Skip to main content

View Diary: On Miers (168 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Why I've been hestitating on this nomination (none)
    and what to think about it. As I understand it, this is a choice that Bush selected based  in part on the endorsement of his pick through prior approval of the Democratic leadership. When has this President in the last 5 years once asked for our approval on anything? This alone makes me hesistant about what to think and what to do. I know a lot of people seem to have all the answers. She's a corporatist. She's this. She's not qualified (like that's ever mattered for the S Ct in terms of who we select- a la Earl Warren) etc. I honestly don't know what I think yet. I just know the dynamics are different from before, and other than Kos slightly touching on this earlier, I have not seen anyone fully address not only Bush's weakness, but our seeming ability to even been brought into the deliberations. Something is going on- I just don't know what.
    •  One way to find out (none)
      Get the information on her views.

      The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

      by Armando on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 10:21:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree with that and your diary (none)
        I just find all this let's attack her now stuff a little misplaced because unlike Roberts where there was no consultation we have that here. She shouldn't be given a free pass and should be scrutinized even more than Roberts because she has no paper trail at all. But, a lot of people here have been screaming - she's Scalia in a dress. She's a fundie. My point is that we won't know what she is until she's vetted. The stuff about Gore also confuses me by the way.
        •  Either way (none)
          It doesn't matter.

          We need a narrative - and it doesn't start with saying 'I reject anyone Bush nominates.'

          It begins with insisting on the information.

          Roberts was stonewalled. And Dems caved. On the No vote I mean.

          We need to reestablsh the line of required disclosure.

          The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

          by Armando on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 10:30:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Earl Warren was qualified (none)
      He had been Governor of California for 8 years.  He had been District Attorney and I believe also Attorney General.  He was a politician with a legal background, and he had demonstrated uncommon intelligence and integrity.  He was a real leader--he had run for President against Eisenhower in the 1952 primaries.  Don't in any way equate his resume with Harriet Miers just because he hadn't been a judge.  It's not that she has no judicial experience, it is that she is a mediocrity and a crony.  There have also been law professors who made great justices.  Again, it's not her background so much as her mediocrity. This is the US Supreme Court, not the US District Court in Dallas.

      "False language, evil in itself, infects the soul with evil." ----Socrates

      by Mimikatz on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 10:29:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I find it hard believe that this is really (none)
        your beef with her? If she were a progressive would you take this position? Thurgood Marshall was considered "light" on the judicial philosophy and the checklist that some people have and yet I consider him to have been a good justice. Look, I am not saying this will be a good nominee- in fact i agree with Armando about the narrative. My problem is that the narrative being "she's not qualified" seems disingenous at least historically speaking. Of course, with the American people history don't matter so it probably could be a sucessful argument.
        •  I'd use it (none)
          As it helps open the important doors.

          The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

          by Armando on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 10:49:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  The reason "she's not qualified" (none)
          works is because bush is on record blowing it big time with unqualified people. We've seen the results with FEMA and that will resonate with the American people. You've seen what having a unqualified friend of bush as head of FEMA; think it'll be a good thing for the supreme court of the land???
        •  What (none)

          I'm not the biggest fan of Thurgood Marshall as a Supreme, but for God's sake the guy was one of the luminaries of the Civil Rights movement!  He wrote over 150 decisions as an Appeals judges!  He argued 19 cases before the Supreme Court!

          Miers, on the other hand, appears to be...well, one of the lesser lights of Dallas city politics.

        •  What? (none)
          Thurgood Marshall was a successful advocate before the Supreme Court and an appellate judge. He had loads of experience on constitutional issues. Granted, he did not go to one of the top law schools, but given the state of race relations at that time, that's one I have to give him a pass on.

          Harriet Miers, in contrast, went to a second rate law school, did not make law review, did not get an appellate clerkship, and never argued before the Supreme Court. What on earth makes her qualified to suddenly become one of the nine people who decide what the Constitution means?

    •  How likely is this scenario? (none)
      Bush's people look at Reid's list and see Miers' name on it.  Ha ha ha, they all say - look - he's got Harriet on there!  Doesn't he know she's as anti-choice as they come?  What a maroon!

      Yeah, lets send Harriet!  Great!

      Their only miscalculation was forgetting that, as "insiders" - the base wasn't privvy to their knowledge and is misreading her as another Souter.


      "I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords..."

      by pawlr on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 12:16:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site