earlier this year...

The White House quickly noted that some Democrats had urged Bush to consider the Dallas-born Miers but would give no names. One of those, however, was Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_09_25_corner-archive.asp#077952

'hey, stop doing that thing youre unfairly accused of doing!!'

i dunno. at this point, i'm quite happy to let the preznit's remaining supports boil for a while. enable the hubris, remove all feedback control mechanisms so that the engine runs so hard that you get cataclysmic system failure(which we might be watching unfold).

but yeah, when you're under fire for appointing political cronies who clearly don't know their shit, nominating somebody who's never been a judge before for the supreme court is a bit questionable.

Almost as much as appointing your chief political advisor/campaigner
as responsible for overseeing relief & rebuilding efforts for a locality devasted by natural disaster.

Exclamation points!

http://justicemiers.com/

http://www.withdrawmiers.org

Meanwhile, back to ye olde Miers -- Bainbridge has noted this interesting blog post:

During Enron, supine boards failed to notice when their executives were looting their firms or lying to their shareholders. The post-Enron era clamped down on such negligence. Stringent laws were passed. Honest but ignorant directors paid losses out of their own pockets.

There was a correction in what I've called the post-post-Enron era. Juries acquitted, cases were dismissed, laws were delayed. And now the definitive event of the post-post-Enron era: one of the sleepy gatekeepers may be on the way to the Supreme Court!

The campaign to urge the withdrawal of Harriet Miers has moved to the next level. Two new groups have stepped forward: WithdrawMiers.org is a consortium of social conservative groups that will encourage members to write directly to their representatives in Congress.

Some friends of mine and I meanwhile have organized Americans for Better Justice (BetterJustice.com), which has raised money for a national television and radio advertising campaign to urge the withdrawal of the nomination of Harriet Miers. You will be able to see our spots very shortly on the site. They will be airing this week on "Special Report with Brit Hume," "Fox and Friends," the Rush Limbaugh program, the Laura Ingraham program, among other places.

The petition formally hosted here at NRO urging Miers to withdraw is also migrating to the BetterJustice site. If you have not signed already, please consider doing so by clicking here to make your voice heard.

Those wishing to contribute to the airing of the ads can make a donation here.

There is a very great deal at stake. The seat to which the president has nominated Harriet Miers has been the court's swing seat on a range of issues from same-sex marriage to racial gerrymandering, from religious liberty to federalism. It is too important to be shrugged off - and it is reckless to suggest (as some of my email correspondents are suggesting) that this is a job that can be done by pretty much anybody with a tablespoon of common sense. On the contrary, reversing 4 decades of bad jurisprudence will take very uncommon levels of courage, ability, integrity, and independence. Conservatives have worked too hard for too long to settle for anything less than our very best on the Supreme Court. Please join me and BetterJustice.com in pressing the president to reconsider and do better.

FOUR decades? What happened in 1965?

(seriously, I don't know.)

oh wait. he's talking about Griswold v. Connecticut, isn't he? Ok, that makes sense. He's completely fucked in the head, but that at least answers that question.

xpost

...The Senator may not be a regular listener to Dr. Dobson's nationally broadcast Focus on the Family program, but his staff should at least inform him that Dr. Dobson has already clarified his remarks before a radio audience of millions. Any effort to haul Dr. Dobson before the Committee should be seen for what it is--political grandstanding.

oh, and that Michael Estrada's nomination was blocked b/c "...liberals did not want an Hispanic conservative 'on deck' to be named to the U.S. Supreme Court."

Obviously that was the only reason.

twoooooo weeeeeeeeksss

It would be nice if this could have a positive effect. But maybe it cannot.

lolol all of this

How much would it have sucked to be her?