Sunday Discussion Group

October 9, 2005

Almost immediately after Bush announced his nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, the Republican base expressed frustration, and in some circles, outrage. Over the rest of the week, Bush aides, along with a select few allies who have been convinced of Miers’ right-wing bona fides, have gone go to great lengths to placate critics and alleviate their fears. The effort has, at least so far, not gone well.

This week’s discussion group topic: what should Dems do now?

Given their numbers, Dems approach every confirmation fight at a serious disadvantage. This one is slightly different, however, because it’s the first such controversy where the Bush White House is facing such widespread discontent among its own supporters. In the short term, Dems have been happy to sit back and watch the right attack each other. It’s been relatively effective, but Dems still have to figure out what to do next.

It’s hardly inconceivable that several far-right Republican senators could vote with Senate Dems and defeat Miers’ nomination, either in committee or on the floor. The question then becomes whether this would be beneficial to Dems or not. There seems to be two schools of thought here:

* Help Miers get confirmed — Dems don’t know with certainty just how conservative a justice Miers would be, so if she fails or her nomination is pulled, Miers’ replacement could be considerably worse (say hello to Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown). There’s ample reason for the left to be worried about Miers, but there’s at least a sliver of hope she wouldn’t be a disaster. If Bush and Rove get another shot at this, there won’t be.

* Help derail Miers’ nomination — If Miers’ nomination fails, it’s another embarrassing political debacle for the president (approval rating in the 20s, here we come) and it would further highlight the Republicans-can’t-govern narrative in advance of the midterm elections. Moreover, the idea that Bush and Rove would nominate someone who could be even slightly moderate is terribly naive. Miers will be Clarence Thomas in a dress, so there’s no downside to defeating her.

As a matter of respect for institutional government, most serious people would oppose Miers’ nomination, if for no other reason, because she’s clearly unqualified. But principles aside, Dems have crass political considerations to weigh.

If you’re advising the caucus on strategy, what’s your call?

The question of whether Miers is confirmed is really in the hands of the Republicans–if enough of them break ranks on this, she’ll be defeated; if the party stands firm, she’ll be a Supreme Court Justice. The strategy the Democrats should follow seems clear. Since her CV is so woefully inadequate to the job, they should force a minute examination of her qualificatioens.
If Bush wants to use the apparatus of Government as a sort of goody bag to reward people for loyalty whether they have qualifications or not, then it is the duty of the Democrats to shine the light on it.

Yes, ultimately, they will have to vote one way or the other, but the hearings should be long, penetrating, and excruciatingly embarassing for the Pres.

  • Your question provides its own answer: “As a matter of respect for institutional government, most serious people would oppose Miers’ nomination. . .”

    If Dems want to be taken seriously, to have the moral high ground on the ongoing battles over confirmation and what the process should look like, them Dems have to accept the risk that the next offering will be worse and simply vote “no” on Miers because she lacks the background and experience to distinguish her for one of the highest positions in government. As I’ve said before, setting this in the political context requires that when we do so, our speeches cite dozens of other Republican women who are more qualified (carefully omitting those we truly dislike — Janice Rogers Brown; Cruella, er, i mena Priscilla Owen, etc.)

    We should not throw our lot in with Sen. Brownback et al – though if they want to borrow our lines, we can’t stop them. But ideally, Miers would fail in committee because the Brownbacks of the world vote no for ideological reasons, and the Dems vote no for wholly separate meritocratic reasons, and the result is an overall vote against without the two groups ever appearing to be on the same page.

  • I’d say don’t do much of anything. Let the Reps put her through and live with the result. The thought of an activist like Janice Rogers Brown is too gruesome. Pick Miers to pieces – shred her – during the hearings, and let it go at that. Then vote no or just don’t vote. Let power continue to corrupt Republicans, as it has. Let the bastards feed off themselves, rather than us liberals, for a change.

