Here We Go.

10/3/2005 8:00:22 AM

No experience, no paper trail. Cronyism appointment

10/3/2005 8:02:21 AM

not a judge

10/3/2005 8:04:31 AM

Lack of experience. Not approved.

10/3/2005 8:09:11 AM

this is excellent. she will fly through just like Roberts.

10/3/2005 8:13:55 AM

Quote :

"Formerly Bush's personal lawyer in Texas, Miers came with the president to the White House as his staff secretary, the person in charge of all the paperwork that crosses the Oval Office desk. Miers was promoted to deputy chief of staff in June 2003."

Here we go again. Next he'll appoint Jeb's crackhead daughter.

10/3/2005 8:20:38 AM

lesbian

10/3/2005 8:42:56 AM

I agree this is probably a terrible appointment. While I'm sure she will be pro life and conservative, it still very much looks like a cronyism appointment.

The other thing is the whole separation of powers issue. The Supreme Court is supposed to be one of the checks on the power of the President - I'm not sure how well a lawyer for the President suits such a role.

[Edited on October 3, 2005 at 8:46 AM. Reason : add]

10/3/2005 8:43:21 AM

about as well as all of his other cronies

10/3/2005 8:51:39 AM

Quote :

"lesbian"

I thought liberals were supposed to be tolerant and accepting?

10/3/2005 8:54:25 AM

a person who is tolerant and accepting doesn't think of "lesbian" as an insult

also, i believe that was a joke

[Edited on October 3, 2005 at 8:58 AM. Reason : .]

10/3/2005 8:57:37 AM

yes but once again, it is a liberal who is pointing out our differences. and that is discrimination.

and i know it was a joke

10/3/2005 9:02:07 AM

^^

10/3/2005 9:04:20 AM

^^

10/3/2005 9:05:32 AM

it is indeed discrimination:

Quote :

" The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment."

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discrimination

this, however, is the kind that's considered bad.

Quote :

" Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners."

which he wasn't doing

10/3/2005 9:06:17 AM

^ exactly.

and once again, it is liberals, the ones who preach unity, who are pointing out our differences in an attempt to cause tension.

10/3/2005 9:10:50 AM

It'll be interesting to see how this pans out. I know squat about this lady and will withhold judgement for awhile. Being the prez's personal laywer smells funny though.

Roberts was a good confirm. If this lady is a blatent croony the Dems might pull the filibuster option. I actually think she's a sacrificial lamb for the next candidate. The Plame indictments should be coming up soon so this a good bit of noise in the meantime.

Carry on.

10/3/2005 9:11:09 AM

I am very much for an impartial and centrist Constitutional judiciary.

I didn't mind Roberts much because he seems like an intellegent and even tempered guy.

Having said that, from what I have seen of Ms. Miers, I would not trust her. It seems too much like Bush trying to slip an activist under the radar and I don't like that AT ALL.

10/3/2005 9:15:57 AM

Quote :

"and once again, it is liberals, the ones who preach unity, who are pointing out our differences in an attempt to cause tension."

you're right. liberals are the ones who do that. they were always trying to preserve racial discrimination during the civil rights movement, and now they're talking about making a constitutional amendment to prevent gay marriages.

fucking discriminatory liberals

ANYWAY, back on planet earth

Quote :

"Among the contributions at issue: a $1,000 check in 2001 from superlobbyist Vin Weber, whose clients included Microsoft and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers; and $2,500 that same year from Locke Liddell & Sapp, the Texas law firm formerly headed by Harriet Miers (who was recently named White House counsel), which was then representing Burlington Northern Santa Fe."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6652757/site/newsweek/

10/3/2005 9:19:21 AM

Miers also gave money to Al Gore's campaign and the campaign of a few Democratic Senators.

10/3/2005 9:22:09 AM

southern methodist university

10/3/2005 9:24:36 AM

^^ source?

10/3/2005 9:29:00 AM

http://www.confirmthem.com (To be fair, back when she gave him the money he was pro life.)

this morning on WGN Radio said that HArry Reid suggested her to the President last week somewhat tongue in cheek. He said something to the effect of "Hey, remember how Cheney couldn't find you a VP that you liked, so you just appointed him? Why don't you give the job to Harriet?"

Apparently Bush looked at him like he had never thought of that.

[Edited on October 3, 2005 at 9:37 AM. Reason : never thought of that]

10/3/2005 9:32:51 AM

Quote :

"you're right. liberals are the ones who do that. they were always trying to preserve racial discrimination "

you finally understand. without racism and clas warfare and all other kinds of discrimination there is no democratic party. they need them to survive and do what they can to further them any chance they get.

10/3/2005 9:35:47 AM

^^ Haha. from RedState.org. TOOL.

You loose. (Haha, and the site is called ConfirmThem ... you are such a douche)

But at least it's not NewsMax!

[Edited on October 3, 2005 at 9:38 AM. Reason : ]

10/3/2005 9:37:23 AM

no, from the FEC... you can read, can you not?

10/3/2005 9:38:02 AM

Just because she contributed to the campaigns means nothing.

She is in the current administration and that makes her immediately suspect. It is easy for someone to make contributions to campaigns strategically to seem non-partisan.

I would do the same thing in that case because such contributions are easily documented and easy to point at and say "here! look!" but are not nearly as overwhelming as oh, say ... actually fighting for a cause on a side that traditionally opposes your own.

