Patterico's Pontifications

10/3/2005

What a Disappointment: Bush Chooses Miers

Filed under: Judiciary — Patterico @ 6:17 am



As The Angry Clam says below, Bush has chosen Harriet Miers to replace O’Connor.

My reaction is pretty much the same as the Clam’s, though I am saving the profanity for friends and family. I don’t know much about this woman, but what I do know does not impress me. Bush could have done much, much better. I am likely to sit this one out and simply watch in appalled disgust.

It’s looking like my days of supporting this President may be over.

P.S. From the L.A. Times story:

“I know her heart. I know her character,” [Bush] said.

Translation: she is a crony.

29 Responses to “What a Disappointment: Bush Chooses Miers”

  1. I figured that some Classic Clam was in order after this.

    Angry Clam (fa7fff)

  2. Yeah. I tucked the classic part within an extended entry; hope that’s okay. I get some people who are bothered by that stuff. But I didn’t want to bleep it.

    Patterico (4e4b70)

  3. You paid for this microphone.

    I usually try to as well, but I’m a little angry this morning.

    I did walk upstairs to the Senators’ offices, and actually managed to catch one of them in there. He got an earful.

    Angry Clam (fa7fff)

  4. I am really stunned. What could he be thinking?

    In this political environment he picks his FRIEND who’s never even been a judge for the SCOTUS and wants us to just trust him?

    Jeez man she’s not even a solid republican.

    We might not get another SCOTUS pick for 12-20 years.

    Dwilkers (a1687a)

  5. I did walk upstairs to the Senators’ offices, and actually managed to catch one of them in there. He got an earful.

    I’d love to hear more about that!

    Patterico (4e4b70)

  6. Bush needs his head examined. Where is Karl Rove?

    Black Jack (ee9fe2)

  7. So Putin is also a Bush crony!?

    With cronies like that, who needs a corrupt oligarchy with nukes as a strategic competitor?

    Paul Deignan (9e57a7)

  8. Here’s a good question from the comments over at Confirm Them:

    And WHAT is up with an 8 a.m. announcement on the day the Roberts Court opens? Bush could have enjoyed a triumphant day of glowing reports on Roberts, instead he will be treated to savagery from conserviatves (sic) and the media all day long.

    The more I think about it, the more idiotic this all seems.

    Angry Clam (fa7fff)

  9. The Dems are going to have a field day with this obvious crony, and I suspect that very few will raise their voices, or risk their reputations to defend President Bush or his nominee.

    MSM and congressional Dems will savage them both without mercy. The initial outcry will be so loud, shrill, and accurate, she’ll simply have to decline the nomination. It’s the only way out. I can’t imagine a more foolish or self-destructive decision. The President’s sanity is now debatable, and he did it to himself. I’m appalled.

    I give it 24 hours. If it goes longer, I’ll eat a bug.

    Black Jack (ee9fe2)

  10. And, of course, Hugh Hewitt is being a total Bush Administration tool.

    “B+ nominee” my ass.

    Hugh’s been hanging around Chapman too long.

    Angry Clam (fa7fff)

  11. As to her opinions, she’s told David Frum that Bush was the most brilliant man she had ever met.

    That tells us a lot about her qualifications to make judgements.

    actus (ebc508)

  12. Well, actus, you’ll have to forgive her, obviously she hasn’t met you yet.

    Black Jack (ee9fe2)

  13. Have you considered the possibility that he expects her to be rejected?

    That way, he can nominate someone else (e.g. Priscilla Owen, who can’t be filibustered due to the deal) and claim they are a compromise. Thus it might be a ploy to get in someone he likes but expects would have trouble being confirmed. At the very least, I doubt he would nominate Gonzales if this one fails.

    Of course he may not be trying such a thing, in which case I share your disappointment.

    jvarisco (2c5028)

  14. “Have you considered the possibility that he expects her to be rejected?”

    Is he that much of a jerk to his loyal staff? Why would she go along with that?

    actus (ebc508)

  15. That would probably be the most craven use of the office yet. I don’t believe that is one of Bush’s faults.

    Cronyism Yes, Cravenism, No.

