Bush Nominates Harriet Miers

Jeff Alworth

Blue Oregon writers must have had a busy day today--no one was able to post the news about Bush's new nominee for the Supreme Court, Harriet Miers.  Miers, who began an association with Bush in 1994 when she served as counsel to his transition team in Texas, has also served as: Bush's assistant, staff secretary, deputy chief of staff, and most recently, as counsel to the president.  She has never been a judge.  The response has been lukewarm from both the right and left, with both sides charging cronyism as the main factor behind the choice. 

However, Miers was also a Democrat for ten years, was pre-approved by Harry Reid, and contributed money to Al Gore (in '88), so Democrats may have something to hang a "yes" vote on.  (Round-ups everywhere, including one I put together.) 

For my money, though, Digby has ascertained the essential reason for Bush's selection, which I'll leave you with:

It's important to recognize, finally, what Karl Rove and the Bush administration, with the help of the modern Republican apparatus under Tom DeLay, Grover Norquist and Ralph Reed is all about. They are building a political machine, not a political movement. I find it very amusing that the right wing "intellectuals," from their ivory tower think tanks and millionaire supported sinecures at political magazines, have still failed to recognize that.

Your thoughts?

  • Jon (unverified)

    The nomination of Harriet Miers as the replacement for Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has united liberals and conservatives in ways few thought possible. Democrats fear she is a stealth arch-conservative. But it is Republicans fellow-travelers like Michelle Malkin, Bill Kristol and David Frum who seem most horrified. They are simply astounded that Bush confirmed Americans' worst fears that he values cronyism over qualification.

    For the details, see:

    "Harriet Miers' Supreme Opportunism."

  • David English (unverified)

    I don't know about how others feel, but I am thoroughly appalled at the nomination of Miers. What is even worse is that Senator Reid (allegedly, I'm not sure if that fact has been confirmed) urged Bush to nominate her.

    Even though there are no formal guidelines as to the qualifications of a Supreme Court Justice, one does have to ask themselves what should be the minimum experience?

    If it is in fact a law degree and some experience in a law firm, I think I'll go back to school. Maybe I can be a Supreme Court Justice if I scratch the right person's back.

    When the future of our country becomes a game as the Bush administration has made it, everyone loses.

  • Marvinlee (unverified)

    I wonder if all of the accusations against the nomination of Ms. Miers are justified? Most of us who served in large organizations and had subordinates understand that one tries to have highly competent people around. It is entirely commonplace that one then suggests some of those people for advancement. Some may prefer to think that this, or some other, president deliberately picks "yes men (and women)" as his advisors. That has not been my experience. While one may wish for deference, that is a cheap commodity easily gotten. More difficult is to find someone who intelligently supports you when you are right and respectfully tells you when you are wrong. I beleive that Ms. Mier's is a plausible candidate at this point. The hearings will provide a much deeper examination from which we can all learn.

  • (Show?)

    What to post? This is quite likely the least qualified nominee in modern Supreme Court history. She makes Carswell look like a nominee in the mold of Scalia.

    Amazing to watch a once successful presidency spin down like a plane without a propeller.

  • David Englsh (unverified)


    I have not seen any "accusations" against her? Many have stated (including myself) that she is unqualified and/or she may be just a yes man (woman in this case) for Bush. Are we not entitled to our opinion?

    The problem maybe that no one will question this much like they didn't with Roberts. If a person that is nominated for US Supreme Court Justice for life expects to have a cake walk into a position, I've got some swamp land in Eastern Oregon to sell you.

    My point is, anyone that is nominated for a position to sit on the highest court in our nation, SHOULD be throughly vetted. These people may sit on that court anywhere from 10-20 years or more. Why shouldn't we know what we are getting.

    In essence, what I am saying is caveat emptor (Let the buyer beware).

  • (Show?)

    This is quite likely the least qualified nominee in modern Supreme Court history.

    Which is exactly what the Dems should try to expose, whether or not they ultimately decide to vote for her. After their woeful performance with Roberts (one can remain agnostic about whether he should have been confirmed and still blame the Dems for weak questioning), the Dems better find their temerity, for the country, if not their party or own hides.

  • C2TBF (unverified)

    Bush is a master. He's taking the "too little information" charge from the liberals and actually using it in practice against his crusading followers on the other end of the spectrum. I love that guy.

    Before bending the universe too much to figure this out, consider that his two recent picks allow the pooling of votes of moderate, socially liberal people like me (and Guliani) with the votes of fire-breathing bible thumpers in other regions, i.e. for the Republican Party. Genius.

  • Dot (unverified)

    A friend of mine commented, when he heard about the nomination, that Miers was just a distraction, a puppet that had obvious flaws to absorb the ire of the democrats and be shot down, after which he would nominate his REAL choice (someone concievable) and the left would have less of a leg to stand on if they opposed. Thoughts on this??

  • Sid Leader (unverified)

    So, was "Brownie" busy?

  • (Show?)

    Dot: unlikely. all he would get is weeks and weeks of bad press, croynism & competence stories and be weakened before the big fight. and, why piss off his base- the only people sticking with him during the near hourly screw ups?

  • (Show?)

    can this government get more pathetic? what an embarrassment! to say that she's unqualified is to give her far too much credit. we are to believe there is no federal judge more qualified? no circuit court judge, no working lawyer, no one who actually practices law in some way? the most qualified person is an administrator and political appointee?

    if harry reid or any other democrat supports her nomination, they are toast. we feared the appointment of a total wingnut, someone sworn to overturn roe, not to mention brown v. the board of education. we should have feared bush naming someone with whom he's on an equal standing -- bottom of the barrel. kshe cannot be allowed to be confirmed. thomas is bad enough, in terms of being inept. she is worse.

  • C2TBF (unverified)

    t.a. barnhart - People like you have sunk the Democratic Party. Burn bridges and take no prisoners. Good luck with that in 06 and 08.

  • bluelady (unverified)

    The only explanation besides cronyism is that Laura is trying to set her up with David Souter...

  • David Dronkowski (unverified)

    Jeff, can you please contact me about a beer program that I am doing?[email protected]

  • WRS (unverified)

    It may be helpful in understanding Democratic Senator Reid's approval of Miers in remembering that Reid is "prolife" and religious and so is Miers. Miers has not only NOT been a judge (so why not start out on the Supreme Court, eh?) but has never even argued a case in front of the Supreme Court. No, importantly, she is from Texas, is an evangelical, and has taken orders from Bush for a long time.

  • (Show?)

    t.a., I guess people like George Will have sunk the Democratic Party as well.

    Here's his most recent op ed

connect with blueoregon