Comments on: What a Disappointment: Bush Chooses Miers

By: Doc Rampage

Doc Rampage — Mon, 03 Oct 2005 23:55:32 +0000

like father like son

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

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Mon, 03 Oct 2005 19:36:47 +0000

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.

By: Angry Clam

Angry Clam — Mon, 03 Oct 2005 19:10:41 +0000

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?

By: TNugent

TNugent — Mon, 03 Oct 2005 18:54:23 +0000

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?

By: damnum absque injuria

damnum absque injuria — Mon, 03 Oct 2005 18:53:31 +0000

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…

By: Tillman

Tillman — Mon, 03 Oct 2005 18:28:04 +0000

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?

By: biwah

biwah — Mon, 03 Oct 2005 17:03:24 +0000

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?

By: Pat Patterson

Pat Patterson — Mon, 03 Oct 2005 16:53:47 +0000

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

By: Scared Monkeys

Scared Monkeys — Mon, 03 Oct 2005 16:47:35 +0000

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…

By: Christopher Cross

Christopher Cross — Mon, 03 Oct 2005 16:28:38 +0000

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.