Redstate

It's all better now.

< / sarcasm>

A crappy no-talent stealth Democrat-supporting 60 year old nominee.

"Scalia and Thomas". Yeah right.

Bush is a LOSER.

Two presidential bids were ended today with the nomination of Harriet Miers.

The first was Rudy Guliani's.  While conservatives may have been willing to bet that Rudy's SCOTUS nominees would be okay (perhaps replacing Souters with O'Connors) and that this would have been palatable in the post conservative domination of the Supreme Court made possible by George Bush getting two to three nominations filled with Rock Solid Conservatives, conservatives cannot take a chance on someone like Rudy anymore.  Bush has filled all the squishy conservative slots on the court -- thanks George.

The second presidential bid to end today was Jeb Bush's 2008 or 2012 bid.   We've had two Bushes who didn't know how to pick a conservative judge as President.

We don't need a third.

supporting the current administration.  I am actually a pro-choice (to some extent) Republican, but this pick shows that our President cares more about his friends than his country.  She does not even seem qualified for the bench at the district level, let alone the SCOTUS.  This pick is an embarassment to those who voted for Bush these last 2 elections.

Apparently this Miers person is involved in the whole ex-gay ministries thing, which I think is relatively good assurance that you can depend on her to be a Torquemada of sorts when it comes to sexual lessons from the Supreme Court.

I think that this is a win for very conservative Republicans.

I hope you guys are enjoying your moment in the sun because we are all ashamed and embarassed right now.

I cannot even deny you your right to cheer and gloat. It's like the conservative team just got swept in the World Series.

60 years old and unqualified. He could have had MICHAEL LUTTIG.

Someone just corrected me and said that the Exodus Ministries that Bush was referring to was not the ex-gay movement thing, but a criminal rehabilitation thing.  So, strike that.  She might not be all that great for social Conservatives after all.

This choice is awful!...it is an insult to the American Public....It is an insult to the Republican base who gave W his razor thin winning margins......The Bushes are absolute wimps......W expects us to support him on his questionnable War in Iraq....and, he does not reciprocate with the appointment of a young, stellar SCOTUS nominee....this is a disgrace....I am angry....and, I hope Coburn and Brownback step to the plate on this and point out what we already know.....this nomination needs to be Borked!!!!!!!!

I am as conservative as one can be.....I have stood with W.....overlooked his mistakes......stood by him on Iraq.....it actually makes me now question many of his personnel choices....and his really being in touch with his base.....I am absolutely devastated!!!!!

I don't want the courts involved with sex.  I want qualified jurists who can intelligently sort out complex issues that come before them and correctly make decisions based on the Constitution and its applications.

Says Mires was instrumental in ending the "special relationship" that the ABA had with prior administrations in rating federal judicial candidates.  Whatever that's worth.

that Miers, while she might be nice and a good lawyer, clearly is not the most qualified person for SCOTUS.  I would question this pick for an appeals court, nevermind for SCOTUS over Luttig, Estrada, Brown, Pryor, McConnell...

Even if she will be a solid conservative, she is not the most qualified, or even remotely close to being even qualified, that bothers me.  This is an affirmative action nominee, not as a woman but for being close to the POTUS.  As a woman, there must be at a minimum 10 that any one of us could name before we even thought of Miers.  She is a huge disappointment.  I hope she'll do the right thing and withdraw her name.

I said here last week, Bush was only ever interested in appointing someone who would be friendly to corporations, which she is.  While he may have gotten the pro-life vote in the elections, he no longer needs it and was never truly committed to appointing someone to overturn R v w in the first place, as the fight in the Senate and in the media would be too much.  He wanted a corporate friendly court, and now he has one.  Remeber, the court has not taken very many corporate type cases lately.

This is Souter in a dress.  She is not qualified to be on the Supreme Court whether you look at views, background, pedigree, etc.  I mean, SMU frickin' law school??!!!  My firm won't even hire from SMU and Bush nominates her to be on the Supreme Court.  I am done with Bush and the rest of his clan.  This is awful.

I'm a fiscon Independent who wants the same thing as you when comes to the SCOTUS.

Doesn't seem like too much to ask.

She played a big role in dumping the liberal-leaning ABA, and also was fighting to have the members as a whole vote on abortion.

Some Souter.  /sarcasm

for her neighbors but what the heck does that have to do with the price of tea in china.

It's amazing how hard people need to dig to find "qualities" of Miers.  Putting the best people in the right position is something we should not have to take for granted.  Unbelievable that ANYONE could see her as qualified.  Maybe Bush is reaching out to the Democrats and finding a nominee that "can bring us together", that is together in opposition to unqualified nominees.

The pick is consistent with the other HUGE mistakes, Medicare drug benefit, no child left behind, immigration policy, etc.

We're just as baffled by this as you are.  I guess we'll grow to understand what more to expect from her during the next few weeks.

• It's possible that Miers has told GWB how she would rule on specific cases, and that this would be protected by their attorney/client privilege. We have no way of knowing but are left having to trust the president.
• Didn't I read here that the idea of a sacrificial lamb had been tossed around? Is it possible that, knowing the Dems were going to go all out against the next nominee, the president picked someone willing to "take one for the team", and has a more well known candidate as a backup?

