“In a Month, Who Will Remember the Name Harriet Miers?”
October 27, 2005
Trent Lott said that this morning after Harriet Miers withdrew from the confirmation process to the Supreme Court. And Lott is right - her nomination won’t even be given the same amount of notoriety as Robert Bork’s. (Although that might be in part because she doesn’t have nearly as cool a last name. Plus, the word “borked” is just too much fun to use.)
But I for one think her reasons for withdrawing are a load of hooey! Protect the separation of powers, my ass! Miers’ nomination was designed specifically to destroy the separation of powers by giving the executive branch a buddy on the court. No, what’s going on here is a clear cut case of the administration trying to look like they haven’t screwed up royally - but I think most people see through it.
What remains to be seen is who Bush will nominate next. After all the trouble Miers caused - the country needs a quick confirmation. He should pick someone who is a no-brainer for both Democrats and Republicans to embrace as they did Roberts. He needs a thoughtful, intelligent conservative judge with a proven track record of understanding the nuances of each case and interpreting the Constitution strictly. Someone like…Edith Clement.
C’mon Georgie - she’s fantastic! She’s the obvious choice. If you nominate Gonzales, you’ll just get more accusations of cronyism. If you tap Janice Rodgers Brown or Priscilla Owen, you’ll face an uphill confirmation battle featuring the nuclear option. It will get ugly. And you can’t afford ugliness with your approval ratings the way they are. Clement is the logical choice.
Cle-MENT! Cle-MENT! Cle-MENT!
::can you tell I have a favorite?::
Dubya Not a Happy Camper
October 26, 2005
Apparently, President Bush hasn’t been an easy guy to work for these past few weeks. According to a New York Daily News article, he’s been taking his frustrations out on his staffers.
Says the article:
“The President is just unhappy in general and casting blame all about,” said one Bush insider. “Andy [Card, the chief of staff] gets his share. Karl gets his share. Even Cheney gets his share. And the press gets a big share.”
The vice president remains Bush’s most trusted political confidant. Even so, the Daily News has learned Bush has told associates Cheney was overly involved in intelligence issues in the runup to the Iraq war that have been seized on by Bush critics.
Bush is so dismayed that “the only person escaping blame is the President himself,” said a sympathetic official, who delicately termed such self-exoneration “illogical.”
And it doesn’t look like his staffers are in for a break from the scapegoating anytime soon.
The administration continues to take fire from all quarters. Republican Senators this week have expressed their lack of enthusiasm for Bush’s Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers. Karl Rove and Scooter Libby have been officially informed that they are in legal trouble due to obstruction of justice in the Plame leak case.
Meanwhile, all his grandstanding for Hurricane Rita didn’t do much to boost his job approval rating after the abysmal federal screwup that was Hurricane Katrina. In fact, his approval ratings have sunk so low that Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano has a higher approval rating among Arizona Republicans than he does. Keep in mind that Napolitano is not only a Democrat, but reportedly queer as a three dollar bill.
It’s almost enough to make me feel sorry for the guy. Almost…
Dalia Lithwick Sheds Light on Motivations for Miers Nomination
October 23, 2005
Sometimes I manage to convince myself that even though President Bush is the worst president we’ve ever had, he’s not going to be able to destroy this country. Then I read something like this article by Dalia Lithwick.
Lithwick’s analysis of the situation is that while Roberts and Miers look very different on the surface, they both reflect a troubling trend in President Bush’s policies regarding the judiciary.
Says Lithwick:
The president has long claimed that Congress and the courts were usurping his powers. The hallmark of his presidency has been efforts to reclaim those powers, be it through Patriot Act provisions that curtail judicial oversight, his invention of new courts to deliver justice-lite to Guantánamo detainees or threats to veto legislation that would prohibit torture.
Consider this: Chief Justice Roberts’s judicial philosophy - to the extent he admits to one - is of “modesty.” Throughout his public life, an overwhelming jurisprudential concern has been the constraint of judicial power. He made it clear at his hearings and in rulings from the federal bench that the court exists not to act - not even to react - but chiefly to interpret passively. He has defended court-stripping legislation and argued for limiting judicial remedies.
