This Miers' nomination is a puzzler. Democrats and liberals like myself find themselves wondering what to do. Do we oppose this nomination? Certainly on the merits she seems way out of her league, and having had a President who is out of his league seems enough. Say what we will about John Roberts, the man seems to have been genetically made in a laboratory to fit exactly a Supreme Court justice. Miers seems like a nice person and decent lawyer, but hardly equipped to address the huge constitutional issues of our day. Neither am I, of course, but then again, I wasn't nominated.
But do liberals oppose this nomination and risk what is behind door number 2? A Patricia Owens would be someone certainly qualified, but in my estimation, a horrible jurist. I actually think that Al Gonzales would be a decent judge--but then again, there is his entire support of Bush's torture policy.
Evidently the Bush is annoyed that his base is weakening. Part of that is understandable. Part of that--well, I don't care. About time that the base learned what the rest of us have known from day one. This is a very arrogant and insular man. He doesn't like his choices being challenged--perhaps a product of being a spoiled rich kid. Perhaps it is constantly telling him that he was God's choice for President. People don't usually question God's choice.
In any case, the Prez is pissed off and trying to assure the wingbat section of his party (though it is odd, the battiest people--Dobson and Robertson are on board) that Harriet is a good choice. Today, he assured people that Harriet Miers is a good Christian.
Fine. Whatever. But is this really a good step for our public policy? The same Prez who assured us there is no litmus test, now says that her faith is the reason to support her? So she has faith. I have no problem with that. It relates to her qualifications about as much as the silly comments people make about her appearance. Bush is supposedly a man of faith (though that is still in doubt in my mind) but is still one of, if not THE, worst presidents in our history. She could be a very nice person. She could be a great person of faith--a virtual "prayer warrior" (whatever that means), but that doesn't mean she will make a good SC justice. And if her base supports her for that reason, then I think they really don't understand this country's history very well.
8 comments:
I strongly urge a peek at this article: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051024/ten_questions_for_harriet_miers
Okay, apparently the comment feature doesn't allow a long URL. Let me try again, and you can cut and paste appropriately:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051024/
ten_questions_for_harriet_miers
I especially like the implications of #4 and #5, given the mantra of "original intent."
I'm kind of wondering how many Senate Republicans are going to oppose her. It is a tough call. There's a part of me that wants the Senate to kill Bush's nomination just so he doesn't get his way. But Miers is a lot better than some of the people he could have picked.
Thanks, Anglican. That nation article is a good one. does this link work?
See that's just the thing with this nomination...I think Rove's set Miers up for disaster so that when she's shot down by democrats (who feel like they should oppose) and uber-conservatives...then door number two is probably Roy Moore or something.
I think this is a smart choice. The Dems can't really oppose her and Bush looks good by getting beaten up by the Religious Right.
kgp
Kevin, I love your take on this, you cynical liberal! But could it be that Bush's brain has been inoperative since Katrina? The missteps of the administration since the beginning of September have been so incredible that even the right hardly noticed Bush's speech on the WOT last week. It was actually a good speech, not quite Kennedyesque, but better than most of his stuff. I think Turd Blossom is so worried that he's going down with Abrahamoff or Plamegate that he's really off his Svengali seat. Could the puppetmeister be missing his strings?
Post a Comment