Or rather, against Miers. Lots of that going on here.

I want to see more from people who know her, who have worked with her, who are familiar with her political thinking.

David Frum, the former White House speechwriter, doesn't instill confidence, I'm afraid:

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.

I am not saying that she is not a legal conservative. I am not saying that she is not steely. I am saying only that there is no good reason to believe either of these things. Not even her closest associates on the job have no good reason to believe either of these things. In other words, we are being asked by this president to take this appointment purely on trust, without any independent reason to support it. And that is not a request conservatives can safely grant.

Leonard Leo:

I have worked closely with Harriet in the past and I am very excited about the president's pick of my friend. As White House Counsel, she has helped carry out the President's promise to find and select judicial nominees such as John Roberts who will interpret the law rather than make it up. She played a key role in the Roberts selection process, and was a strong advocate for breaking the filibusters in relation to Judges Priscilla Owen, William Pryor, and Janice Brown, among others.

John Cornyn:

"Harriet Miers is a brilliant legal mind. She is a woman of outstanding character who clearly understands what it means to follow the law. She is deeply committed to public service, and has a distinguished history of professional achievement. It is clear that her past experiences have well prepared her for the honor of serving our country as a Supreme Court Justice. I strongly support her nomination.

Now, Senator Cornyn can be expected to promote his buddy and political colleague, but I value his opinion a lot more than those who are already huffing and puffing about the pick. Put down those plastic bags full of self-righteous fumes and examine the candidate a little more before judging her.

Oh, and Frum? At first blush, he makes a lot of sense, but he never had to get Senate confirmation for one of his speeches. The President had to factor in confirmability into his decision-making.

Anyway, calm the anti-Miers jerks of the knee. Just hold your horses. Relax, don't do it. And all those other metaphors.

If we couldn't trust Ed Meese about Anthony Kennedy, and we certainly couldn't trust John Sununu about Souter, why in a million years should we trust GWB about "Miersy" (I assume she has a nickname?)

I ain't trusting anybody. At a time when he needs the support of his base the most (Has Rove read the polls lately?), this is a kick in the teeth. He promised Sclias and Thomasas. We got a thinly qualified crony. My (admittedly modest) checkbook is closed. Good luck, Mr. President. You're on your own.

like her. Enough said. Ughh.

"To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. In addition to this, it would be an efficacious source of stability in the administration."

http://federalistpapers.com/federalist76.html

Favoritism?  Check (member of his staff).  State prejudice?  Check (Texas).  Personal attachment?  Check (his personal lawyer).  View to popularity?  Check (Dem "no filibuster" list).

More like Bernie Kerik without the mustache. 2 weeks?

It's always good to go back to the Federalist papers.

I had just read that Federalist paper a few weeks ago and this was the first thing I thought of when I heard Miers name.

wars.  We can be done with the Bushes, Giuliani, and McCain (too image-conscious to ever appoint an originalist).

I was mocked here a couple of weeks ago when I said that I support Brownback in 2008.  That choice doesn't look so bad now, does it?

Just saw Linda Chavez and Geraldine Ferraro.

Ferraro was grinning like a chesire cat.

Chavez looked like her cat had been run over.

That pretty much sums it up.

If Harry Reid was smart, he'd ask Pat Leahy to dispense with the hearings and move her to the full Senate this afternoon.

Also Rick Garnett:

"Harriet Miers, like Justice O'Connor, has been a trailblazer and a pioneer," said Rick Garnett, a law professor at Notre Dame and former law clerk to the late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. "Like Justice O'Connor, Ms. Miers has broken through barriers in the law, serving as a leader and role model, and impressing everyone with her decency and her sharp intellect. She would be a worthy and appropriate successor to Justice O'Connor, and would carry to the court a commitment to constitutionalism, judicial restraint, and the rule of law."

Those last three points are the critical ones.

Also, for those screaming that George Bush has betrayed them, I say you never knew him.  This is classic Bush and completely consistent with his modus operandi.  You don't have to trust blindly, but how about a tiny bit of benefit of the doubt until we have more information?

was once a card-carrying Democrat. As were Phil Graham, Ben Campbell and various other GOP stalwarts. Conservative Democrats were once quite thick on the ground in Texas (and elsewhere too), but nearly all of them have since changed parties to become Republicans. If this lady is yet another one of these, I don't think that should beb held against her.

Doesn't the passage make proptection from unfitness the danger to be protected from with the remainder of the passage being reasons an unfit person may be chosen?

So, if fit, the relationship, etc doesn't matter.

IMHO she is unfit.  Southern Methodist University?  Never a judge of any kind?  Huh?

The Exodus Ministries of Dallas is for ex-cons.  Not the same as Exodus International, which ministers to people involved in homosexual lifeystyle.

I favor Romney at thsi point but would happily vote for Brownback so long as he is a hawk on the war.

I think we need to give Bush the benefit of the doubt here. He knows Miers and I suspect that when he saw her name on the dem list he said aha! they don't know wht I know!

