Teddy's email on Miers

[whometense]

Of interest, I think, because it signals the liberals' anti-Miers strategy.

Dear Xxxxx,

On Monday, we learned that the President nominated White House Counsel Harriet Miers--a long-time adviser and Bush loyalist--to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the United States Supreme Court.

Ms. Miers's record is little known so far, because she's largely served behind the scenes. What leaps out is her loyalty to President Bush beginning with his years as Governor of Texas. We know nothing about her loyalty to the rule of law and the Constitution, or her ability to do the job of Associate Justice on the Supreme Court.

It's clear that Mr. Bush is fond of her work: he's appointed her to nearly every government position she's ever had. And apparently she likes her boss, having told a former Bush speechwriter that the "(P)resident was the most brilliant man she had ever met."

But many other staunch supporters of the President are alarmed by his nomination, citing a lack of experience and substance. Very few, it seems, are comfortable with the current case for Ms. Miers's confirmation.

The Senate needs more information if we are to do our job of reviewing and voting on such an important nomination, as required by the Constitution. We cannot advise in this process--much less consent--if President Bush refuses to disclose the very information he relied on in his decision to nominate Ms. Miers. I've called on President Bush to release any memoranda and files relating to Ms. Miers--and give the American people the same ability he had to consider her qualifications. A decision of this magnitude cannot be made simply on his say-so.

From now on, your participation will be critical. As the process moves forward, all of us need to stand fast in our demand for the caliber of information needed for any Supreme Court nominee.

Let's work together to see that any replacement for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor meets the impressive standard she set.

Please keep in touch with me at TedKennedy.com, and thank you for your commitment.

Sincerely,


Senator Edward M. Kennedy

[TayTay]

1. Nice. Thanks Uncle Ted

He really is good about getting the word out on why he objects to any given nominee.

[whometense]

2. I heard already on

Morning Sedition this morning that Bush has announced he's not giving them any of Miers' papers. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you. (yawn) For sure Teddy was counting on that.

[TayTay]

3. Well, that means Kerry won't vote for her

He has been very consistent on his votes on SCOTUS nominees. (And I think he's now voted on everyone who currently sites on the court, except O'Connor.) He voted against Souter because Souter wasn't forthcoming on his views and such.

[whometense]

4. Agree.

I think that's a dead certainty. I'm still trying to puzzle out what Harry Reid's up to, though...

[rox63]

5. If I recall correctly

I think Reid said that he liked and respected her personally. But has he said anything about whether she's qualified for the job?

[ginnyinWI]

7. here's a clue

Along the lines of "Harry's up to something here":
One of the reasons he gave for liking her is that she was a trial lawyer, and so had a chance to see what the little people are going through. That term is repellent to corporate repubs! Shudder! So maybe, just maybe, he wants to be all smiles about this for a while in order to get the other side really leery of this nominee. The old "reverse psychology" thing we all tried on our small children to get them to behave!

[sandnsea]

9. Not OUR kind of trial lawyer

She's a corporate trial lawyer, as best as I can tell. The ONLY thing she has on her side, as far as I'm concerned, is that she has been involved in Legal Aid in Texas and supported pro bono work. But I'm not sure that isn't her way of expediting the death penalty, she has said we have to be tough on criminals because they interfere with people's Constitutional right to free speech, etc.

[ginnyinWI]

6. and he regrets voting for Scalia

once burned, twice shy. ;)

[TayTay]

8. I know. Hey, if he had that magic cyrstal ball that tells the future

he coulda known to vote FOR Souter and against Scalia. But, life's a crapshoot sometimes and you just gotta go with what you know.

[jillan]

10. Yesterday Randi Rhodes says she was an Evangelist.

And that she is a born-again Christian.

Is this true?

If it is, good-bye to women's rights!
Back to the 1800's ladies.

[whometense]

11. Apparently so.

If you want to scare yourself right before bedtime, check this out: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/russell-shaw/hello-harriet-goodbye-_b_8408.html

Creepy, creepy stuff.

[jillan]

12. Olbermann said it too.

The only hope we have is that alot of the righties are against her too.

It doesn't matter who * picks, it's all going to be the same-

Save the fetus and screw them after they're born...unless they are born rich. And white.