Harriet Miers @ MindSay 
supreme court
Who knew that such an unassuming guy could have such a Machiavellian streak to him.
And just look at him get all pissy with reporters for asking stupid questions. He's badass.
Well.... that, as they say, is that.
I don't know that I was totally opposed to her being a Supreme Court Justice yet, but like groups on both sides of the aisle, I thought that she didn't seem to have the intellectual heft necessary to be on the highest Court in the land. Putting politics aside for a moment, she seemed to be a good lawyer, and a loyal follower- but neither of these things allows for handling all of the most important issues of the day- for the next 20-30 years.
So, the real question is this: what's behind door Number 2?
My assumption is that the President will go for a battle by picking a Judge Luttig or a Pricilla Owens or Edith Clement or someone like that. But if Karl Rove and Scooter Libby are indicted today or tomorrow, he is really going to be in a precarious position, and nominating someone ELSE who pisses off Democrats may be a problem. On the other hand, if he picks someone the Democrats are ok with, which I think he tried to do here, his own base will be up-in-arms again.
We are definitely living through a very interesting time with this President, and his problems at home and abroad; and an interesting time in the Supreme Court. I mean, you cannot find someone as intelligent and qualified as John Roberts, and maybe the President knew that- so he threw his friend to the dogs. But it will be interesting to see what he does.
Now, I am not a "conspiracy theorist" by any stretch of the imagination... but it does seem like this will take away headlines dramatically from any announcements regarding indictments. I mean, it is not good press, but if you have to choose between death by a thousand cuts, or death by fire (don't know why I chose those), you might choose death by Supreme Court nomination error. He can rebound from that if he can find another John Roberts-type jurist. As I said before, not much chance of that. But I just thought it was interesting that she chose to withdraw now. I mean, it really will be a battle on network news for tonight and tomorrow night to cover both the indictments (which I think are very likely), and the withdrawal.
more to come....
The disappointment of the appointment Harriet Miers is the first thing on most conservatives minds.
Last week, I wrote a piece the Republican/conservative base being peeved at the President over Katrina, Spending and the "Bush Doctrine". Add this one to the list.
We are shaking our collective heads. Perhaps we are collectively wrong.
Conservatives, generally, do not stand by idly while their values and work are being squished.
Meanwhile, the conservative blogsphere, journalismsphere, and cartoonsphere are upset...
check these out:
Ok, so it has only been an hour since the announcement, and of course little is known about this woman (so far, I have found only that she was the first woman partner at her firm and first to be the President of the Dallas Bar Association and Texas State Bar, she was on the city council in Dallas for one term, she donated some money to the Democratic Party or candidate in 1988, she is exceedingly loyal to the President since she has been his personal lawyer back in Texas, and she was the person in charge of the search for Supreme Court Chief Justice and Associate Justice this past few months).
But it seems to me that there is some very quick criticism from both sides of the aisle. Democrats and liberals are saying that this is further proof of Bush's cronyism, appointing a very close friend who is not qualified for the job. There is no paper trail, and the Democrats are planning to grill her hard with questions, possibly about issues of Constitutional law, which she has never really had to deal with. Republicans and Conservatives seem (so far) to be VERY unhappy, as she does not have a paper trail that indicates whether or not she will be in the mold of Scalia or Thomas- that is, a strict constructionist or originalist.
I must say that it is early in the process, and all of the talk right after Bush nominated Roberts turned out to be largely uninformed, and incomplete- I expect the same is the case here.
I don't think it is a huge mistake for the President to nominate someone who never served as a judge- but I do question this particular choice. She has never really dealt with any large-scale legal issues that DON'T have to do with the Executive Branch. It is being speculated, and I think rightly so, that Bush's primary concern seems to nominating judges who will strongly favor Executive powers. In addition, in light of the Time magazine article last week regarding Bush's appointments of unqualified people to important positions in the federal government, the nomination of Miers could not have come at a worse time.
I think we have to wait and see what can be discovered to find out whether she is qualified or not- I don't think anyone really questioned whether Roberts was qualified- even those Democrats who voted against him. But this is a different story- whether she is qualified remains to be seen.
One source who I frequently read and trust who is very knowledgable has suggested that Miers may not get past the Senate, and I think it is early to say this; but it is definitely going to be interesting to see how it pans out.
More to come....