Anyone else notice a pattern?
We have our next Supreme Court nominee.
This morning, Bush announced Harriet Miers as his choice to replace Sandra Day O’Conner on the Bench.
So, he DID choose a woman to replace O’Conner. The second time around. But I’m sure you’ll all forgive me if my ovaries don’t start aching with feminist pride just yet.
I don’t trust Bush administration women all that much. And this one probably won’t change my opinion any.
[Andrew] Card, in a 2003 interview with the publication Texas Lawyer, said Bush€™s affinity for Miers is clear in the frequent invitations she receives to visit the presidential retreat at Camp David, €œa privilege that is not enjoyed by a lot of staff.€
€œShe€™s a quiet, highly respected force and someone who is seen as not having any agenda other than the president€™s,€ he said.
Intensely loyal, Miers is happy to stay off the radar screen as long as her boss is happy…
Actually, this announcement gave me a pretty good laugh this morning.
“Miers, who has never been a judge, has been leading the White House effort to help Bush choose nominees to the Supreme Court.”
So, the person in charge of the search found…..a mirror.
Sound familiar?
July 25, 2000: “Cheney, who has spent the past several weeks conducting Bush’s search for a running mate, emerged as the front-runner for the position late Friday.”
Must be nice!
“Mr. President, you’ve put me in charge of finding the most qualified person for this position. And I have succeeded. I’m pretty sure it’s me. And being the ethical, scrupulous Republican that I am, you can trust me when I say that I have exhausted all other avenues. I’m the only one for the job! Go me!”
October 3rd, 2005 at 10:18 am
This is a joke, right? Please, please tell me this is some sort of horrible joke.
October 3rd, 2005 at 11:07 am
This was alarming, from a Law.com biography€
€œShe€™s not a back-slapper. She€™s very businesslike,€ says Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht, who has dated Miers over the years and has known her since he first became a lawyer at Locke Purnell in 1975.
€œShe€™s also very kind. She always remembers everybody€™s birthday, and has a present for them. She€™ll be finding a present for somebody in the middle of the night,€ he says. €œ€˜Can€™t it wait until next week?€™ €˜No,€™ she€™d say, €˜It has to be done now.€™€
For those who don€™t know, Hecht is part of the way right wing of the all Republican Texas Supreme Court, the top court in Texas for civil cases. It is a court that is elected and Hecht has often been noteworthy in taking campaign contributions from individuals and corporations who have business before the court, including Centex Homes, Associated Republicans of Texas (ART) PAC, Weekley Homes, and Enron among others.
He is also an SMU alum€and, I repeat for emphasis, worked for Miers at Locke Purnell Rain Harrell. The more I Google, the more involved and twisted this is.
With these kind of stealth candidates Bush is nominating, it is starting to look like we have to look at the candidates€™ partners to get some sense of where they stand on the issues (see Jane Roberts€™ association with Feminists for Life). Take a look at Hecht€™s decisions and see what you think€
October 3rd, 2005 at 11:12 am
Good digging Mark! Very interesting, indeed. I’m gonna do some digging of my own on this bloke.
October 3rd, 2005 at 4:16 pm
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid issued a statement saying he likes Miers and adding “the Supreme Court would benefit from the addition of a justice who has real experience as a practicing lawyer.” Reid had personally recommended that Bush consider Miers for nomination, according to several sources familiar with the president’s consultations with senators.
White House officials and some political observers said Miers is conservative enough to satisfy the president’s supporters and does not have a lengthy legal record that could give Democrats much ammunition against her.
But others say Bush perhaps took the easy way out by picking Miers rather than someone like Priscilla Owen (search), who undoubtedly would be more controversial but more pleasing to conservatives.
“It looks an awful lot like he flinched,” said Bill Kristol, a FOX News contributor and publisher of The Weekly Standard. “He put up someone with no judicial record and it’s hard to interpret that as anything but flinching from a fight.”
> Liberals may be squawking - but it looks like Bush went to great lengths to pick a consensus nominee. Where are the votes that will block her nomination?