Not willful ignorance. Laziness.
According to one Senator who was consulted, the process went something like this:
Bush: Who would you pick.
Senator: I think X, Y, or Z would be good picks.
Bush: Yes, they would. Thanks.
Apparently, Ms. Miers’ name never came up in at least one conversation.
As with Roberts. I’ll reserve judgment until I learn more.
One thing that is interesting is that apparently she was a campaign contributor to both Gore (1988 attempt, I guess) and Benson.
Okay. I rather agree with you. A complete lack of federal bench experience should automatically disqualify a potential candidate. But since that’s never been the practice, I find no compelling reason to deamnd that it be now. Again, tho’, I think you are probably correct that Bush could find a better candidate (with or without federal bench experience) - if he really wanted to.
There seems to be a growing tendency lately to surmise whether Bush has resumed his old habits. I think those claims move the argument to a true/false basis, and that shifts focus away from whether he is able to govern effectively. I believe that he has always been out of his depth, and relies on those around him to cover for him. “You’re not really paranoid from drugs if they really *are * out to get you.”
I am as liberal as they get, but Roberts was IMHO a brilliant (political) choice for the Supreme Court. I think that the Democrats should have acknowledged it as such and saved their ammunition. I haven’t much respect for Bush or his policies, but this was one that he got right.
Miers, on the other hand, is back to business as usual. W is well known for rewarding unquestioning loyalty over competence. Whether she is competent or not remains to be seen, but after hearing that she had no judicial experience it came as no surprise to me that she had already proven her loyalty to Bush. This is the time for the Democrats to get tough.
Given the stated intent of receiving a rapid decision on this nomination, Bush could help out by showing up in person with her and saying “Harry, you’re doing a heckuva job.” 
In discussing the appointment in the break room with one of my co-workers, who’s a long time regional major domo in Democratic politics and organizing, kept pointing out she was 60 years old SINGLE AND UNMARRIED! So after about the third time I asked him if he was inferring that she was a lesbian. “Oh no!” he replied “I’m just saying she’s SINGLE AND UNMARRIED!”
So the Democrats are concerned that he’s appointed a dyke. A pit bull dyke in size 6 shoes.
And that is what worries me the most. The Texas legal system seems a bit wrong to me. If that is how Texans want to live, fine, but I don’t want Texas Justice to become American Justice.
Since when is one Democrat “the Democrats?” :dubious:
You mean you aren’t a hive mind? That’s disappointing. That means there’s no Democratic “Brain Bug” to capture.
I ate it with a saucy little chianti.
It was rather embarassing, but quite tasty.
She met Clinton?
This may be where that quote originated (bolding mine):
I wonder if this really a strategic move; set Miers up as a voluntary sacrificial lamb to draw Democratic fire (and perhaps even a filibuster), withdraw her nomination and renominate with a less controversial (but conservative) jurist. If so, another brilliant play. I smell Rove.
No, you have to stamp us out one by one.
I’m not even a Democrat.
Plenty? The only name I’ve seen thrown out thus far has been Rehnquist. In actuality, there have been three which is a pretty far cry from “plenty.”
More to the point, though, is her lack of experience with anything other than corporate law. Roberts at least clerked at the SCOTUS, and has some judicial experience. That and the attitude that since she’s a woman, Democrats should be placated. I don’t care if she’s male, female, Kleinfelter’s or neuter. With her background how can she be expected to make informed rulings? Being head of the Texas Bar Assn does not infer knowledge of constitutional law.
Sorry, only three have been appointed CJ.
I was about to say, I named a lot more than three earlier, and my list wasn’t at all comprehensive.
I suspect that Karl Rove is the Republican Brain Bug.
This link from the NY Times has various people’s brief reactions to the nomination, including this one (my favorite):
Did you see Bush’s Brain? Fascinating stuff, in a train wreck kind of way. I keep waiting for him to grow a handle bar mustache and start twirling it and laughing maniacally.
I like John Kerry’s, myself:
Is he saying that Scalia and Thomas aren’t protecting fundamental rights? If so, I contend that he is way off base. I like how he said it, though. He might have just asked them if they’ve stopped beating their wives the way that statement was made.