Miers' history of unquestioning loyalty may be a good thing...

[drmom]

Speaking as one with years of training in the behavioral sciences, the interesting thing about “yes men” (or “yes women” in this case) is that they are, by their very nature NOT truly loyal. They tend to be very conniving and good at working the system. Just the fact that she was supposed to be heading the search for the SCOTUS nominee and somehow turned that into a nomination for herself speaks volumes. This woman was obviously not looking out for the best interest of the administration, which again makes you wonder where her loyalty really lies.

Think about it... Harriet has done things for * that were clearly not morally right, revealing that she has no strong sense of personal ethics. This means that even if she has promised something to the current administration, she would not have a problem going back on that promise once she no longer has to answer to them. The fact that she has donated to the good guys in the past makes me think she is easily swayed. Additionally, her reported ties to an evangelical church is another sign that her mind can be easily changed. (There are many psychological studies showing that people who fall for extreme religions have reasoning systems and which are susceptible to being influenced - in lay terms, they are gullible.)

If she gets on the court, she will no longer be beholden to *, and while that doesn’t guarantee anything in particular, it just might work in our favor, especially over time (i.e. once * leaves office).

Just another thought...

[distantearlywarning]

1. I had this thought too.

The first thing that occurred to me when I heard that she had donated to Democrats in the past was, "This woman's into power, not an ideology". Or in other words, she is interested in getting herself ahead - if that means kissing Democrat ass, well, that's just as good as kissing Republican ass as long as it all works out for her in the end.

[yellowcanine]

2. But what if she falls under the spell of Scalia and Thomas? That is the

danger.

[drmom]

3. True...but unless they have something on her,

she still could be unpredictable.

[napi21]

4. Unpredictable, and if power really is her motivator, isn't the most

powerful person on the court, the one who casts the swing vote?

[drmom]

17. Interesting point...

...again this might work for or against us depending on the situation. I'm sure Bushco received some sort of assurances from her (no litmus test my ass!)...but once she is sworn in, we'll see just how loyal she is.

[JDPriestly]

7. How will they make her feel may be the question.

Bush deals well with ambitious, assertive, take-charge, bossy, rather masculine women. In fact, with the exception of his wife, most of the women he has favored over the years have a certain hardness about them. Think Rice, Hughes, Matalin (even Lynne Cheney). (Compare them to the women Clinton selected as his aides, Reno, Albright, even Lewinski, rather feminine women, ambitious, but somehow softer spoken than, not as obviously take-charge as Bush's aides.) Maybe the women around Bush remind him of his mother.

I haven't seen any evidence that either Scalia or Thomas is particularly good with this kind of ambitious, assertive, somewhat masculine woman. I suspect their very old-fashioned male egos would get in the way. Thomas certainly did not know how to deal with Anita Hill for instance. Therefore, I would predict (not very scientific and base on little evidence) that Miers will not develop a close affinity on a personal level with Scalia or Thomas. It is my guess that she would more likely find personal affinity with Roberts, Kennedy, Breyer and Ginsburg. She will start out making very conservative decisions, but is likely to move to the center as she gets more into her work. Just a guess, as I said. Maybe overly optimistic, but you never know.

I was concerned about Mier's qualifications. The brief biographies I read of her did not mention her litigation experience, and I felt, considering she has no judicial experience, she at least needed to have litigation experience. Apparently that was simply an omission of the biographers.

Miers may, like Roberts, be the best of the worst. She is ten years older than Roberts and appears to have aged considerably in the last four years -- as do women in her age range. We shall see whether she can grow into the job of Supreme Court justice. I seriously doubt that she will be voted down.

[eleny]

5. I agree about her personality but am skeptical about the future

Yesterday, I posted this in a thread about Miers - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4960498&mesg_id=4960607

In fact, I worked with two people like that. They arrive in a an office that may be well established and get the lay of the land. They talk in depth to everyone to learn who has aspirations for management - in other words, who is their competition. But their main goal is to learn a lot about the weaknesses of the manager and about their personal needs. Then they go about giving the boss what they need in order to achieve goals. Calling W a brilliant man was the tip off.

But I don't know enough to know how it all could shake out. One discussion I heard yesterday on FoxNews was that the Washington D.C. establishment is still very liberal and Miers may, over time, lean left to fit in. That would dovetail nicely with your assessment.

