Red State says no to Harriet Miers.
I concur.
Reader Interactions
52Comments
Comments are closed.
Come for the politics, stay for the snark.
Weird. Rome has an American Pope and America has a Russian President.
Republicans don’t want a speaker to lead them; they want a hostage.
Black Jesus loves a paper trail.
If you thought you’d already seen people saying the stupidest things possible on the internet, prepare yourselves.
Do not shrug your shoulders and accept the normalization of untruths.
Relentless negativity is not a sign that you are more realistic.
Do we throw up our hands or do we roll up our sleeves? (hint, door #2)
I’d like to think you all would remain faithful to me if i ever tried to have some of you killed.
If you voted for Trump, you don’t get to speak about ethics, morals, or rule of law.
Prediction: the gop will rethink its strategy of boycotting future committees.
Nothing says ‘pro-life’ like letting children go hungry.
Historically it was a little unusual for the president to be an incoherent babbling moron.
Why is it so hard for them to condemn hate?
75% of people clapping liked the show!
Second rate reporter says what?
Whoever he was, that guy was nuts.
🎶 Those boots were made for mockin’ 🎵
I’m starting to think Jesus may have made a mistake saving people with no questions asked.
They are lying in pursuit of an agenda.
You can’t attract Republican voters. You can only out organize them.
Bad people in a position to do bad things will do bad things because they are bad people. End of story.
Whatever happens next week, the fight doesn’t end.
A democracy can’t function when people can’t distinguish facts from lies.
They fucked up the fucking up of the fuckup!
Steve S
All the more reason to support her.
Lines
Ah yes, RedState, where one can find such profoundness as this comment:
Ignoring the obvious attacks on the english language, this commenter speaks volumes about the Republican method of personal attack politics. To paraphrase: “Its just too bad we have to attack her“.
Ah, the party of personal responsibility, the party of morals. The party that is going to bring back integrity to the White House in 2000.
Tim F
heh
SomeCallMeTim
Typical elitist, anti-Southern, anti-religious crap. Why does RedState hate America? Do they want the terrorists to win?
(I’m not crazy about her either; wave goodbye to civil liberties.)
John Cole
Lines- If we measure the quality of a website by the comments of those who read it, the EPA would have declared Balloon Juice and the Daily Kos to be Superfund sites a long time ago.
srv
Go Harriet!
Defense Guy
That’s your angle then eh Cole? Hoping for some of those sweet, sweet fed dollars?
Why do you hate fiscal responsibility?
Pork lover.
neil
Two delicious, delightful possibilities.
One: The far-right courts the “powerless” Dems for votes to defeat Miers. Quite interesting to see what might be offered in exchange; or whether the Dem caucus decides that Miers is the best they can hope for, and forms a bloc in her support.
Two: The Republicans mount a filibuster (no, I’m not kidding). Nuff said.
The Disenfranchised Voter
No Steve, you are wrong. It is all the more reason to oppose her.
If you look at the arguments over at Red State, the vast majority of them are about her being unqualified. And the fact of the matter is, she is unqualified. Add in the fact that this woman is Bush’s lawyer and close friend and the nomination is pure cronyism.
Oddly enough, Bush just might turn out to be the uniter he promised. I think Democrats, Republicans, and independents like myself can agree that this woman is NOT qualified and therefore, should be rejected, regardless of her views.
Otto Man
Actually, I believe the correct term is “chubby chaser.”
Marcus Wellby
From a Restate comment:
Bwhahahahahaha! If I had a nickel for every time I read that at Kos. Maybe if the fringes of both parties get fed-up enough they will all stay home and we can elect an adult in 2008. Who that adult may be… I have no frikken clue.
The Disenfranchised Voter
I’m actually hoping Jesse Ventura runs. I’d definitely consider voting for him.
Marcus Wellby
Well, I don’t know about Jesse. But what the hell do I know, I voted for Perot.
