Harriet Miers dropped the ball
Or was it a bowling shoe she dropped? In any case, Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers sent her questionnaire response (a description of “constitutional questions she has worked on”) to the Senate, and, as Kevin Drum put it (with economy and punch), “she blew it.”
Dadahead put up a link to a story that claims the Bush administration has quietly begun making some “contingency plans” for the withdrawal of her nomination.
I have been predicting all along that this nomination isn’t going to go forward. Whether of her own volition or because she’s asked to, Harriet Miers is going to withdraw her nomination. Her replacement will be a “movement” conservative with serious legal and political credentials, and will also be slightly to the right of Cotton Mather.
11 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks are automatic. Your email address is never displayed.
Do not paste an entire article or blog post into here: create a link to it (or at least create a tinyurl) instead.
The following HTML tags are allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
October 23rd, 2005 @ 14:19
Right is good. Conservative better.
Liberal bad. Very bad.
Liberalism never has worked - ever.
October 23rd, 2005 @ 16:09
What is your take on Miers, Lycfyg? Do you trust her to interpret the Constitution?
October 24th, 2005 @ 22:30
Since nobody asked, this is how I feel about the Harriet Miers nomination:
First, anyone lambasted by the right AND the left probably has a problem. Roberts was given a fair shake by the non-ideological senators on the Judicial commitee and he passed their tests with flying colors. Now he’s the “first among equals” on the highest court of the land. Miers had her questionairre returned to her for a re-test. That’s a bad sign. Never having been on the Judicial commitee, I wouldn’t know for sure, but I suspect that they don’t send the test back to the student because they didn’t pencil in their class number properly. It’s a fundamentally bad sign, and if the rumor that I heard is correct (that she got a question about Supreme Court precedent WRONG), I think there’s a good reason to kill her (nomination) in commitee. If you mess up on that, then maybe Bush should pick someone more well versed in the history of the Supreme Court to be part of the Supreme Court. Frankly, I’d rather have a right wing or left wing advocate who UNDERSTANDS the Constitution and the history of the Supreme Court in interpreting the Constitution than a moderate who doesn’t have a clue.
Second, I’ve heard a disturbing rumor that having her on the Supreme Court would give her the authority and responsibility to recuse herself if any action was ever brought to the Supreme Court involving the Bush administration, and, more importantly, would allow her to take off the table all documents to which she had been a part of drafting. I DO NOT KNOW THE VERACITY OF THIS CLAIM, but if it’s true it has disturbing implications for ANY counsel to ANY president who is nominated to the Supreme Court. Imagine a case in which a president does Bad Things and asks his lawyer for advice on a lot of things. S/he gives an opinion on a lot of documents, and later those documents are subpoenaed in a prosecutor’s case against an administration. But because the president managed to get that lawyer on the Supreme Court, all of that evidence is guaranteed to be thrown out of court when the appeals process gets up to the highest court in the land. The very idea of that disturbs me, for either a liberal or a conservative administration.
Whether you support the ideologies of the right or the left is immaterial. If you support either ideology more than you support the rule of law and the ideal of reason, you’re part of the problem with America. We need reason in our society rather than ideology.
October 24th, 2005 @ 22:38
Excellent comment. Good stuff.
You should enable public comments on your own blog.
October 24th, 2005 @ 22:44
D’oh! (and i thought i just wasn’t getting any feedback because nobody knew i was out there….)
October 24th, 2005 @ 22:50
I just added you to my own blogroll.
October 25th, 2005 @ 18:20
I think Jason’s comments are well stated. His closing speaks to what loyal opposition is and why it’s needed.
On Miers: I was very surprised that Ted Olson (http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/aboutosg/t_olson_bio.htm) wasn’t nominated. He’s got ample experience in arguing before the supreme court and knows very well how the show works. I would guess (pure conjecture and more hopeful than anything) that he was offered but declined.
There are prior instances where a non-judge has been nominated to the supreme court. Earl Warren provides a good example of this. However, he had experience as a governor and as a DA. I don’t think Miers has any public interest trial experience.
I think that Miers will withdraw from the nomination process and that we’ll get someone with more relevant experience. Jason’s scenarios concerning privilege are pretty disturbing.
October 26th, 2005 @ 19:28
My opinion on Mier’s?
They have a great store!
I like them as well as Wal-Mart.
October 26th, 2005 @ 19:59
Is that a local Michigan chain of department stores? We don’t have it this far south.
October 27th, 2005 @ 06:36
Yes, it is. I made a poor joke. I broke the rule that your entire audience has to know what you are talking about.
Honestly, I quit trying to figure Bush out.
He is a true defender of this country on one hand, but a domestic socialist and Constitution killer on the other.
He picks the best and the brightest on one hand, and then featherbeds with friends on the other.
I didn’t vote for him the second time.
I warn continuously that the two parties we currently have are not only competitors - but partners.
There is barely a sliver of distance between them.
I’m not talking about the voters now, but the Party’s themselves.
October 28th, 2005 @ 20:12
Competition can be healthy, and too much cooperation can lead to incestuous relationships. The right and left act as watchdogs to one another, and you can see one or two examples of administrations that became embroiled in scandal or corruption because the other party was hamstrung for part of their administration (Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, dubya). When the media rolls over and plays dead, we lose our last line of defense against corrupting influence of power. Sunlight is the only thing that keeps the fuckers honest.