This is such a game of cat and mouse. It's one thing to watch with amusement someone who arrives in a small government division like the one where I worked. But we're dealing with the SCOTUS and the lives of women.

I think that the real bottom line is that W nominated someone who he knows will never waver from who she was for him. He's packed the court with two people who will bail him, Cheney, Libby and Rove out of upcoming troubles. As for privacy rights and the religious issues, W couldn't care less. None of it touches him or his family and never will.

[northzax]

13. I don't think it's the establishment that makes Justices move left

as they almost all do. Even Scalia is more caustic and stringent on his rightist views when his vote doesn't matter. When Rhenquist was the "Lone Ranger" he could be much more stringent, when he became chief, part of the majority, he calmed down quite a lot. It is very difficult to maintain an ideological position, in a life time appointment with no possibility for advancement or removal, when your decisions actually affect people's lives. It's the real beauty of the Supreme Court, the masterstroke of the founders, I think. You take people who, quite literally, have nothing left to play for, not only no chance of advancement, but nothing left to advance to, and innoculate them from threats, and they will mellow over time. Every majority on the court moves farther to the left than predicted, there is an innate humanity in doing so, and the judges are, after all, innately human. Not in every decision, of course, but as a general trend, no conservative becomes MORE conservative on the Court.

It's why liberals can appoint moderates, while conservatives have to appoint mouth-breathers, the trend pulls them left. All of a sudden your decisions being to affect the day to day lives of hundreds of millions of people, and it becomes a lot harder to be heartless.

[eleny]

14. I wish I could agree with you

But I believe that she cast her lot, feathered her nest and lay down with the devil. I heard that she may have helped cover up evidence about W's military service. She's been referred to as his consigliere. This woman is one of the faithful and enjoys the protection of the immensely powerful Bush family. I can't imagine her turning on them for some ideology she may have held a long time ago.

This nomination is a huge thank you. Can you even begin to imagine what she's done for W over the years? She won't be turning her back on the "capo's" trough to do anything for the peasants.

[northzax]

15. ahh, but the risk from Bush's perspective

is that once she's on the court, he no longer has any hold over her. She's immune to the blandishments of the bushbots, they have nothing left to offer her, so unless she really is a true believer, she's dangerous to them as well.

[eleny]

16. I think she's thrown in with them

Being the personal attorney for the seat of power is not easily attainable. Sadly, my money is on her being a true believer.

These people deal with power on a worldwide level. Deaths by illegal and dangerous abortions won't even register on their radar screens. Look how easily they spent the lives of our military and innocent Iraqis. They couldn't care less.

[northzax]

18. again, my arguement is that it is easier

to do that when you are striving for something, when you have something to gain, and something to lose. Once that incentive is removed, the beliefs become harder to maintain, and the cognative dissonance it takes to do this is harder to reconcile.

I'm not speaking neccesarily of Miers in particular, just a general trend.

[eleny]

19. I agree with that being true for the general population

But not for Mier. When you know where the bodies are buried - you don't want to join them. There's her incentive if she needs any.

These are the scariest, most dangerous people. I can see her and Roberts giving each other the tiniest smile and it gives me chills.

[Deb]

6. Thank you

I have no background for stating those same thoughts on Meirs, glad you posted this. One thing about those "yes men", you can never really trust their stated opinions. The fact that she has no children with aspirations also gives her a freedom other possible candidates lack.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

8. I had been thinking along the same lines - She is mostly career-driven.

She was all about just getting the job and has been carefully working it - in order to get it.

[paula777]

9. Doesn't that just mean she's a follower? Whoever's in power

she sides with? Not a good quality for someone on the SC!

[yellowcanine]

10. Hey! I just had a thought! Isn't Souter a bachelor? Suppose he and

and Harriet.....you know! How would that work out?

[JDPriestly]

11. They are probably both single for the same reason.

They don't want to give up their independence. It's unlikely they will change their minds. They have both had plenty of chances, I'm sure.

[yellowcanine]

12. Not thinking they would get married. Lord no. Just engage in some

extrajudicial conduct together. Maybe some pillow talk could swing Harriet to the left?