The Case Against Miers is very simple

[WI_DEM]

Harriett Miers has been one of Bush's closest confidants and the WH will not be any more willing to release information on her views and opinions than they were about John Roberts. With Miers being a WH aide they will claim "executive privilege."

This woman is a huge question mark. 1) She has no judicial background 2) She has no opinions to evaluate. All they have is Bush's assertion to trust him--which even many on the right don't buy.
It seems increasingly likely that Bush appointed Miers for one reason only--to have a staunch ally on the court who could help protect him and his administration down the line.

Ms. Miers is not going to be any more forthcoming in her confirmation hearings than Roberts was. For this reason alone the Democrats should unite against her--because she is such a question mark. We can't risk having a Bush crony on the court who has no experience or background. She should be opposed for being unqualified if anything.

But the DNC pointed out rather astutely that KKKarl (who, incidentally may soon be indicted) had a private meeting with James Dobson and Dobson has blabbed on FAUX and CNN that KKKarl was able to convince him that Miers was somebody that the fundamentalist right could approve of. Senators should demand to know what Rove told Dobson and that they and THE AMERICAN PEOPLE deserve the same consideration that Rove gave Dobson.

This nominee should be very easy for Democrats to unite on. 1) The Right (such as Lott, Buchanan, and even Coulter, ect) are not impressed and so the GOP is split. and 2) She simply is not qualified for the job other than being a Bush lackey.

For that reason alone Harriet Miers should be denied a seat on the Supreme Court.

[electron_blue]

1. You're right.

She is a lawyer, she has been his personal lawyer for years. That is her only qualifiction in Bush's eyes. That is the only reason we need to keep her off.

You can't get anymore of a conflict of interest. Unless, of course, Bush nominated Laura or Dick for the position.

[The Doctor.]

13. Well now let's give the benefit of the doubt here...

Why should Bush's approval be the only reason to keep her off the SCOTUS?

I know the man is a dolt, but just 'cause he likes someone is no reason to suggest they are wholly defective.

I personally am not sure whether Roberts is appropriate, but he didn't say much to make me think he was totally unqualified. Sure, many around here will disagree, but somehow the mere criteria of 'Bush likes him' or 'she worked for Bush' doesn't seem sufficient to disqualify him or her.

Sometimes people do what it takes and get themselves dirty in order to serve a higher cause.

Perhaps these people did just that with the true objective serving the country in an unbiased, non-partisan capacity.

But I totally agree that she seems otherwise unqualified...

What are your thoughts?

[electron_blue]

14. Of course Bush should approve of his own choice

I would expect that of whoever he chooses.

But Miers has been his personal counsel and steadfastly loyal to him for years (decades?) and that seems to be the *main* reason he chose her. What else besides her closeness to Bush makes her qualified above all others (in Bush's eyes, not necessarily ours) for the SC?

I admit I don't know that much about her background other than the basics. I read a lot more about Roberts' background. But with Miers, I can't get past the obvious conflict of interest with Bush and so many Republicans in office right now.

[The Doctor.]

15. There is no conflict of interest....

Once appointed to the Supreme Court, one is beholden to no one.

It was your choice of the phrase, "That is her only qualifiction in Bush's eyes. That is the only reason we need to keep her off."

To say that one needs no other reason to keep someone off of the Supreme Court than; 'I don't like them, so I reject who they like', is a little unreasonable and borders on childish.

Now, after hearing how little she knows about constitutional law, I am inclined to agree that she should be blocked. But that is a material reason.

Bush liking someone is wholly immaterial to whether they are qualified.

[LincolnMcGrath]

2. Her firm specialized in "union avoidance".

CJ Roberts doesn't think unions are legal.


That is the underreported story on both nominees.

[notadmblnd]

3. you are absolutely right and your opinion should be heard

CSPAN is having a 24 hour viewer calling beginning tonight at 8 p.m. est. Phil Donahue and Pat Buchanan are the first scheduled guest that will be on and taking calls.

Please please view CSPAN tonight, contact them via phone and repeat your message as loud as you can. More people than most realize listen and watch CSPAN.

[sdfernando]

4. Something else I've been thinking

Something else I've been thinking, but haven't seen brought up yet...Say that Meir's gets confirmed to SCOTUS and somehow a case against bush or the entire administration were to be heard by them. In normal circumstances a judge or lawyer would recuse themselves because the closeness of their previous relationship. Supreme Court Justices are under no obligation to do this. Each of them decides for themselves if they should recuse or not. No one can force it upon them. I don’t like how this plays out.

[spindrifter]

5. Harri's focus has been

figuring out ways to cover the WH's *ss for years and she has worked to avoid labor union involvement in the workplace in her private practice. M*crosoft has been huge on its efforts to control its microserfs and outsource to hourly workers so they would have total control over terms and conditions. This bib business advocacy does not bode well for USSC decisions on labor (duh), the environment or the rights of the people to know what is going on in government. These are significant issues, even if you don't want to get into the termination of life issues or the civil rights of people.

[AValdoux]

6. I think its simple

She's not qualified. Plain & simple. No ideology or faith issues, she's flat out not qualified. I think if the Democrats opposition is framed by issues it will give the republicans a reason to support her. It would be a victory if the democrats can united with republicans who think she only being nominated because she is FOG (Friend of George, heard this phrase from Tancredo) and hand Bush a "thanks but no thanks" on this nominee. There will probably be a more conservative nominee next, but it would be nice to splinter the GOP on at least one issue.


AValdoux

[Inland]

7. "No" is going to be an easy vote. nt

[mike923]

8. Here's the problem...

I think she will get bounced out for being unqualified and lacking experience. Guess what plan b is going to be? Luttig or McConnell. Can anyone here say they'd rather have one of those two white males, versus Miers? Both are have all the experience necessary to be on the court, problem is, their experience is ultra conservative.

When it comes down to it, i'd rather have a sheepish Miers on the court, versus someone like the two i mentioned above, that would be truely revolutionary.

[WI_DEM]

9. then they will be fought and possibly fillibustered

until Bush really does come up with a moderate in the O' Connor vein.

[mike923]

11. To me and you, fighting each Bush nominee is fine, but...

to Joe and Jane Public in rural Iowa, they are going to be turned off if we attack every candidate. Sure, we'll gain support in the core of our party, but i don't believe it plays well to the folks in the middle.

[triguy46]

10. But didn't the Clinton impeachment remove executive privilege

for white house lawyers? There was a post on this on monday or tues.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

12. Reject his Little Crony

[kestrel91316]

16. The Miers nomination is CRONYISM of the highest order.

Her only qualification is that she is unflinchingly loyal to Bush, and can be expected to rule however he orders her to rule.

Can we say "conflict of interest", children?