I, too would have preferred a known movement conservative however. But we DON'T KNOW where the nominee stands. Bush does. And the startegy they prefer is stealth/answer no questions.

Utterly irrelevant.

A City politico*, is, First & Foremost, concerned with place, rank, jockeying, dealmaking - i.e. a politician.

They are what they are.

A scholar of the law, a LOVER of the law - for its own sake, (& precluding activism borne of repressed politicking)  does not get terribly excercised about campaigns & campaigning.  

Fawning is not in their repertoire, unlike, as it seems to be, a staple of Ms. Miers diet.

*She was a Dallas City Councilwoman

My rule of thumb:  If you didn't graduate from a top 50 law school, then you're not qualified for the US Supreme Court.  

Bush, how could you do this?

Could you provide a link for this? If its true, I'll be gagging even harder than I already am...

but I'm forced to take a wait and see approach in reading quotes like this from Leonoard Leo made in reference to the abortion fight at the ABA:  "As a leader of the bar, Harriet Miers was a fearless and very strong proponent of conservative legal views. She led a campaign to have the American Bar Association end its practice of supporting abortion-on-demand and taxpayer-funded abortions."

I hope someone important is reading this, because they'd see all the disagreement with our President for this nomination. I was OK with John Roberts for the base reason that I was hoping the next nomination would be very conservative. What is Bush worried about? We have a 55-44-1 majority in the Senate and a 231-202-1-1 majority in the House. Now is the time to nominate a conservative and keep the Supreme Court conservative!

How can we conclude she is unfit until she votes? I think most, if not all of the living constitution libs on the court were judges before their appointments.

I too would prefer a movement conservative with a record of not caving to the Georgetown set to "evolve." But Bush knows where she stands.

SMU?

Not familiar?

But heck man, how many conservative universities are there left in America!?

Where did Reagan go to school? But it may well have been a conservative school. He spoke highly of it.

I trust Bush till proven wrong. Bush wants to avoid fights. I prefer to fight the libs too, publicly on the merits on all issues but...I do trust he wants his legacy to be secure.

He was just holding a news conference that FoxNews covered. Basically, saying that he's glad Bush isn't bending to the extreme right of his party - that he's recognized their views are out of the mainstream - and now has given us someone that appears to be moderate. Of course Schumer also is saying that she is an enigma and she will need to answer more questions than Roberts.

and if he's relived so am I.  I just can't stand suspense.  Among many on the other hands, on the other hand she did work with the Federalist Society. Maybe Beckel thinks the Society is a pro-tax group that advocates taking over the baby carriage industry,profitering you see.  Too many open ended questions on this one,at least so far.  Net,Bush could have done better.  Just keep sending up conservatives with a clean past and wear the Dems down to the point of ridicule, like asking whether or not nominee X did in fact steal from his paper route when a tyke and pronouncing to an anxious world that they're troubled,always an earth shaker. Keeping my fingers crossed and hoping I never see a Times article on the growth of Judge Miers.

Gamecock, this is an extremely important point.  As someone intimately familiar with the faculty at my extremely liberal top-ten law school, having someone trained outside that world is a PLUS.

My wife and I don't watch television or have cable, so I don't get to see the news. Thanks for reporting this.

That Chuckie Schumer is happy with this nomination should speak VOLUMES to conservatives. How could Bush betray the base by nominating someone that SCHUMER likes and offered "advice and consent" on?

GAG. CHOKE. PUKE.

And now of course we'll have the usual "conservative" apologists and suspects coming out to say "She's a great nominee!" or "Trust the President" or "Lets wait and see" or "She really is a conservative!"

GAG. CHOKE. PUKE.

Ann Coulter is going to have a field day with this one, and rightly so. I brushed off her criticisms with the Roberts nomination, as I felt that Roberts was very qualified and "mostly conservative." But this Miers nomination is griss for the mill.

... but my tendency is to agree with those who are feeling betrayed and feel like I'm going to be sick very soon. As I've stated in many other instances here, I've felt let down by this administration on illegal immigration and spending so I guess this fits the trend.

I was thinking all along that this is what Bush was saving his real "conservative" streak for, and now look at what's happened. I can't help but feel that a huge knife has been stuck in our collective backs!

Outrage, betrayal and remorse don't come close to summing up my feelings right now. I'd been waiting so long for us to gain power and be able to truly change America for the better. Now it seems like the status quo is all we'll get!

Considering the alternatives; Gore, Nader, Kerry... Bush was the only reasonable choice.  

By: gamecock  

How can we conclude she is unfit until she votes? I think most, if not all of the living constitution libs on the court were judges before their appointments.

There were plenty of highly qualified, clearly documented, conservative candidates for this nomination. There is no reason for the POTUS to nominate somone that we have to wait "until she votes" to see whether she is conservative or not.

He has a pro-life case in front of the court this session so that might be a necessity anyways, but hopefully he knows something.

Having someone who went to a top-tier school and done well but who is conservative is what you want.  Who needs a second-rate politco lawyer from a second-tier law school sitting on the Supreme Court?  Do you think she's going to be able to persuade those who disagree to adopt her viewpoint?  