    I’m coming to a slight shift in philosophy since my recent trip to Italy. While I was there a Vatican official was commenting on the anti-gay witch hunt currently underway in America’s seminaries. He said that Italians (and hence the Vatican) have a very different view of law than Americans do. For us law is an absolute: guilty or not guilty. For Italians, law is an “ideal”, something which no real flesh-and-blood people can live up to entirely. The flesh is weak, so you have to forgive the “law breaker”. Usually.

    This echoed a sentiment often expressed by our various tour guides: for us (Italians) law is an option. If law doesn’t provide, you may have to take extra-legal means. You cope.

    It also recalled a comment made to me by an Italian friend back in high school: When Italians spot a priest or a politician, their inclination is to throw a rock.

    So Miers (or some other creep) gets on the court … so what? If they go overboard with their peculiar agenda, the American people will (ultimately) just tell them to screw themselves, just as many now do at tax time and as many Roman Catholics have told their church when it comes to using birth control or being gay.

    Checks and balances is an extremely important concept, derived from the fact that our nation was born during the Age of Enlightenment (with its over-riding concept of the machine). In theory, that keeps everything from going to extremes. Even more important, however, is the notion that sovereignty ultimately does rest with The People. Push comes to shove, it will be our collective behavior which decides how optional the law is, not the votes of nine old farts in DC.

  • Assuming she is unqualified, the Dems should ultimately oppose her nomination, but should do so “sadly, regretfully, and thoughtfully” after the nomination hearings.

    Except to say they’re approaching the nomination with an open mind, they need to sit back and shut up about the whole thing.

    The more resentment they can cultivate between the administration & the rabid-right, the better.

    I realize how niaeve this is, but I’d like to think if they (the rabid-right) de-rail this nomination, out of resentment, bush would be a lot less likely to give them what they want in a replacement nomination.

    First of all, he’s that small of a person (and karl may not be around to “advise” him on the matter).

    Secondly, I think they know the nomination of an proud-and-loud wingnut would not have the votes in the Senate, nor the support of the public – which would make him look even weaker.

    He’s screwed no matter what he does here – couldn’t have happened to a better guy.

  • Dems should skewer Bush like a shishkabob using Miers as the spit. Both parties should act, possibly for conflicting reasons, to let the air out of this executive branch’s balloon of hubris. The small-minded incompetence that has festered and putrified for the last five years must be lanced and drained. Damn the pompous formalities of any senate judicial “review”, ’cause we all know what a farce that has become. Attack Bush now, and Miers will fall off like an old scab. If she has any brains, she will realize that her continued presence is only hurting her favorite boss.

  • I side with GMF: right now, the best advice is “wait and see.”

    If the GOP, acting completely on their own, scuttles the nomination, then we’re free to flail the hide off whatever Federalist Society drone Bush comes up with to replace her. But if we spend any energy trying to kill her nomination because her qualifications (hah!) are insufficient, then we become implacable obstructionists if we try to kill nominee 2 on the basis of ideology.

  • The D’s should focus in their questioning on recusal policy. Pushing on this reflects both a serious substantive issue (how can a crony who was in on most of the decision-making in the past 5 years rule on the many matters involving the Administration), while having the side benefit of illustrating just why cronyism is such a bad idea.

    Miers will either agree to a recusal policy (which will look awful), or refuse to, which will send the signal that she may, indeed, continue to act as Bush consigliere on the Court.

  • It’s really sad that this is even a question. In no way should Democrats be complicit in putting unqualified and unsuitable nominees on the court. Essentially, it’s as simple as that.

    Slicing and dicing the politics of decisions in general, and this one in particular, is a mug’s game. You might win one here or there, but in the end you lose your credibility, your honor, and ultimately, your political soul. The greatest ally Bush has left is the general sense that Democrats don’t stand for anything, a product of their years of rationalization and temporizing with the indefensible. It’s time to take a stand.

    Would Bush follow a failed Miers with a worse nominee? Maybe. He might even get that nominee through. If he does, the american people will have to live with what that nominee does. Given that they’ve put Bush in place twice (along with a compliant legislative branch), then it’s fitting that they should have to live with the consequences of their decisions, and not have Democrats save them from the full measure of what they’ve repeatedly chosen.