If you think of John Roberts as the justice who will urge a far more sweeping judicial deference - particularly to the executive branch - the subsequent Miers nomination makes sense. If Mr. Bush wants to refashion the courts into a weaker, passive entity that exists primarily to check its own institutional prerogatives, then a former White House counsel like Ms. Miers is the perfect choice.
“Uniter, not a Divider,” President Bush Finally Lives Up to His Campaign Promise
October 23, 2005
When George W. Bush first ran for president in 2000, he claimed that he was a “uniter, not a divider.” Now hindsight shows us that this campaign promise was even more dishonest than most.
And as with most of his decisions, President Bush was not looking to unite the country with this Supreme Court nominee. Harriet Miers was supposed to represent a victory in the so-called “culture war” that Republicans have exploited to dominate the electorate. But somehow, the Miers nomination managed to do what few other Bush policies have - bring right and left together.
When else in recent memory have we seen Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean on the same page about an issue? This week, both Brownback and Dean have expressed frustration with President Bush’s refusal to release Miers’ work product from her years in the White House, citing executive privilege.
Releasing her papers, said Brownback is “almost a risk they assume when you nominate a candidate that’s from inside the White House.”
And Chairman Dean agreed - “If the president wants to get this nomination through, with all the flak he’s getting from the right wing, he needs to waive executive privilege. If we don’t get those documents, she can’t get confirmed.”
According to Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), senators on both sides of the aisle have reservations about Miers’ qualifications, her judicial philosophy, and her loyalty to this White House. Conservative and liberal pundits have expressed similar levels of bewilderment and disappointment with this nominee. Even I - Dean liberal that I am - developed an unlikely crush on Ann Coulter after she called Miers “the cleaning lady” on Real Time with Bill Maher.
Dean said that this is “probably the most mismanaged nomination I’ve ever seen.” And mismanaged it has been. How else could a unifying issue come from a White House with such a vested interest in keeping the country divided?
So congratulations, Mr. President! You’ve finally managed to unite the country…against you.
Sarah Weddington Offers Insight, Humor at American Constitution Society Talk
October 21, 2005
Sarah Weddington has made a career of doing things that others told her she couldn’t do because of her sex.
As a senior in college, she wanted to, “teach eighth graders to love Beowulf.” But when she realized that she wasn’t cut out for the teacher’s life, she started thinking about law school. That’s when people started telling her that she couldn’t be a lawyer because she was a woman.
“They told me it would be too hard, and that’s when I knew I had to go,” she said with a wry smile - drawing a chuckle from the crowd of one hundred or so gathered on a cool, sunny Thursday afternoon at the Law Offices of Preston, Gates, and Ellis.
Weddington is a warm, youthful woman with a genuine smile. Before the talk started, she was gracious enough to offer her assistance in setting up tables and putting out lunches for the guests. It was a quiet offer to the event’s organizers, made privately and without pretense. I was just in the right place at the right time to overhear it. And it made me realize that despite having won the most famous case to come before the Supreme Court since Brown vs. Board of Education, Weddington doesn’t hold herself above other people.
Read more
Oh Howard!
October 19, 2005
What I really, re-heaaaaly love about Howard Dean is his irreverent sense of humor.
Crony Court takes making fun of Harriet Miers to new heights. It even tops Ann Coulter calling her “the cleaning lady” on national television.
::laughing madly::
PS: I nominated my dad.
[UPDATE: 7:47pm] - Harriet Miers has been asked to redo her responses to a pre-hearing questionnaire put together by the Senate Judiciary Committee. According to this New York Times article Ranking Republican Arlen Specter (PA) and Democrat Patrick Leahy (VT) jointly asked Miers to respond to questions about “her legal career, her work in the White House, her potential conflicts on cases involving the administration and the suspension of her license by the District of Columbia Bar,” because some members called her current responses “inadequate,” “insufficient” and “insulting.”
I can scarcely contain my glee!