Someone noted that she must have a Bush moniker.  She does.  He calls her "a pit bull in size six shoes."

Attorney client privilege only covers discussions regarding the attorney-client relationship.  This would be outside of that context.

It is amusing to see some of the conservatives eyes opening. They all thought bush was for them. The war in Iraq didn't wake them up--a war for bushs buddies. The skyrocketing deficit didn't wake them up. The tax cuts for the rich didn't wake them up. The lies about the Plame outing didn't wake them up. Finally they are stating to see that bush is all about bush---not the country, not you. You voted for him---you got him. As the kid on Simpsons says. HAAH HAAH.

Oh well ... the Constitution Party is starting to look much, much, better.

"This choice is awful!...it is an insult to the American Public....It is an insult to the Republican base who gave W his razor thin winning margins......The Bushes are absolute wimps......W expects us to support him on his questionnable War in Iraq....and, he does not reciprocate with the appointment of a young, stellar SCOTUS nominee....this is a disgrace....I am angry....and, I hope Coburn and Brownback step to the plate on this and point out what we already know.....this nomination needs to be Borked!!!!!!!!

I am as conservative as one can be.....I have stood with W.....overlooked his mistakes......stood by him on Iraq.....it actually makes me now question many of his personnel choices....and his really being in touch with his base.....I am absolutely devastated"

THIS IS EVERYTHING I WANTED TO SAY.

Maybe Bush feels that he has to swing to the center now -- and that there will be no personal consequences for it?  His poll numbers are lower than they have been during previous years in his administration.  Maybe he is going to try to mine the center for support, feeling that he has depleted what the right has to offer, for the moment?

But, Bush knows her. And the "temptation" to legislate from the bench, as Bork describes in his book(s) has overwhelmed a great majority of all judges no matter the background.

Let me say this, while USC School of Law in Columbia was not a very liberal environment, and I did have a few professors that quoted Bork all the time, I think most students of the law, most professors, judges, law students and lawyers come to assume that the living const analysis is proper simply from all the precedents and the need to learn to be competent in that world.

Myers is 60. I must say that whileI knew Bork was right in law school I was a liberal elitist at the time and thought I knew better and wanted to make law thru courts.

I evolved away from that view.

SMU was a long time ago.

Bush KNOWS her now.

But it is true that the Bork seed was planted in me in laws school and even though still a dem in 1987, I hated how Bork was treated and that did start me down the road to rejecting liberalism.

so you make a good point

I think the seed was planted in Meirs, but obviously not by SMU!

This doesnt make any sense because if he moves to the "center" that means he abandons the right.  Bush didnt win the last election by catering to the "Center" or the "moderates."  It was the conservative base that kept him in office.  Not only that, it's been the conservative base that has kept his number from plumbing into the low 30s and middle 20s.

It's puzzling.

But perhaps he is looking outside of his zone of 20-30 percent core supporters and seeing the other 70-80 percent of the population and deciding that that is where the action is.

He doesn't have to start quoting Karl Marx, or anything like that ...  Just move a couple of degrees closer to the center and grab back another quintile or so in the polls.

He shows he is unwilling to fight the msm/lib/dem PC race game and thinks that that there are not enough repubs that could hold strong when a known movement conservative is inevitably called a racist,

conservative/originalist = racist

so he figures what really matters is getting a justice he knows will vote right.

He knows Meirs.

Sorry, but you do not have to be a high-priest or even a lawyer to sit on the highest court.

The constitution of the United States was supposed to be understood even by the general public. That is why there is no constitutional requirement to prior service to sit on the court.

Good point on Brownback.  Going after her is this case would increase his national name recognition and be a good way to kick start his campaign in 2008.

...thats a cop out.

Does anyone here watch that show? It's kind of repetitive but still good IMO. Anyway, does anyone remember the case of Bradford (who by the way is running for office in FL)?

He was immune to being fired because he had led his team to a win the week before. Though his team lost the next week, he was a top performer on both occasions.

In the boardroom, however, he told Trump he would forfeit his immunity, because he was confident in his abilities and did not think there was any chance of being fired.

Donald agreed he had been effective in the tasks. But he told Bradford he had made a huge, business-destroying mistake, the type of mistake that ends careers and corporations... and he fired him on the spot.

So to Bush and Miers. Picking Miers was that type of mistake. Even if the theoretical outcome (how Miers votes on the Court) is OK-- just like Bradford figured he was a safe bet-- the selection itself was a disaster that will forever mark Bush's already troubled Presidency.

I will not support any Republican that comes out in favor of Miers in the 2008 primary, and possibly in lower elections as well, should they articulate a stance. Allen, McCain, Brownback... a "yes" vote = no vote from me. The Constitution gives the Senate a role FOR THIS EXPRESS PURPOSE.

Not to stop people because of their political views. To stop them because they are an unqualified crony of the President.

Any lawyer smart enough to pass the bar can figure out a way to couch those discussions in the context of giving advice to a client.

Remember, she apparently had a major part in advising the administration which cases to appeal and not to appeal.  She would most certainly have to have discussed with W her opinion on several major legal issues of importance.