  • This is a chess match and the Democrats must think ahead to the next move as they contemplate their current one. I don’t have time to do a long post today, but here is a brief four point strategy.

    1. We believe that Miers is a good moderate individual who is unqualified for the position to which she has been nominated. The President should be ashamed of himself for putting the nominee in a postion which reveals her short comings.

    2. We hope that the President would withdraw the nomination and send us qualified moderate.

    3. Encourage Brownback to get Miers to speak about her position on Roe.

    4. If the Miers nomination is defeated or withdrawn, Brownback will have established a precedent which will allow Democrats to probe the next nominee more deeply on all issues.

    Sometime good politics can be good policy.

  • Ed,

    Not to get too far off topic here, but your posts always make me think. I too love Italy, but I think we need to keep a few things in perspective here when comparing ourselves with them:

    1. Italy was taken over by a fascist dictator, relatively recently.
    2. Italy has a terrible economy, the lowest English speaking rate of most Euro nations, and elects communists and socialists to office.
    3. Italy is a rural country in many ways.

    I just don’t share the sentiment that we can or should consider the socio-political philosophy of an economically “backwards” nation that takes a three hour lunch/nap with ours. This isn’t a value judgment (we really should adopt the siesta), it’s just not a fair comparison. And do we want our reaction to a pseudo-fascist nationalist “movement” like neoconservativism to be, “let ‘em run the joint, we’ll throw rocks”? Or, at least, “we’ll think about throwing rocks after we have lunch for an hour and drink a couple bottles of wine and take a nap and then bother to go back to work, hopefully with a little lovemaking thrown in as well”? Not me, I want a little more than that from my countrymen.

    As you said, ” Even more important, however, is the notion that sovereignty ultimately does rest with The People. Push comes to shove, it will be our collective behavior which decides how optional the law is, not the votes of nine old farts in DC. “ Well, that requires us to do a little more than think about throwing rocks. The power of the people is in voting, so unless we get off our collective butts soon, it may well be 9 people in black satin calling some important shots. They are the check and balance to a runaway Congress and an imbecile president with corrupt advisors. They are the ones who defend the Bill of Rights, not some angry citizens.

    Why else do the nuts care so much? Because it matters, a lot. The power of the people was already used, to elect Bush, and the result may be a depraved SCOTUS. No do-overs. No quick fixes. So all of a sudden, maybe prayer and the commandments and calling ourselves a Christian nation (not in makeup, but in purpose), and teaching “intelligent design” and by the way, no condoms or abortions, and you better not knock the president or speak outside of the “free zone” cage, and hey, while you’re in there, how hard will it be to roll-back the two-term limit? This has to be taken seriously, not because all this will happen, but because we certainly don’t want to find ourselves in the position where it could happen. The last time this brand of conservatives was in power, they missed the long-term change because the SCOTUS could stop them. Say hello to Roberts and Miers.

  • Without knowing more about Miers or her hypothetical replacement, I think we need to reject her. I’d rather have a competent ultra-conservative than an incompetent Bush lackey, even if she is more moderate. Because the importance of this court demands great minds, even if they disagree with us.

    People without principled stances and who lack a deep understanding of the issues should not be trusted in these kinds of positions. They vote their heart, rather than their mind. And I’d rather have another Scalia than a dopey Bush loyalist who lacks overarching principles; and who will rule in a capricious fashion.

    And the fact that this will embarrass Bush and weaken his imagined strength is just the icing on the cake. The more Bush looks like a weak president, the more the media will dig in and report the truth about him (or even make shit up, as is their wont). And the less that Congress will bow down to him.

    Once again, I wrote more about this, but it got so long that I edited out every other paragraph for this comment. But if you want the whole thing, please head over to my blog and read the rest. But you only have to read the paragraphs that weren’t included here as I didn’t rewrite anything.

  • I say place a hold on her until Shrub or Dobson tells us what was said in that conversation. Unless Colorado has three senators, there is no reason that the Senate can’t know what Dobson knows.

