Daily Kos on the Miers Nomination:
An excerpt:
  I reserve the right to change my mind, but Miers' biggest sin, at this early juncture, is her allegiance to Bush. That her appointment is an act of cronyism is without a doubt, but if that's the price of admission to another Souter or moderate justice, I'm willing to pay it.
  . . .
  [M]y early sense is that this is already a victory -- both politically and judicially -- for Democrats. In fact, it should be great fund watching conservatives go after Bush. He may actually break that 39-40 floor in the polls, given he's just pissed off the very people who have propped up his failed presidency.
Oh, surely not a failed presidency. The problem is that Bush has pretty much gotten his way.
10.3.2005 2:48pm
Kos is delusional yet again. Once the spin machine gets swinging in full force and the talking points are well disseminated, things are going to look much differently.

If they could convince social conservatives that a frat boy with a substance abuse history was one of them, why not Harriet Miers ?
10.3.2005 2:51pm
David S. MacMillan III (mail) (www):
"Cronyism", is it? Wow. Yet another NASTY LITTLE WORD has been created by the liberals, just like "political correctness", the new "religious correctness" (a chaplain for a major league baseball team was fired for saying Christ was the only way), or "intolerance".

Funny how we never hear about the "cronyism" of Clinton or any other liberal public figure. Clinton never did anything based on who he was friends with or who could give him something, did he?


10.3.2005 3:06pm
The old "Clinton did it too" defense. A true recipe for national success.
10.3.2005 3:08pm
Per Son:
I thought Clinton was criticized for cronyism a bunch.
10.3.2005 3:10pm
Is it just me, or is anyone else disturbed that "progress for america" registered the domain on September 29th!!! The site is already up and running.

The marketing of Supreme Court product is a little too skeevy here.
10.3.2005 3:11pm
It's not just that it's the old "Clinton did it too" defense. It's that, though Clinton may have done things based on who he was friends with, he didn't nominate a Supreme Court justice on that basis. No one said that Bush should never do anything based on who he was friends with -- just that he shouldn't nominate a Supreme Court justice on that basis. But Bush cares more about rewarding cronies than he does about the Supreme Court. Does that surprise anyone?
10.3.2005 3:15pm
LiquidLatex (mail):
Unfortunately for your average Republican, Clinton's cronies were actually qualified for many(not all) of their jobs. Bush's cronies have been horrible and argubly so bad that they are directly responsible for hundreds or thousands of peoples lives depending on which issue we want to discuss. The best exception to the Bush rule would be the Vice President and a few of the inept but qualified Defense Secretary types.

The most sadly amusing part of the Mier's nomination is a quote from her preacher. When pastor Ron Key was asked about Miers' views on abortion, he said, "her personal views are consistent with that of evangelical Christians... You can tell a lot about her from her decade of service in a conservative church." He also said, "We [Valley View Church] believe in the biblical approach to marriage." So I guess this means Miers will be undoing the 14th Amendment so I can own my wife, her sisters, and a few jewish slaves?
10.3.2005 3:16pm
Adam (mail) (www):
Did Clinton nominate Bernie Nussbaum to the Supreme Court?
10.3.2005 3:40pm
Seamus (mail):
Is it just me or are we getting more demanding about nominees for the Supreme Court? Back when Abe Fortas was nominated, there might have been some grumbling about how he was an LBJ crony, but as long as he wasn't embarassingly unqualified (as George Carswell later was and as LBJ crony Homer Thornberry arguably was), the Senate was going to let him through. (Of course, when he turned out to be, how shall we say, ethically challenged at the time he was nominated for Chief Justice, the universal consensus was that he was unqualified for any seat on the Court. That wasn't something the Senate was aware of when Fortas was confirmed, however.)
10.3.2005 3:41pm
Jim Beha:
Abe Fortas was FAR more qualified than Miers is. He attended and was on the faculty of Yale LAw School; he was managing partner of Arnold and Porter, one of the top firms in D.C. Miers' firm is not one of the top firms in Texas. Fortas argue important constitutional cases in front of the Supreme Court, including Gideon v. Wanwright.
10.3.2005 4:40pm
subpatre (mail):
Jim Beha - Your foundation's incorrect. Mier's firm of Locke Liddell and Sapp IS one of the top firms (and biggest) in Texas.
10.3.2005 5:50pm
Houston Lawyer:
I'm assuming that the post about the competent Clinton administration cronies was a joke. I for one don't miss the gang that couldn't shoot straight. I have felt that the incoming administration has been staffed with adults since the Bushies hit town.

The threshold for affirmative action hires has always been set pretty low. The fact that she just meets that threshold doesn't do Bush credit. It's amazing to see how much good will the man has lost in a hurry. He had an opportunity to make a statement to his supporters. He seems to have adopted his daddy's "read my hips" strategy.
10.3.2005 5:53pm
NickM (mail) (www):
Tell the average person that the former President of the Texas State Bar and managing partner of one of the largest law firms in Texas isn't qualified for the Supreme Court. Really. Go ahead. Try it. While you're at it, tell them she was also a city councilwoman from one of the largest cities in the country.

The reality is that Harriet Miers was considered a major figure in the Texas legal community before Bush ran against Ann Richards. She had plenty of high-level legal experience before she became a close adviser of his.

10.3.2005 6:11pm
Dick King:
Thinker, the domain name is already taken as well, although internic can't seem to tell me by whom and it doesn't have an IP address.

These days people glom onto domain names they think they might wnat. It only costs about $20 or so.

10.3.2005 6:27pm
Oh, yes, Clinton made sure that everyone, down to the interns, was qualified to do the job.

It all depends on what the meaning of the word job is.
10.3.2005 6:51pm
Adam (mail) (www):
Nick, today's CNN poll has 78% of Americans believing that an AJOTUS should have prior judicial experience. Her one term on the Dallas City Council when she raised taxes isn't going to help things.
10.3.2005 8:14pm
Greedy Clerk (mail):
I'm assuming that the post about the competent Clinton administration cronies was a joke.

Compare Mike Brown (Bush crony/head of FEMA) to the Clinton crony/head of FEMA (who was complimented by everyone including George W. Bush. I assume to the dead and homeless of New Orleans this wasn't a joke. Jackass.

10.3.2005 9:12pm
Originalist Texan (mail):
I'm a die hard conservative, but (gasp) I actually agree with Kos. There is no way he would pick her as a nominee if she weren't one of his best buddies. There are many, many far more qualified nominees, male and female, than her. Edith Clement, Edith Jones, Janice Rogers Brown, Alice Batchelder, Karen Williams, Priscilla Owen.

Sam Alito, Michael Luttig, Harvey Wilkinson, Garza, Estrada, Boggs, Kozinski.

To name just a few. He's just pissed because conservatives didn't accept Alberto Gonzales.
10.3.2005 9:43pm
... Garza, Estrada, Boggs, Kozinski.


I think we should appoint justices based on how well and how amusingly they write. They would be able to sell his opinions.
10.3.2005 10:12pm