Patterico's Pontifications

10/14/2005

L.A. Times Slow on the Uptake with Miers Criticisms — But Better Late Than Never!

Filed under: Dog Trainer,Judiciary — Patterico @ 11:13 pm

The L.A. Times is a little slow on the uptake, reporting in this article concerns about Harriet Miers’s record that I first mentioned a week ago on this blog. Featured in the article are her criticisms of the Federalist Society (which I told you about a week ago, in this post), and quotes in which Miers criticized Republicans for “lawyer-bashing” (discussed here one week ago — long before any other blog had mentioned it).

It’s nice to see that Times editors are finally getting around to telling their readers about these issues. Maybe in another week or so we’ll get an article disclosing that Miers was poorly vetted. Wouldn’t that be something?

Goldstein on Miers

Filed under: Judiciary — Patterico @ 5:24 pm

More wisdom on Miers from Jeff Goldstein.

Praise for Miers’s Lawyering

Filed under: Judiciary — Patterico @ 2:33 pm

Nice praise for Miers’s lawyering in the Washington Post:

Mike Miller, a lawyer from East Texas, described the feeling when he learned Miers had entered his case — a class-action suit of car buyers against Texas automobile dealers. Miers was representing the dealers.

“It was mixed,” he said. “It’s like seeing your mother-in-law drive off a cliff in your brand-new Mercedes. There are advantages. You don’t have to worry about someone lying to you. You are not going to fight over anything that’s a waste of time. The issues won’t be frivolous. But you know you’re in for a fight.

That’s an impressive compliment.

UPDATE: I should have noted that I found this through K-Lo at Bench Memos. Beldar claims in the comments here that K-Lo quoted the material as though it was dismissive of Miers, which I don’t see . . . she merely called it the quote of the day and otherwise quoted it with minimal commentary.

How Beldar could have seen my post (which is clearly complimentary) as even potentially snarky, I have no idea — other than as a reflexive (and no doubt subconscious) imputation of bad motives to Miers opponents. Sometimes we’re just giving the other side, dude. After all, I figure she’s going to be confirmed, so (believe it or not) I want her to be everything you and Hewitt claim she is.

Also: I don’t see this compliment as qualifying her for the Supreme Court. But I figured everyone already knew that, so I thought for once that I’d just say something nice without qualification. Naturally, therefore, it has to be seen as sarcastic.

Patterico Exclusive: Scalia Gushed Over Reagan!

Filed under: Judiciary — Patterico @ 12:47 pm

Distressing news: researchers have uncovered correspondence from the late 1970s and early 1980s from Antonin Scalia to Ronald Reagan, in which Scalia gushed over Reagan’s greatness. In one note, Scalia said:

You are the best governor ever – deserving of great respect!

and in another, Scalia said:

You are the best!

More details in the extended entry.

(more…)

Patterico on Pundit Review Radio

Filed under: Judiciary — Patterico @ 9:27 am

I am expected to be on Pundit Review radio Sunday night. The original plan was to have me debate Power Line’s Paul Mirengoff about the Harriet Miers nomination. Unfortunately, Paul can’t make it.

The tricky part: I’ll be in the Minneapolis airport, on a long layover between Louisville and L.A. The timing should work out — as long as the plane isn’t late. Then the challenge will be to find a land line that is in a relatively quiet part of the terminal. Wish me luck on that!

If everything works out, you’ll be able to tune in to live streaming of the broadcast, at this link. I’m told my segment will start around 9:30 p.m. Eastern. Boston area listeners, tune in to AM 680.

Noonan’s Dreadful Piece on Miers

Filed under: Judiciary — Patterico @ 8:20 am

Yesterday, someone recommended Peggy Noonan’s piece on the Miers nomination to me. I read it, and was not impressed.

Early in the piece, Noonan suggests that Miers withdraw her name, in a noble act of self-sacrifice, and claims:

Mr. Bush will have an open field. He could even shove Alberto Gonzales down their throats!

This is easily one of the most ridiculous things I have read in the days since Miers was nominated. The idea that conservatives would fight for the withdrawal of Miers, but would accept Gonzales as a replacement, is so bizarre it’s hard to know what to say. It’s impossible to imagine anything that could cause a more open revolt. Making things even more bizarre, Noonan says just two sentences later:

Before the Miers pick a man could have been considered, but to replace Ms. Miers now it will have to be a woman. Sometimes you just can’t add more layers to the story.)

I have heard many people say (and have made the comment myself) that Harriet Miers is just Alberto Gonzales in a dress. But what is Noonan expecting after a Miers withdrawal: literally Alberto Gonzales in a dress?

If Miers withdraws, and Gonzales makes a trip to Sweden, you’ll know what’s up.

More silliness from Noonan:

When George H.W. Bush chose Mr. Quayle to be his vice presidential candidate, the 41-year-old junior senator from Indiana should have said, “Thanks, but I’m not ready. Someday I will be, but I have more work to do in Congress and frankly more growing to do as a human being before I indulge any national ambitions.” This would have been great because it was true. When his staff leaked what he’d said, a shocked Washington would have concurred, conceding his wisdom and marking him for better things. He’d probably have run for president in 2000. He could be president now.

Yeah, that’s just what we need: Dan Quayle as President.

Come on, Peggy. Think before you tap those keys.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2094 secs.