First Impressions Of The Harriet Miers Nomination

[DemocratSinceBirth]

[eallen]

1. Harriet Who?

Sorry, just not enough information to vote yet.

[Zynx]

2. He could have appointed Luttig or Jones. This is likely a lot better.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. Xactly

I suspect she's another O'Connor....


She hasn't devoted her life like the ones you named to restore the "Constitution In Exile" which is actually the antbellum Constitution...

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

16. I don't know why more people don't see that.

Considering whom he COULD have picked (and anyone he picks will wind up being confirmed one way or another), this is a hell of a lot better. A "maybe" is far better than a "definitely Scalia".

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. Not A Scalia

The man spent his whole life elaborating on his constricted view of the Constitution...

[Why Syzygy]

9. Hunting . chopping wood . what's the diff?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/03/politics/03cnd-scotus-profile.html
~snip~
Ms. Miers is a regular guest at Camp David and is often the only woman who accompanies Mr. Bush and male staff members in long brush-cutting and cedar-clearing sessions at the president's ranch.
~snip~

Just cozy little outings with the boys, ya know.

[julialnyc]

12. these two quotes scare me (and this was just when she became counsel

'She's the kind of person you want in your corner when all the chips are being played,'' said one friend, Joseph M. Allbaugh, former director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. ''She will give the president advice unvarnished, and that's exactly what he wants.''



"But her history, and comments from friends, suggest that she is the kind of woman, like Karen P. Hughes and Condoleezza Rice, whom Mr. Bush likes on his staff: tough, direct and intensely loyal. Her appointment reflects the president's determination to promote longtime members of his inner circle to critical positions for his second term."

[Why Syzygy]

15. His "inner circle" is one thing

SCOTUS is quite another.

Yes, scary.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

4. You need another option....

"Ridiculous! He's kidding, right? " :rofl:

[crispini]

6. None of the above.

Cronyist payback time. Smells like a three-day-old dead fish. Intimately connected with the Bushco dirty laundry. Reeks to high heaven.

[Caution]

7. A diversion to paint Dems as obstructionists so they can push an idealogue

[PDittie]

8. Now THAT oughta be a poll response n/t

[no_hypocrisy]

10. None of the above but for a different reason.

I think HM is a throw-away candidate. She's meant to be severely challenged by first the dems, and then some pukes. Hence, she'll be forced to either withdraw her nomination or be voted down altogether.

Then * will bring out his REAL choice for the nomination: 150% fascist, woman-hating, corporation-loving, owl-killing maniac in black robes but with judicial experience. * would figure that dems used their one silver bullet and this second candidate will be confirmed. It's so . . . Rove-like.

[derby378]

11. I kinda don't think so...

Nero wants suck-ups in his administration, now more than ever. And Harriet Miers, regardless of whatever she may bring to the table, appears to be a major suck-up.

[no_hypocrisy]

13. Ordinarily I would endorse your proposition, but not here.

While I concede that cronyism is psychologically and politically reassuring to the paranoid Nero/* right now, his handlers know enough not to let him make unilateral decisions, meaning it has to serve the neocon agenda today, tomorrow, and for decades to come. After all, you can't destroy America by a corrupt Administration and Legislature alone. You need to control the courts which can close the doors of justice to the citizens with minority interests and not enough money.

Plus, I've seen enough bag of tricks used by Rove for years now. It's like after a while, you didn't believe Andy Kaufman when he'd actually tell the truth (e.g., dying of cancer) because of the all the set-ups in the past. Seeing is not believing.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

17. I don't see that happening at all.

Unless we find out she ate a baby, it doesn't look like we'll have anything more than moderate criticism for cronyism to throw at her. Unless the Republicans reject her, she's getting in.

[shockingelk]

14. Other: Harriet who?

[Ready4Change]

18. Bush Loyalist, is my current impression

Long term I think she may be ok. However, I think she is being nominated with short term interests in mind. I think the Bush administration is feeling a rope around it's political neck, and is stacking the SCOTUS with pro-Bush aces.

Still no idea where Roberts will fall on many issues. Miers actually sounds ok on some womens rights issues. However, I think she is being nominated due to being unswervingly loyal to this Bush Administration, and hopes to recieve a seat in the SCOTUS in exchange for being this administrations "Get out of Jail Free" card.

[Ronnie]

19. I can't vote.

It looks to me like it's just another present to a loyal (aka suck-up) friend. Think Secretary of State Rice. This whole thing is just a game to him.

[fujiyama]

20. Another loyal Bush crony/ hack for whom it has paid off nicely

but not nearly as insane as some of the others named like Rogers-Brown.

[Straight Shooter]

21. Thanks, we now have her nickname. "Harriet Hack." n/t

[fujiyama]

22. That does indeed work nicely

nt

[OneBlueSky]

23. other: an illegitimate, unelected pretender to the presidency . . .

who was responsible for an illegal war and very likely the 9/11 attacks has no business nominating anyone for anything . . . especially the Supreme Court . . .