Making Sense of the Miers Nomination

[Jon8503]

By Robert Parry - October 7, 2005

By picking his personal lawyer Harriet Miers to fill a key swing seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, George W. Bush angered his right-wing supporters, who wanted someone with clearer conservative credentials, and opened himself to new charges of cronyism – a double whammy of bad PR. So why did he do it?

The most common theory is that Bush was looking for a stealth candidate who wouldn’t provoke strong Democratic opposition but would get solid Republican backing – after some wink-wink assurances that she would vote the right way on abortion and other core conservative issues.

That indeed may be the answer. Bush may have just miscalculated how disappointed his conservative base would be and how offended other Americans would be at his straight-faced assertion that his White House counsel was “the best person I could find.”

But there is another theory that would fit the facts. It may be that Bush is less concerned about constitutional issues than he is about criminal and political disputes that might reach the court if the troubles surging around his administration get worse.

What if, for instance, a senior Bush aide is facing prosecution in connection with an untested law prohibiting unmasking covert CIA officers? It might be handy for Bush to have a trusted friend on the court of last resort to rule on some technical legal questions that could torpedo the whole case.

Or what if it turns out that Bush himself participated in the criminal act? Wouldn’t it be advantageous if the lawyer who helped him out of previous legal scrapes was sitting among the judges who would make a ruling on this one? (And there really is no reason to think that a Bush appointee would step aside because of some fretting over conflicts of interest.)

Rest of Article @ Link:

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/100605.html

[blm]

1. YES. Once again, I am in total sync with the great Robert Parry.

Bush is putting protection in place....just in case the truth comes out about his criminal, traitorous regime.

[Jackpine Radical]

2. That's exactly what I've been thinking.

[crispini]

3. Well put.

I tend to agree. I liked this bit:

“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. She served Bush well, but she is not the person to lead the court in new directions – or to stand up under the criticism that a conservative justice must expect.”

Some Washington wags joked about who was less in touch with reality, Miers who considered Bush “the most brilliant man she had ever met” or Bush who claimed that Miers was “the best person I could find?”

[onenote]

4. only problem with this theory

She would only be one of 9 justices. Still takes five votes. And if there are already 4 others up there that would go to the mat for chimpy, including Roberts, it wouldn't have been that hard to find one more.

I have no idea what he was thinking when he picked Miers. Hell, I'm not sure he's capable of thought. So I suppose that this theory could be true, but it would make as little sense as anything else he's done.

onenote

[jody]

5. IMO Bush appointed Miers because the Corporatists want a judge

who will rule that laws favorable to multinational corporate interests and their owners are not ruled unconstitutional.

See Corporatism

Benito Mussolini said, "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power."

[Jon8503]

6. Rove ‘Very Involved’ in Miers Pick

A Supreme mole: Yesterday, we suggested that the nomination of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court was an attempt by the Bush team - particularly Vice President Cheney and Karl Rove - to plant a crony among the Supremes because they knew Treasongate indictments were imminent, and therefore it might be useful to have an operative on the inside should congressional investigations move toward impeachment.

This nomination is starting to look like an attempt at Machiavellian intrigue by a desperate bunch of political yahoos.Last night, we learned that the Capitol is awash in rumors on two fronts related to the CIA Leak investigation. First, there is word that the special prosecutor will soon issue 22 indictments in the matter; and secondly, Rove’s attorney, Robert Luskin, refused to confirm or deny whether Rove had received a letter from the prosecutor naming him as a target of the investigation, which is significant because Luskin had earlier categorically denied that Rove was a target. Now comes this from the rightwing, Unification Church-owned Washington Times:

Senior Bush adviser Karl Rove was “very involved” in President Bush’s Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers, who was selected in part because she has no judicial track record, according to a Republican with close ties to the administration. “We know that Rove was very involved in the process, and he’s certainly well tuned in to the Hill and how it works,” said GOP strategist Charlie Black. “I suspect the Senate leadership might have given him the advice to take into consideration on how hard or how easy someone would be to confirm.” This nomination is starting to look like an attempt at Machiavellian intrigue by a desperate bunch of political yahoos.

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2005/10/06/moonie-times-rove-very-involved-in-miers-pick/

[Norquist Nemesis]

7. I suspect she's standing on the edge of the Far Right cliff

and that's why he picked her. Yes, it's a "trust me" *wink wink* with one wink for Roberts and the other for Miers.

How do I come to the conclusion of how extreme she is? Well, when Nicole Deverish (can't recall her new last name) goes before the camera with statements like, 'I can't to see Senator Brownback standing on the floor of the Senate waving around her decisions!' Considering Brownbacks positions, that's telling. Also, she was blatantly slapping the conservative shills...specifically David Frum, claiming she didn't even know who he is and kept calling him 'Daniel' and the rest of them as radical and extreme. As spokesperson for Bush, it said alot.