Lines
I don’t think you can find many quotes on here where the commenter is posting their regret about having to attack a political opponent as if its what one would regularly do between that first cup of morning coffee and the giant dump that will result from the shot of caffeine.
I normally wouldn’t pick just one comment out and nitpick it to death, but this one was just classic. Its so evident that the practice of personal-attack politics is just routine now, and that in itself is more regretable that the enactment of the practice. To feel that the only way one can “win” is through personal demonization and marginalization is pathetic and craven.
Attacking her isn’t really necessary. Work to convince the majority of the American public that she’s unacceptable because of (a) cronyism, (b) rampant capitalist, (c) inappropriate, (d) inexperienced. (take your pick). Opinion pages in the papers, phone calls to your representatives, demonstrations in public, all are acceptable and do so much more to prove the validity of one’s position.
Davebo
If we measure the quality of a website by the comments of those who read it
Shorter Perfessor Cole..
Only I am allowed to post idiotic rants from commenters on other blogs here.
By the way, since (for obvious reasons) John doesn’t post much on Iraq anymore I’ll offer up this evidence that Halliburton has once again screwed America by selling us defective flypaper.
Foreign fighters leaving Iraq to export terror, warns minister
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1583443,00.html
metalgrid
Same here. Heck, at this point, I’d vote for Penn & Teller.
Mike S
I thought the argument went that Bush should get the nom he chooses because he won the election.
Steve S
Yeah, but redstaters aren’t concerned about cronyism. After all they defended Michael Brown. So they’re going after her for another reason, probably because she’s 60 and single.
I don’t know. I guess frankly I’m not terribly concerned with who is appointed to the SCOTUS. The only real impact of the court on my life thus far as been their disasterous appointment of GW Bush to the Presidency which resulted in the end of peace and prosperity.
Otherwise, they can’t really infringe upon my civil liberties much… cause we’re pretty free to ignore the law. Been doing it for years… ain’t gonna stop now.
No, the real problem is with the congress critters who keep thinking it’s a good idea to restrict our freedoms, and the morons who vote republican thinking it’s a good idea. Courts don’t make laws. about the only thing they can do is reject laws, or uphold laws. So when laws are passed restricting our rights, it’s the congress critters who are at fault.
Already did in ’98. He was a far better governor than Pawlenty. Did the right thing, and was certainly honest about what he was doing. But he was hardly an adult. He kept getting into pissing matches with the media which were fairly embarassing.
bains
Too often those on the right railing against leftist judicial activism are really pineing for rightist activism, and I suspect much of the distain for the Miers nominations is an unconscious manifestation of this.
John Cole
Now you are catching on!
Yeah, I am avoiding Iraq (for obvious reasons!). Has nothing to do with the 9 million other things going on, including the series of natural disasters we just went through. And I am not talking about Harriet Miers.
Geek, Esq.
This is like the DNC’s best dream come true.
The social conservatives realizing the RNC is never going to serve up Roe v. Wade to them on a silver platter is like Charlie Brown realizing that Lucy’s never going to hold that damn football still.
I suggest that social conservatives and those strongly opposed to illegal immigration form a third party.
Davebo
Hey, if you didn’t try to iron your clothes with lemon pledge you’d only have 8,999,999 other things going on!
Geek, Esq.
JC:
M-I-E-R-S.
John Cole
YEah. I know that. Dunno why I typed otherwise.
Steve
This one is all on the R’s. If the Republican Senators grumble, but support her in lockstep fashion, she will get through with an ease that will make the Roberts confirmation look like WWII. Of course, the Democrats will still get their free talking point about the Republican “culture of cronyism,” but that’s not my fault.
On the other hand, if there is a legitimate conservative rebellion (and I don’t mean posters at Redstate, I mean people who actually cast votes in the United States Senate), the game gets a lot more interesting. If you heard Brownback’s speech at the Roberts confirmation, you know that he must be absolutely fuming today. But this scenario is a long shot at best. The Republicans will probably get off-the-record assurances from the White House regarding her bona fides, and I don’t think they have the courage to break stride with the Administration in any event.