[UPDATE: 9:34pm] - The Mercury News reports that Miers also left her 20% share in a Texas-based employment placement agency out of the questionnaire.
I’m beginning to wonder whether this administration really has made a political blunder of epic proportions. In the past, I was reluctant to consider the possibility that such a politically savvy group of people could have gotten a Supreme Court nomination so terribly wrong. But now I think that’s exactly what happened - a political blunder so massive that it may just turn the tide.
As before, my glee is losing containment.
[UPDATE: 9:47pm] Harriet Miers’ Blog is a kick in the pants!
Miers “Revelation” Changes Nothing
October 18, 2005
This morning, The New York Times broke the story that in 1989, Harriet Miers said she would support a constitutional amendment denying a woman the right to choose an abortion.
Says the article:
As a candidate for a seat on the Dallas City Council, Ms. Miers answered “yes” to the following question: “If Congress passes a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution that would prohibit abortion except when it was necessary to prevent the death of the mother, would you actively support its ratification by the Texas Legislature?”
Ms. Miers answered “yes” to all the organization’s questions, including whether she would oppose the use of public money for abortion and whether she would use her influence to keep “pro-abortion” people off city health boards and commissions.
Ms. Miers also said she would refuse the endorsement of any organization that supported “abortion on demand,” would use her influence as an elected official “to promote the pro-life cause,” and would participate “in pro-life rallies and special events.”
Miers: Right-Wing Opinions, Left-Wing Facts, My Speculations
October 5, 2005
Never in my life have I found myself agreeing so completely with so many right-wing pundits and lawmakers. Here are a few of my as-yet unposted favorites:
I eagerly await the announcement of President Bush’s real nominee to the Supreme Court. If the president meant Harriet Miers seriously, I have to assume Bush wants to go back to Crawford and let Dick Cheney run the country.
Unfortunately for Bush, he could nominate his Scottish terrier Barney, and some conservatives would rush to defend him, claiming to be in possession of secret information convincing them that the pooch is a true conservative and listing Barney’s many virtues — loyalty, courage, never jumps on the furniture …
Harriet Miers went to Southern Methodist University Law School, which is not ranked at all by the serious law school reports and ranked No. 52 by US News and World Report. Her greatest legal accomplishment is being the first woman commissioner of the Texas Lottery. However nice, helpful, prompt and tidy she is, Harriet Miers isn’t qualified to play a Supreme Court justice on “The West Wing,” let alone to be a real one. Both Republicans and Democrats should be alarmed that Bush seems to believe his power to appoint judges is absolute. This is what “advise and consent” means.
Trent Lott via ACSBlog:
I need to know a lot more about her, her experience and her level of competence and what is her philosophy. I really don’t know this lady and I do think I owe it to my constituents and to my own conscience to do due diligence and find out actually who this person is.
There are a lot more people - men, women and minorities - that are more qualified in my opinion by their experience than she is.
Don’t “Misunderestimate” President Bush
October 5, 2005
The left may find President Bush’s ideals stupid in the extreme - but anyone who underestimates his political acumen does so at their own peril. I’ve come to the conclusion that some very clever games are afoot when it comes to Harriet Miers, and liberals should remain guarded. There’s not much we can do at this point, but we can’t become complacent simply because the right appears divided.
My friend Tony Cani of Wactivist.com has been reminding me consistently that the only argument that can prevent Miers from being confirmed is that she is unqualified. Her ideology is truly a matter of Presidential discretion, and Bush did legitimately win the 2004 election. I oppose her because of her apparent right-wing religious ideology - but that argument is a losing one.
The only thing we can do is make the legitimate argument that Harriet Miers does not have the requisite education, talent, or experience to serve on the highest court in the United States. After all, Southern Methodist University - where she got her law degree - isn’t a very highly regarded school. What’s more, she’s never argued a single case before the Supreme Court.
President Bush would do well to withdraw her name and choose someone who can garner broad, bi-partisan support. Edith Clement would be an excellent pick.