    Paul Deignan (9e57a7)

  16. Yeah, that’s totally it all right.

    “Oh, you rejected my unqualified, probably liberal nominee. Here’s someone you filibustered because you called them a right-wing psycho. It’s a compromise! YAY!!!”

    There is no way to see this as anything but sheer idiocy of the Bush Administration.

    Angry Clam (fa7fff)

  17. “Well, actus, you’ll have to forgive her, obviously she hasn’t met you yet. ”

    It looks like Frum deleted it from his post.

    It never happened.

    actus (ebc508)

  18. Black Jack, you may have to eat a bug if Miers proves to be a moderate. The dems may see this as their only opportunity under Bush’s reign to get a moderate on the court.

    But Wouldn’t it be a riot if she was voted down by the republicans?

    Tillman (1cf529)

  19. Stuff like this makes me wonder if there isn’t some truth to the left’s claim that Bush just isn’t all that bright.

    eddie haskell (8fd1a1)

  20. Re that Hugh Hewitt post…

    Replace “Harriet Miers” with “Alberto Gonzales.”

    The second President Bush knows [Alberto Gonzales], and knows [him] well. The White House Counsel is an unknown to most SCOTUS observors, but not to the president, who has seen [him] at work for great lengths of years and in very different situations, including as an advisor in wartime.

    Yay.

    Christopher Cross (d5669f)

  21. Harriet Miers next Supreme Court Nominee – Sources Reveal

    According the to CNN, President George Bush is expected to nominate White House counsel Harriet Miers as the next Supreme Court Justice to replace Sandra Day O’Connor. ABC News has this to say about Miers.

    The White House and Miers’ supporters pra…

    Scared Monkeys (d54719)

  22. Will we get a Roman Hruska moment in defense of Miers?

    Pat Patterson (5b3946)

  23. Have you considered the possibility that he expects her to be rejected?

    But the Dems may not even need the filibuster to shoot her down. Which means they would not expend their one potentially credible FB on Miers. In which case, why make such a token sacrifice?

    biwah (f5ca22)

  24. Do I have to argue your side too guys? This is from Talk Left:

    The nominee I’m worried about, as I’ve said before, is the one he’ll pick when Justice Stevens retires. That’s when he’s going to pay back the Radical Right for their support. http://talkleft.com/new_archives/cat_supreme_court.html

    So is that the strategy? Wait for Stevens, then payback time?

    Tillman (1cf529)

  25. Harriet Who?

    While Americal Center for Law and Justice Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow lauds President Bush over his “excellent choice” (is there any other kind?) to nominate Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, David Frum calls it an error, and an “un…

    damnum absque injuria (38c04c)

  26. Never been a judge doesn’t bother me too much. There’ve been some very good ones for whom the Court was a first try at being a judge. But I can’t think of any of them who could be described in the way that a former White House official described Miers in December of 04 (in Legal Times): “She failed in Card’s office for two reasons,” the official says. “First, because she can’t make a decision, and second, because she can’t delegate, she can’t let anything go. And having failed for those two reasons, they move her to be the counsel for the president, which requires exactly those two talents.” I can’t imagine those failings will suddenly turn into assets in her new job, should she be confirmed.

    What was W thinking?

    TNugent (6128b4)

  27. I wouldn’t mind the never being a judge part if she had some appellate experience- perferably both as an attorney and as a clerk, but whatever.

    Is there any indication that Miers has ever even written an appellate brief? That should could state what the standard of review is for a summary judgment? Anything?

    Angry Clam (fa7fff)

  28. That should could state what the standard of review is for a summary judgment?

    Damn, Clam, you’ve been living in the South for how long now, and you’re already doubling your modals? I bet yer fixin’ to start saying y’all pretty soon, too.

    Xrlq (e2795d)

  29. like father like son

    At least this George Bush waited until his second term to break the campaign promise that got him elected.

    Doc Rampage (59ce3a)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0782 secs.