President Bush's decision to appoint personal counsel and long-time yes-woman Harriett Miers to the Supreme Court is another example of his leadership style: acquaintances get minor, ceremonial posts like FEMA chief, while good friends get the juicy jobs that really jazz up the resumé. It's an old tradition that goes back at least to Andrew Jackson, "To the victor belongs the spoils." I suppose we should be grateful that at least she has some excellent legal credentials, even if she brings no judicial experience to the table.
What does she think about abortion, gay rights, gun control, separation of church and state, and assisted suicide? What is her view on federalism, and to which constitutional schools of thought does she subscribe? I don't know if Mr. Bush really even cares. According to Political Moneyline, she contributed money to Gore and Bentsen in '88 (later, of course, she contributed heavily to Bush.) She's not a conservative ideologue; she's just someone who finally found the right horse to back.
Bush said he consulted with "80 Senators," but according to the NY Times, Democratic Senators complained that the conversations lasted about five minutes and were consultations "in name only." But get this: apparently it was White House Counsel Ms. Miers herself who called some of the Senators to "consult" with them. Did Bush ask her to make those calls as one last practical joke on her? The man loves to smirk at everyone.
Should the Senate confirm her nomination? In a perfect world, no. But in the real world, yes. Because if they don't, Bush will nominate a highly qualified Scalia-clone--that's the unspoken threat: give my girl a good job or I'll send in the Enforcer. So unless we discover that she has a hidden agenda, the Senate might as well confirm her and move on.
Because I'd rather have an opportunist than an ideologue on the bench any day.
Monday, October 03, 2005
Loyal Lackey Rewarded with Plum Appointment
Posted by Dr. Strangelove at 2:25 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I think that Bush is following a rather savvy strategy. He is picking people with a very limited track record so that he can escape the heat from the far right as well as the far left. Picking someone like Harriet (perfect name for an aging justice) is a pretty safe bet. I am glad he picked a woman. And as chief council, it was part of her job to consult on supreme court nominees. Should she have recused herself when her name hit the list? Possibly. Even Harry Reid came out somewhat agnostic about her today. So all in all, I think Bush made a smart move for once. The proof is in the pudding, however. It will be interesting to see what comes out of her hearings, if anything at all.
// posted by USWest
I think a better head line would be Loyal Lackey Lacks Legal Leadership - if only because of the alliteration.
But seriously, now that I think about this nominating the head of the search committee is an old Bush trick. Remember that's how he supposedly picked Cheney to be VP (of course I suspect that the party picked Cheney).
Let's be honest we know nothing about this woman. So our question should be do we think Bush picks people for their history kissing his ass or does he pick them for ideological commitment? Is Bush motivated by ego or faith? Frankly, I'm leaning towards ego but I'm not willing to rule out faith. I do think he's sincere when he says he believes all the crack pot stuff he says he believes. But is that enough to outweigh his enormous ego/insecurity/need for sycophants? We have no idea. This woman could be Justice Thomas all over again and the only one who would know it is Bush and he might not understand the implications.
// posted by Raised By Republicans
No, it all makes perfect sense now. Bush picks people that are close to him for jobs. He panders to the wingnuts of his party but then doesn't do anything for them. And they are (rightly) mad, because when he was running for President, he all but got a tattoo that said "I (heart) Thomas and Scalia".
Ms. Miers also seems to be pro-corporate. Anyone surprised? That's the other thing that matters to this administration.
// posted by Bell Curve
I think there is a fundamental disconnect in Bush's head. Molly Ivins has said this in the past. She says he isn't dumb, but that he doesn't often see the link between his actions and the consequences. I call that dumb. But then, that is just me.
// posted by USWest
When GWB said today that she was "the most qualified person" I just gasped. I mean, a woman with not an hour of experience as even a trial court judge is better qualified than all the long-serving appellate judges in the land? It borders on bizarre.
If she had been nominated for Chief Justice, nobody would have bought it. But it's just an appointment for the chick's seat on the bench. You know, not serious. "You wanted a skirt, I gave ya one." he says. If I were Justice O'Connor, I would be extremly annoyed that Bush thinks an appropriate replacement is the kind of busybody who puts counts being head of the Dallas Bar Association as her biggest accomplishment. It's like when he described Condi as "fabulous." A token. And not a very shiny one.
It shows a profound, fundamental lack of respect for women.
// posted by LTG
Good point LTG. I also caught the "the most qualified" comment and found myself surprised that he would make such a transparently bogus comment. And he followed that by saying that she was qualified because she had served on the Dallas City Council. That is painfully comical. And then he called her a "pioneer" in the legal field. How exactly? Is the law new in Texas or something? And now he is going to invoke executive privilege to stop Congress from reading her papers. Another fight for documents that Congress has the right too. It's like a Ground Hog's Day. I am repeating the same day over and over again.
While I am glad he chose a woman, I am not sure how I feel about this particular woman. What worries me is that we have a 'woman's seat' in the Court. It shows you how little progress we have actually made when we can't be chosen on our own merits, but only to a reserved spot. Will Thomas one day be replaced by another black?
I am concerned that she might be more conservative than we think. She claims to be a strict constructionist. Can you even have a judicial philosophy when you haven't served as a judge? And apparently, she doesn't learn over time since Bush has declared that she "won't change". The unmarried Miers is equally sick in the head.. She apparently has called Bush "The most brilliant man I've ever met."
// posted by USWest
Another thought: this may be what we needed to break the Republicans apart. I predicted that one more term in teh White House would have them infighting.infighting
// posted by USWest
This could turn into an inter-institutional pissing match. With the last nomination, only Democrats wanted documents from the White House. This time Democrats AND a big chunk of the Republicans will want even more documents. US West hit the nail on the head when she said "documents to which Congress has the right." That's exactly how Senators will frame it and Bush won't be able to blame it "whiney liberals."
// posted by Raised By Republicans
Post a Comment