The Litmus Testers are waiting to meet with her but a question for the TERBsters, will she be confirmed for Sandra Day O’Connor’s seat?
OTB
OTB
Are you now officially joining the "Trinity of the disillusioned" ?TOVisitor said:Her confirmation hearing will be quite interesting as she gets the Shrub's cock out of her mouth long enough to maybe give us an opinion on the role of the Court in society. IN the meantime, there so much good to say about her.
Let's see:
"A Legal Times profile of Harriet Miers upon her promotion from deputy chief of staff under Andy Card to White House counsel includes information not likely to show up on an official bio, among them:
• She is immensely, perhaps irrationally, into birthdays: "She always remembers everybody's birthday, and has a present for them. She'll be finding a present for somebody in the middle of the night.... 'Can't it wait until next week?' 'No,' she'd say, 'It has to be done now.'"
• She has dated Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht "over the years." [NOTE: Absolutely no other article online mentions this fascinating fact.]
• She's nit-picky micromanager who failed upwards at the White House: "She failed in Card's office for two reasons," the [former White House] official says. "First, because she can't make a decision, and second, because she can't delegate, she can't let anything go. And having failed for those two reasons, they move her to be the counsel for the president, which requires exactly those two talents."
• Not even the president can think of much interesting to say about her: In 1996, at an Anti-Defamation League Jurisprudence Award ceremony, Bush introduced Miers as a "pit bull in Size 6 shoes," a tag line that has persisted through the years, in part because colorful anecdotes or descriptions about Miers are notoriously difficult to find."
David Frum says:
"In the White House that hero worshipped the president, Miers was distinguished by the intensity of her zeal: She once told me that the President was the most brilliant man she had ever met."
Yup. Now THAT's the kind of background we need on the Supreme Court. Sheesh.
Well i am not so sure about that. Judging by a lot of the initial reactions, she might face more oppositon from the right than from the left.The Mugger said:...unless there is a surprise coming - I think she gets approved with more votes than Roberts
Well at least Jr. learned something from his father's dumb ass pick.onthebottom said:I don't know which I like more, the quality of W's choices or how stupid the Ds look opposing them. There are long memories in the Senate if the Ds can ever field a decent canidate she'll have hell to pay getting anything through a Red Senate.
OTB
Bwahahahaha.Truncador said:By choosing a dark-horse nominee with no background and who nobody seems to know anything about, the President has neatly side-stepped the character assassins, who simply don't have anything they can hysterically blow out of proportion, distort, or quote out of context. Accordingly, the Left is pitting its resources into demanding that she be brought before the Inquisition, strapped to the rack, and forced to prove that she harbours no hidden heresies. If all goes well, the Inquisition will take things way too far, creating public sympathy for Myers and even more antipathy towards the Left than exists already
And the left is going crazy over W's nominee? Bwahahahaha.Conservatives Feel Betrayed
“President Bush Blinks on Supreme Court Nominees”
“Congratulations are due to Ralph Neas, Nan Aron, and Chuck Schumer for going toe-to-toe with President Bush and forcing him to blink,” said conservative activist Richard A. Viguerie. “Liberals have successfully cowed President Bush by scaring him off from nominating a known conservative, strict constructionist to the Court, leaving conservatives fearful of which direction the Court will go.”
“President Bush desperately needed to have an ideological fight with the Left to redefine himself and re-energize his political base, which is in shock and dismay over his big government policies,” Viguerie added.
“With their lack of strong, identifiable records, President Bush’s choices for Supreme Court nominees seem designed more to avoid a fight with the extreme Left than to appeal to his conservative base,” lamented Viguerie.
Many conservatives worry that without verifiable records, President Bush’s Supreme Court nominees will be more like the liberal Justice Souter than the conservative, strict constructionists Scalia and Thomas.
Remembering and still dismayed about how his father, President George H. W. Bush (the 41st), lied to conservatives and American voters by saying he was a conservative and expressly stating he would not raise taxes, conservatives fear President George W. Bush (the 43rd) has done the same by failing to nominate well-known conservative, strict constructionists to the U.S. Supreme Court.
“President Bush has presided over the largest growth in government since Lyndon Johnson, and now he appears willing to lose all credibility with conservative voters by failing to fulfill his campaign vow to nominate an openly Scalia- or Thomas-like justice,” Viguerie concluded.
Conservatives are also exceedingly disappointed in the Republican Leadership in Congress as well. Conservatives will now begin to seriously consider why they should continue to give their support –money, labor, and votes – to Republican politicians who take their conservative base for granted by continually lying to them.
--30--
Richard A. Viguerie, Chairman of American Target Advertising, pioneered ideological and political direct mail and has been called “the funding father of the conservative movement” for his role in forming dozens of conservative organizations. He is the author of four books, including “America’s Right Turn,” (Bonus Books, 2004).
Oh all you poor boys here. With Viguerie and Lowry going the other way on Miers, who will you have to tell you how to think? Bwahahahaha.“DEPLORABLE” [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...
A fillibuster? A fillbuster? Break out in song, folks -- IOKIYAR !!!Conservative Filibuster? - Monday, October 03, 2005 @ 9:08:26 AM
Just spoke with a staffer for a conservative member of the Judiciary Committee whose boss is extremely unhappy about the nomination of Harriet Miers.
"We heard her name. We made it clear that she was unacceptable as a nominee on the basis of qualifications and her views, which we simply don't know anything about," says the staffer. "We worked with her on policy issues, though, before she was elevated to White House counsel and let's just say we were underwhelmed."
There is now talk of among some conservatives about a filibuster of the Miers nomination.
TOVisitor said:"We heard her name. We made it clear that she was unacceptable as a nominee on the basis of qualifications and her views, which we simply don't know anything about"
Go ahead. Gloat at some piddling internal disunity, gloat while you still can and over what little you can- because when the new Bench gets around to restoring the original Constitution and the laws, you won't be gloating anymore, and your smirking "bwahahahaha" will become a wailing "waahboohoohoo"...TOVisitor said:Bwahahahahaha.
http://www.redstate.org/story/2005/10/3/184538/491Marvin Olasky gives us by far the most illuminating glimpse into Miers' personal thinking, interviewing longtime friend and Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht, as well as Miers' pastor. Here's Hecht on Miers and life: "[H]er personal views are consistent with that of evangelical Christians... You can tell a lot about her from her decade of service in a conservative church."
Oh this should be good! Canada will have a front row seat to this show.Truncador said:Go ahead. Gloat at some piddling internal disunity, gloat while you still can and over what little you can- because when the new Bench gets around to restoring the original Constitution and the laws, you won't be gloating anymore, and your smirking "bwahahahaha" will become a wailing "waahboohoohoo"...