Steven D
I disagree with those who believe Miers is not qualified. She appears to be a first rate lawyer who have been active in politics and successful in political power circles. In this, she is not unlike other justices such as Byron White and Lewis Powell, neither of whom had judicial experience.
This notion that one must be a very sophisticated, intellectual conservative to be acceptable baffles me. No one accuses Justice Thomas of being an intellectual heavyweight. But Thomas has a position on constitutional interpretation that generally produces results that conservatives like, and so he becomes the standard. Let’s face it–both liberals or conservatives want justices that produce results that further their political agendas, and for all the talk, the rationales are secondary. I doubt that most conservatives would care for one moment the rationale on which Roe would be reversed, so long as it’s reversed. My guess is that what has the right side blogosphere up in arms is that Miers isn’t an obvious vote to overturn Roe, and that is what makes her unqualified.
DougJ
It’s possible that what you are saying is true, but what they’re saying is true. Maybe they’re saying she’s unqualified because she’s not right enough, but…she’s not qualified.
Davebo
b Steve
The Republicans will probably get off-the-record assurances from the White House regarding her bona fides, and I don’t think they have the courage to break stride with the Administration in any event.
I think Republicans who have to run for re-election in socially conservative states are going to demand a heck of a lot more than off the record assurances.
And they were already cutting away from Dubya and his baggage. This could easily be the famous straw on the camel’s back.
Steven D
DougJ, you say she isn’t qualified, but why? As I read the criticism, it is one of three things: she isn’t conservative enough, she is a crony of Bush, and she doesn’t have judicial experience. To me, the only valid criticism is the crony charge. I don’t think someone has to be a legal scholar to serve on the Court, and previous judicial experience is probably overrated for a Supreme Court seat. I think her professional experience outside the courts and academia will serve us all well.
jobiuspublius
Hmm, voting against the first woman SCOTUS nominee, suceeding a woman no less, in how many years? That’s got to hurt.
jobiuspublius
If a man can be a crony, why can’t woman? Damn your glass ceiling, you bigots!
DougJ
She’s not distinguished, Steven. You’ve got to be distinguished either as a judge, lawyer, scholar, or public servant (Senator, governor, etc.) to be qualified IMHO. She’s not. I just don’t think she belongs there. Thomas doesn’t either, of course.
ppGaz
Yeah, but at least she doesn’t seem to look and talk like a confused mass murderer.
Darrell
Classy description. Lines, you’re reading wayyy too much into the commenter’s words. He regrets the possibility of a nice person having to hear from others how unqualified she is to hold the position. There was nothing in that commenter’s post indicating that there would be any attempt to “demonize” her as you claim.
jobiuspublius
Etc., there you go. Man, doesn’t anything satisfy you people?
DougJ
Ppgaz, wait until the stories about her passion for porn hit the papers. I think we’re all in for a big shock.
Steven D
If distinguished is a criterion for service on the Court, it has developed very recently. I wouldn’t say that any of the current Justices other than Scalia were particularly distinguished when they were appointed. Maybe we define distinguished differently, but I’m not sure Roberts was distinguished. Bright and articulate, yes, but had he really done enough to earn the distinguished label. I’m not so sure.
ppGaz
Very distinguished of you, Doug.
Darrell
If she’s smart, she’ll go on the offensive, accusing Sen. Kennedy of drunken attempts to fondle her.. then in keeping with tradition, follow that up with tear-filled accusations that Chuck Schumer tried to force her to drink out of a coke can with pubic hairs on it.
srv
Harriet has more qualifications to be a SC Justice than GW had being in the White House. If a plurality of Americans supported him, then we must support her. Onward, the moron generation.
jobiuspublius
Robert is under observation, as I suspected days ago, and the SCOTUS doesn’t like it. Or, the court is complicit and is waiting for the next nominee to join them.
