That’s a good girl, always three feet behind me. And Carry all the luggage too.
Mild About Harriet – Newsweek National News – MSNBC.com — A good essay in Newsweek.
The sense of disappointment and betrayal among conservative intellectuals was plain to see. In his newspaper column, George Will, a high priest of conservative thinkers, wrote that Miers wouldn’t stand out among a list of thousands of lawyers. Others complained that Miers was the worst appointment since G. Harrold Carswell, a Nixon appointee who was rejected by the Senate in 1970, despite Sen. Roman Hruska’s plea: “Mediocre judges and people and lawyers… are entitled to a little representation, aren’t they, and a little chance? We can’t all have Brandeises, Cardozos and Frankfurters, and stuff like that there.”
In the conservative National Review Online, former White House speechwriter David Frum reported, contemptuously, “She once told me that the president was the most brilliant man she had ever met.” Frum scoffed that in a White House “that hero-worshiped the president, Miers was distinguished by the intensity of her zeal.”
W. brilliant?! Either she’s the world’s biggest suck-up or she’s mental. Those are the ONLY two options.
“[Harriet Miers] once told [David Frum] that the president was the most brilliant man she had ever met.” “In a White House ‘that hero-worshiped the president, Miers was distinguished by the intensity of her zeal.'”
Wow! This is an irrefutable argument for instantaneous disqualification. Who could honestly say that they want an opportunist for Supreme Court Justice that is fully dedicated to an outrageous lie or really believes that our president is a brilliant superhero?
Look at it this way, at least the confirmation hearings should be fun.
wow…he’s brilliant? coulda fooled me….
not to mention she’s not even a friggin judge to begin with!!! there HAS to be a better option than someone like that.
lets see, who could we pick to be a member of the highest court in the land….how about someone who has NEVER BEEN A JUDGE AT ALL!! ugh…
Almost half of Supreme Court nominees were not judges. Senators, attorney general’s office, White House counsels were all sources of Supreme Court nominees.
>>lmost half of Supreme Court nominees were not judges.
Ummmm, I don’t think so. There have been 14 non-judge Supreme Court justices since the court was founded. And unlike Harriet, THEIR highest qualification was not a congenital adherance of lips to POTUS’ buttocks.
Sheesh. Bork is right, this nomination IS a slap in the face, to conservatives and liberals alike.
Harriet, aside from not ever being a judge, has none of the credentials nor background. She has never ARGUED a case before the Supreme Court (she ain’t that type of lawyer!) Consider that point alone.
Okay sure. Thirty-five Supreme Court justices never served as a judge (about one third). Let’s look at a few:
Earl Warren was a private practice attorney, then worked for the county of San Francisco, became the District Attorney of Alameda County, California, then the state Attorney General, (also, a Regent of the University of California) and then , he became Govenor of California. He ran for Vice President (on the ticket with Dewey).
William O. Douglas was on the faculty of the Yale Law School, was indentified with the “legal realist movement” (way of thinking about law’s real-world effects instead of traditional theoretical law. Oliver Wendell Holmes was a driving force of this movement – fyi). He became chairman of the SEC before being nominated to the Supreme Court. He was a strong supporter of First Amendment Rights.
But, all the non-judicial experience appointments were all that great.
Consider Hugo Black (a KKK member) who was a private practice attorney, a senator. Overal, he had a some screwy ideas, and was often rather contrary in rulings. A questionable appointment.
And, then there was Abe Fortas (longtime “friend” to Lyndon Johnson) who worked within the government (WPA, Chairman of the SEC, in the Department of Interior) before returning to private practice. He represented Clarence Earl Gideon’s appeal before the Supreme Court. (If you don’t know what this is..it was the decision — Gideon v. Wainwright — to represent a poor man, unable to afford legal representation that solidified the constitutional right of criminal defendants to have legal counsel when charged with serious offenses. (You know, you watch cop shows: “if you do not have an attorney one will be appointed for you”.) But, his seating on the Supreme Court has not been without controversy and questionable practices. (Accepting $$$, for instance.)
And, as for Renquist, Martin, ….he was an odd bird. Aside from his odd bedfellows, and cronies, he positioned himself in very odd ways on a number of decisons. And, don’t forget his ego. After all, it was HE who created a unique robe for himself as Chief Justice in 1994. (Chief Justices had never dressed differently from any of the Associate Justices) Rehnquist’s robe was modeled after a robe he had seen in a production of Gilbert and Sullivan’s operetta Iolanthe. It had four gold bars on each sleeve. The guy was a bit nutty…let’s face it. And, there was a fair amount of controversy about him. Although he denied it (why wouldn’t he?) he was accused by several of “disuading minority voters” in Arizona (when he was a poll watcher) and also of religious insensitivity while at Stanford (goose steps and Nazi salutes to Jewish students). I’d say, that to hold him up at some great example, would be questionable. He just lived a long time.
So, back to Miers….not only is she NOT well versed in Constitutional law (she is a litigator) she has nothing in her background to give her the required perspective on congressional powers, the separation of powers, questionable understanding of judicial prcent, or protection of the people, She’s a LITIGATOR. Her experience is in slanting arguments to favor the client, tricks and, loopholes. Her experience is sucking up to her “boss”. This is not really a huge benefit when it come to thinking along the lines that an **ideal** supreme court justice would. We need to have the Supreme Court represent the people, take US into account,.
I don’t see that she has this world view. But, then again, she seems to “flip flop”….uphold gay rights, but keep the sodomy laws in place, has one set of world views until she finds rebirth as a Christian Evangelical, women’s rights….but not really, strong on family — but never married, and doesn’t HAVE family. Uhhh…to quote Freud…””Despite my thirty years of research into the feminine soul, I have not been able to answer… the great question that has never been answered: what does a woman want?…””
Although I think this quote (Robert Mueller) sums up Harriet best: …:
“I asked a Burmese why women, after centuries of following their men, now walk ahead. He said there were many unexploded land mines since the war. “
meetsy
well put