Call and write your senators until they know you on a first name basis and tell him/her that they MUST VOTE AGAINST THE NOMINATION OF HARRIET MIERS!

We have a small ray of hope that enough votes can be cobbled together to defeat her nomination with enough Republican Senators together with enough liberal Democrats who will be voting against her because she's not another Ruth Bader Ginsberg (oh god...what if she is? no...I won't let myself think that way).

I am so sick. I want to throw up.

has less of a chance winning a national election than Ted Kennedy.  He would lose almost every socially moderate Republican vote out there (mine and my friends included, and we live in Ohio).

Not all lawyers are smart enough to use spell check, however.  My apologies.

While the man has plenty of faults, he still beats the heck out of any alternative that the libs have offered.  Hands down.  

The only difference here is that Conservatives are intellectually honest enough to criticize one of their own, while liberals are not.  It's libs that ignore racism, adultery, theft, and murder, as long as the perpetrator is a leftist.

We can police our own.  I suggest that you guys take a shot at doing some house cleaning yourselves.  If you got rid of a few of your more egregious felons, you might stand a chance of avoiding becoming a historical footnote, like the Whigs or the Bull Moose Party.

Isn't that more of the SG's job?

That plan usually results in losing one's base and not gaining anyone.

Bush could have picked Karen Williams, who is thought to be acceptable to Democrats. That, in my view, would have been an acceptable course of "moderation."

Roberts is no firebrand himself.

Picking a hideous 60-year old crony from Texas? Yeah, that should unite the country. In opposition.

I know this is a little ghoulish, but apparently Stevens slipped on the stairs of the SC today after the Roberts ceremony.  Who knows, maybe we'll be doing this dance again in January and, quite frankly, that's the real fight, kids.

Reagan.

I wasn't thinking of the appeals process. I was thinking of Miers' role of advising the president in his judicial picks. Isn't it reasonable to assume that, in discussing prospective judges, the president and his counsel would discuss how they would rule on specific cases, and how they (the president, and the counsel) think they should rule? And if so, wouldn't this discussion be protected?

are going to get a whole lot lower.

The only people he's been able to count on are his base and they will be leaving him at least until Miers rules on something and proves she's a conservative.

Gonzales .. another crony pick.

Yeah, and Ted Kennedy hated David Souter.

And if not, where is the pattern?  Unless you want to say Cheney was a crony.  And Rice was a crony.  And Rumsfeld was a crony.  There indeed is a pattern.

Defeat snatched from the jaws of victory....

this morning.  :)

One way or another, any discussion between Miers and Bush about her views on specific cases would likely be in the context of privileged communication.

You're an idiot, Buffalo Butt.  Nothing you say merits any responsibility on my part to take you seriously.  And that's President (capitalized) Bush (capitalized) to you.  Go hug one of John Kerry's mansions.

Read this. Do it now. You may not get a second chance.

I only hope the Republicans would be crazy enough to give Brownbackk the nomination.

I'd be horrified to know who Brownback might put on the court.  He's creeped me out ever since he took aim at IVF.  I think he'd be more likly to pick an activist - only one on the social conservative side.  I'm sticking with McCain.

But I consider Miers a crony pick and know that Bush wants to put both Gonzales and the first Hispanic on the court.

I feel a bit weird being a voice of optimism, as such is not (not by half!) my usual posture on receipt of bad news, but I don't think the sky is falling. Not yet, anyway.

It is probable that Bush knows Miers' positions on the Constitution and the role of the judiciary fairly well--Hugh Hewitt is already defending the nomination on these grounds. Her qualifications aren't great, but this really isn't a deal-breaker either. Frankly, my impression is that a large dose of common sense goes much farther than past judicial experience.

The major things we're all concerned about are seventeen-year-old political contributions and the lack of any discernable record. Seventeen years is a pretty long time and the lack of a record is, in fact, completely indeterminate. They are certainly causes for concern, but are not by themselves sufficient cause for all this end-of-the-world silliness. I am far more troubled by the comments made by David Frum than anything else, and I don't like the obvious appearance of cronyism, whether it's a legit charge or not. But, wait and see.

tsk...tsk...tsk....I did not expect Bush to nominate Luttig or any of the other names being bandied about. I honestly expected Gonzalez or some hispanic man/woman as a first, but I guess that is expecting too much from this WH. But this Miers lady reeks of cronyism of the highest order. I have no problem with SMU or the fact that she is not a judge, but it appears that just being known by Bush was sufficient to get her in..its disgraceful! Cronyism could be a campaign issue for Dems going into 2008 and I expect it will carry some weight. Roe is staying guys..like I had previously indicated, the GOP leadership and especially the Bushes are professional politicians and heart and don't give a hoot about core base issues, especially when it has the potential to casue them grief in the center. Unlike most people here, I don't think Bush actually believes he owes his 2nd term to conservatives...more to himself and to him that's all the matters!!

...but sadly that is what W is.

I've never seen a President so scared to do what we put him in office to do.

