Does Harry Reid count, or just Kennedy?
My own WAG, not having heard of this person until this morning and having heard the string of platitudes that came out of the President’s mouth and her mouth (strict interpretation, wisdom of the Founders, judicial legislation), is that here we have someone who embodies the core values (as opposed to the posturing for the amusment of the social and religious conservatives that seems to be designed only to garner votes) of the good old country club and chamber of commerce Republican Party. Here is a candidate for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court who is going to be very business friendly. Look out for the future of business and environmental regulation, zoning, commercial speech and international commerce. Our President has nominated his spinster aunt (stolen witticism).
My gripe is that she has that God awful Texas refined lady accent.
Strictly apply the laws and Constitution?? Those are fight’n words according to most Democrats…
She also has that strange sort of female mullet in her Wiki photo, but I really don’t think that’s these are sorts of thing we need to judge a Supreme Court Justice on.
I heard on NPR this morning that Ms. Miers led the White House team assigned with picking the next Supreme Court nominee. Lo and behold, the leader of the group picking the nominee ends up as the chosen nominee!
I was struck with the similarity during the 2000 campaign when Bush set up a team charged with coming up with a Vice Presidential candidate, led by none other than Dick Cheney, who promptly picked himself.
Another similarity: NPR also noted that Ms. Miers was one of the least-known members of Bush’s inner circle, and that she liked it that way. This also reminded me of Mr. Cheney, a very influential man who likes his position behind the scenes.
Found this on National Review (they aren’t happy there)
Sounds like a candidate you Democrats should love.
Um, no, they’re saying they don’t know jack about her either.
What’s her nickname?
Has she stayed clear of the Plame kerfluffle, or at least spoken truth to the grand jury?
We’re talking Bush II, not Bush I or Reagan. Different Congress then. Apples and oranges. Marmalade, even.
Oh, no. Can’t hide the mullet. The mullet is central to the confirmation process. If the mullet fits, you MUST acquit!
OK. Got a little carried away there.
Others found this there (this was from last week, before anyone could be sure if she were the nominee):
The fact that she gave money to Democrats 17 years ago doesn’t mean she feels the same way now. After all, this is the woman who the National Review’s David Frum has this to say about:
If she’s the sort of person who says that sort of thing, I’m not impressed with her reality chops, let alone her Dem chops.
More important, I think, is this part of Frum’s comment:
Regardless of how she might vote on the issues before her, she’s got an exceedingly weak background for the Supreme Court, and even guys like Frum and J-Pod can see that.
She should get the G. Harrold Carswell memorial non-seat on the Court:
More from the right, this time from Hindrocket:
Of course, his take on the politics of it is interesting:
Well, Hindrocket, isn’t that exactly what you just said about her? Shame on them if they follow your example! (And yes, the thrust of his comment was that if THEY should say this, it would just be playing politics.)
Whichever one of them vetted her in advance would normally* count with me.
If they said polite things about her when Bush called them up at 8am today to say “this is who I’m about to nominate,” or to reporters after that, then that means nothing.
*Reason I say “normally” is that I think her professional qualifications are pretty damned thin, and she should be swatted down on that basis alone. Corporate litigation is a totally different world from Constitutional law, and her quarter-century as a corporate litigator is her primary qualification. IMHO, she’d be a weak appeals court pick, let alone SCOTUS.
If the Dems don’t filibuster her, I’m going to throw away my vote next election cycle and go Green.
That struck me as well. I don’t think it necessarily means she’s unqualified, but it made me wonder if this situation where the leader of a group to pick somebody picks themselves a common one in other administrations, or just a coincidental quirk of W. Bush’s?
I don’t know, but I think picking yourself (even if you are well qualified) when you’re on any kind of selection committee is pure hubris. You think she honestly searched the country for well qualified nominees, and though loathe to do so due to her humble nature, found that she was the best person out there for the job? Or did she have herself in mind from the beginning and all the other “investigations” she did were purely for show?
I don’t know if she’s conservative enough or not but to say that she isn’t an outstanding lawyer seems like a stretch.
I think she and Priscilla Owen share the same hairdresser.
I wouldn’t consider this a surprise since her name has been mentioned in the press for the last few weeks as one of the top contenders. Some insiders had already said to forget about every white male being considered, since Bush was sure to pick a woman or a minority.
But, as a Bush insider, she’s bound to raise more than a few eyebrows. There’s nothing sacred about having judicial experience to be on the SCOTUS, but her background doesn’t seem particularly well suited to that role. I’ll have to wait of the confirmation hearings to be sure, but I’m not too impressed from what I’ve read so far.
The more I read about her, the less I think this dog (oddly appropriate for her) will hunt. If she is the best that she could come up with, then she is one incompetent talent scout. I’m still having a very hard time believing that any Republican has the fortitude to vote no, but if any nominee could break the Republican ranks, it is her. Bush clearly has lost all political instinct.