Mired in Miers
Oct. 11th, 2005 12:59 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
topazAs the Harriet Miers nomination marches on I am becomingly increasingly convinced of a grotesque irony: the Republican wing of the Senate is putting up the hue and cry against someone who is probably exactly the person they most want to have on the Supreme Court.
Who is Harriet Miers? While almost none of us know, the inner circle of the Bush administration certainly does. Bush, Rove and crew know who Harriet Miers is and what sort of judge she will make; you can put that in the bank. James Dobson's ominous remark this week, about how he is very satisfied with Harriet Miers but he's not allowed to discuss why, puts the lock on it. The people who have nominated her know exactly who she is and how she will rule. If she's good enough for James Dobson, she's good enough to send shivers down my spine.
Moreover, while Bush himself may lack good judgement, he has unquestionably surrounded himself with smart and politically capable operatives. Everything about this nomination says that Bush's team has learned from 41's "mistake" with David Souter, and that they have taken care to choose someone who will not disappoint the base as Souter did.
And in response, the GOP revolts — because Bush's nominee is not another Scalia or Thomas, someone with a documented track record of eating fire and belching dissents. I wonder just who Tom DeLay was expecting Bush to nominate. Who did he imagine might survive the confirmation process at this point? Was he hoping that, after almost twenty years, Robert Bork would finally have his moment in the sun?
Miers is Bush's perfect stealth candidate. She is exactly the person who his base wants on the court, and the only kind of person who could survive a confirmation hearing at this point. Yet there is a chance that the GOP will scuttle this nomination because, in effect, she is too confirmable for them. If the Republicans succeed in killing this nomination, NARAL should send Tom DeLay a thank-you card.
Who is Harriet Miers? While almost none of us know, the inner circle of the Bush administration certainly does. Bush, Rove and crew know who Harriet Miers is and what sort of judge she will make; you can put that in the bank. James Dobson's ominous remark this week, about how he is very satisfied with Harriet Miers but he's not allowed to discuss why, puts the lock on it. The people who have nominated her know exactly who she is and how she will rule. If she's good enough for James Dobson, she's good enough to send shivers down my spine.
Moreover, while Bush himself may lack good judgement, he has unquestionably surrounded himself with smart and politically capable operatives. Everything about this nomination says that Bush's team has learned from 41's "mistake" with David Souter, and that they have taken care to choose someone who will not disappoint the base as Souter did.
And in response, the GOP revolts — because Bush's nominee is not another Scalia or Thomas, someone with a documented track record of eating fire and belching dissents. I wonder just who Tom DeLay was expecting Bush to nominate. Who did he imagine might survive the confirmation process at this point? Was he hoping that, after almost twenty years, Robert Bork would finally have his moment in the sun?
Miers is Bush's perfect stealth candidate. She is exactly the person who his base wants on the court, and the only kind of person who could survive a confirmation hearing at this point. Yet there is a chance that the GOP will scuttle this nomination because, in effect, she is too confirmable for them. If the Republicans succeed in killing this nomination, NARAL should send Tom DeLay a thank-you card.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-10-11 01:08 pm (UTC)Kind of like I want someone "pro-life" to admit that they're anti-abortion.
Both are, I guess, "framing." It's hard to be against "choice," "life" or "women."
You might infer a judge's ideas on other "women's choice," but you might be wrong. In Mier's case, I think she's shown a tremendous amount of logical inconsistency, so it's hard to tell what she'll do once on the bench.
Frankly, I wouldn't want her on the bench even if she was consistent and we had a clue what her rulings on the subject are likely to be, given that the primary criteria for her nomination seems to be Bush's expectation that she'll continue to be a faithful lackey.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-11 01:15 pm (UTC)I don't see how Mier has shown a tremendous amount of anything. Which is precisely why she's the nominee.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-11 01:43 pm (UTC)I shouldn't have to explain this to a self-professed libertarian.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-11 06:17 pm (UTC)