This begins a series of seven posts on Harriet Miers, based on interviews with those who know her. Some background for the first five: I spoke yesterday with Nathan Hecht, the Texas Supreme Court justice who is a prolife hero for strongly supporting parental notification laws five years ago when a SCOTEX majority was scuttling them. Hecht, 55 and never married, and Harriet Miers, 60 and never married, have known each other for 30 years and are -- to quote Hecht -- "very close friends. We dated some. The relationship has been close: Platonic... We go to dinner, I go to Washington for special things."

Harriet Miers -- pro, part 2

Miers has been a member of Valley View Christian Church in Dallas for 25 years, where Hecht has been an elder. He calls it a "conservative evangelical church... in the vernacular, fundamentalist, but the media have used that word to tar us." He says she was on the missions committee for ten years, taught children in Sunday School, made coffee, brought donuts: "Nothing she's asked to do in church is beneath her." On abortion, choosing his words carefully for an on-the-record statement, he says "her personal views are consistent with that of evangelical Christians... You can tell a lot about her from her decade of service in a conservative church."

Harriet Miers -- pro, part 3

Hecht says about Miers' judicial philosophy: "She's an orginalist -- that's the way she takes the Bible," and that's her approach to the Constitution as well -- "Originalist -- it means what it says." He notes that her legal practice involved writing contracts rather than tort law, so she was always looking at the plain meaning of the words: "Originalist." He also says she's not a social butterfly who will be swayed by Washington dinner table conversation: "She goes to the dinners she's supposed to go to. She's not on the social circuit."

Harriet Miers -- pro, part 4

Hecht says Miers never got married because she "probably worked too hard. She's close to her family, has a sister and three brothers, goes to her nephews' high school football games, bought a car for one of them." She "had a Catholic upbringing, had not been close to the church, it was off again, on again, then she came to a point in her life when she wanted to change that.... She made an abrupt change in 79 or 80. She was very hard-working and successful, she wanted new meaning, substance in her life." Her father died when she was a freshman in college. "Look at her commitment in taking care of her [now 93-year-old mother] all these years. Look at her tax returns. She tithes, gave a full tithe to the church. Helps out in missions, Bible translation. These are the kinds of values she shows." Hecht and Miers "went to two or three prolife dinners in the late 80s or early 90s."

Harriet Miers -- pro, part 5

Questions are being raised about Harriet Miers' politics because published records show her making contributions of $1,000 to Lloyd Bentsen in 1987, Al Gore in 1988, and the Democratic National Committee that same year. Hecht says, "She was a Democrat years and years ago, in the early 80s." As far as the late 80s contributions, "If she did it, it was because the [law] firm made her do it." She is loyal to President Bush and he to her: "The president demands a lot. The people he's loyal to are productive." Miers and Laura Bush are "very close. Harriet just loves Laura, has the deepest respect for her. Laura has migrated in her faith, it's stronger than when she got to Washington."

Harriet Myers -- anti

Hecht's evaluation needs to be taken seriously, but here's one negative analysis from a lawyer who is a conservative Christian and worked with Harriet Miers in Texas (I agreed to go off-the-record with this lawyer, a credible person whose practice could be seriously hurt by this criticism of Miers): "Harriet could have become a conservative in Washington, but unless she did, she doesn't have any particular judicial philosophy... I never heard her take a position on anything... We'll have another Sandra Day O'Connor... Harriet worships the president and has called him the smartest man she's known. She's a pretty good lawyer.... This president can be bamboozled by anyone he feels close to. If a person fawns on him enough, is loyal, works 25 hours a day and says you're the smartest man I ever met, all of a sudden you're right for the Supreme Court."

Harriet Miers -- her pastor's view

I talked yesterday with Miers' pastor, Ron Key, who for 33 years (until a few weeks ago) was pastor of Valley View Christian Church in Dallas. "She started coming to church in 1980. She helped out with kids, made coffee, furnished donuts, served on missions committee. She worked out her faith in practical, behind-the-scenes ways. She doesn't draw attention to herself, she's humble, self-effacing." Key has still seen her in recent years because "her mother is 93. Harriet tries to get home as much as she can." When Key and Miers met in 1980, "I don't know how strong her faith was at that time. She came to a place where she totally committed her life to Jesus. She had gone to church before, but when she came to our church it became more serious to her.... Our church is strong for life, but Harriet and I have not had any conversations on that.... We believe in the biblical approach to marriage."

For this to happen she will have to be defeated in the Judiciary Committee.  

It cannot be thought of as a "legit" charge.  I mean, this just goes against my every instinct for how even CEOs who value loyality should run their shops.  By appointing Miers to this position, Bush is affirming everything negative about his penchant for being an insular leader running a closed, cronyist administration that his opponents have been beating him over the head with sticks about for the past 5 years.  Really, how can we defend against it from this point on if she is confirmed?  

There were so many other candidates he could have chosen.  Why this person?  Why now?

This is a tough day. It might be time to start drawing up a manifesto for some new leadership.

It's true that we need to reserve judgement on Miers until she shows what she's made of. But the fact that we have to roll the dice and hope for the best yet again is just bad news.

The Bush Administration has three years to go. The Democrats are (sad to say) going to be strong going into 2008. I think we need to fall back a bit, take a long view, and decide what we really want from a new set of future leaders.