    Bill Skeels raises a point I didn’t think about–even without the Dobson issue, unless she agrees to recuse herself from matters she and Shrub discussed, this nomination should be scooped up and thrown back in Shrub’s face.

  • Hey eadie — Didja leave out any knee-jerk, arrogant stereotypes? Seems like you covered most of ’em.

  • At the risk of sounding like our “emperor in chief,” the difficulty of this situation speaks volumes as to why I currently AM NOT advising the caucus on strategy. But, the future of the court was the most significant element of my opposition to Bush in Novembe 2004, and I knew it would be lousy when the vacancies that seemed inevitable to me opened up on the court.

    If I were simply thinking about my view of a principled approach to the Meirs nomination, I would counsel expressing skepticism of her qualifications and then a strategy to vet those qualifications in the hearings. Because I think Bush constantly plays to anti-elitist tendencies and because I myself have felt some sympathy for Meirs in the face of the attacks that seem to border on the cruel and overly-personal from people on the right, I would advise that this vetting be done in a manner that does not make the questioner look worse – in the 30 second out takes that most of the public will use to form an opinion on the procedings – than the nominee. It is important to communicate clearly what the qualifications for the court are, and then expose whether Ms. Meirs makes the grade. If she doesn’t, they should, of course, oppose her nomination. If she should acquit herself as qualified, then Senators can make decisions along other lines. If Meirs is unqualified, then Senators owe an attempt to block her ascension to the court to the American people. If she somehow is qualified but proves to be an ideological cypher, I would not for any alliance with Sam Brownback in order to “weaken” Bush further. Brownback’s agenda is to put a qualified but obvious ideologue on the court and position himself for a run for the White House. That, to me, is no better an outcome than a qualified Meirs.

    As to possibilities for long-term strategies in this process, I can only speak to an outcome that I would like to see. I believe that much of the public is entirely clueless about the agenda of the wingers who are making such a stink about Bush’s choice of Meirs for the court. I watched Pat Buchanon this morning talking about the long twenty years conservatives have put into “grooming” individuals to sit on the court. What does this “grooming” involve? These “conservatives” constantly speak of fealty to the constitution and original intent. I believe to the majority who are not engaged in following these matters might find such blather rather benign. I would like this process to shed light on what the agenda is and what it means to citizens in a practical sense. The discussion of the conservatives believing their moment has arrived is made in terms of the political ramifications if they are disappointed. I would like to see a discussion of the inherent creepiness of a 20 year effort to groom candidates to take over the court and make it over in the image of a portion of the electorate. I would also like people to articulate what folks like Pat Buchanon and company mean when they say they have GROOMED people to interpret the constitution and not “legislate” from the bench. I have an idea that the dismantling of government institutions and programs that have come into existence over 50 years and served many people well would not be an outcome that people could get behind. Perhaps then they would consider the importance of all their votes and make “Who would you rather have appoint the next SCOTUS justice?” be a more important question than “Who would you rather go out with for a beer?”

  • Democratic Senators need to vote NO on Miers– EVERY SINGLE GODDAMNED FUCKING LAST ONE OF THEM! I want to see a show of unity, of discipline, of power, of purposefulness. I want to see the goddamned Democrats STAND UP for crying out loud!

    I’m tired of all this namby-pamby Casper Milquetoast shit. So is the rest of America. They want us to be an opposition party. So… let’s do it!

    I want so see Social Security-level unity from Democrats in opposing Miers.

    I want Harry Reid and Dick Durbin out there on the floor cracking the whip. I want them in intense private strong-arm meetings with any fence-sitting dickheads, or outright rebellious wannabe-Repugs (i.e. LIEBERMAN). I want every single one of those fuckers to vote NO!!! NO NO NO NO!!! Democrats do *not* approve of this Brownie. We have spoken.

    Now, should we filibuster? That depends on what comes out of the hearings. If so much dirt comes out that she really should withdraw herself from the nomination, but of course she won’t (Shrub back down? No way. Never gonna happen. That’s why he’s in power and we’re not.), then we’ll have plenty of reason to filibuster.