More on Miers
October 5, 2005
Conservative pundit George F. Will is none too happy with President Bush over his nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. Will tears Bush and his nominee new ones respectively in his most recent Townhall.com column. Below are some excerpts:
Senators beginning what ought to be a protracted and exacting scrutiny of Harriet Miers should be guided by three rules. First, it is not important that she be confirmed. Second, it might be very important that she not be. Third, the presumption — perhaps rebuttable but certainly in need of rebutting — should be that her nomination is not a defensible exercise of presidential discretion to which senatorial deference is due.
There is no reason to believe that Miers’ nomination resulted from the president’s careful consultation with people capable of such judgments. If 100 such people had been asked to list 100 individuals who have given evidence of the reflectiveness and excellence requisite in a justice, Miers’ name probably would not have appeared in any of the 10,000 places on those lists.
It is important that Miers not be confirmed unless, in her 61st year, she suddenly and unexpectedly is found to have hitherto undisclosed interests and talents pertinent to the court’s role. Otherwise the sound principle of substantial deference to a president’s choice of judicial nominees will dissolve into a rationalization for senatorial abdication of the duty to hold presidents to some standards of seriousness that will prevent them from reducing the Supreme Court to a private plaything useful for fulfilling whims on behalf of friends.
Meanwhile, there is some disagreement between President Bush and Senators Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) - the ranking members of the Senate Judiciary Committee on their respective sides of the aisle - over exactly when Ms. Miers’ nomination will come before the committee. President Bush has expressed a desire to have Miers confirmed by Thanksgiving, while Specter and Leahy have both said they don’t think the committee will be able to even get to her until after the holiday.
Read more
Harriet Miers: Current Thoughts
October 4, 2005
Everyone in the Bloggosphere is talking about Harriet Miers, and given what I’ve been hearing, I’ve found myself repeatedly tempted to retract my earlier statement that she’s "progressive America’s worst nightmare."
According to this round-up by conservative blogger Ankle-Biting Pundit, conservatives are completely nonplussed by Bush’s nomination of Miers. Says Pundit:
When Miers comes under the inevitable attack by the left, why should conservatives go to the mat for her? What has she ever done to convince us she’d be in the mold of a Scalia or Thomas? Is Harriet Miers why the base was out knocking on doors and making phone calls? I don’t think so.
Of her career and qualifications, John Hawkins of Right Wing News said:
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.
Washington Times Editor in Chief Wesley Prudin said:
Frightened by a rising tide, [Bush is] desperate not to give offense. He reprises the familiar Republican campaign slogan: ‘I’m a conservative, sort of, but I’m not as bad as you think.’
Meanwhile, crafty Senate Majority Leader Harry Ried (D-NV) is damning Miers with faint praise. But he says that he wouldn’t go so far as to actually have recommended her.
Harriet Miers: Progressive America’s Worst Nightmare
October 3, 2005
I liked John Roberts. I really did. I supported his nomination as much as any progressive American could. When it comes to President Bush’s judicial nominees, I’ve earned my stripes as a reasonable, thoughtful non-partisan. So when I say that I think Harriet Miers is the worst possible choice President Bush could have made to replace Sandra Day O’Connor, please believe that I say it as an independent thinker.
That being said, one of my main beefs with Miers is that she’s a Bush loyalist. She’s been at his side for the past 10 years, taking on thankless tasks and shunning the limelight. She’s spent a lot of time with the President at Camp David. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings described her as being, “extremely devoted to the President.”
These are not the sorts of behaviors one hopes to see from a potential Supreme Court Justice. A good justice questions all sides of an issue. She serves the ideal of justice, not the ideals of a ideologue President. By contrast, Miers’ behavior is what you would expect from a true believer. And this makes her dangerous.
Miers serves this President without question. She is his personal friend, and her loyalty could be compared to that of Condoleeza Rice - who once famously called the President “my husband” on national television. If she is confirmed to the high court, is is likely that the man who appointed her will continue to influence her decisions long after he has vacated the White House.
I know what I’m saying sounds distinctly anti-feminist, but I would make the same argument if Miers were a man. She is simply too close, and too loyal to the central NeoConservative values of this administration to be a viable candidate. I vehemently oppose her nomination.