I think the most urgent, pressing long term problem we face is the destruction of our economic and financial vitality vis-a-vis our international trading partners. This is obviously a huge topic with a lot of moving parts.

But we will need to respond to a new pulse of progressivist sentiment from a bunch of revitalized Democrats (witness Rahm Emmanuel's trial balloons yesterday). They want to make life better for all Americans by providing for everyone's needs through wealth redistribution. Sadly, the Republicans seem to agree.

But that way lies perdition, as Europe has learned.

Someone, anyone, needs to start saying that the only way for all Americans to prosper in the long term is to repair our competitiveness in all key industries. This means we need to start doing more good things for businesses, not less. Regulating and taxing business less is just a start. And this needs to be done to the exclusion of all other domestic priorities.

We're eating our seed corn now. Both the Republicans and the Democrats want to accelerate the process. What can we do to stop it?

I've always felt this to be the role of the Senate. It's affirming to see that the founding fathers (Hamilton in this case) had this perspective too. Thanks for finding this quote. Every senator should read this before they vote on Ms. Miers

You already have your mind made up, you're pre-judging a person before you know all the facts or even hear what they have to say.

Was this a great choice by the president, probably not. But until the hearings, where we can hear her answers to questions on the important issues, we can't pre-judge her and pepper her with labels, like everyone is doing here.

There is a process our country. Let that process take its course and hear all the facts before we pass judgement.

I couldn't resist responding to all of the whining about Ms. Miers.  Now, "Dubya" is some sort of traitor to the Religious Right?  When has he ever paid more than lip service to that agenda?  Oh, you may mention his meaningless pledge to veto efforts by moderate Republicans and Democrats to pass a very limited stem cell research bill.  But, given that states like California, New Jersey, Illinois and other states are allowing for this research to begin, "Dubya's" pledge is little more than his latest empty political ploy.

Now it's time to realize what "Dubya's" about.  He's really nothing more than the empty suit spokesperson for corporate interests.  When push comes to shove, he shows his real interests are to provide favors and pork for his corporate buddies and cronies, such as granting no bid contracts for Cheney's former employer Halliburton in Iraq and New Orleans.  

Does "Dubya" balance the budget like President Clinton?  No, he fails to veto any spending his corporate interest patrons back, including the recent Highways and Energy givaways.  Now we face a massive deficit that will burden our children and grandchildren.  The same is true about the Religious Right's agenda, which "Dubya" undoubtedly does not believe in a bit.    

All I  can say is he did an excellent con job.  I'll bet you're saying that I'm some sort of "Blue Stater" infiltrating this website.  I voted for "Dubya" in 2000. I figured out "Dubya" was a fraud in 2003, when he endangered our security by invading Iraq instead of finishing the job and getting Bin Laden. Instead, I voted to fire him in 2004.  Anyone's got to be better than that moron.    

Karl Rove and "Dubya's" corporate masters must be laughing themselves silly at all of you gullible suckers for voting for him in 2004, despite his truly dismal track record in office.  

I guess that's a big deal to President Bush. It isn't to me, but I'm just a programmer in Kentucky. Maybe he thinks that having her on the court for some of the upcoming decisions is more important than fighting for a stronger choice for future decisions. maybe he just wants to avoid a filibuster. Don't know. Don't care.

His reasons are mostly irrelevant to the question of whether Miers is a good nominee, and I don't think that there's enough information to make that determination at this time. If there's still not enough information, by the time the Senate Judicial Committee gets done grilling her, then I'll be concerned.

In this specific instance, if it turns out that Miers is a far better choice than currently seems obvious, I think that might dispel the charge of cronyism in this specific case. I am not saying that I think it counts in Bush's favor to nominate friends like this.

I'm pretty cheesed right now, and I'm still gonna ban you for trolling. Hilarious, right?

We are just not in the mood today!

You say:  "I'll bet you're saying that I'm some sort of "Blue Stater" infiltrating this website."  Now what would make me think that?  Maybe it's the MoveOn talking points...

1.  "Dubya" this, "Dubya" that.
   
   
2.  "He's really nothing more than the empty suit spokesperson for corporate interests."
   
   
3.  "When push comes to shove, he shows his real interests are to provide favors and pork for his corporate buddies and cronies."
   
   
4.  "...no bid contracts for Cheney's former employer Halliburton in Iraq and New Orleans."
   
   
5.  Clintons budget, blah, blah, deficit, blah, blah, blah.
   
   
6.  "(Dubya) endangered our security by invading Iraq instead of finishing the job and getting Bin Laden."

Give me a break.  The odds of you having ever voted for George Bush are roughly equal to my having voted for John Kerry, which is to say, it never happened.

She donated to the Gore and Clinton campaigns?

Don't you think the White House knew this would come out? Don't you think they knew that many on the right would lose it?

There must be a strategic reason for this.

With the far left pummeling Democratic Senators for going too easy on Roberts and itching for a fillibuster, the Dems (who realize they can't win using the nuclear option) are in a bind and need a way out. I think George W found them one, and also found someone he trusts and believes will push his agenda for years on the court.