    A filibuster could actually be fun if we do it right. It could be a PR win for us. Our Democratic Senators could turn the Senate floor into our own version of the 24-hour FAUX News Channel! Endlessly repeating the same talking points over and over again, drilling Miers’ lack of qualifications and Lottery commision sleazery (or whatever comes out of the hearings) over and over again until it’s hypnotically drilled into everyone’s head. I’d *love* that. If we put media mavens in charge of it, a filibuster could comandeer CSPAN into our own left-wing “news” (endless commentary) channel. Oooh, please! And our great Senators can comment on Plame, DeLay, and all the other scandals of the day. The Senate floor could be a wonderful bit of sensationalism. It’d be like our own Ken Starr.

    I’m a moderate, not a radical– and also a pragmatist–, so I say we save the filibuster in case she totally blows the hearings *and* Shrub doesn’t withdraw her. Then we go to the mattresses and have a really good time exposing the Repugs for the clowns they are. They’ll have asked for it.

    In the meantime EVERYONE VOTE NO!! NO “split down the middle”. None of that horeshit. Discipline. Unity. Mission. Purpose. Courage. Principle. PARTISANSHIP! I want to see Democratic Senators locking arms and standing together in protest.

    Only then do we have any hope of getting our country back.

  • They should – Drag this out as long as possible and see what comes out of the woodwork. It’ll keep the wingnuts busy and hopefully drive a spike through the republican party.
    ———————
    Damn eadie – that was the worst post I’ve read for a long, long time. Have you ever been outside of the good old US of A? Or your state? City?

  • This is an easy one for me. The ideal way to treat this is to question her short background and point out her already poorly projected connectivity to Bush; let people know that he has appointed another Mike Brown, and this time there is no way to remove her when she proves incompetent.

    That’s a press strategy. Now for a committee strategy:

    Seek a non-ideological collation with the less-corrupt members to oppose her. Members on right who oppose her for values issues should be included.

    At the questioning, repeatedly bring up her lottery job in Texas and ask pointed questions about her helping to hide Bush’s guard duty vacation. Make Bush the issue, Miers the gateway to talk about Bush.

    If the Dems defeat Miers with cooperation of a center collation, (say the gang of 14,) we will severally weaken the chances of Bush being able to appoint any controversial candidate. They could even call for Bush to make a recess appointment of another candidate as a kind of trial run that could be removed by the next congress.

    The Dems should look at their position as a bully pulpit of the people, kind of a role reversal, but they have enough power to work with the few ethical members on the other side to minimize the radicalization of the country.

  • An alliance with the far right will only end up losing a moderate candidate in order to forward the far right’s agenda of having a far right candidate. There is no question that a second choice would be more liberal than the one at hand.

    As to competence: no qualifications are specified in the Constitution as to what qualifies a person for the bench. This woman is clearly far more competent than the person who is in charge of the country with the largest nuclear stockpiles in the world. She has, at least, gotten to where she is based on her own abilities, something that cannot be said of the current occupant of the White House. She is a lawyer. There are non-lawyers I can think of who might be described as not competent, because they aren’t lawyers, and yet who I think would make excellent Justices. Jimmy Carter is one.

    With all of the horrible things that have been perpetrated during this Administration, for us to deliberately put ourselves down the road to a much more conservative Supreme Court, which will effect the lives of thousands of people who have to live with their decisions, seems to betray the trust of those people, out of some misguided idea about objectivity.

    The objectivity presumably being the belief that we would turn down anyone who didn’t get an A+ rating by the ABA. But the collegial nature of the Supreme Court is not equivalent to being the head of emergency management in this country. Lives are not lost because some of the Justices are less intellectually brilliant than others. LIves are ruined, because some of those judges — both the intellectually brilliant and the non — have opinions that are bigoted and controlling.

    I’d rather have a corporate attorney than an authoritarian conservative Christian on the Court. And the person who votes against Miers strikes me as showing the same self-serving holier-than-thou attitude that those who voted for Nader showed back in 2000. Which we’re all paying for, particularly those soldiers who have lost their lives.

