I had never heard of her.
So I did the quickest research I know of which is to check AOL news. I found that she is a personal friend of the President's, and a member of his White house staff. She is an accomplished lawyer with an impeccable record, but she isn't a judge. So then I remembered another recent Presidential appointee, coincidently also named Myers, just spelled differently. She is a Bush friend, too.
My next thought was one that I understand the Liberal blogs are now bringing up.
Cronyism. I swear that was the first thing I thought of, before I heard any talk show mention it.
Then, I heard Jay Sekulow of the ACLJ, a man I have a great deal of respect for, endorse her heartily, and I confess that I now am torn.
After I had the chance to listen to the talk show hosts and their opinions and those of their guests, I am even more confused. I hear that she has donated money to the campaigns of Lloyd Bentsen, Al Gore, and Bill Clinton, as well as to the DNC. Oops! Now I hear she didn't donate to Clinton. (Rush said that)
Here is a mystery, unlike any other mysteries regarding what Bush has done in his 5 years as President:
Many Republicans and Conservatives are disappointed, to say the least, and many of the Liberals and Democrats seem genuinely pleased. Conversely, many Republicans like this appointment and many Democrats don't. I always feel that if the Liberals get upset, Bush must have done something right. Something is very wrong with this picture.
Lots of folks like her and lots of folks don't. On every side. I don't remember seeing this much bi-partisanship in a long, long time. Not since 9/11, in fact.
So here is my temporarily conclusion:
Whether she is liberal or if she is conservative, as long as she doesn't legislate from the bench, she will be an acceptable, if not good, Justice.
The more I know, the more I will say.
19 comments:
Is this lady one of the spitting imsge puppets ....i hope she is if not thats one hellava face to be having
well, geeeez, Patt, she's 60 years old! I hope I look that good at 60!
Or, that alive.
Mark, I'll write here what I wrote at Lores' blog: I don't see this as a matter of her ideology, judicial philosophy, or even whether whe ultimately does a good job. There are hundreds (if not more) of people who are more worthy of consideration for this position based on their prior achievement, including a great many who would have no problem being accepted by both parties. If Ms. Miers had the same credentials, but had not had a persoanl relationship with the President, would there be a chance that she would even have been considered for this appointment? I really don't know why Harry Reid is so gung ho about this either? I see all this as one big political cloak and dagger game.
From either sides viewpoint I guess it could have been a lot worse. What I like is that regardless of her positions she is old and will die soon enough.
I still think it's odd to appoint someone to the Supreme Court who has never been a Judge.
Of course I also think it is odd to have one nation attack you and then retaliate against an entirely different one, or cutting taxes during record spending and deficit, or appointing a horse breeder to head up FEMA. I guess I'll never understand Bush, I guess that's why I am not a Republican
Toad, your statement. "What I like is that regardless of her positions she is old and will die soon enough." is most certainly the reason that I'm not a Demoocrat.
You have summed up the mean spiritedness and the hatred and the culture of death that your party represents with that one rude statement.
It is a pity. Democrats used to be a party of integrity, but you and the extreme left wingers like you have hijacked it and turned it into something ugly.
I wonder how you would react if someone said the same unconscionable thing about your mother.
My perspective of the Miers pick to the Supreme Court is not a partisan one. As with the choice of Roberts, how can anyone predict what their decisions will be over the long course of time in which they will both serve? And that is the greatest hidden beauty of our system.
When a jury is picked, the points of the case are unknown. Jury selection is to choose who has the common sense to view guilt or innocence, right of wrong with a fair and impartial mind. It is to a large degree an act of faith in the human spirit of fair-play. I am not concerned with the fact she has never been a judge, or not knowing what her political affiliations have been in the past. I want an advocate for the ‘people’ and the Constitution.
Partisans from both sides should be aware that once a nominee becomes a justice, they are concerned with their own legacy in history. How their tenure will impact the legacy of the President who appointed them is of no concern and is a small footnote in the Justice’s biography.
Pastor Tim, when I was a kid, I played on a little league baseball team. I wan't the best player on the team but I wasn't the worst, either.
The worst player on the team was the starting pitcher.
Why was the worst player the starting pitcher, you might ask?
He was the coach's son.
Not exactly the same as cronyism, but the possibility of it being a wrongly influenced choice is much the same.
Mark,
While I don't condone Toad's remark (and while I'm not a Democrat), to say that a remark like that is indicative that the Democratic party is synonymous with hatred and mean-sprititedness is ridiculous. I could argue the same thing about Republicans by citing Ann Coulter or Michael Savage or Pat Robertson or...
Reasonable people can separate the extremists from the mainstream.
Thanks there, Jaymeister, you saved me the trouble of havin' to box Mark's ears. :-)
--ER
ER and Jay, I qualified those remarks with the statement that the extreme left has hijacked a party of integrity.
If you want to box someones ears, go to moveon.org and box theirs. it's their fault the Democrat party is now mostly mean spirited.
Whatever. I did a Google search, and couldn't find any U.S. political party called the "Democrat party". Maybe that's the one that's mean-spirited, if it exists.
I am extremely concerned with the nomination of miers. What in god's name do we know about her? Virtually nothng. She hasn't been a judge and therefore has no papers for us to review. I am afraid all we really know about her public opinion is that from her days as a city councilwoman in Dallas. She voted extremely conservative towards any social issues that came before her (i.e. voted to retain the city's ban on sodomy) Oh and in response to Toad's remark to it being odd to appoint someone who has not been a judge, I agree it does seem odd, if not a bit inappropriate. Though it has only been in more recent times that judges have been appointed, for in the early years most were mere lawyers.
But even the non-judges appointed in the past had some kind of public record, or published legal papers, or gave some indication of their judicial philosophy. Miers is just Bush's personal attorney. If he saw her as such a legal giant, why didn't he make her a federal judge first, or AG for that matter? This would be like him appointing his family doctor to be Surgeon General - except with much mor far-reaching consequences.
Sigh. Unlike in the Republican Party, we Democrats usually speak for ourselves.
One mean remark does not a mean political party make. A million mean remarks does not a mean political party make.
Mean policies make a mean political party. And y'all have cornered the market on that the past few years.
--ER
Cronyism is the appointment of long standing friends to political office WITHOUT regard to their qualifications. From everything I've been able to deterimine, Harriet Miers is as qualified as most people who have sat on the Supreme Court. At any rate, if we find anything horrible about this person, she still has to be confirmed by the Senate. If you don't think you know enough about her, find out. When you find out -- good or bad -- contact your Senators and tell them what you want. That's democracy.
Wow! you're right, Jay, I didn't find any reference to a Democrat party either. I always thoight that was the proper name for it. My bad.
It's kind of a misnomer tho, isn't it? After all, very few Democrats are actually democratic and not many Republicans are either.
I have my opinion up at my site,as well as a compelling question.
I made my statement on my blog (much too long to do here)
http://therightisright.blogspot.com/2005/10/harriet-miers-supreme-court-nominee.html
-----------
Those of you who are on the Gloom-n-Doom ride after this nomination, look on the bright side:
AT LEAST SHE's NOT A FORMER HEAD OF THE ACLU
I'll bet you all she ends up being more Conservative than Roberts.
I think it was one of the most brilliant political moves for conservatism ever along with Roberts.I am with Pero on this,this leaves all those brilliant mainds in place where we need them. Check my blog.
Post a Comment