Sinequanon
Red State. Interesting. Do you actually concur with everything written in that post – because what Red State wants scares the shit out of me. However, I wouldn’t support Miers for much more ethical reasons related to Bush himself and her part in it – beyond the fact of her lack of qualifications as a judge and her obvious corporate presence.
DougJ
Steven D, Roberts has argued many cases before the Supreme Court and has been described as one of the best at oral argument the Court has seen in a generation. I call that distinguished.
John Cole
Of course I don’t agree with everything they say, but I do think she is unqualified, and I am against submitting people to the Supreme Court merely because they get along with POTUS.
Sojourner
Actually, Ginsburg had a distinguished career helping to shape the law on women’s rights before she was nominated to the court.
demimondian
Indeed, Ginsberg played as big a role in establishing women’s rights through the supreme court at Thurgood Marshall had in establishing civil rights for all races.
Fledermaus
Speaking as a former Minnesotan, no you don’t. He ran a great campaign but at heart he was nothing but a showboater, why do you think he didn’t run for a second term.
Slide
Actually I hate to admit that I agree with Cole. Even though, as a liberal, I could imagine much worse candidates from my perspective, it is just a fact that she is not qualified. This is a very important lifetime position. What a slap in the face for scores of more qualified legal scholors that a mediocre candidate is nominated soley because of her personal friendship with the POTUS.
This is a Brownie for the Supreme Court. Its amazing that Bush would appoint her at this time when he is under fire from both the left and right for his crony appointments. How ANYBODY can support this President at this point is beyond me. What argument can there possibly be for not thinking that this president is one of the worst presidents we have even had in recent history?
Cyrus
Steven,
On another blog – sorry, can’t remember where – someone took basically the same position as you, that lack of judicial experience didn’t mean someone was unqualified for the Supreme Court. Then they ran down a list of like 40 past justices who had been on the Court without previous judicial experience.
But that list sort of made the opposite point – very nearly every one of them had a distinguished and responsible title by their name, even if the word “judge” wasn’t in it. Attorney general, solicitor general, governor, Congressman… if I remember correctly, every single one of them had held an elected office, and/or an appointment in the federal government, before becoming a judge.
And by “appointment in the federal government,” I mean something a lot more important than “White House chief of staff.” In fact, not only is she relatively inexperienced, what experience she does have is %100 certain to bias her in favor of executive privelege for Bush. Does this president really need expanded Article II powers?
Tractarian
Being a legal scholar or a previous judge – or even being a lawyer for that matter – are not prerequisites for nomination to SCOTUS, that is true.
But it is not so much that Miers isn’t qualified (she’s no Brownie) as much as there are so many other people are obviously qualified. (And yes, those scores of qualified people are women and also have non-judicial, non-academic experience).
In other words, to paraphrase Rush, why pick Miers instead of one of the other, more obviously qualified candidates?
Slide
Oh, I don’t know about that.
Brownie = Arabian thoroughbred association
Miers – Texas state lottery Commission
Brownie = no experience in disaster management
Miers = no experience in Constitutional law
Brownie = friend of Joe Allbaugh
Miers = friend of GWB
Brownie = mediocre educational background
Miers = mediocre educational background
Since there are no formal qualificiations for the position of associate justice on the Supreme Court, it is of course all subjective as to whether someone is qualified or not. The fact that she has never been a judge is not what I am basing my opinion on but rather one that fact that she has never been in a position where we could publically observe her judicial or political thinking. All the other justices that ended up on the bench without having been a judge had high profile public responsibilities (Governor, head of SEC, etc.) that one could evaluate.
The Disenfranchised Voter
This all comes down to the fatc that she has abosulutely no experience with constitutional law. Though others who have been on the court were not judges before their nomination, every single one I have come across HAS had some experience in Constitutional law. Miers has not.