NOTE: The opinions expressed by our individual bloggers are their own, and not necessarily those of Young Democrats of Atlanta.
Monday, October 31, 2005
posted by Aerodad at 10/31/2005 12:34:00 PM
Um, like, this should be a new topic and stuff, but I'm not one of the cool people who gets to make them.. so yeah, this Bush nominee chick has to be okay, she's pissing off at least *some* conservative groups. It's sad that's what we have to be happy about...
I am also grateful that she is a woman and that she doesn't seem to be insane along the lines of Thomas and Scalia. I am a bit depressed that our fear of a right wing idealogue is causing us to celebrate someone whose career seem's somewhat mediocre and lackluster. There's an article in Slate, www.slate.com that lines up Miers' record with O'Connor's and it doesn't look like Harriet benefits from the comparison. Oh well, at least it's not the end of the world as we know scenario.
I'm not so sure she's not the "end of the world scenario". She is clearly a Bush Crony if there ever was one. She may well be the least qualified nominee in at least a century. The only public service record we can really look at is her stint as a state lottery commissioner---you know, because the Texas Lottery is a known springboard for the Supreme Court fast track. I'm sure we can gleen her interpretation of the Constitution from her having run a lottery. And I'm not sure why there is all this media hype about "conservatives" being upset with the nomination. James Dobson has come out in support of her, Pat Robertson's ACLJ has called her an "Excellent Choice", the SBC has stated support for her and her preacher at Valley View Christian Church was one of the key players in the right wing movement within the SBC . I just don't think that there is any evidence from her that she will be anything but a neo-con and a crony and a completely unqualified one at that. While I disagreed philosophically with Roberts, there was no doubting his qualifications. Miers may as well have been the head of the International Arabian Horse Association. So whether she is for or against certain issues shouldn't matter (and we can't know that anyway since she has no record). She's a bad candidate because she has no qualifications. To steal this from another blog, Alexander Hamilton wrote the following regarding Senate confirmation of judicial nominees in the Federalist Papers:"To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. . . . He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure."That describes Harriet Miers' nomination perfectly.
I only have one comment: What did you expect? Consider the history of Tweedle Dumb.
exactly... We lost the Supreme Court last november.
What about Karl Rove, will he get indicted? Guess we will have to stayed tuned to find out.
Post a Comment
Create a Link