Bush picks two Executive Branch defenders to the Supreme Court

[JackWhite]

[ QUOTE ]
Sure but it's infinitely more enjoyable when it's made blatantly obvious that you've been decieved / betrayed.

You were promised a justice "in the mold of Scalia and Thomas".

And to top it off, she's 60 friggin years old!

I get happier by the minute. You've got to be wondering "what's the use in even having a 55 seat majority?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is former White House insider David Frum on the choice:

"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 [any] 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."

[ QUOTE ]
"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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do we need to go any further than this? Who gives a crap what her politics are, if this is true? This is the United States freaking Supreme Court, for Christ's sake.

[Matty]

Well could one not argue that the Supreme Court deserves outstanding lawyers?

Every lawyer is "intelligent"; but compared to everyone else on Bush's short list I'm afraid Miers no longer qualifies.

Hell I don't think SMU grads even find normal lawyer jobs that easily.

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually think is the only reason why she would be good on the Supreme Court. If she is a legal moderate, as many people seem to feel she would be, she would be a good choice to replace O'Connor, as she was very moderate.

That said, it's the only, POSSIBLE reason that she would be a good choice. She has no experience, no qualifications and is far from one of the greatest legal minds in America. It's clearly just another example of George Bush putting his friends in the highest positions of government in order that he surround himself by a close knit group of insiders to shield him from any possible kind of dissent. With the SC stacked the way it is, no piece of conservative legislation and no part of the conservative agenda will be struck down in the next 10 years.

Everyday, I trust less and less the ability of our government to police itself and fear more and more that ew are turning into an oligarchy of wealthy Texas industrialists.

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you a conservative Republican who I can laugh at?

[/ QUOTE ]

You can laugh at me. I am dissappointed. I got a feeling that we have a Souter on our hands. I wanted another Roberts.

I hope that I'm wrong.

-Gryph

[JackWhite]

[ QUOTE ]
With the SC stacked the way it is, no piece of conservative legislation and no part of the conservative agenda will be struck down in the next 10 years.

Everyday, I trust less and less the ability of our government to police itself and fear more and more that ew are turning into an oligarchy of wealthy Texas industrialists.


[/ QUOTE ]

To assuage your fears, here is another quote from a neo-con staunch Bush defender. This is from Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol on the nomination: "I'm disappointed, depressed, and demoralized."

If Bush loyalists are using this type of language within minutes of the nomination, liberals should be thrilled with this pick. Unless this is some type of Machiavellian plot to make her look moderate to liberal so she will sail through the confirmation process with no filibuster or substantial opposition from Democrats. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[JackWhite]

Here is another quote from a conservative on this nomination. This quote comes from National Review editor Rich Lowry:

"Just talked to a very pro-Bush legal type who says he is ashamed and embarrassed this morning. Says Miers was with an undistinguished law firm; never practiced constitutional law; never argued any big cases; never was on law review; has never written on any of the important legal issues. Says she's not even second rate, but is third rate. Dozens and dozens of women would have been better qualified. Says a crony at FEMA is one thing, but on the high court is something else entirely. Her long history of activity with ABA is not encouraging from a conservative perspective--few conservatives would spend their time that way. In short, he says the pick is “deplorable.” There may be an element of venting here, but thought I'd pass along for what it's worth. It's certainly indicative of the mood right now... "

So far we have seen prominent conservatives use terms like "ashamed, embarrassed, disappointed, depressed, deplorable and demoralized." This should be interesting.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is another quote from a conservative on this nomination. This quote comes from National Review editor Rich Lowry:

"Just talked to a very pro-Bush legal type who says he is ashamed and embarrassed this morning. Says Miers was with an undistinguished law firm; never practiced constitutional law; never argued any big cases; never was on law review; has never written on any of the important legal issues. Says she's not even second rate, but is third rate. Dozens and dozens of women would have been better qualified. Says a crony at FEMA is one thing, but on the high court is something else entirely. Her long history of activity with ABA is not encouraging from a conservative perspective--few conservatives would spend their time that way. In short, he says the pick is “deplorable.” There may be an element of venting here, but thought I'd pass along for what it's worth. It's certainly indicative of the mood right now... "



[/ QUOTE ]

It's deja vu all over again. In 1970, Nixon nominated Carswell to the Court. The general opinion was that Carswell was undistinguished and mediocre. Roman Hruska, a Republican Senator from Nebraska came to his defense:

[ QUOTE ]
On January 19, 1970, president Richard Nixon nominated G. Harrold Carswell to the Supreme Court. While Carswell's nomination was promptly rejected by the Senate, Nebraska Senator Roman Hruska presented a novel argument in his defense:


"Even if he was mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers," Hruska declared. "They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance? We can't have all Brandeises and Cardozos and Frankfurters and stuff like that there."



Hruska, Roman Lee (1904- ) American politician, Congressman (1952-1955), U.S. Senator (Nebraska, 1955-1977)


[Sources: National Review, 22 Dec, 1997]

[/ QUOTE ]

Continuing this old Republican tradition, it looks like Bush is an Equal Opportunity Employer, willing to look beyond conventional standards, such as job qualifications, in an attempt to achieve a level playing field.

[renodoc]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is another quote from a conservative on this nomination. This quote comes from National Review editor Rich Lowry:

"Just talked to a very pro-Bush legal type who says he is ashamed and embarrassed this morning. Says Miers was with an undistinguished law firm; never practiced constitutional law; never argued any big cases; never was on law review; has never written on any of the important legal issues. Says she's not even second rate, but is third rate. Dozens and dozens of women would have been better qualified. Says a crony at FEMA is one thing, but on the high court is something else entirely. Her long history of activity with ABA is not encouraging from a conservative perspective--few conservatives would spend their time that way. In short, he says the pick is “deplorable.” There may be an element of venting here, but thought I'd pass along for what it's worth. It's certainly indicative of the mood right now... "

So far we have seen prominent conservatives use terms like "ashamed, embarrassed, disappointed, depressed, deplorable and demoralized." This should be interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]


See my conspiracy theory post above. Maybe a few republicans get convinced that she is simply not qualified and then the *real* nominee steps out of the shadows. At least I hope so.

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
See my conspiracy theory post above. Maybe a few republicans get convinced that she is simply not qualified and then the *real* nominee steps out of the shadows. At least I hope so.

[/ QUOTE ]You're going to have to get more imaginative than that to find any realistic logic behind this choice that conservatives might like.

I highly suspect Bush went against his advisors on this one. Since Bush readily admits that he doesn't follow the news, or read newspapers, and with increasing reports that he's hostile towards hearing any bad news ... maybe he's just not aware that his putting friends above the American people has recently been spotlighted ... and not in a cute, endearing loyal cowboy way that he expects.

Hell, maybe Laura made the pick. "Why don't you pick Harriet? She's a nice person."