  • Here’s what they should do:

    For once, they should stop this incessant triangulating and politicking, and just do the right thing, damn it. That’s what we pay them to do. If she’s unqualified, she should not be on the court. Simple as that.

    Act on principle, for once.

    We’ll deal with the next nominee when it happens. And if THAT person doesn’t deserve to be on the court, then fight that nomination too. And so on.

  • She does have a record in recent speeches, as a pro-insurance company advocate of restricting the right to bring lawsuits, consistent with the Republicans’ attack on “trial lawyers” as scapegoats for all kinds of thing they have little do with. That, plus he record as Bush loyalist and corporate lawyer, make for the strong reasons to believe that she’s a right-winger on civil rights, employment and labor, environmental regulation, and nearly everything but social issues. Bush, Dobson, her boyfriend (and boyfriend of Priscilla Owens) Nathan Hecht, assure everyone that she’s just as much a right-wing nut as he is (and that is quite far out, at least with Clarence Thomas). Her intellectual ability is similar to Thomas’ below-miniscule lever. Therefore, there is every reason to believe she will be a horrible judge, probably more like Thomas than Scalia. The only downside to defeating her is that you might get a more intelligent right-wing nut. Why not oppose her?

  • eadie, rejecting Italy comparisons: 1. Italy was taken over by a fascist dictator, relatively recently.

    And this is something we shouldn’t learn from?

  • Uh, hello. Earth to Catherine….You don’t really think that someone this close to The Chimp, who has had most of her employment bestowed upon her by said Chimp, who is a “born again” (read “Im a loser and need to feel good about something”) and who affilitates with all sorts of far right leaning organizations, is actually not a conservative, do you? Have a glance at Federalist Paper No. 76, which shows nealry every reason this nominee should be voted against, if she even makes it to a confirmation hearing. If you were nominated, would you say, in so many words that you are the most qualified? I think not, and you’re probably more qualified than this buffoon. I agree with Semper Fu…on principle a no vote is required. This person is in no way the most qualified, and is far too closely aligned with the Chimp. Id rather have a corporate attorney too, but just because she was one, doesnt mean she isnt exactly what you fear – an authoritarian conservative Christian. Born agains are the scariest ones out there – you must not know any. Face it, no matter how we look at it, the administration is determined to make this a conservative court. We might have got lucky with Roberts – whatever his leanings we will have to wait to find out, but at least he is an intellectual heavyweight and wade through the nuances of constitutional law. Harry would likely get lost in the thicket and ask the “smartest man she knows” for answers. SCARY.

  • It’s simple:

    Play hard and honest.

    The high ground here is that every American derserves to know whom Harriet Miers is. She is after all, going to be around a few years.

    That’s where the Dems should plant their flag and strut their attitude.

    Stake out the high ground and then play
    hard and honest and with howitizers if you must.

  • Great discussion this week CB.

    This is kind of beside the point but I love watching the movement conservatives complaining that this nomination didn’t go to one of their own. They argue that so many toiled in the wingnut trenches for so many years that they deserve payback, that it’s “their” seat and that this nomination will discourage other wingnut legal types from even trying to bring the constitution out of exile (if I have the “constitution in exile” thing right). heh.

    I’m with those who say wait it out to see how deeply this thing divides the right wing. Any damage they can inflict on themselves should be allowed and welcomed. It’s really kind of ironic. This is one area where they thought the movement was unified. Yet, here they are having to go after a SCOTUS nominee from a president who they have openly worshiped as a conservative hero. They were itching for a fight with the evil liberals (and the death of the filibuster) but what they got instead was a fight with themselves. heh, indeed.

    My take on Miers is that she will vote like Thomas for about as long as she feels she owes it to her liege (5-10 years?). After that, if she’s still on the court, maybe not. Given her background, I see her changing on the bench. Of course, a lot of damage can be done in 5-10 years.

  • I think the Dems should press like hell to get Dobson in to testify about what he was told by Rove.

    As for Miers, we have to press her on what the hell she knows because it’s the right thing to do.

    Having to withdraw the nomination would be a total train wreck for Bush.