[Edited on October 3, 2005 at 9:41 AM. Reason : +]

10/3/2005 9:41:18 AM

lol dude do I seem like I am defending Harriet Miers?

Anyway, this is the first shriek from a pro abort group: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/media/pressreleases/pr-051003-miers.xml;jsessionid=D1E9A0AE37CB70134C307A45D4AF0717

10/3/2005 9:58:21 AM

I have a lot to do this morning without arguing over her. Enough will be pulled out as it is.

There already seems to be more dirt on her 2 hours after the announcement than they had on Roberts 2 months after he was announced.

I don't have any problems with Roberts. I would expect him to be conservative but not radical.

I have no problem with a Constitutionally conservative judiciary as long as they are fair, but I predict that Miers would be a radical.

10/3/2005 10:01:20 AM

How so? There is more evidence to suggest that Roberts would be a "radical" than Miers - in fact there is NOTHING on Miers short of some actions she took when she was President of the Texas Bar. Whereas Roberts had specifically argued that Roe should be overturned, that Lemon should be overturned, etc.

10/3/2005 10:03:25 AM

If the left weren't so pathologically inclined, they would support this nomination...thereby demoralizing the republican base. The conservative pundits are already ripping Miers apart.

[Edited on October 3, 2005 at 10:22 AM. Reason : -]

10/3/2005 10:20:58 AM

I think the real question is, "is she a good horse judge?"

10/3/2005 10:35:18 AM

Quote :

"I actually think she's a sacrificial lamb for the next candidate."

Agreed. It's the ol' prom dress trick. First tell dad about the dress you don't really want, but is outrageously expensive. When he shoots that down, act disappointed and offer up the dress you really want, which is still expensive, but looks like a better alternative.

The next candidate will have more experience, but will probably be a very strong conservative in the long term that passes off as a moderate in the short term.

10/3/2005 10:44:02 AM

So you think she will be defeated?

10/3/2005 10:49:52 AM

Definitely a sacrificial lamb. She's not especially qualified. The only distinguishing factor I see is her proximity to the President.

10/3/2005 10:50:27 AM

This just boggles the mind.

10/3/2005 10:53:35 AM

so where are all the people now that were complaining about a female nomination a few months ago?

10/3/2005 10:58:28 AM

I think she'll go down pretty fast. Here's my take on the whole deal:

IMO Bush & Co. don't want her to be approved. She'll get shot down by all sides due to lack of experience by the conservatives, lack of clear ideology by the moderates, and being a Bush cronie by the liberals.

The administration will let Miers fall, with a slight admonishment issued to the Dems, and they'll hoist someone new into the spotlight. It will probably another woman, with tons of judicial experience. Then they'll fight tooth and nail to get her approved.

Afterwards, I wouldn't be surprised if Miers takes a position outside the government in the corporate law arena, or is appointed to a district court. Could be good timing on her part - maybe she wants to resign to pursue another opportunity and this path let's her take the fall for the administration...a win-win situation.

10/3/2005 11:00:06 AM

I don't think she's a sacrificial lamb, only b/c W has usually been an incompetent pussy when it comes to appointments.

To borrow a phrase from NRO, "The voice is the voice of Reagan, but the hands are the hands of George H W Bush."

10/3/2005 11:04:14 AM

This is a stupid appointment. I could respect President Bush for a firebrand conservative, but not someone with no experience.

10/3/2005 11:13:59 AM

once again Bush gets his way and people who don't know whats going on complain

10/3/2005 11:16:19 AM

I also have a hard time believing this is a sacrificial lamb. Allowing her to get shot down is a sign of weakness and also basically hands the democrats a win.

10/3/2005 11:17:49 AM

O rly Twista?

Please, why don't you and exro combine your intellect and try and explain "whats going on."

10/3/2005 11:20:10 AM

i dont claim to know whats going on

but SandSanta...why dont you tell me a little about Harriet Miers that you didnt learn in the last few weeks...you say its a stupid appointment, I assume you have legitimate reasons

10/3/2005 11:25:23 AM

I think its a stupid appointment precisely because of the reason I, and apparently a lot of other people know so little about her. She has no experience as a judge and yet should be serve on the Supreme Court? I don't think so.

Bio for you to scan and throw some random, poorly thought out response:

http://www.legalreforminthenews.com/leaders/Miers/Miers_bio.html

10/3/2005 11:32:51 AM

Quote :

"She has no experience as a judge and yet should be serve on the Supreme Court? I don't think so."

haha you moron. Rehnquist had no judicial experience before he began serving on the Supreme Court

10/3/2005 11:34:18 AM

no rehnquist was a stupid appointment, nobody respected him in hindsight ^^

10/3/2005 11:36:27 AM

How about you click the link and read the bio before throwing out insults.

You can't compare Rehnquist's academic and professional pedigree with Miers.

Lets also not forget, Rehnquist did clerk for Justice Robert H. Jackson who happened to be, you guessed it, sittin on the Supreme Court.

10/3/2005 11:38:58 AM

lets also not forget, the president's cabinet knows a lot more about the personnel and the process than you or I

10/3/2005 11:40:05 AM

If I had a strategic planner like Karl Rove telling me what to do, I'd be just as competent, if not more, then Goerge W. Bush.

10/3/2005 11:41:25 AM