Apropos of nothing at all, if a President of the United States had committed crimes, possibly impeachable crimes, possibly not impeachable, and was perhaps under grand jury investigation, and had siphoned off the nation’s treasure into the pockets of cronies, and had gained election (twice) through questionable methods, and had allies under indictment and investigation, and was generally as corrupt as it is possible to imagine the President of the United States being...
...wouldn’t he nominate his own personal attorney to the Supreme Court?
chazak, chazak, v’nitchazek,
-Vardibidian.
Good question. Mind if I pass it on in my LJ (credited, of course)?
I’m just copying it straight over to my blog. Peace.
Pass it along all you like, everybody. I’m just asking…
Thanks,
-V.
This was the first thing that crossed my mind when I heard the news.
It’s interesting that we now have a candidate who should be opposed on a bipartisan basis as a threat to the separation of powers. Will we get to see this nomination defeated by majority vote? We can only hope . . .
May I be extra cynical for a moment and suggest that OOP is well aware, and hopeful, that this nominee will be defeated in the Senate … because his next nominee will also be a woman/minority, and they can’t possibly defeat two in a row? That would open up the possibility of, say, Janice Rogers Brown–eg, a nominee not as personally connected to OOP, but a nominee far more conservative and younger than this one.
When OOP can keep running candidates in there, of course this is a possibility. It’s also possible, however, that if the Miers nomination is defeated, the hand of OOP’s opponents will be strengthened, not weakened. It’s a question, really, of how the public views the process.
If the public agrees that the Senate has acted to reject an obviously unqualified nominee who has been chosen because she is a corrupt crony of OOP, then I don’t think that such a rejection would make it difficult to reject a subsequent nomination.
It seems to me that OOP has flagrantly violated the public trust in making this nomination.
I don’t know a great deal about the law, but Miers appears to be no better qualified to be a member of SCOTUS than probably hundreds of other lawyers in the country. She’s not in any way well-qualified for the job, but that’s secondary to the fact that her lack of qualifications makes it clear that she has been selected because she is close to OOP.
She has been selected, then, for the very quality that ought to immediately disqualify her from consideration. An independent judiciary is necesarry to the separation of powers, and her appointment would obviously undermine the independence of SCOTUS.
I think her nomination, irrespective of her qualifications and her politics, is utterly inappropriate, and her nomination is an act of flagrant disrespect for the Constitution by OOP, and I hope that liberals and conservatives alike are appalled by it.
This is a LIFETIME APPOINTMENT TO THE SUPREME COURT, and this nomination has been made on the basis of PERSONAL CONNECTIONS???
I’m sure she’d do a heckuva job, just like Brownie.
strength! and honor! yeah! but… definitely strength!
can jeb run? when he did his well-lit tour of indonesia (because ivan made him a disaster expert) he sure looked pritty.
One thing we can foresee with some confidence (Vardibidian predictions—we’re never wrong unless you count mere factual inaccuracy) is that this nomination will not be killed by Democrats. In part, that’s a simple matter of numbers; some Republicans would have to cross the floor to join the Democrats, and then it will be those Republicans who kill the nomination.
Also, there is neither short-term political benefit to the Democrats in killing this nomination (there is more short-term benefit in being unable to kill it without more Dem senators) nor is there any clear benefit in the make-up of the Supreme Court, as the next nominee won’t be any better. The best-case scenario for the Dems in the Senate is for the Republicans to split, forcing OOP to withdraw the name without a vote. On the other hand, I doubt the next name would be much better.
She has been selected, then, for the very quality that ought to immediately disqualify her from consideration.
This is extremely well-put, and worth pointing out.
Finally, I do want to say that Ms. Miers does appear to be quite a high-powered attorney, and I don’t think it’s an insult to her at all to say that she is not qualified for the Supreme Court, nor that her personal loyalty to the president disqualifies her. She seems like a smart and able attorney, and appears to be a reasonably good choice for the position she now holds, an honorable and important one. However, the qualifications for the Supreme Court are different.
Thanks,
-V.
you’re still talking about this? the world has moved on to just past greenspan. whom shall we nominate? grover? dubya’s personal financial adviser? how about that tyco guy, he’s always good for a joke at parties.
Did y’all see this one?
“I think conservatives are going to try to kill the Harriet Miers nomination,” says a blogger named John in DC. Apparently “Richard Viguerie, one of THE big old-time leaders of the Republican party,” says that Miers may not be conservative enough.
the old school righties will be talked out of their worries. they supported him after the first term, which should have been plenty to prove that the bushies are a’holes from a “limited” perspective.
i don’t buy the “cowed into it” argument, either. you don’t nominate your own lawyer out of concern for what people will say. or something like that.
George F. Will, that … pundit … asks Can This Nomination Be Justified? When a pundit asks that, you know what answer he will come up with.
As for John in DC, you know, he’s a lot of fun, and if I want to know whether somebody is gay, it’s worth checking his site, but I wouldn’t count on him to perceive the difference between the religious right pretending that they will fight a nomination to gain … something … and the hard right actually having their heads explode. Not that I can tell what’s happening, myself, but then y’all don’t read this Tohu Bohu for insight, do you?
Thanks,
-V.
Interesting: I just found out that “Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid … urged the president to consider Miers.”
I’m getting the impression from various sources that various Republicans are opposed to Miers because she doesn’t have a solid track record of conservatism, while various Democrats are in favor of her because they don’t want someone with a solid track record of conservatism.
I could be falling for spin and hype here, but it’s not just John in DC who’s saying this. (…Oh, and now that I glance at the George Will link, I see he too seems to be saying she’s not conservative enough.)
One more thing: you referred to Miers as Bush’s “own personal attorney.” That’s a little misleading. She’s White House Counsel. “Although the White House Counsel offers legal advice to the President, the Counsel does so in the President’s official capacity, and does not serve as the President’s personal attorney.”
It’s true that the personal-attorney line is misleading, although (a) she is Counsel because of her personal (professional) relationship with the president, and (2) almost all of the misdeeds and corruption in this administration have been official. Unlike if, for instance, a President were being sued for sexual advances made before taking office, and being deposed about other sexual relationships he or she had engaged in. That would be a matter for a personal attorney, and it would be a misuse of the WHC office to involve them, except in procedural matters (such as whether such a case can be brought while the president is sitting). On the other hand, if a president were accused of criminal conspiracy with members of his cabinet and staff in order to further political ends, that might well be a matter for the White House Counsel. But yes, your point is well taken.
And yes, my understanding is that Sen. Reid, bless him, came up with a list of potential candidates that were not prima facie unacceptable to him and his caucus, and that Ms. Miers was on that list. That may constitute advice, within the meaning of the act. On the other hand, Sen. Reid may think that Ms. Miers is the best we (as a nation) could hope for, and I would have to disagree. But then Sen. Reid may not be as keen on judicial independence as I am. Or he may just be a mixer.
Thanks,
-V.
she was literally his personal attorney, representing him in “at least one case” (according to the lehrer news hour) between 1995 to 2000, while she was working with the lottery commission – “a voluntary public service position she undertook while maintaining her legal practice and other responsibilities.”
or as the wikipedia entry puts it, “Miers met George W. Bush in the 1980s, and worked as general counsel for his transition team in 1994, when he was Texas governor. She subsequently became Bush’s personal lawyer, and worked as a lawyer in his 2000 presidential campaign.”