    Then it would be a case of the devil we know less about that the devil we don’t know much about. Only on planet W.

    Today on EWM, a scientific shocker: Study: Euthanizing Right-wing Pundits would Solve Global Warming

  • I really think the cronyism/lack of independence combined with nondescript credentials is enough to oppose her on priciple without looking bad.

    I also think there is a filibuster-able issue on what Rove et al are secretly telling Dobson et al. I actually think that is a flat-out PR winner, even as a filibuster issue.

    If on some combination of these we can get some of the Gang of 14 Repubs to come with us, and then let the freaky-right oppose her wholly separately but to the same effect, the nomination goes down. If the next one is worse ideologically – so be it. If we successfully get G14 support, I dont think it will be – Bush will be scared. If it is a Janice Rogers Brown, we filibuster her consistent with our prior filibuster of her. If it is Michael McConnell, we give him a vote, vote no, and lose — he is qualified as can be to deal with Consitutional issues, and if we don’t like his views well, we should have run better campaigns the last two cycles. There is nothing we can do to stop conservatives from ascending to the court when they won the Senate and the Presidency (x2). What we can do is insist on some standards – of qualification, of decency, of non-cronyism.

    And we should, without hesitation.

  • Everytime I ponder Clarence Thomas’ presence on the Court, (not all that often), I cringe. I feel like Harriet Miers if installed on the Court would cause the same reaction. One of those is more than enough. She’s not a good candidate and Dem’s should acknowledge that on principle, vote against her and wait for the next gopher to pop up.

  • How many people voted for Nader on principle?

    I think her record is ambiguous. I wouldn’t expect that in this Administration. I would expect them to pick someone as right wing as exists. And I would expect the Democrats to engineer a token resistance and then for that person to end up on the Supreme Court. The idea that opposing this individual would somehow bring about a more liberal candidate is, I believe, delusional. The idea that it would bring about a better qualified ambiguous candidate is, I believe, almost as delusional. If this candidate is successfully rejected, Bush will turn to appeasing the right wing to get the next one through. He knows full well that there is no advantage to his appeasing the Democrats.

    There were several highly qualified people on the bench who voted with the majority in the travesty that was Gore v. Bush.

    Here’s a thought: if we were going to have a dictator in charge of the country, would you like a highly intelligent and competent one, or a bumbling idiot? I think the less harm would be done by the bumbling idiot, and I’d go with that one.

  • I can’t get past the bit about “principle”. Miers is clearly unqualified and the nomination should be defeated on that basis.

    The truth will set you free: How’s that for a political strategy?

  • Personally, I’m all over the map on Miers. I don’t want to reiterate everything Carpetbagger wrote already except to say that I think a battle over Janice Rogers Brown would be as scary as it would be ugly and she *would* get confirmed unless she borks herself during the hearings.

    What should Dems do? Wait it out a little, no need to “pre-judge” her until after the hearings. I think Dems do need to use this as an opportunity to point out what thugs the Repubs are– cronyism, yadda, yadda, yadda.

    Also, take a look at what Senator Barbara Mukulski has to say– she is neither supporting or rejecting Miers but uses her to bash the right.

    I’m shocked at the sexism and double standard coming out of the far right. All of a sudden they’re saying that a woman who was able to become head of the Texas Bar Association isn’t qualified. They’re saying a woman who was one of the first to head up a major law firm with over 400 lawyers doesn’t have intellectual heft.

    I find this a double standard. I find it incredibly sexist, because one can only look at Judge Thomas in terms of intellectual heft.

    The other thing is, Ms. Miers and I are not too far apart generationally. I know how hard it was to be able to get started in a career, trying to make it in law.

    We also know Sandra Day O’Connor, even though she was a top student at Stanford, became a legal secretary while Rehnquist was picked for a law firm. Harriet Miers is of our generation. It was very hard to break the glass ceiling.

    Bush nominated Miers because she’s a woman, talks about her being “the first woman who” a lot. But the right rejects her for not having a more impressive CV and doesn’t acknowledge that she got far for a 60-year old woman in Texas of all places.

    • Comments are closed.