And his agenda is? Just what he said it was during the campaign, to appoint judges with philosophies similar to Thomas & Scalia. If you can say anything about the president, it's that he follows through with what he says he's going to do.

I would have preferred that we go through the filliibuster and nuclear option for a judge with a conservatiove track record. But if we can get the same end result without the confrontation, maybe it's better for the country in the end.  

If only Bush/Rove had read this by Hugh Hewitt and nominated Luttig or McConnell.

No One could have criticized him for cronyism.  Every criticism of the nominee would have had to include the caveat of, "Well, yes he is a brilliant legal mind, but..."  The Ds would have barked a little, but there is no way they could Bork.

The American people would have believed he was serious about his job.

The Rs would have fallen on their swords for him for the remainder of his term.

Sigh.  If only....

people, the nuclear option will some day come back and haunt conservatives, the reality is at some point democrats will be in control of the senate, nothing ever stays forever.back in the 60`s the idea  of republicans controlling the senate was laughable. the nuclear option should never be used.

Miers has been a member of Valley View Christian Church in Dallas for 25 years, where Hecht has been an elder. He calls it a "conservative evangelical church... in the vernacular, fundamentalist, but the media have used that word to tar us." He says she was on the missions committee for ten years, taught children in Sunday School, made coffee, brought donuts: "Nothing she's asked to do in church is beneath her."

On abortion, choosing his words carefully for an on-the-record statement, he says "her personal views are consistent with that of evangelical Christians... You can tell a lot about her from her decade of service in a conservative church."

That makes me feel better about what she'll do although I still don't think she was the best pick.

who didn't like Karen William's church's point of view on the Bible:

Hecht says about Miers' judicial philosophy: "She's an orginalist -- that's the way she takes the Bible," and that's her approach to the Constitution as well -- "Originalist -- it means what it says."

Harriet Miers is no Ronald Reagan. And neither is this president.

Okay .. I"m back on board with Bush.

I still like the way she was chosen or her resume, but I feel like we're going to get a conservative voice for life on the court.

NOT.

You are a citizen, a voter and a patriot.

We are not a monarchy and you are not a subject.  

GOP.com asking me to call my Senators regarding the new SC nomination. I did. I told the staff for Sen. Cornyn & Sen. Hutchison that I want them to vote AGAINST her confirmation. This tells me that George W. may be a business conservative but certainly not a social conservative. We have been had by the Republican party...again.

The answer is for there to be massive and immediate opposition such that the nomination is withdrawn. Don't put Republican senators in a position of having to defend such a lackluster selection. Send an e-mail to every Republican member of the U.S. Senate (http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm; write one letter and then cut and paste it to the e-mail address of every Republican senator), call or e-mail your state Republican Party offices, and then call or e-mail the Republican National Committee (chairman@gop.com; 202-863-8500) to voice opposition on all three fronts.

Remember your facts. In addition to being elevated as a crony of the President over much more distinguished candidates, during the Reagan Revolution Miers contributed $1,000 to Democrat Senator Lloyd Bentsen (March 30, 1987), $1,000 to the Al Gore for President Committee (February 16, 1988), and $1,000 to the Democrate National Committee (November 3, 1988).

She is not as well qualified as others, reflects LBJ-style Texas cronyism, and is a dubious Republican at best. President Bush promised justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas, and Miers does not appear to satisfy that pledge.

Do not sit on your hands. The time to act is now. The longer this goes on, the greater the chances of being stuck with Miers as the nominee.

I suspect a candidate to your liking would be nearly as
unelectable as Dean. There have been other strong
social conservatives in the past - were they elected?
I would rather have any "R" than a Hillary, Kerry or
Schumer, wouldn't you?

The tone of a lot of the commentary here strikes me as wildly out of character for this site, and out of proportion to what is known about Miers.

My experience is that an outsider's insight into any organization, or any process, is necessarily limited. Especially with a figure like Miers who has been essentially low-profile within this administration, there are simply massive unknowns. And one should realize that there are serious professionals who know more of the details than we do - or than we do yet, at any rate.

Erick and others here have done excellent work excellent over the last months in raising the profile of a few conservative jurists, some of whom may have been good, or even better, choices. But again, we don't yet know why they were not chosen. There do exist people who know, but most of us are not amongst them. This is a specialized field, and we have to give some credit to the good faith of the President's advisors.

I'm not arguing that Miers is the most apt person for the Court; I have no idea, yet. Certain aspects of her nomination certainly raise issues. But the fact that she is not one of the relatively few judges whose names have been floated recently does not mean that she will not be excellent.

This strikes me as a moment for investigation, rather than pronouncing anathema. There will be plenty of time later to reject the nominee, if she deserves it; hyperventilating too early, however, is unnecessary.

This is the problem that I have.  Bush has not goverened as a Conservative, he's really governed more as a centrist in my opinion.  And yet, every time the Administration does anything that could be seen as a conciliatory gesture to Democrats, they don't take it as such -- instead, the inevitable result is an increase in the hate rhetoric.  

We have gotten almost nothing for being nice to the Democrats so far, and even thou